Posted on 06/02/2006 4:05:58 PM PDT by wagglebee
ZURICH, June 2, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Swiss Cabinet sees no need to tighten restrictions on assisted suicide, despite the fact that the country has become a favourite destination for "death tourism", and that Switzerland's leading euthanasia doctor has pledged to open a chain of for-profit killing facilities.
Swiss Justice Minister Christoph Blocher announced Wednesday, that "the cabinet had come to the conclusion that [new legislation] was not necessary."
Switzerland's legal situation is similar to that of the Netherlands, before the laws were liberalized. Switzerland officially prohibits euthanasia but looks the other way on assisted suicide. After growing numbers of abuses at the private Dignitas assisted suicide facility in Zurich, Parliament had called on the government to re-examine the law.
The Cabinet responded that the existing guidelines by the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences were sufficient. Cabinet spokesman, Christoph Blocher, said there were also no plans to examine or monitor Dignitas or other euthanasia groups, that to do so would create too much "bureaucracy" and lend such groups legitimacy.
Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of Canada's Euthanasia Prevention Coalition told LifeSiteNews.com, "The Swiss have a serious problem and it is not going to just go away."
"They have created worldwide suicide tourism. Studies have shown that the majority of deaths at the Dignitas clinic are suicide tourists. People have gone there to be killed from all over Europe: from Germany, France, England and even Canada."
The issue has been pressing in Switzerland for some time. In 2003, Beatrice Wertli, of the Swiss Christian democrats, told the BBC she was worried about the reputation it is giving her country: "We do not want Switzerland to be a destination for tourism for suicide."
Swissinfo news service reports that all the parties in the Swiss government, except that which controls the Cabinet, are in favour of a re-examination of the law.
Last year Dignitas killed a woman who was not terminally ill, who had simply falsified her medical records to show a terminal illness in order to 'qualify' for euthanasia. The Swiss Public Prosecutor confirmed that the doctors at Dignitas, one of whom committed suicide, were under investigation over the incident.
Dignitas' founder, Ludwig Minelli, said at the time, "Every person in Europe has the right to choose to die, even if they are not terminally ill." By the time of the incident, November 2005, Dignitas had killed 453 people since its launch by Minelli in Zurich in 1998.
Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Euthanasia Doctor Commits Suicide after Finding Patient He Killed Was Not Terminally Ill
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/nov/05112103.html
Swiss Lure Suicide Victims: Euthanasia Administered Within 24 Hours
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/may/04052509.html
This is disgusting beyond words.
A culture of death. The Swiss must be DemocRATS.
Maybe we can lure Bin Laden there...
DISCUSSION ABOUT:
Switzerland Refuses to Alter Assisted Suicide Law to Nix Death Tourism
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be included in or removed from the MORAL ABSOLUTES PINGLIST, please FReepMail wagglebee.
Culture of Death Ping.
This could be very expensive for the Swiss. What happens if lots of people come into the country for the purpose of committing assisted suicide, but they lack the funds to return their bodies to their countries of origin?
I am speechless.
It would be cheaper to book a flight to Iraq.
Just walk down any street in Bahgdad with a cartoon of Mohammed pinned to your shirt.
The locals will do you for free. No waiting.
The Disneyland of Death!
I would bet the cost of the "termination" includes the cost of disposal. A quick cremation and the roses in front of the docs office get a good ash soil amendment.
I'm sure the "efficient" Swiss have taken the return trip money up front.
Everyone has the right to choose to die, just as they have the right to choose to live.
It's very difficult to punish those who choose to die because they're dead.
We can punish those who help them die. But punishing those who commit suicide is ridiculous, and punishing those who attempt it on their own is equally indefensible.
If sacrificing one's life in a noble cause is something to be praised, then choosing to end one's life because of other circumstances becomes a grey area. One doesn't need to be suffering from a terminal illness to have permanent unbearable pain with no prospects for any relief. Old age with advanced infirmities might be enough for some people to throw the towel in early.
I'm not defending death tourism in the least. I'm only suggesting that it's understandable why some people might not want to suffer to the bitter end.
I imagine I'll get blasted on this thread for expressing this thought, and that's okay. But I don't accept the notion of moral absolutes, at least as we can express them. If there's any time when someone can willingly sacrifice their life for a good reason, the door has already been opened.
You're no longer talking about life. You're talking about which reasons are good.
Well, you won't be blqsted by me...
You are perfectly right...
"The Swiss must be DemocRATS"
Really? I wasn't aware that the U.S. Democratic party had an active subsidiary in the Swiss Confederation. Perhaps you know something about the inner workings of the Democratic party that I don't.
You know, I've noticed that those who are comfortably ensconced in their armchairs often have detailed knowledge about the inner workings of organizations that they're not involved with.
Amazing, but true.
I'm not going to "blast" you, I'm simply going to state that I think your analysis is wrong. There is a significant moral difference between "sacrificing oneself" such as in a battle, and committing suicide.
The "sacrificing oneself" that I think you're talking about would be a scenario such as throwing oneself on a hand grenade to protect one's compatriots. Such an analogy forgets that someone else threw the hand grenade with the intent of killing. The person who commits the sacrifice is responding to that malevolent act. Their intent was not to kill oneself, it was to save others.
Suicide, on the other hand, is an act committed with the intent of killing oneself. It's a final denial of God's grace and of hope.
Obviously, you can't punish someone who has committed suicide, at least in the secular sense. And it's not left to us to decide whether someone who has committed suicide will be "punished" in the hereafter. What happens in the hereafter is left to our Lord.
Where I view this as a "moral absolute" is the fact that this is a suicide industry. It's an industry that profits from human despair, and profits from the death of fellow human beings. Morally, I don't view it much differently than I would view operating an oven at Auschwitz.
That the individuals in pain and despair seek death "voluntarily" in Switzerland is of little consequence. Many of the internees in the death camps eventually sought death, and were all too willing to go when it was time. That did not render those who killed them any less culpable.
The Nazis did it for hate, and yes, for profit. The suicide industry does it for profit, and yes, for hate.
It's hard to see the moral absolute there. Perhaps you can.
I can pretty easily place most, and maybe all, assisted suicide into "wrong under any circumstance" category. But I think there can be times when dying sooner voluntarily might be the best choice if all your options are horrible.
That's better. They act like *some* Democrats.
Thank you for having the grace to apologize. It reflects well on your character. And I, in turn wish to apologize to you in case you found my post unreasonably harsh.
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.