Netherlands Hospital Euthanizes Babies (The "Final Solution," Part Deux)

I tried cooling off before posting, and re-wrote my original reply. Here's what I came up with.

Bottom line, suicide is not illegal.

That's a slight-of-hand argument that's typical for those who thinks government is better suited to run our lives but don't want to come right out and say it.

While suicide might be not be proscribed legally, it is banned in a practical sense. Although things vary by state, if you were to openly plan or make a public announcement (e.g., farewell to family) of self-deliverance, you would generally be met with forced incarceration.

Frankly, I believe such de facto legislative methods are cowardly and debase our republic, but that's a more general topic for another discussion.

Secondly, I find your lack of concern for the disabled to be callous. You might see no reason to change the laws, but perhaps you should consider that many of us find ourselves unable to act alone, especially as we age or find ourselves in a terminal condition. Don't mistake the ambivalence of the disabled community as support for taking away rights. Many disabled persons are acutely aware of how their desires are ignored every day, and are rightly concerned that things can only be worse when they are unable to fight for their needs themselves.

Therefore, we owe everyone a very strong commitment that they can have their wishes met after they cannot do things themselves----------whether it's for continued care, or a merciful escape. Might this mean strengthening the restraints against unwelcome euthanasia? Perhaps, but only if it is part of an effort directed at meeting all patient's wishes, not just a restriction in general.

IMO, of course. :-)

I can honestly say I am no authority on the subject of the psychology of "the disabled" - my point is that what you are asking is beyond anything a government can provide. You are asking the police to essentially look the other way whenever a "disabled" person dies of something other than natural causes.

Think of the amount of cases where there would be enough doubt to pursue criminal charges, and all your good intentions of preplanning for your suicide would go out the window. There was just a story about a truly bright professor who found out (or maybe didn't even find out, but was certain) he was terminal. He wrote letters of explanation to all those he cared for, and killed himself. My personal opinion of suicide notwithstanding, he did it in a way that provided some solace for his family and avoided a protracted legal fight to determine if it was suicide or homicide.

You wrote: Don't mistake the ambivalence of the disabled community as support for taking away rights.

I don't support TAKING AWAY rights - I think any doctor found to be negligent of providing care to anyone who needs it, regardless of prognosis is barbaric - I thought that was obvious from my own postings earlier. I simply believe that assisted suicide is too much a slippery slope - too many opportunities to take advantage. The right to extinguish a person's soul from this earth belongs to God - unless said person wants to take it into his/her own hands. Anything beyond that cannot be allowed by law. IMHO, of course.

Good discussion, though. I guess I am really hashing out my position on this subject as we "speak" :)

You are asking the police to essentially look the other way whenever a "disabled" person dies of something other than natural causes.

Actually, that's not at all what I'm suggesting. I'll try to clarify.

I'm suggesting we return to a period of time when we weren't so sensitive about the topic that we couldn't discuss it rationally and openly. In your example of the professor, note that he had to write letters and couldn't do it openly. Note that he was lucky enough not to require assistance. Not everyone is.

My personal opinion of suicide notwithstanding, he did it in a way that provided some solace for his family and avoided a protracted legal fight to determine if it was suicide or homicide.

I definitely agree. Unfortunately, not all are able to conduct their end of life decisions without some assistance.

The right to extinguish a person's soul from this earth belongs to God - unless said person wants to take it into his/her own hands.

We allow partners, professionals, friends, etc., to provide care for people who request assistance. We already recognize that a person's "own hands" can include assistance from others, and there's no reason that should be denied, if a patient requests it.

I also am glad for this discussion. It's good to hear other ideas on the topic, and to understand either flaws in my reasoning (nah, none of those! :-) or ways I am not communicating my views/evidence effectively.

It especially bugs me when people imply that supporters of assisted suicide are somehow evil or lack compassion. While I understand there are those who could be evil (perhaps Judge Greer in Florida is like this? I dunno...), most of these people that I know are extremely caring individuals who hate suffering. As for me, I should change my tagline...

I've got compassion running out of my nose, pal! I'm the Sultan of Sentiment!
--Albert Rosenfield (Twin Peaks)

The thing that has always surprised me is that I can legally choose to terminate the life of my beloved dog when it is suffering. But human beings fall under a different code of morality. I believe in retaining the ability to choose to die when one wants, with help or without. But I have always wondered how we can allow terminal infants to suffer. It seems the opposite of humane. BTW, I'm not Satan, just in case you might leap to that conclusion. I wouldn't inflict my choice on you, and I'd expect the same consideration from you.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.