Posted on 04/20/2021 9:09:34 AM PDT by Kaslin
For a program broadcast on a taxpayer-funded network, much of its contents seemed one-sided, even for PBS. It also ignores underlying political currents
A recent PBS special on end-of-life care raises important policy and philosophical questions about a subject many Americans avoid. But the special, entitled “When My Time Comes” and hosted by former NPR host Diane Rehm — who wrote a book with the same title last year — offers a troubling set of answers.
Rehm came to the end-of-life issue from personal experience. Her first husband, John Rehm, died in 2014 after a long battle with Parkinson’s disease. The pain he faced in his final years, and the hunger strike that ended his life, engender sympathy and compassion from audiences, for obvious reasons.
That said, anecdotes do not always lead to good policy outcomes. Also, in this case, there is much that Rehm’s special either did not emphasize or left out entirely.
It seems unsurprising that a special hosted by someone considered one of the leading proponents of assisted suicide would take a largely positive tone towards a procedure she referred to in the program as “aid-in-dying.” In 2015, while still a host at NPR, the network’s ombudsman criticized Rehm for potentially violating ethical standards by appearing at fundraisers for Compassion and Choices, an assisted-suicide group. Rehm subsequently agreed to scale back her public advocacy efforts.
Indeed, for a program broadcast on a taxpayer-funded network, much of its contents seemed one-sided, even by PBS standards. Rehm didn’t interview any opponents of assisted suicide until roughly two-thirds of the way into the program.
One gets the impression that if Rehm hadn’t referenced her 2019 testimony before the Maryland legislature — where she supported a bill allowing doctors to prescribe fatal doses of narcotics that ultimately failed on a tie vote — she might have entirely glossed over the reasons people oppose assisted suicide.
Giving time, albeit late in the program, to opponents of assisted suicide brought an important perspective into the debate. From an African-American minister Rehm interviewed for the program to footage of Maryland legislators questioning her in 2019, these skeptics highlighted a key problem with legalizing assisted suicide — namely, that it could exploit the vulnerable.
Whether individuals with disabilities, those with low incomes, or racial and ethnic minorities with a history of mistreatment from medical practitioners, assisted suicide could prompt a move from some segments in society — from insurance companies to government bureaucrats — that encourages, or even pushes, the weakest to take their own lives. Even supporters of the practice should acknowledge it could have far different applications for individuals not as affluent, or as well-educated, as Rehm and her late husband.
As to Rehm’s personal views, an excerpt from her 2019 testimony strikes a chord:
My philosophy in this matter is to respect that singularly personal moment for each of us. If you believe that only God should be the decider, I support you 100%. If you wish to have every single option that medical science can provide, I support you 100 percent. And if you believe, as I do, that you want the right to end your suffering at a time you choose, I support you 100 percent.
This statement sounds generous — Rehm expressing a willingness to support other points of view on the matter. But in the current context of debates surrounding religious liberty, that respectful patina may ring hollow to some conservatives.
Not too many years ago, leftists argued that, on issues such as gay marriage and transgenderism, people of different sexual persuasions or gender identities just wanted to live their own lives in peace. But not three years after the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage nationwide, that court heard a case in which the left essentially demanded: “Bake the cake, bigot.” In that case, bureaucrats in Colorado attempted to force a baker to construct a cake for a gay ceremony that violated his religious beliefs — a symptom of a larger debate nationwide.
In perhaps the key moment of “When My Time Comes,” Rehm described her husband’s decision to embark upon the hunger strike that claimed his life as him “taking back control.”
Therein lies the crux of the larger debate surrounding religious liberty, as many conservatives would disagree with Rehm’s language. To millions of believers, including many who share the Episcopal faith of Rehm and her late husband, man does not have control in the first place — God does. In this paradigm, man does not have the power to take his own life, nor to permit other people to take their lives, nor to redefine marriage nor sex roles.
By contrast, those with secular beliefs not only want the control to make those decisions themselves but seek to have those decisions validate by society — a validation religious faithful believe they do not have the power to give, as that power can only come from a higher authority.
Rehm can speak of tolerance all she likes; she may even believe in it. But count this observer skeptical that broadening assisted-suicide laws would not soon lead to attempts to force physicians and hospitals to partake in the procedure, just as Democrats want to force doctors to perform abortions. Rendering that which is Caesar’s unto Caesar, and that which is God’s unto God becomes difficult when one side of the debate does not distinguish between the two.
Your taxpayer $
It’s not an easy issue. I know that when my time comes and I determine that age and ill health make my life no longer worth living, I plan to go out on my own terms, at a time of my choosing.
If we older people become too non cost efficient for the next US government socialist health plan, they will subject us to euthanasia by their decision, not the patient or even the family.
This is being done in other countries as “unwilling assisted suicide” as featured twice on Father Spitzer’s Universe on his EWTN Catholic radio show. They figure out which of the old people cost too much and then set them up as “depressed.” A woman was held down as a doctor came in with a hypo and she knew he was going to kill her and she screamed “I don’t want to die. I don’t want to die.” And he gave her the death injection.
That is the best quote I have heard from anyone on any subject in a while.
>>It’s not an easy issue. I know that when my time comes and I determine that age and ill health make my life no longer worth living, I plan to go out on my own terms, at a time of my choosing.<<
Careful. If you say ending your own life is one’s personal decision and not anyone else’s business, including and especially the State, you will get in trouble here.
That is why I am not saying it.
>>If we older people become too non cost efficient for the next US government socialist health plan, they will subject us to euthanasia by their decision, not the patient or even the family.<<
They already have a verb: to Cuomo.
And the same NPR liberals want gun confiscation because of the risk of suicide.
When afflicted with a terminal illness from which there is no hope of recovering, and the end will be agonizing, it’s certainly understandable to want to go out on one’s own terms.
Right to Die quickly turns into Duty to Die.
The State encourages it.
God chooses our time. Suicide is an attempt at autonomy.
My father died from complications of Parkinson’s. A horrible way to go. He would verbally wish for death even before he became terminal. However, I saw how God sent him people who needed his help. He still was carrying out his divine life purpose and lives were changed. We don’t know all the why’s of life, but I trust God’s plan for me.
Government interference is my concern too. It seems like whatever strikes a bureaucrat as a good idea takes on a life of its own and becomes a law. It’s ironic that a society that hasn’t the moral courage to kill savage criminals for their crimes would decide to take people’s lives based on their perceived lack of utility, but experience proves it to be so.
Sounds like you’re wasting valuable air and other resources that morbidly obese poor minorities can utilize right now.
At least that is what the gubmit will eventually determine soon enough.
But, we have to take guns from the people, because most deaths which involve guns are suicides...
And, The State does not regulate those suicides.
Robin Williams. If his physical pain was that bad I could see him offing himself. Others are unforgivable for what it does to their survivors. Pretty selfish.
There was an elderly woman last year who was prohibited from having visits by family or friends last year because of the risks that she could get covid and die. She said that she didn't want to live like that and they killed her “compassionately” because it was a life “not worth living”. The situation of isolation was entirely a man-made construct by the covid creeps but Government and Care Centers had a “solution”. She didn't have to die at all. Loneliness shouldn't be a terminal disease.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3910271/posts 90-year-old woman opts for assisted suicide when faced with the possibility of another COVID-19 lockdown The Blaze Posted on 11/28/2020
Enlisting the help of a medical professional is not kosher by any objective measure.
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.