Assisted Suicide Goes Down to Deserved Defeat in CA
I was in France when word came through that AB 651 had failed in the California Senate Judiciary Committee. Splendid news. I was so pleased that Senator Joseph Dunn, the Democratic committee chair, came down on the side of true compassion and patient care by voting no to assisted suicide. When I testified at the informational hearing, it seemed to me that he was genuinely struggling with the issue, which gave me great hope. And sure enough, the more he learned, the less he seemed to support the bill. Good for him.
Praise for this important victory goes to the wonderful political strange-bedfellow coalition that joined to oppose the bill, made up of disability rights activists, medical and hospice professionals, pro lifers, advocates for the poor, Catholics, civil rights activists, and others.
Unfortunately, the defeat was not a proverbial stake through the heart of assisted suicide in California. I fully expect the bill to be back again soon. Assisted suicide advocates believe deeply in their cause and are funded by deep pockets. But if they do, the coalition will regroup and hopefully prevail again.
Until then: Onward.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 4:45 AM
11 Comments
11 Comments:
You know your opinions would hold a lot more water once you have been in the same situation.
How about you try being paralysed in a hospital bed dying from brain cancer slowing turning into a vegetable who can't even shit for themselves or feed themselves. Constantly in unbearable pain.
Then we'll see if you're still echoing these unthought out simple minded religious beliefs.
There ARE situations where assisted suicide is a very good option. And there are situations where it is not.
It is about choice and not discimination.
Thank you, Winston for making no sense at all.
If you're willing to kill someone to kill you, then why not shoot yourself?
The only problem is the mess and the legal problems with any estate you may have, but if you're dead you don't have to worry about it
In fact, any sort of suicide works about the same way doesn't it?
You just want validation for something that is morally abhorrent but also self-defeating.
Why do those who already have Death need to be given it?
Threatening others so that may do you harm or wishing torture on those who have decided on a difficult course anyhow is just sick.
Robert, answer the actual argument hey?
He was making a similar argument to the one i made. That is pro lifer's are not in a position to judge the morality of the situation until they have been in the same situation and understand like the rest of us do that there are situations where it is the best option for a patient with no quality of life.
I agree, while it is very hard to put a loved one to death and to deal with that loss. I think it is morally abhorent to disregard doing the right thing for that person because you don't know how to deal with it yet.
Or worse you are trying to press some learned moral lesson on them which isn't even true in the first place.
You already have the "right" to kill yourself. The sticking point is getting the medical profession involved.
We can't do this as a civilized country because of the potential for abuse.
It simply isn't "your" choice, but it will be the "choice" of the medical establishment, the insurance companies, and others having vested interest in saving on health care costs.
Why are people so dense about this issue?
"You know your opinions would hold a lot more water once you have been in the same situation.
How about you try being paralysed in a hospital bed dying from brain cancer slowing turning into a vegetable who can't even shit for themselves or feed themselves. Constantly in unbearable pain."
OK, peterj, I'll bite. Paralysed? Yep, I'm effectively quadriplegic. Getting worse and gradually dying? Yes. Can't feed myself? Check. Can't shit by myself? Check. Soon won't be able to breathe on my own, either. No pain yet (other than the occasional open, bleeding pressure sore) but it's coming.
And guess what?
I oppose legalizing euthanasia.
Why? Mainly because hard experience has taught me that too many in both the medical profession and society at large see no value in my life and the lives of others in similar positions. Not only giving others the power to end my life, but also setting up an entire institutional structure geared toward that end, is dangerous and foolish in such a situation.
Euthanasia supporters who have not "been in the same situation" envision a clearheaded patient who gets all the medical, material, familial, and social support he needs choosing with complete freedom to be euthanized by competent medical staff who have no agenda of their own but are simply pliant tools of the patient's will. I know from my own experience that is an utterly naïve daydream only held by those with illusions about their own power and independence.
Robert, you unwittingly illustrate my previous point in your example about euthanizing animals. The only case you mention is a beloved pet being put to sleep by its caring family who don't want it to suffer. But what is actually the most common case of animal euthanasia in our society?
Abandoned pets killed by the local pound when their time runs out.
Euthanasia would never simply involve a patient in isolation -- it will inevitably be intertwined with the rest of society, good and bad alike. Or to put it another way: Strays are not only in animal form, and they have no guarantee of any better treatment.
Winston Jen: "Good for you, Bernhardt. Now, why should ALL quadraplegics be forced to stay alive simply because you want them to?"
When did I say I want to "force" people to stay alive? If you want to kill yourself, go ahead and do it -- if you really want to, you can always find a way, even if euthanasia remains illegal. Why should the sick and disabled be placed in jeopardy simply so you can have someone else kill you in your preferred way?
"If euthanasia and assisted suicide were legal, the patients would have the power to decide whether or not THEIR OWN LIVES are worth living, not the doctors."
I'll repeat myself: The real world simply isn't going to be your ideal of completely free agents determining their lives. For someone who expends so much energy ranting about the "evil" interests in the world, you are remarkably optimistic about such things.
"And when you consider that they'd make more money by keeping you alive, it's highly unlikely that they would want to kill you."
Wrong. I'm nothing but a liability to insurance companies, overextended hospitals, and government programs. Are you oblivious to the actual debates over euthanasia in bioethics? The utilitarians think people like me *should* be encouraged to do ourselves in precisely to spare society these costs.
Wesley, it's clear that you are very remiss in not changing your carefully-thought-out and deeply-held beliefs because Winston wants you to. Just as doctors are wrong if they don't want to be murderers, because Winston wants them to be.
It is a very strange world you live in, Winston. You should not be surprised at other people who don't want to join you in there.
yes, because letting someone writhe in agony becuase anything under a lethal dose of painkillers has stopped working is compassionate. i wonder, if you were dying with no chance of recovery and the strongest painkillers in the world weren't enough to stop the fire beating through your vains, would you REALLY still feel this way, or would you, like so many others of your high and mighty stance, scream for someone to kill you?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home