Euphemisms R Us
The venerable political columnist John Leo has weighed in on a favorite pet peeve of mine; the ubiquitous use of euphemisms rather than accurate descriptive language to describe facts or actions that are controversial or disturbing.
He speaks of euphemisms used in areas as far ranging as plane crashes, the death penalty, and torture. The following is Leo's take on a few of the issues of concern to Secondhand Smoke:
"Just as 'abortion' has virtually disappeared from the names and language of abortion-rights groups, the word 'embryo' is fading from the vocabulary of those who favor 'embryonic stem-cell research.' Since polls show that the public reacts negatively to the news that minute human embryos are created and destroyed in the research, the media now speak of 'early stem cells.' The troubling word 'cloning' is fading too; 'therapeutic cloning' is replaced by its technical term, 'somatic cell nuclear transfer.'"
Leo could have added that euthanasia advocates now routinely use gooey euphemisms for acts of mercy killing, which almost 100 years ago was given the (then) euphemistic word euthanasia--which before it was co-opted by supporters of mercy killing originally meant a good and peaceful natural death surrounded by family. So, now euthanasia societies no longer use the word euthanasia. It is all "compassion and choices" or "choice in dying." The acts of killing are now called "aid in dying," or "death with dignity." It all gets increasingly ridiculous.
As I have oft said, beware of social movements that use euphemisms to progress their agendas. It means that they are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the people.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 9:14 PM
8 Comments
8 Comments:
Sorry pal, but you are wrong, dead wrong, if you will pardon the pun. The Netherlands is not good at palliative care and indeed, has a very stunted hospice system. Nor do I oppose the removal of patients from life support, when that is their choice. Indeed, I have been a hospice volunteer which advocates not extending life, but not shortening it either. You know little about Schiavo since her friends testified contrary to her husband, who had personal and financial conflicts of interest. Your denigration of people as mere cucumbers tells me a lot.
Next time you comment, get your facts straight. Thanks for your post.
"Some of these deaths are the classic cases cited by right-to-die advocates: A terminally ill patient, in agony, demanding to "die with dignity." But many are not. An estimated 5,981 people--an average of 16 per day--were killed by their doctors without their consent, according to the Dutch government report."
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95000390
I assume this is considered "palliative care" in the Netherlands.
I believe that figure is from the Remmelink Report. Some were lethal injections and some intentional overdoses of pain meds. It does not include deaths caused as an unintended side effect of legitimate pain treatment, which can also happen.
Assisted suicide is a matter of public policy, not someone imposing their beliefs on others. Society (so far) has realized that allowing private killing and assisted suicide would jeopardize and abandon those most in need of compassion and support. Add in the $ factor, and real trouble will brew.
Oregon isn't the only state that has improved its end of life care. So has Rhode Island, as one example. Particularly after it outlawed assisted suicide but ensured that doctors felt comfortable aggressively treating pain.
Finally, assisted suicide is a corruption of medicine.
I could write a book on why this isn't just "choice." In fact, I have written two.
Removing unwanted life support is not killing. We euthanize animals for many reasons, such as incontinence, because we don't want to pay for expensive care, because they are abandoned. We don't treat people like animals.
I am not dodging the issue. You are apparently ignorant of the history of this issue. Suicide is killing. That is, the death is caused by some artificial means, e.g., overdose, bullet in the brain, etc. If one dies by removing life support, death is natural. Huge difference.
The Supreme Court ruled that way in 1997, 9-0. Vacco v. Quill. You ought to read the opinion and learn why they are fundamentally different in law and ethics.
Thanks for your conversation.
The blogs and articles speak for themselves. To put it succinctly and bluntly: Michael Schiavo.
That's because the US Supreme Court decision is Cruzan favored keeping her alive. It ruled that Missouri's clear and convincing evidence standard was constitutional and upheld a state Supreme Court order keeping her alive.
Her death ordered later by a trial court after a new trial, based on "clear and convincing" evidence that wasn't, was the travesty.
Know the facts. Please.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home