The Nihilism of Assisted Suicide and I-1000
Washington State columnist Angie Vogt has written a good piece that pierces the dark heart of assisted suicide advocacy to reveal what lies beneath the paeans to compassion and choice. From her column, "Assisted Suicide is a Dying Movement:"
Nihilism: A philosophy that argues that life has no objective meaning or purpose, that no action is any more moral or immoral than another action.Humor is always good. Vogt then gets to the serious stuff:
Years ago, I participated in a think tank discussion about various philosophies of life. One scholar in my group made the case that the philosophy of life embraced by a society will determine its level of happiness and its ability to prosper, more than any other factor, such as a society's economic system, legal structure, etc.
He humorously suggested that the best way to defeat a war enemy is to parachute some nihilist philosophy students into enemy territory and begin infusing their world with a sense of hopelessness that nihilism is known for. Eventually the enemy would kill itself out of sheer despair.
For nihilists, the ultimate evil is suffering, so the pains of childbirth are not made more meaningful by the gift of life and the mystery of motherhood. The effort and hard work toward getting a college degree is not a meaningful process that shapes and forms the human soul, but it's a means to an end that is only meaningful if it's fun.That point brought back to mind the BBC personality named Jenni Murray who made some news a bit ago by claiming she supported euthanasia so she wouldn't have to be "burdened" by caring for her aging parents.
For a nihilist, there is no honor in caring for vulnerable family members, as they are merely a hindrance to our lifestyle. Human relationships hold no more value than what a cost-benefit analysis will allow for.
For a nihilist, freedom is about being unencumbered by the messiness of human relationships. Since life has no objective meaning, then relationships are only meaningful when we decide they are. Grandma was nice when she made me cookies, but now she's pretty useless there in her wheelchair. She must be miserable, so let's just put her down, out of her misery, and get back to living life.
Back to Vogt's good column:
Compassion means "to suffer with" or to walk with somebody in his or her suffering. When we do this, we distinguish ourselves from animals that kill the vulnerable. Every man, woman and child for himself, they would have us believe.
We ennoble ourselves by living for the higher purpose of human companionship and relationship, at the expense of personal comfort. In our humanity, we actually sacrifice something of ourselves for the benefit of someone else. "Sacrifice" actually means "to set apart for a holy purpose." Holiness is only meaningful to people who believe life is worth living because it is a gift from a higher power. This concept is anathema to nihilists. In their world, grandma's "right to die" becomes her obligation to stop being such a burden to others.I disagree that one has to believe in a higher power to support the alleviation of suffering and oppose assisted suicide: Think Nat Hentoff. But her larger point is well taken about the nihilistic view.
Vogt has hit several nails squarely on the head, and thus, her whole column is worth the read. Let's hope the people of Washington listen to her wise counsel and reject I-1000.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 11:00 AM
2 Comments
2 Comments:
Death with dignity is about a personal philosophy - but it's not nihilism - it's autonomy and free will.
There are proven safeguards in Washington's death with dignity act to prevent any abuse or coercion, and certainly to prevent any lethal injection. Those lies about lethal injections are just meant to inflame and mislead voters.
Death with dignity means that the terminally ill patient themselves - not the government and not columnists like Vogt - is legally allowed to make their own decision about their own end of life.
Anne: I agree with and appreciate your post.
What I think is unfortunate is that intelligent and well-intended folks like Mr. Smith and his supporters believe that there is an inexorable dichotomy between sanctity of life and quality of life considerations. I simply don't agree with this sentiment and instead side with Seneca, who said:
"I will not relinquish old age if it leaves my better part intact. But if it begins to shake my mind, if it destroys its faculties one by one, if it leaves me not life but breath, I will depart from the putrid or tottering edifice. I will not escape by death from disease so long as it may be healed, and leaves my mind unimpaired. I will not raise my hand against myself on account of pain, for so to die is to be conquered. But I know that if I must suffer without hope of relief, I will depart, not through fear of the pain itself, but because it prevents all for which I would live."
Is Seneca offering a blanket justification for suicide? Hardly. But neither is he confusing the body or the medical perpetuation of organ systems for the human soul, nor conceding that he must necessarily be a passive participant in his own demise.
To believe that there can come a point where the continuation of physiologic life is no longer worth the physical and existential burden is NOT to concede that one's life is (or was) not sacred. It simply means that physiologic fuction is a necessary but not sufficient grounds for meaningful participation in life and that I am the only person who can ultimately define what constitutes meaning for me at the end of my days.
Slippery-slopism is I think what dissuades vitalists from embracing a more libertarian view of end-of-life autonomy and no amount of arguing appears able to dislodge these fears. I just believe that they are horribly misguided and end up fueling the pervasive and inchoate medicalized approach to dying that robs so many of control, dignity, meaning, and often, much if not all of their life's savings.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home