The host says these ads promote an “unthinkable” policy. I think not, alas. We are not anywhere near there yet, of course–unless one considers age-based health care rationing as a precursor. But that point aside, these ads pitch how–if we give up on the sanctity/equality of human life–such a policy could conceivably be sold. Both are chillingly sophisticated.
HT: Bioedge–which should be a weekly reading habit of all SHSers.
August 5th, 2010 | 11:49 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys and Larry Nelson, Wesley J. Smith. Wesley J. Smith said: Ad Contest to Promote Mandatory Euthanasia at Age 80 » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog http://shar.es/0azsD [...]
August 6th, 2010 | 2:40 am
This, Wesley, is an excellent example, of why a “rights based” approach to morality is essential, as opposed to a utilitarian one.
We all have rights, the most important, being the right to life, which simply cannot be taken away from someone. No person can be forced to give up her life, even if it will help others.
August 7th, 2010 | 12:58 pm
And I see in the Bioedge post that the Philip Niestchke (sp?) group in Australia has invited the ad maker to speak to their group. But I thought they were only in favor of voluntary euthanasia? Why the interest? Hmmm.
August 7th, 2010 | 8:12 pm
The devil comes to you as a cute little puppy dog. This ad plants the seed in people’s minds that compulsory euthanasia might be acceptable. It’s not. Setting any manner of arbitrary value on human life is wrong. It will be abused. First it will be the aged, then the retarded, then the crippled, then…. you? This is purely evil.
August 11th, 2010 | 7:19 pm
The “judges” were complete idiots. The first “save money” ad actually has a marketable point, albeit an abhorrent one. The second one is ridiculous. They’re suggesting we kill people earlier so that… we’ll have more time with them!?! It doesn’t make any sense.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact