Sunday, April 13, 2008

Philip Nitschke Strikes it Rich to Promote the Culture of Death


What greater proof that euthanasia and assisted suicide are an elite agenda than the millions that have been poured into the coffers of advocates by the likes of the George Soros and the Tides Foundations to groups such as Compassion and Choices (formerly the Hemlock Society). Initiative 1000 in Washington State already has hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign funds from large donations from assisted suicide PACs--and that is before the Grand-Canyon deep pockets of former Governor Booth Gardner are slapped on the table to buy his proposed law legalizing assisted suicide in Washington State.

But this is beyond the pale: Australian "Dr. Death" Phillip Nitschke has called for a suicide pill to be made available to troubled teens, he has concocted a "peaceful pill" for people to kill themselves with, and was involved in the assisted suicide death of Nancy Crick, who he claimed was terminally ill from cancer, but was no such thing--a lie he later admitted cheerfully having told--and more recently was involved in the suicide of a depressed woman who was not physically ill. And what is his reward? He is left $5 million to promote euthanasia from a former official. From the story:
Leading euthanasia advocate Philip Nitschke says a $ 5 million bequest from former Brisbane lord mayor Clem Jones to promote the legalisation of euthanasia will give the issue greater legitimacy in Australia. Dr Nitschke, director of Exit International, said the donation was "by far the biggest" to the cause in Australia of which he had heard. "We are heartened by the donation," Dr Nitschke said. "Not only the large amount of money, but because it was (given) by someone who commanded a great deal of respect...it will give this issue a degree of legitimacy."
The reason, apparently, was a difficult death of his wife:
"I saw Sylvia suffer the most dreadful agony from disease and illness that destroyed her physically and mentally and caused her to suffer, day after day, not only the pain but also the indignity of being something that could not truly be described as a human being," the will said.

"I do not, of course, criticise the splendid endeavours that the medical fraternity make to preserve the quality of human life, but when that quality falls to a level where life is one of pain and suffering--or when one's mind can no longer function--those self-same medical practitioners should have the right and the responsibility of releasing persons from that torture, misery and indignity."
We have all seen beloved family members suffer. My uncle died of Alzheimer's and it was very difficult for all of us who loved him dearly. But euthanasia is not the answer, it is not the solution, it is not the overcoming of disease and disability. Rather, it is total surrender to them, it is the abandonment of the most vulnerable among us to killing over caring, it is to claim that some human beings have lives not worth living or protecting. And believe me, I have known ill and disabled people who are receiving that very message from society loud and clear.

A lot of people fit into the categories the late Mayor would consign to a killable caste. And his apparent indifference to the utter subversive philosophy of Nitschke and the man's disgraceful past conduct is shameful. If his $5 million obtains what Nitschke has repeatedly and explicitly advocated--death on demand--we will have lost the right to call ourselves a moral society.

Labels:

9 Comments:

At April 13, 2008 , Blogger Bernhardt Varenius said...

Why not spend the $5 mil. on research to improve palliative care instead? Is death really the only solution that occurred to Clem Jones?

 
At April 13, 2008 , Blogger Wesley J. Smith said...

It shows, it seems to me, the solipsistic side of all of this. It probably did not occur to him.

 
At April 14, 2008 , Blogger Tony Jones said...

Do you really think that 74% is good enough? http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=60ca1263-7c4d-4a0c-acd0-0363e56f83e5&k=0

"When we find 26 per cent of people are still suffering significantly, the mission of palliative care is not over-there's still room to grow, still things to be learned about how to relieve suffering among people who are dying."

This is hardly a change from over a decade ago. This is not good enough, yet pro-lifers think it is.

 
At April 14, 2008 , Blogger Tony Jones said...

"We have all seen beloved family members suffer. My uncle died of Alzheimer's and it was very difficult for all of us who loved him dearly. But euthanasia is not the answer, it is not the solution, it is not the overcoming of disease and disability. Rather, it is total surrender to them, it is the abandonment of the most vulnerable among us to killing over caring, it is to claim that some human beings have lives not worth living or protecting. And believe me, I have known ill and disabled people who are receiving that very message from society loud and clear."

Actually, society is saying "If you want to die, your wishes are no longer worth respecting."

And when people have seen friends and family suffer greatly, their support of the right to die INCREASES to 90%, at least in Australia.

 
At April 15, 2008 , Blogger John Greig said...

It is not a choice between life or death. Ultimately there is only one outcome... Death. If statistics are anything to go by we will all die eventually.

I think it is the height of arrogance to believe we have the right to tell other people what they can and can't do with their own bodies. To tell others how much suffering they MUST endure... whether mental or physical.

If a dog is in lots of pain with no hope of recovery... a vet will often recommend it be put down. Why? Cruelty? No Compassion.

As humans are we worthy of less compassion than a dog? Particularly if we actively choose to end our suffering.

 
At April 15, 2008 , Blogger Tony Jones said...

I agree categorically, John. Hitler and the Nazis were not about VOLUNTARY euthanasia. They WERE, however, about "well-meaning paternalism," which we see a lot of on this blog.

Those who arrogate upon themselves the right to force people to die naturally are the real elitists. The presence of Bush and co. in the pro-suffering camp prove this. It's not surprising that they ALWAYS glorify and encourage the suffering of others.

 
At April 16, 2008 , Blogger Wesley J. Smith said...

John: Re the dog: I asked that question to my mother when I was a kid, and she said the value of a human life is much greater than that of a dog. Euthanasia reduces human medicine to veterinarian ethics, which is great for animals but very bad for humans.

As to the paternalism of suicide prevention, there are probably hundreds of thousands of people alive in the world today who would be dead but for their loving community intervening to prevent their suicides. That kind of paternalism is very welcome. Your "respect" for "autonomy" is abandonment of people at their most vulnerable and difficult time.

 
At April 16, 2008 , Blogger Tony Jones said...

By that logic, we should stop people from refusing treatment, Wesley. Barring a lucky remission, they'd be dead, and they might regret not taking the painful, agonising chemo later in life.

 
At April 16, 2008 , Blogger Tony Jones said...

"Re the dog: I asked that question to my mother when I was a kid, and she said the value of a human life is much greater than that of a dog. Euthanasia reduces human medicine to veterinarian ethics, which is great for animals but very bad for humans."

So because we're worth more, we are OBLIGATED to suffer more?! Ludicrous. You still don't seem to understand why so many people over 75 commit suicide. In 15 years or so, maybe you will.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home