I have fought against assisted suicide/euthanasia since 1993 with as much energy and imagination as I possess. The issue matters a lot to me. I think stopping the death agenda is crucial to maintaining an equal and truly compassionate society.
It is also very important to people like Barbara Coombs Lee, the head of Compassion and Choices, and C & C’s funders, such as the subversive (in my view) George Soros. They believe that legalizing doctor prescribed suicide is a matter of liberty–and yes, compassion.
But other than the relatively few of us who struggle in the public policy arena on both sides of the issue, I have come to understand–and it shocked me when I came to this realization–that most people don’t really care one way or the other. In fact, it doesn’t even appear on the issues that concern most people. From the Gallup Poll:
Economic concerns have dominated Americans’ views of the nation’s top problems since early 2008. In the Aug. 5-8 Gallup poll, 65% of Americans mention some aspect of the economy as the top problem facing the country, down only slightly from the beginning of this year. Other problems 5% or more of Americans mention include dissatisfaction with government and Congress, healthcare, immigration issues, and the decline in ethics/morals/family values.
The lowest rated issues–each at a mere 3%–are lack of respect for each other, education, and disaster response. Assisted suicide doesn’t even show up.
Some will counter that polls generally show that people are equally divided on the issue or tend to favor legalizing assisted suicide–the response often depending on how the question is asked. But the so-called “right to die” is not a top tier issue. It isn’t even a second tier issue. In fact, for most people, it just isn’t important.
In one sense, I think that’s healthy. People need to focus on how they live, not on how they die. Still, those of us who understand how crucial this issue is, must keep pounding our drums with all we have until the majority of people come to understand the danger.
September 20th, 2010 | 11:13 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys and Stand In The Gap, Wesley J. Smith. Wesley J. Smith said: Euthanasia: An Obsession of the Very Few » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog http://t.co/TORT0w0 [...]
September 20th, 2010 | 12:34 pm
In regard to “focus(ing) on how they live, not on how they die” I would agree with you that this is good…but I think in the American culture, at least, we spend a lot of energy on *avoiding* thoughts of death and how we will
die.
That is likely the reason for the fact that euthanasia is off of the radar of the average citizen. The idea of “death panels for Granny” that was such a big deal a few months ago only made is tolerable to think aboutl, as it was a (theoreticl) threat to *somebody else.*
On the other hand, those who are concerned with how cultural narratives treat human dignity, and especially those who are, or advocate for, the sick, elderly, diff/dis- abled, and the like, see the problem of euthanasia as an unavoidable, looming problem.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
holyterror: I am not saying we shouldn’t think about our mortality. Of course we should. We should sign wills. We should, I think, create advance medical directives. For those who are religious or philosophical, we should prepare for that day in our hearts or souls. But my point was that we shouldn’t obsess on methods of dying. My experience is that a lot of the grass roots in the euthanasia movement are obsessed with this issue. They read how to commit suicide literature. They hearken to the siren songs of Derek Humphry and C & C. And in the doing, I fear, they are in danger of losing the time they have living, by focusing so intently on their dying.
It is a crucial looming problem, and we who are aware need to dedicate ourselves to stopping it. But I think the general inattention of most people makes the death agenda harder to sell in a society focused so intently on emotional narratives rather than (in my view) critical thinking.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 2:49 pm
holyterror: I thought about your comment all morning. I think you are quite right, which makes my kicker a bit off kilter. I have amended the ending of the post to better reflect my actual meaning. Thanks!
September 20th, 2010 | 8:50 pm
I like your revamped ending; I do think it more clear.
The “inattention” to the death agenda is not a good thing, in my opinion. For some types of activism/agendas, the fact that most people seem not to care would hurt the cause. But in the case of assisted suicide/euthanasia advocacy, I think that the less attention is paid now, the more easily it will be insinuated into culture.
In reality, I think that there is a large chunk of the population who is sympathetic to assisted suicide,without realizing that they are. It might be similar to the number of people who are “prolife” until they or their teenage daughter gets pregnant in a difficult (or horrible) situation.
People thoughtlessly say things like, “Oh, G-d, I would never want to live like that” when encountering the example of a disabled or sickly person. But when they are forced ot put themselves in that place for a few moments many will express sympathy for the idea of “putting someone out of their misery.”
It is all based on avoidance of discomfort and suffering, and a lack of desire to think things out rationally…persistent human traits, I think, and the reason why the pro-death agenda will maintain its foothold, off the radar of most people who are going about their (relatively pain-free) lives.
September 21st, 2010 | 5:12 pm
Wesley: why do you think George Soros is a “subversive”?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
September 21st, 2010 at 6:57 pm
No more than one question a day.
September 22nd, 2010 | 6:56 am
OK, here it is, for Tuesday the 22nd:
Wesley, why do you think George Soros is a subversive?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
September 22nd, 2010 at 9:34 am
Financial support for legalizing assisted suicide, recreational drug usage, prostitution etc. He wants to turn the country into Amsterdam, and then there are other issues way beyond our jurisdiction here, such as is predatory monetary and financial activities.
September 22nd, 2010 | 4:22 pm
The last time I checked, donating money to one’s favorite causes was a good American tradition. Unless you hold similar opinions about the activities of Richard Mellon Scaife or the Coors family, I would have to say your characterization of Soros as “a subversive” seems to be based solely on your displeasure with the causes to which he donates his money. Such name-calling (including epithets like “terrorist pimp” and “mendacious”) rarely earns debating points except among the Tea Party crowd.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact