Another Indiciation That Assisted Suicide Isn't Really About Terminal Illness
Don't get me wrong: I would object to assisted suicide even if it were ever going to be truly restricted to people with terminal illnesses. But of course, that isn't the goal, and it sure isn't the reality. The Final Exit Network illustrate this--although most of the obtuse or biased media continually miss the point, such as Time's hopelessly incompetent reporting
As I have written, FEN has never advocated restricting assited suicide to the terminally ill. The only major American group that does is The Hemlock Society. It didn't used to, but there was a takeover in which the former crackpot model of advocacy led by Derek Humphry--with suicide machine conventions, etc.--was replaced by the smooth and well tailored professional model led by Barbara Coombs Lee and Kathryn Tucker.
With the professional look came a new euphemistic name--Compassion and Choices--more abundant funding, including polling, focus groups, professional PR, etc. C and C now claims to want to restrict assisted suicide, which its focus groups and polling told them to call "aid in dying." But I have yet to see condemnation from Lee or Tucker about the FEN activities that always went well beyond the terminally ill. Moreover, C and C is a member in good standing of the Federation of the World Right to Die Societies, which as I have noted here, does not have a terminal ill restriction in its advocacy statements, and of which one of the arrestees, Ted Goodwin, is vice president.
A recent NPR report--in which a law enforcement agent but no opponents of assisted suicide appeared, which is now real a trend in media--illustrated the vagueness with which the C and C representatives and others have reacted to the FEN charges. From the report (no link):
Realize that even if an Oregon style law had been in effect in Georgia, John Celmer's alleged assisted suicide would still have been a crime. Hence, FEN would still have been in business to "serve" those for whom the law did not allow legal access to doctors, since it rejects the terminal illness limitation and John Celmer was not dying. Thus unless the assisted suicide license was open to virtually anyone with other than a transitory desire to die, the FEN's of the world would continue their "counseling," and Coombs Lee's statement is nonsensical.[NPR correspondent Kathy]LOHR: Another group, Compassion and Choices, lobbies for physician-assisted suicide laws. President Barbara Coombs Lee says outdated laws criminalizing assisted suicide are to blame for this group's practices.
Ms. BARBARA COOMBS LEE (President, Compassion & Choices): People of the Final Exit Network are, kind of testing the boundaries of what is acceptable and unacceptable in these very vague, broad assisted suicide laws. But there are better ways to make laws, you know, than to wait and see what people do on their own, and then go to a court and a trial and a jury and see if that broke the law or not.
If Coombs Lee really believed her own advocacy meme, she would condemn FEN for both acting outside of the law and in cases well beyond the situation of terminal illness when nothing else can be done to alleviate suffering, the only category for which she cl
aims "aid in dying" is appropriate in her political agitation about the issue.Sometimes silence is louder than words.
Labels: Assisted Suicide. Final Exit Network. Barbara Coombs Lee


6 Comments:
There's a certain kind of liberal who uses libertarian-speak to make people go along. This kind of libertarian-speak involves the myth that if such-and-such is legal it can be regulated and that anything that truly horrifies most people (at the moment) is an "abuse" that would be eliminated if the thing were legal. This is almost always false. Prostitution legalization advocates play the same game with sex slavery, which they falsely claim is an "abuse" that would be eliminated by "regulation" if prostitution were brought "out of the shadows" by being legalized. But it's all just false, and false for suicide as well.
Well said Lydia.
Imagine "regulation" of assisted suicide! That's enough of an argument against it right there.
And well of course it isn't about terminal illness. It's about people wanting out no matter what the ramifications for others, viz. the Gray Panthers' decision to favor it "after much deliberation in which we considered that yes, it would put others at risk" or words to that effect, and about people getting a kick out of making others die.
We who have been observing the practice of assisted suicide here in Oregon know that "safeguards" on PAS are meaningless - mostly for this reason:
This debate, at its root, is not about pain or insurance money or physical disability. It's about personal autonomy, the 'right' to do what I want to do, to 'control my own body', to 'determine the circumstances' in the face of suffering. (This is why the measures pass when they tap into the rhetoric of "choice".)
If this is the core issue, then nothing can stand in the way of the exercise of a right to die. All laws, all guidelines, all 'safeguards' become mere obstacles to overcome - because Personal Autonomy overrules everything else. I will have it, the way I want it, when I want it. My will, my choice, trumps all - 'safeguards' be damned.
Our experience in Oregon has been that every single official guideline or safeguard written into the so-called Death With Dignity Act has been gotten around in some case or other. (www.pccef.org has documentation on this for anyone interested; I'm sure Wesley does too.)
I always regarded B.C. Lee as a traitor to her healing profession, and this situation in Georgia reveals her stance on safeguards as weak. I used to just get angry when I read her quotes, but now she's starting to scare me.
Well if were going to put pets to sleep "to save them suffering," how can we not expect the same to end up happening to ourselves? Advances in veterinary medicine often precede the same in human medicine. We experiment on non-human animals to benefit ourselves. (Well, I don't, and don't accept the practice, and many others don't, but enough of us do to have created the situation we've got now.) If we don't want this "death with dignity" garbage going on, we have to make some changes. And no, it's not the same a eating other animals. Other animals do that too. But they don't do the things humas do that humans shouldn't do. They DO do death with dignity, though. Whether its being killed by another animal for food after doing everything possible to stay alive or going off by oneself to They don't talk about it. It's an obscene phrase.
That last sentence got half-swallowed up (like a smaller fish by a bigger one, an impala by a lion). Whether by being killed by another animal for food after doing everything possible to stay alive or by going off by oneself to die, animals DO death with dignity. They don't talk about it. It's an obscene phrase. Ethics committees are obscene as well. Those with ethics have no need to discuss ethics.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home