Scandal of the Unasked Question: How Nitschke Tested the "Peaceful Pill"
Secondhand Smokette was on CNN's Reliable Sources yesterday, and she brought up a point in the Ayers/Obama controversy--the particulars of which are not relevant here--that was worth the price of tuning in. When Howard Kurtz asked her to justify her remark that a NYT story on the William Ayers/Obama connection was superficial--even though it mentioned their working together on an education project funded by the Annenberg Foundation--she replied that nobody asked what was actually done with all that money, surely a relevant matter in the election. Even Kurtz and liberal NYT columnist Frank Rich had to agree.
Let's call this phenomenon--which is now widespread across the advocacy media--"the scandal of the unasked question." And it is applied not only in the presidential campaign but ubiquitously across the wide swath of matters we discuss here at SHS, such as assisted suicide, embryonic stem cell research, food and fluids cases, anti-human environmental extremism, etc, in which media have clearly picked good guys and bad guys.
Let's call this phenomenon--which is now widespread across the advocacy media--"the scandal of the unasked question." And it is applied not only in the presidential campaign but ubiquitously across the wide swath of matters we discuss here at SHS, such as assisted suicide, embryonic stem cell research, food and fluids cases, anti-human environmental extremism, etc, in which media have clearly picked good guys and bad guys.
Here's an example from today's news stories: The media overwhelmingly favor assisted suicide and it shows in their reporting, including in the way certain questions go unasked. Thus, when Australia's death-on-demand fanatic Phillip Nitschke announced he has developed a suicide concoction called the "peaceful pill" (funded in part by the Hemlock Society, now Compassion and Choices), and intends to publish a how-to-commit suicide handbook online so anyone who wants to commit suicide can do so, the media blandly report the story and don't do any probing. From the story:
Except that the media only exhibit inquiring minds in certain directions and against certain personalities, e.g. "Is Sarah Palin really the mother of Trig?" Stories that could call their favored issues into question, such as the compasssssion of assisted suicide just don't rank that kind of pointed inquiry.
As I see it, on a wide swath of important societal issues and political campaigns, the media know what they don't want to know. And that is what gives rise to the scandal of the unasked question.
A banned book which details how to die peacefully will be launched online by Australian voluntary euthanasia advocate Dr Philip Nitschke. Dr Nitschke describes the Peaceful Pill eHandbook as a compilation of the "most reliable and peaceful methods" used to end life. "We've gone through the ones that are used and we've looked at the best," he told AAPDoesn't that beg an obvious question: How does he know? Has he tested these so-called peaceful methods? If so, how? On people? On animals? Inquiring minds want to know.
Except that the media only exhibit inquiring minds in certain directions and against certain personalities, e.g. "Is Sarah Palin really the mother of Trig?" Stories that could call their favored issues into question, such as the compasssssion of assisted suicide just don't rank that kind of pointed inquiry.
As I see it, on a wide swath of important societal issues and political campaigns, the media know what they don't want to know. And that is what gives rise to the scandal of the unasked question.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 8:48 AM
1 Comments
1 Comments:
In his blog posting above, Mr. Smith states of Dr. Philip Nitschke that “he has developed a suicide concoction called the "peaceful pill."
Those who have not read any of the 150+, well-researched, clearly written books about suicide, assisted suicide, or euthanasia since 1991 might be naïve enough to think that a “Peaceful Pill” actually exists, and that Australian physician Philip Nitschke was its inventor. Neither has any basis in fact.
Anyone who has taken the time to read the literature or listened to the online speeches of the leaders of the right-to-die movement, which has been available by mail, in bookstores, and on the Internet for two decades, would have learned that “The Peaceful Pill” is a CONCEPT, not a PRODUCT. The term is an analogy for a method to peacefully, quickly, and painlessly end one’s life at the time, place, and circumstances of his or her own choosing.
Nitschke, who holds both a medical degree and a Ph.D. in laser physics, developed a laptop-driven device which enabled four terminally ill Australians to legally end their lives during a period in 1966 after the parliament of Australia’s Northern Territory enacted a law legalizing physician-assisted suicide.
In his recent book, “The Peaceful Pill Handbook,” banned in Australia but published in the U.S. and available on Amazon.com in both paper and e-book editions, Nitschke lays out the history of his role in the evolution of humane ways for people suffering uncontrollable physical and/or mental pain to voluntarily end their own lives without the intervention of a second person.
What the “Peaceful Pill” process is designed to do is to create a painless, certain method of self-deliverance which can be carried out without turning suicide–legal in all 50 states–into assisted suicide, which is specifically barred in 25 of the 50 states.
Nitschke’s work is nothing new, as some of his opponents claim. Effective methods for painless self-deliverance have been readily available to anyone, anywhere, since the 1970s, and were described in detail in Derek Humphry’s 1991 book, “Final Exit,” which has sold about 1.5 million copies, is still a best-seller, and has been translated into over fifteen languages. Indeed, though Nitschke is indeed a major innovator in the field of assisted dying, the most effective ways of ending one’s own life have been public knowledge for decades. Anyone who says otherwise hasn’t read much on the subject.
Nitschke, as are some of his fiercest detractors, is a person with deeply-held beliefs which are the outgrowth of his desire to lessen suffering in the world. Is he a dangerous, demented genius? No. But he wants to end needless suffering by broadening access to already-available information. To do so, he has taken to the road. Could he do so without sounding as incendiary as some think he is? Yes. But in that respect, he is not alone.
Both the pro- and anti-euthanasia advocates could use fewer magpies screaming from the electronic rooftops and more thoughtful discussions of who benefits from being forced to endure unbearable, unending pain against their will. In 1992, Sue Rodriguez, a Canadian woman dying from ALS (Lou Gehrig’s Disease) petitioned the Supreme Court of British Columbia to allow her the legal right to obtain a painless, physician-assisted death before she lost all control of her body. She said, “I want to ask you, gentlemen, if I cannot give consent to my own death, then whose body is this? Who owns my life?” Her anguish resonated with the Canadian people then and reverberates worldwide to this day.
Let’s stop the screaming of the magpies and start the earnest discussions. Immense suffering is being needlessly experienced in each minute that is wasted by the shouting match.
Richard N. Côté / dickcote@earthlink.net / October 20, 2008
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home