Posted on 05/07/2016 8:22:32 AM PDT by Kaslin
Last year the UK TV personality Ursula Presgrave generated controversy by her Facebook posting: “Anyone born with down syndrome should be put down, it’s just cruel to let them lead a pointless life of a vegetable.” Aside from the remarkable ignorance she displays about people with Down Syndrome, I’m troubled by the dehumanizing rhetoric. She thinks we should “put down” some of our fellow human beings, as though they are nothing but animals.
It may seem at first glance that her comments have no real connection to the assisted suicide debate, because she is calling for murder, not suicide. However, when one examines the debates over assisted suicide for terminally ill patients, the same kind of mentality emerges. Robert Baxter, who successfully sued in Montana for the right to get physician-assisted suicide, stated, “I just feel if we can do it for animals, we can do it for human beings.”
In my new book, The Death of Humanity: And the Case for Life I provide many more examples—some of them rather shocking—of the way that our intellectual culture has promoted the view that humans should be treated like animals—or even like machines. Ironically, however, proponents of assisted suicide are trying to take the moral high-ground by insisting that their position gives humans more dignity.
The crucial question then is: Does assisted suicide for terminally ill patients really provide a “Death with Dignity”? Or, is it a bold step downward into the depths of degradation by treating our fellow humans as just another animal?
According to Death with Dignity, last year twenty-four states plus Washington, DC, introduced legislation to legalize assisted suicide (four states had already legalized it earlier). Except in California, this legislation failed, but the success in California has given renewed encouragement and optimism to the pro-assisted suicide lobby.
It is understandable that people nearing the end of their lives should want to avoid excruciating pain and debility. However, is death preferable to sickness and pain? Does pain or disability alter our lives to such an extent that such a person’s life has no value?
Let’s make no mistake about it: Legislation allowing physician-assisted suicide conveys a powerful message: Your life—if you have terminal illness—is no longer important or valuable, so we will not only permit you, but we will help you, kill yourself.
But who am I to impose my value judgments on others, especially those in misery who desperately want relief? The most powerful argument in favor of physician-assisted suicide is that we should respect every individual’s autonomy. Let each individual decide if his or her life has value any longer.
However, the argument from autonomy is internally incoherent. Because we as a society value personal freedom, we have banned slavery, because enslavement would violate their right to liberty. In the same way, we should not allow people to choose to kill themselves, because suicide brings an end to their autonomy.
Ironically, according to surveys of patients in Oregon who requested physician-assisted suicide, the number one reason for making the request was not pain. This is a crucial point, because all the hype surrounding passage of assisted-suicide laws centers on compassion for people suffering pain. Rather, patients more often claim that the reason they want assisted suicide is because they fear losing autonomy and control as their physical condition deteriorates. Ironically, their fear of losing autonomy prompts them to take action to end their autonomy altogether. Decisions to commit suicide by terminally ill patients are not based on reason, but on fear of the unknown, fear of losing control of one’s functions. Yet multitudes of elderly and disabled people live fulfilling, happy lives, so often the fear is unfounded.
Further, as a society we restrict people’s autonomy all the time, when we know that bad decisions are likely to destroy lives. We ban cocaine, force people to wear seat belts, and spend large sums of money preventing people from committing suicide by flinging themselves from the Golden Gate Bridge. These are all legal restrictions on people’s autonomy.
If this legislation is really based on autonomy, then to be consistent we should be willing to assist any competent adult commit suicide for any reason whatsoever. Why only terminally ill patients? This is completely arbitrary, which is why the slippery slope argument against assisted suicide has such force.
Indeed, if we examine countries where physician-assisted suicide is legal—the Netherlands, Belgium, and Switzerland—we find evidence confirming the slippery slope argument. In the Netherlands physicians regularly flaunt the law by killing patients without consent; in 2005 about 0.4% of all deaths in the Netherlands were physician-administered euthanasia without the patient’s consent, despite the fact that this is technically illegal.
In Belgium physicians are killing mentally ill patients. In one infamous case in 2013 a physician administered euthanasia to a woman who was physically healthy, but had been sexually abused by another psychiatrist. In Switzerland, suicide “clinics” are killing people for any reason whatsoever. One Italian woman distraught because she was losing her physical beauty travelled to Switzerland and ended her life in a suicide clinic.
Instead of passing legislation that effectively tells some people that their lives are not very valuable, and that tells physicians that they can help some people kill themselves, we should encourage people to love and comfort those who are suffering. Let’s help people fight pain, not kill people who are in pain. Let’s not become so degraded that we think it proper to “put people down.”
Vegetable? That sounds like the people who will be voting either for Hillary or Bernie this November. rotton useless Vegetables. They prefer to be nothing more. Then again I prefer the term weeds.
Hitler embraced eugenics too.
Today it is a “right to die;” tomorrow a duty.
You got it.
Especially if the government needs to reduce healthcare costs...
Lethal Prescribing has a long history in medicine...
Usually something like this
Patient has terminal cancer
Doctor writes large prescription for methadone and Valium
Enough to handle the discomfort for a month
Instructs patient to take only as directed
or they may never wake up,
and do not drink large amounts of alcohol with it
for the same reason.
Patient dies peacefully in their sleep
It happened quite frequently
I’m not supporting the euthanasia laws, but it would be disingenuous to say that that the above hasn’t happened
for many generations, in one form or another
Quietly and Privately
Morality aside, if someone wants to end their life
that can be accomplished without turning
the healthcare industry into euthanasia dispensaries.
Does this apply to politicians, cause there are plenty that need to be put down.
> Today it is a “right to die;” tomorrow a duty.
Star season 1 episode # 23 (Taste of Armegeddon) is coming if we don’t put evil in its place
A soon to be divorced friend’s nephew, 37, bought a suicide kit online. It was a fitted plastic bag with a small cylinder of helium. The soon to be former wife knew about it and didn’t tell anyone until after the event. The impact to his family has been devastating. Frankly, I think charges should be brought against the wife, who stood to gain by the suicide. It won’t happen, though.
WE should legalize ecstasy in old folks home. That would make them want to live.
Liberals always claim to be a the compassionate ones because they “care” about the poor and the helpless. But they love abortion, including partial birth, think people with birth defects should be killed, want to allow all illegals to stroll across the border, but won’t let them work, therefore making them dependent on welfare and government handouts.
Everything liberals do and think is proof that they could care less about human beings, they just want their votes so liberals can have power and control.
Sick pieces of crap.
Ursula evidently sees herself as “perfect”. Well. In this
current realm; I suppose she is - temporarily. - On that
day, Judgment Day; suddenly the last shall become FIRST &
the FIRST shall become LAST. - WHERE will that put Ursula?
- Think about it, Ursula.
I believe suicide is sin.
However, if a person chooses this sin, no one else should be involved.
Inviting family, friends, or the family doctor to participate is the first step off the slippery slope towards governmental participation.
When any additional party participates, it is no longer suicide (sui = self; cide = murder.) It becomes a homicide, murder by someone other than one’s self. That person’s motive might be something other than the alleviation of the patient’s suffering.
The term “assisted suicide” is another example of leftists’ moral equivocation through the manipulation of language.
It’s murder.
Some people just need putting down, but they ain’t the vegetables!
That is a horrible story.
Any society promoting suicide is a society which is falling apart and soon to be replaced.
The American people will always support the right of someone else to kill himself.
Yes, and despite all, tens of millions of “Americans” are devoted liberals and always will be.
She was prosecuted for making the post under the “Malicious Communications Act”. That offends me even more than what she said.
That is infanticide,child murder and it is not “assisted suicide”.It is not the infant whose deciding whether it lives or dies but whoever is diagnosing it.
Assisted is when someone willingly wants someone else to kill them,to end “suffering”,it is akin to a mental illness.
Putting people down a la Euthanasia would be considered Murder.Since people aren’t agreeing to be put to death,in the case of assisted suicide....they are.Which again says a lot about this society.
No,murdering a toddler or infant isn’t assisted suicide.Since the child doesn’t understand its life much less want to end it.
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.