I have been called Cassandra on more than one occasion–many more. Often the person so saying is calling me an alarmist, thinking that Cassandra was a false prophet. Actually, she saw the future accurately–but nobody believed her. Yup, too often, that’s me.
Case in point: For years I predicted that Oregon’s assisted suicide law would not result in doctors and patients with long standing relationships working out what is best for end-of-life care. Rather, since most doctors know that prescribing death isn’t medicine–it would lead–and has led–to “doctor shopping,” that is, suicidal people looking for death doctors to write the lethal prescription, with that being the only reason for the consultation–as in Jack Kevorkian. And finally, some are beginning to take notice. From the story:
A British think tank said a U.S. assisted-suicide law might have created a phenomenon of “doctor-shopping” for physicians willing to ignore safeguards to help healthy people kill themselves. A report claims that the 1997 Oregon Death With Dignity Act is being abused — with the help of some physicians — by people who do not fulfill the criteria of being terminally ill, mentally competent and able to make a free choice.
Called “What is Happening in Oregon?” the report by Living and Dying Well, a group of prominent British medical and legal experts, was sent to British members of Parliament Oct. 25 to counter claims by assisted-suicide campaigners that the Oregon law is a model of effective regulation that should be adopted in the United Kingdom. The report’s author, Dr. David Jeffrey, a senior lecturer in palliative medicine at Scotland’s Edinburgh University, and researcher Madeleine Teahan, examined 12 annual reports from the Oregon Public Health Division on the working of the act since 1998.
The report said that when the Oregon law was enacted, about a third of all people who requested help in committing suicide were referred to psychiatrists, but by 2009 no one was being sent for counseling. “Could this be a consequence of ‘doctor shopping’ — namely that a physician who is prepared to process an application for physician-assisted suicide might perhaps be less inclined than others to regard such a request as a pointer to possible psychological disorder or depression?” asked the report. “If that is so it would not be surprising that as the number of physician-assisted suicide cases has increased, referrals for psychiatric counseling have fallen,” the report said. It said that the health division reports show the average time an applicant has spent with a doctor who assists in their deaths is just 10 weeks, and that a small number of doctors were writing prescriptions for numerous suicides.
Absolutely right.
Now one might say that the report’s authors oppose assisted suicide. But these are the very things I have been reporting from the official statistics–which are in many ways designed as PR in favor of assisted suicide–and are really undeniable. In fact, the first legal assisted suicide in Oregon knew her prescribing doctor for a mere 2 weeks.
Time to open our eyes folks! I am Cassandra. It’s high time that I was believed.
October 27th, 2010 | 1:55 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys and Stand In The Gap, Wesley J. Smith. Wesley J. Smith said: As I Have Been Saying for More Than 10 Years: Oregon Assisted Suicide Leads to “Doctor Shopping” ».. http://bit.ly/aiSfdb [...]
October 27th, 2010 | 3:15 pm
Funny, when I read about this in the Daily Mail yesterday I did think about you. I recalled your previous remark about the British media “pimping” assisted suicide and couldn’t help thinking how far off the mark you were with that one.
The pragmatic arguments against the widespread legalisation of physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia are, in my opinion, compelling – and you are right to draw attention to them. If these arguments were presented clearly and repeatedly to the general public support for PAS would probably wane. Unfortunately anti-euthanasia advocates usually prefer the language of ideology and demonisation. This works quite well in the US where these advocates have an established “base” of religious and social conservatives to whom these rallying cries and good versus evil narratives come naturally. Unfortunately this approach almost invariably turns off people who either disagree with you (and that would be most of the Western world) or people such as myself who agree with the basic direction of your advocacy (in this instance) but do not share your underlying ideological perspective. There is no Grand Plan to get rid of the most vulnerable, the world isn’t threatened by a culture of death and most people are in fact moved to support legal euthanasia by real (albeit misguided) compassion and not a sham substitute concealing more sinister motives. The widespread legalisation of euthanasia would not usher in an age of tyranny but it would result in very real problems which the media often fail to emphasize. Acknowledging these basic realities rather than constantly taking aim at largely imaginary (or inconsequential) enemies would, in my opinion, be a step in the right direction.
October 27th, 2010 | 8:27 pm
[...] First Things (blog) [...]
October 27th, 2010 | 11:55 pm
Wesley writes: “Time to open our eyes folks! I am Cassandra. It’s high time that I was believed.”
You ARE Cassandra? Then you’ll remember that nobody ever did believe Cassandra no matter how hard she tried to convince them. I do see an interesting future for you if you insist upon identifying with her. According to the legend, during the fall of Troy she was abducted and raped by Ajax the Lesser. She was afterward taken as a concubine by Agamemnon, King of the Mycenaeans, and was eventually murdered by Agamemnon’s wife’s lover, Aegisthus.
Are you sure you want to follow in her footsteps?
October 29th, 2010 | 8:59 am
Raven,
I think you completely misunderstand what people mean when they say “culture of death.” It’s not just people with sinister motives (though there are some), or people with grandiose plans (though there was plenty enough of those at the beginning of the century and still are some), it’s that it is a culture that is so mired in “death” that even people who mean well, even your average person are mired in it too.
I would argue it does threaten the world. When people in the Netherlands can’t go to a hospital without the fear of being murdered, that’s bad. When tens of millions of children are aborted every year and many countries have governments that feature heavy social welfare programs but few new people paying in, that’s bad and a recipe for economic disaster. When countries like Russia have to give away prizes to people who actually decide to reproduce, that’s bad.
If you want to focus on what might happen tomorrow, that’s fine. But it’s folly not to look at what may happen 50 years down the road when we start down one path, no matter how immoderate it may make one seem. If you don’t think something along the lines of Logan’s Run could ever happen if people grow accustomed to euthanasia, then you don’t know humanity. I would think the 20th century provides ample enough evidence to anyone that even “modern” humans can sink to unimaginable depravities when continuing down the road to Hell that’s paved with good intentions.
October 29th, 2010 | 3:55 pm
JustChris,
On the contrary I appreciate that the “culture of death” (as Wesley uses the term) is not necessarily fostered by those with sinister motives. It represents, as I have come to understand it, the creeping collective seduction of the very idea of death as a desirable destination for oneself and for others. I do not claim that there are not, in fact, people who presently are (and future people who will be) entranced by and trapped within these “sub-cultures of death”. My assertion is rather that there is no danger of the world being threatened by this subculture (or more specifically attempts at legalising euthanasia do not represent a threat of this nature – though they do present problems of an entirely different sort). The pull of life and its attendant promise of frivolous (and not so frivolous) pleasures is just too strong.
But it occurs to me, as I type this, that perhaps I actually do not appreciate the specific context in which the term “culture of death” is being used. Your references to abortions and low Russian fertility indicate that a “culture of death” represents anything which runs counter to the positions of those who have come to describe themselves as being concerned with “life issues” i.e a culture of death is anything which opposes a “culture of life” and would hence include the promotion of abortion rights and contraception as well as advocacy for the acceptance and legalisation of euthanasia. In that sense its rise is unstoppable and its eventual victory is assured. Does this represent an existential threat to humanity? Somehow I doubt it.
October 29th, 2010 | 11:38 pm
[...] Wesley J. Smith notes a Boston Pilot story that points out what he has been saying for 10+ years:… [P]rescribing death isn’t medicine – it would lead – and has led – to “doctor shopping,” that is, suicidal people looking for death doctors to write the lethal prescription, with that being the only reason for the consultation. Tags: Alveda King, American, American Girl, anti-abortion, anti-choice, assisted suicide, Barack Obama, Boston Pilot, CO Personhood Amendment, doctor shopping, euthanasia, Girls Inc., Indian, Jill Stanek, Michael Moriarty, Moral Outcry, Priests for Life, pro-abortion, pro-choice, pro-life, Pro-Life Action League, pro-life canvassing, Pro-Life in TN, Roe v. Wade, Secular Pro-Life, sex selection, Susie Allen, The Passionate Pro-Lifer, Wesley J. Smith Oct.29, 2010 3:30 pm | Blogs | Print [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact