German Mass Grave of Disabled Euthanasia Victims Found
A mass grave of disabled people, including children with Down's syndrome, has been found in Germany. We shudder at the thought of the carnage but avert our eyes at contemporary eugenics advocacy of the kind that led doctors--not just Nazis--to justify the murder of disabled babies and other people. Indeed, advocacy on behalf of eugenic infanticide is now deemed so legitimate that proponents even get to teach at prestigious universities such as Princeton. The North Koreans are apparently slaughtering disabled children and the world is silent. Meanwhile, the Dutch Parliament is on the verge of legalizing killing babies born with severe birth anomalies, a practice already tolerated by the government, and they are deemed among our most enlightened nations. And we, who give so much support to the Special Olympics, think it is peachy keen that most babies with Down syndrome are not allowed to live until birth. As the old song has it, everything old is new again.
HT: GLF
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 12:11 PM
12 Comments
12 Comments:
Are you looking for an answer? I'll try my best....
A lot of people don't subscribe to the fear of the slippery slope, or as you put it, "putting our foot in the door of the Brave New World."
A lot of people find a limited use of euthanasia not inhumanizing, but rather, quite compassionate. And in the extreme case, I think it certainly is. Should we base broad policies on the extremes? Maybe, maybe not.
Royale: Thanks for writing. I agree with you as to many people's motives. But I disagree that the slippery slope is mere alarmism. When killing is accepted as an acceptable answer to human suffering, the power of human logic kicks in and what was supposed to be a limited, last resort practice soon expands. And because people accept the bottom line premise, they go right along.
The facts presented in my writing and that others discuss prove beyond doubt that the slope exists and is slip sliding away.
My favorite quote in this regard comes from Richard John Neuhaus. When asked if he believes in the slippery slope, he responded, "Yes. Like I believe in the Hudson River."
Well, George Orwell's classic 1984 didn't exactly come to fruition, did it? I generally remain skeptical of alarmist predictions, especially in the socio-political community.
Nor does euthanasia of criminals result in the mass euthanasia of people.
Granted, we do need SOME moral lines to prevent a holocaust, for if it occurred once, it could happen again. But as well, the Nazis had had a lot other things going on besides a different perspective on human life, notably a strong-centralized government capitalizing on a social Darwinism philosophy to consolidate its own power.
Without the rest of the elements peculiar to the Nazis, I cannot expect it the extreme horrors to be revisited.
That said, no, I'm not in favor of euthanizing the disabled. That is truly disgusting. But I think euthanasia might have some limited role apart. Perhaps consensual.
Before you ask, no, I don't see a conceptual difference between the right to be euthanized and the right to withhold medical treatment, the US Supreme Court's rationale did not satisfy me. If we believe in this "sanctity of life" thing, then we should force medical treatment on those who don't want it, for THAT was the first step on this slippery slop.
Royale: "Well, George Orwell's classic 1984 didn't exactly come to fruition, did it?"
Nice red herring, and even if it were relevant, Orwell never intended it as a *prediction* of the future.
"Nor does euthanasia of criminals result in the mass euthanasia of people."
Another one! The fact that they have been convicted of crimes creates a crucial difference.
"Without the rest of the elements peculiar to the Nazis, I cannot expect it the extreme horrors to be revisited."
Don't assume that simply because the *extreme* form is unlikely, *any* form is as well. And as Wesley can tell you, the euthanasia policies implemented by the Nazis had their origins in ideas being circulated in the German medical establishment long before Hitler came to power. In other words, don't be blinded by today's cartoonish portrayal of Nazi Germany into assuming that everything that went on there is radically and unbridgeably distinct and separate from our society.
"...I don't see a conceptual difference between the right to be euthanized and the right to withhold medical treatment..."
One is active, one is passive. The first expands the power of doctors, the second *only* the *autonomy* of the patient. Surely you can see the difference, even if you think both are justified.
Dire alarmist predictions have a long history of not coming to pass. 1984 is but one example. I can think of many others. Brave New World is no different.
"In other words, don't be blinded by today's cartoonish portrayal of Nazi Germany into assuming that everything that went on there is radically and unbridgeably distinct and separate from our society."
This post is about the Nazi's mass graves. I'm well aware of the Nazi's history of eugenics, as well as the Soviet Unions, and the state of Virginia's experience with forced sterilization. And no, I do not see the mass graves as a possible future simply because the rest of the Nazi ideology and power base is not present. I'm not trying to over-focus on the Nazi experience, but think about it, mass euthanasia requires a mass consolidated system with its own propoganda machine. That is many, many steps away and I don't these bioethical baby steps of analyzing compassion will get us there.
The slippery slope argument of repeating the past has limits. Caution is good, I'm not doubting that.
re: criminals
We euthanize criminals and have been doing so for a very, very long time. According to this slippery slope rationale, we should be at the point of killing en masse, treating human life as a commodity. Again, this alarmist slippery slope idea has limits.
Passive v. active death is a difference, but not one that differentiates the two substantially if we take this whole "sanctity of life" thing seriously.
Royale: "Dire alarmist predictions have a long history of not coming to pass. 1984 is but one example. I can think of many others. Brave New World is no different."
Both speculative fiction, and neither meant to be taken as literal predictions. Or because zombies haven't yet started walking the streets of London, is Shaun of the Dead also another failed alarmist prediction?
"We euthanize criminals and have been doing so for a very, very long time. According to this slippery slope rationale, we should be at the point of killing en masse, treating human life as a commodity."
Do you really think there is no difference between a murderer being executed for his crimes and a patient being put to death by medical staff against his will? You're stepping from one very different category into another with this, not gradually expanding the boundaries, as is what Wesley warns about.
re: criminals and euthanasia
Just as there was with the death penalty and the fact we haven't gone too far with it, I believe there are natural social brakes where people will know when to stop. I, for one, stop with involuntary euthanasia, and that includes my opposition to the death penalty.
Tell that to the Dutch, Royale. At least 900 non voluntary euthanasia deaths a year and nothing done about it. Also, infanticides. Infanticides happening now also in Belgium. In Switzerland, they are seeking permission for assisted suicide for the mentally ill.
Well, without knowing more, I think the Dutch are doing the despicable with the involuntary euthanasia. That crosses the line.
the inquirer: "Royale is right about slippery slope arguments. Those have long been used to resist advances, as they were used against letting black people drink at the same water fountains with whites."
And induction can be used to justify racial prejudices. Should we therefore automatically reject it too? (Kiss goodbye most of science!) A slippery slope argument *can* sometimes be used fallaciously, but also can be used legitimately. As Wesley points out, slippery slope arguments regarding euthanasia are actually based on real-world examples of ongoing expansion of the practice. Rather than making ridiculous parallels to racial segregation, why don't you try your hand at arguing why the developments in Holland won't happen elsewhere?
"It is also intriguing that the right uses Nazi's use of euthanasia to prove their case."
Why would that be? Or do you buy the old canard that fascism is "right wing"? Time to read some books if you do.
"Unbelievable. The two biggest issues fuel the Nazi rise to power were being anti-gay and anti-abortion. HMMM."
And I suppose all that about the Versailles Treaty, the collapse of the coalition government every single year, high unemployment, high inflation, etc. etc. was just a minor footnote, right? What's "unbelievable" is your apparent ignorance on this.
royale: "Well, without knowing more, I think the Dutch are doing the despicable with the involuntary euthanasia. That crosses the line."
Royale, regardless of how you fall on this issue, you really need to study the history of euthanasia in the Netherlands. It gives us real-world information on what legalization can entail, and even if it doesn't change your mind, at the very least it should give you valuable insight on what to do and not to do in designing a euthanasia framework.
I found something of interest regarding the euthanasia of children. From basically the Muslim version of the 10 commandments, comes #4...
Do not engage in 'mercy killings' for fear of starvation: Kill not your children for fear of want: We shall provide sustenance for them as well as for you. Verily the killing of them is a great sin. (17:31)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home