Compassion and Choices "Seven Principles" to Death on Demand
Compassion and Choices (formerly Hemlock Society) is the abundantly funded, prime mover and shaker for the assisted suicide movement in the USA. It unquestionably had a good year in 2008 with the passage of I-1000 in Washington and the imposition of a fundamental state constitutional right to "die with dignity" in Montana. It has now issued its "Seven Principles" to "improve end-of-life care and expand patient choices." A clear and literal reading of these "principles," demonstrate that the goal is an essential death on demand. From its press release:
If the Seven Principles prevail, it is the end of medical professionalism as it has always been understood, as the reigning--and only real standard--would be what a patient wants for whatever reason a patient wants it. It is also a prescription for death on demand. Why should anyone have to put up with "political interference" if they believe their suffering is so bad that they want to die? Moreover, since it becomes unprofessional to gainsay the patient's "own assessment of the balance between quantity and quality of life," it is the end of free speech and true communication, since not a negative word can be uttered. (The movement has already destroyed the right of free association in jurisdictions in which it has prevailed, since the law in Oregon and Washington prevent medical organizations from excluding those who assist suicides based on ethical principles. I think these provisions beg a lawsuit--but I digress.)Our Seven Principles can help guide lawmakers and policy experts to remember what’s important, and make sure our health care system and its providers are putting the patient first:
1. Focus. End of life care should focus on the patient’s life and current experience.
2. Self-determination. Individuals vary in their tolerance for pain and suffering.
3. Autonomy. Decisions about end-of-life care begin and end with the autonomous patient.
4. Personal Beliefs. Patients should feel empowered to make decisions based on their own deeply held values and beliefs, without fear of moral condemnation or political interference.
5. Informed Consent. Patients must have comprehensive, candid information in order to make valid decisions and give informed consent.
6. Balance. Patients should feel empowered to make decisions based on their own assessment of the balance between quantity and quality of life.
7. Notice. Patients must have early, forthright and complete notice of health care providers’ institutional or personal policies or beliefs that could impact their treatment wishes at the end of life.
I also note that the Seven Principles do not require the diagnosis of a terminal illness--even though C and C will continue the charade that end of life is the limitation for assisted suicide for as long as is politically necessary. I mean if you apply the Seven Principles seriously and literally, who could be denied assisted suicide? It is up to the patient to decide between "quantity and quality." Let's just set up the euthanasia clinics and be done with it.
As to # Seven: Physicians and institutions that wish to adhere to Hippocratic orthodoxy will be hard pressed in the new world of non medical professionalism, and will definitely need to publicly proclaim themselves "assisted suicide free zones" and pledge total non cooperation with the culture of death. When that happens, look for efforts to be made by C and C types to coerce complicity in assisted suicide via "duty to refer" requirements--which are already appearing in some legislation--as we have discussed. The answer will be conscience clauses, which will be fought against tooth and tong every step of the way.
Remember, the culture of death brooks no dissent and is not interested in any meaningful limitations. If you do that, the apparent contradictions in death culture advocacy won't drive you crazy.
Labels: Assisted Suicide. Compassion and Choices. The Seven Principles. Death on Demand.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 8:46 AM
5 Comments
5 Comments:
I've been reading a lot of court opinions lately from the 80's and 90's in which state courts found a right to refuse nutrition and hydration (by proxy for incompetent patients), usually in state constitutions but sometimes just in common law. The New Jersey Supreme Court was one of the most radical of these. In the Jobes decision the NJ Supreme Court not only found a right for Mrs. Jobes to be dehydrated to death (despite their open admission that there was not clear evidence that this was her wish) but also ruled that the nursing home could be court ordered to participate. Their "argument" for this court order, which goes with #7, was that the nursing home had not told anyone at the time that Mrs. Jobes was admitted that they would refuse to participate in dehydrating her to death! But no one was demanding that at the time that she was admitted. And such dehydrations were not commonplace at the time. There was no reason at all that the nursing home should have anticipated the need for such pre-notification of all admitted patients in order for the medical professionals to retain their freedom to refuse to do it long after the patient was admitted. It was a specious argument. Moreover, while the court implied that _perhaps_ the nursing home would have been free not to participate if it had given notice of such a policy at the outset, I have my doubts. I have never heard of a U.S. hospice or nursing home that did give such notice and had it stand up in court as a defense against a court order of this kind.
It's obvious that medical professionals cannot anticipate every craziness they might be asked to participate in and tell everybody "up front" that they won't do it. "Oh, and by the way, I won't participate in abortion, suicide, euthanasia, dehydration death of non-dying patients, or healthy limb removal. Let's see, did I leave out anything else unethical that someone might ask me to do? I know if I don't announce it to every patient in advance, that I can legally be forced to participate in it."
So the issue is, why the pit don't these guys just leave us alone?
It's like it's now a sin to be a Christian and believe, as the Catholic Church does, that all life is precious and that *every* human being is made in God's likeness.
If you don't want to believe that, fine. There's no law that says you have to.
But you're making it a law that says that I *have* to give up my Christian beliefs, and that's perfeclty okay because everybody is tolerant of everybody else except the Christian community.
So if Wiccans want to have three-person marriages (and some do - I'm good friends with someone who joined into a three- person marriage long after I became friends with him), and have meetings in the moonlight where everyone, adults and children, dance around naked, that's perfectly okay.
And if a Jewish man wants to slaughter his own animals in his apartment (as one of my cousins on my mother's father's side did; he never got that deposit back, by the way), because you want to ensure that your food is always kosher, then that's tolerated by everyone.
But if you're a Christian doctor, and you refuse to go along with euthanasia because it's against your religious beliefs, you're labeled "intolerant" and stoned to death!
I know a Hindu man (my boss here) who's totally opposed to Euthanasia and Abortion and has spoken out about pro-life causes. A protester at a pro-life rally once started accusing him of being a Christian bigot, at which point he told her that he was a Hindu who wanted to ensure that all souls reached Bramah (spelling? gah) and that killing anyone interfered with their karma and also gave you bad karma in the next life. According to my boss, the woman was dumbfounded, and didn't bother him again.
And a Jewish doctor in New Jersey that my aunt Jeanna works for refuses to do abortions. When Auntie asked him why, he said, "in Germany my grandmother was forced to abort her baby and was sterilized, back in the 1930's." I asked Auntie if they ever had problems with people who he turns away complaining about him refusing abortions, and she told me nobody ever said a bad word about him, they just went somewhere else.
There are THOUSANDS of people, if not millions, who are good, honest people, who are pro-life and want to do what's always in the best interest of the patient, who are not Christians. And they rarely ever get put down, or lose support, and I've never seen anyone rally around them screaming at them that they're bigotted or they're intolerant!
Look at the majority of the complaints and you'll see that they almost always throw the words "Intolerant Christians" or "Bigoted Christians" into the mix. It's like this war is going on because nobody wants *anyone* to be Christian! Like, it's wrong for us to have our own culture and beliefs and to follow those beliefs!
But the belief that life is sacred isn't strictly Christian - it's something we follow *because* we're Catholics, but it's not limited to us! It's also in the Hindus, and the Wiccans, and the Jews, and the Muslims, and moral atheists.
If someone from one of those categories says something against euthanasia or abortion or any other life-ending situation, they're told, "I respect your opinion even if I disagree."
If someone who's Catholic does the same, he's told, "Modernize, because you're a narrow-minded bigot!"
Well, damn it, we should be free to say, "No, we don't want to help you murder your mother just because she's bed-ridden," just like a Mulsim should be free to say, "I will not eat pork, and I do not want you to continue to offer it to me every day." Or like a Hindu has every right to say, "You continually invite me to eat hamburgers with you, even though you know I am a Hindu, and I do not want to. It's against my religious beliefs, and I thin it's uncalled for for you to keep taunting me."
People of other religions have every single right to announce, "Hey, I can't do X because my beliefs won't let me!" Why should we force someone who doesn't believe that anybody other than God may judge others to sit on a jury? Why should we force someone who doesn't believe in eating meat for religious reasons to have a steak?
Why should we force Christians to do something that is ethically and morally wrong?
I'm sorry, I had to get that out of my system.
If they pass these "cooperate or be punished" laws, they'll be enforced against Jews and Hindus as well as Christians, I would bet. Muslims, maybe not so much, because the liberal powers that be tend to be super-sensitive to Muslims, if not afraid of them. But non-Christians will be swept up in the net. I would guess, though, that if they hadn't been able rhetorically to associate refusal to cooperate with Christianity, they wouldn't have gotten as far as they have with the public with such proposals, though.
Does anyone have any insight into the motivations of the people campaigning for assisted suicide?
Are they just Bad People who are trying to spread murder in the community?
To what extent is this entire movement a protest against medical technology, which has the power to keep people "alive" in grotesque situations, but not the wisdom to know when to quit?
Gimp: It's stupidity, among other things.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home