Media Clueless on "Right to Die" Term
The BBC has an inappropriate "right to die" headline over a story involving the tragic case of a woman who died after refusing a blood transfusion because her of faith as a Jehovah's Witness. In fact, the woman did not want to die. And the story acknowledges the case actually involved the right to refuse treatment.
So why not get the headline right? More people will see that than read the actual story--thereby perpetuating the false notion that there is such a thing as a right to die. There isn't, of course. Even in Oregon and the Netherlands where assisted suicide and euthanasia are legal respectively, no patient has the "right" to receive life termination. Rather, the doctors have the right not to be punished if they agree to participate. Hence, no one has a legally enforceable right to be killed.The UK places great emphasis on respecting the religious convictions of patients - and increasingly the doctors who treat them too.
There is nothing medics can do when an adult refuses treatment on religious grounds, says Vivienne Nathanson, head of ethics at the British Medical Association.
"It's something we just have to live with - the alternative would be to change the law, change the human rights law," she says. "It's just too important that we all as individuals are able to make our own decisions."
Labels: Right to Die Misnomer
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 2:30 PM
7 Comments
7 Comments:
When a doctor tells a competent adult Jehovah's Witness that there is a 100% certainty that they will die unless they give their consent to receive a blood transfusion, and then that JW refuses to give the needed consent, then that JW "wants to die" in my opinion, and in the opinion of many people who refuse to allow this issue to be obscured by "word games".
On a sidenote, I once had a JW female admit to me way-after-the-fact, that the real reason that she had refused to give pre-surgery consent for blood transfusions was because her marriage was on the rocks at the time, and she was hoping that a blood transfusion would be needed during the surgery, and that she would die.
You're are certainly entitled to your opinion, JJones, but it is not a 'right to die.' There ain't no such thing.
Exactly, JJones. In such cases, why would they refuse blood transfusions unless they really did want to die?
Tony: I am sorry, your cluelessness is sometimes a wonder to behold. It's...Their...Religion!
I disagree with their POV but they have every right to not do something they think is morally reprehensible. They believe that God doesn't want us to donate organs or have blood transfusions, and an artificial blood replacement maybe could have been used instead, which *is* permissible to them. She felt that she would be breaking God's law to accept a transfusion, and wanted to find another way to do things without endangering her soul.
That's like saying that a Hindu who believes in the sanctity of all life and refuses to eat any meat has a "right to die by malnutrition." What they want is healthy alternatives that don't interfere with their beliefs, and lo and behold, they found them.
You don't have to agree with them to respect their opinions, and you don't have to lable them as "right to die" types. That ain't cool.
So suicide is OK if their religion says so? Thanks for the concession.
In any case, any quadraplegic who needs a respirator and asks for it to be removed IS committing suicide. It's a very similar situation. All it shows is that the right-to-life types know that there are situations when they too would prefer death to life.
Tony: No it isn't. People might not die--which sometimes happens. If they die, it is natural not an overdose or a bullet to the brain. And the courts have ruled that it isn't suicide.
You just want to blur vital distinctions and ignore definitions to pursue your pro suicide narrative.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home