This is what the culture of death looks like. An elderly couple didn’t want to live without each other. So, they received a joint euthanasia. Apparently the local community knew they were planning it, as you will see by playing the embed above. From the “euthanasia expert” quoted in the story:
It is an important signal to break a taboo…
Ah, yes, we MUST break taboos, which often exist for important reasons! But I digress:
It is an important signal to break a taboo. This can be viewed as a normal way of dying and viewed as such by the community at large…Non terminal partners, as we call them, also have the option of dying together. It’s legally possible. There are no legal difficulties. It is only less well known. People think that euthanasia can only be applied to terminal cancer patients. But the gruop is a lot bigger. And this is a beautiful example that allows us to provide a dignified death to this couple thanks to euthanasia and proper guidance.
Why is anyone surprised? Once we accept killing is an acceptable answer to human suffering, there are no brakes. Belgium is merely jumping the most enthusiastically off the vertical moral cliff. And note: Switzerland has also had joint assisted suicides in their infamous suicide clinics.
Mark my words: Just as I was right about coupling euthanasia and organ harvesting in 1993–also happening in Belgium–I am right that once one accepts euthanasia/assisted suicide, this is the destination. The only question is how long it takes to get there.
Canadian journalist Andrew Coyne nailed it years ago, when he wrote:
A society that believes in nothing can offer no argument even against death. A culture that has lost its faith in life cannot comprehend why it should be endured.
Nihilism is our new god.
(Here’s the link to the original story from Flanders.)
March 31st, 2011 | 1:14 pm
[...] A television news report from Belgium is reporting that an elderly Belgian couple received joint euthanasia because they didn’t want to live without each other. Apparently, the community knew ahead of time, as they even planned their joint funeral. Details, analysis, and the embedded TV report over at Secondhand Smoke. [...]
March 31st, 2011 | 1:16 pm
Of course, once we decided we could kill babies before the were born, decided we could unplan God’s plans, why not just say anyone who wants to die can do so legally? Then it will be anyone who is being made to feel they should die, then anyone we just want to be rid of, and then anyone of certain standards of age or health. Helo Logan’s Run!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074812/
HCM Reply:
March 31st, 2011 at 5:42 pm
@Marie Koch, Marie: How ca mortals possibly thwart a tri-omni god? Surely he would end abortion himself.
HistoryWriter Reply:
March 31st, 2011 at 6:18 pm
@Marie Koch,
Do tell us, what are “God’s plan”? Do you have a direct pipeline to the Almighty’s planning committee, or are you getting your material from Randall Terry?
HW
March 31st, 2011 | 4:06 pm
I’ve only watched and listened to the film so far and I’m moved to comment without reading the rest at this time because lately in prayer, I’ve been getting what I thought was strange thoughts about evil forces who live in U>S (usual sinners) that we humans are no better than animals and I could go on and on but I think you get my drift.
To make a long story short, if I truly did not believe in God and the spiritual fact that we were made in His Own Image through Adam and Eve, I would probably be working for this guy’s company. :) In other words, let’s just say that if I was a true atheist, I would be working to help poor sick sinners undergo the time needed for the euthanasia.
[Let's keep others who comment here out of this. Thanks, Victor.]
For what it is worth, keep UP the good works and words Wesley while remembering that you can only show them where the good water is and because of free will, you have no right to try and make them drink if you know what I mean?
I think I’ll close by asking what Jesus possibly meant when He said, “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters”
Peace
March 31st, 2011 | 6:16 pm
Wesley: There you go again with that false and misleading conflation of euthanasia and assisted suicide, as if you don’t know the difference between the two, That “/” between them represents nothing more than a distortion of the facts. Assisted suicide is NOT euthanasia, and all the lying in the world doesn’t make it so. A little honesty would do you good.
HW
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 31st, 2011 at 6:21 pm
HW: You’re the one who is wrong on his definitions. So, let’s leave it at that.
Kathleen Lundquist Reply:
April 1st, 2011 at 2:24 pm
@HistoryWriter,
Would the term “voluntary euthanasia” work for you?
HistoryWriter Reply:
April 1st, 2011 at 4:56 pm
@Kathleen Lundquist,
No, because it’s an oxymoron. Euthanasia is involuntary. Doctor-assisted suicide is done with the full knowledge and consent of the patient. They are two separate procedures.
HW
March 31st, 2011 | 7:25 pm
Years ago it wasn’t unheard of for a dying person to leave instructions to have a favorite pet put to sleep to be placed in the casket and buried with him/her. Hearing about such greatly upset me as an animal lover; often other family members would have adopted the animal, but those closest to the deceased felt compelled to ensure the directive was carried out. Fortunately, today most veterinarians absolutely will not comply euthanize a perfectly healthy cat or dog for such a request.
Now this story appears. And it is even more appalling. In effect: I want my spouse put to sleep when I go.
Beware the merchants of death. Someday they will call for thee. Only the reason is unknown—but they’ll think of one.
HCM Reply:
April 3rd, 2011 at 7:46 am
@K-Man, K-Man: I’d rather die at the hands of a common street thug than at those of a hospice nurse.
March 31st, 2011 | 8:23 pm
That is so sad. We are just slipping and sliding farther down that slope away from life.
March 31st, 2011 | 8:50 pm
Coyne’s quote reminds me of one by G. K. Chesterton: “When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing — they believe in anything.”
March 31st, 2011 | 11:13 pm
Quite aside from the euthanasia debate…
Destruction is what happens when “breaking a taboo” is viewed as a good thing to do, uncritically.
Sometimes destruction might be healthy, as in a cleansing forest fire. Even the simplest glance at history suggests this is how it moves. But when breaking a taboo becomes an end in itself, the destruction is going to go beyond what is normal and healthy.
March 31st, 2011 | 11:59 pm
@HistoryWriter:
What is an “all-omni” God? “Omni” means “all”, so “all-omni” makes no sense.
Also, she didn’t say we are thwarting God, she said _we decided_ we cold unplan God’s plan. Whether we succeed or not that decision is immoral and wrong.
@HCM: she doesn’t need a pipeline to God’s planning committee (I guess it’s a three-person committee of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), the fact that conception took place is evidence of His plan, brought a new human being to life, and our taking of that life attempts to “unplan God’s plan” as Marie said.
If you want to make smart-alecky comments, you ought to at least be smart enough to read what another person wrote.
HistoryWriter Reply:
April 1st, 2011 at 9:26 am
@Wolf Paul,
Speaking of reading what one wrote, you’ve confused HistoryWriter and HCM’s posts. Go back and check on who said what.
You’re getting into theology, but since Wesley has permitted you that digression I trust he’ll permit my response to it (in the interest of “fair and balanced,” one would think).
If, as you suggest, there is a 3-person planning committee made up of all 3 manifestations of the godhead, then I suppose God talks to Himself, asks himself for his own opinions and occasionally argues with Himself about the efficacy of different solutions to the world’s problems.
You do know what we say about people who talk to themselves, don’t you…?
HW
April 1st, 2011 | 3:51 am
HistoryWriter’s constant sniping on this board serves to remind Christians that the enemy sometimes comes as a man of learning. Let me make a prediction. Unless the world has a change of heart, more and worse things will be done (just as people such as Wesley and Andrew Coyne have predicted). Let me make a second prediction: HistoryWriter will continue to harden his heart and criticise those who speak up for a culture of life.
PS HistoryWriter is not writing history. His musings will fade from memory very soon, thank God.
Tabs Fine Reply:
April 1st, 2011 at 12:17 pm
@Ian,
He’s also a reminder for us believers to pray for those who have hardened their hearts, because God wants NOBODY in Hell, but He’ll let us go there if we so desire.
As to bioethics, one doesn’t have to be religious to believe in the necessity of human exceptionalism and hu
Tabs Fine Reply:
April 1st, 2011 at 12:26 pm
@Tabs Fine,
*kicks her computer for being a butt*
As I was saying, one doesn’t need to be religious to believe in human exceptionalism and human dignity. One simply has to accept that all humans *must* be treated as being created equal, from conception to natural death, to prevent some from deciding that smaller groups are okay to treat like dirt.
In this culture of de-marginalization (what with Queer Theory, Mexican Theory and Feminist Theory being three of the dozen-odd I learned at the University), I’d suppose that we’d like to protect all people, of all ages and races, to prevent further marginalization.
After all, the Spanish conquerers abused the natives of Mexico and South America, while the British invaded North America and displaced the native peoples here, and the Dutch were busy trying to do the same thing in Japan (though less successfully because they had a market there). If we’re all at fault for what our ancestors did wrong in those eras, and we want to avoid ever acting like that again, shouldn’t we extend inalienable rights to *all* human beings, from conception to natural death?
Then we have no excuse to do horrible things like have slaves (sex slavery is still a big market world wide), have gender-based abortions (like in India and China), commit euthanasia (as in the case above), overthrow other countries to take them over (as may be made a case of in the Middle East), and other atrocities against human beings.
And we won’t be able to decide we hate Jews again and kill them all off in a nasty slaughter.
See, unless ALL humans are granted rights and treated like human “persons,” no matter their situation, then someone gets marginalized and we run the risk of killing, or enslaving, or whatever, anybody who’s less than the rest of us.
And frankly, I don’t feel like being enslaved because I’m a chick.
HistoryWriter Reply:
April 1st, 2011 at 5:07 pm
@Tabs Fine,
A fertilized ovum is a person? Sounds kind of like “Horton Hears a Who.”
HW
HistoryWriter Reply:
April 1st, 2011 at 5:04 pm
@Ian,
“The enemy?” I thought people could be adversarial without being considered enemies, but I guess it says something of the prevailing mindset among “believers.”
If your Heaven is populated by the kinds of “believers” whose writings I’ve read here, then spending an eternity there has to be the most gawd-awful experience imaginable.
I’ll take my chances, thanks.
HW
HCM Reply:
April 3rd, 2011 at 8:09 am
@Ian,
Ian: Not if public opinion regarding assisted dying continues on its current, unabated pace. :)
April 1st, 2011 | 10:31 am
Before someone misunderstands me; I believe suicide / assisted suicide / euthanasia to be reprehensible. That said, this article makes me think of the fact that this is the individual’s (or in this case, couple’s) choice. In that sense we make choices moment by moment. Now the perspective that this particular choice is the slippery side into a cultural acceptance – yes, fine. BUT, why do we not react equally to the choice to accept pornography as normative, the choice to legalize prostitution, the personal moment by moment choice to immerse ourself in a sea of media proclaiming a life that is antithetic to God’s desires for us. Where the eye focuses, there the heart soon follows.
April 1st, 2011 | 11:12 am
What next? Suttee??
“Oh no, that could NEVER happen.”
Mark my words. Once you say something CAN happen, somebody is going to say it MUST happen. What about all those elderly widows and widowers with no one to take care of them? Someone is going to start suggesting that they ought to go, that a quiet and dignified death is better than loneliness, that it’s too hard for the elderly to adjust to life alone…
HistoryWriter Reply:
April 1st, 2011 at 5:18 pm
@Gail F,
You raise an interesting point. What ARE we going to do about those elderly widows and widowers without anyone to take care of them?
They’re a class-A political liability. Face it, Republicans don’t want them living on the dole. Allowing them to commit suicide would deprive the Tea Party’s social Darwinists of the entertainment of watching them starve. And Democrats have no solution other than spending more tax revenues on them. Of course they could always go to work at McDonalds or Wal-Mart for the minimum wage, but when you’re in your 70s that’s not always feasible. It was Scrooge who observed of the needy: “Are there no prisons, are there no workhouses.”
Do you have any constructive suggestions about making their lives more palatable? Until you can come up with a few, don’t carry on like a bleeding heart if some of them decide to pull their own plugs.
HW
Blake Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 4:07 am
@HistoryWriter,
Do you have any constructive suggestions about making their lives more palatable?
I’d like to know what are your “constructive suggestions” regarding how to provide suicide on demand without having a negative impact on the many more people whose lives will be devalued, and who will be indirectly – and probably directly – pressured into feeling like a burden and/or feeling they ought to give in.
Oh wait! I’ve already brought this up and your non-reply suggests you aren’t really interested in suffering…you just want death.
I wonder: are you so adamant about death because you yourself are sunk in self-pity over something and/or in need of help yourself, or are you just eager to dispose of the people who might suck up resources?
HCM Reply:
April 3rd, 2011 at 7:49 am
@Gail F,
Gail: Funny, I would think you were highly in favour of religious freedom, even regarding such practices as sattee.
April 1st, 2011 | 7:45 pm
If, as you suggest, there is a 3-person planning committee made up of all 3 manifestations of the godhead, then I suppose God talks to Himself, asks himself for his own opinions and occasionally argues with Himself about the efficacy of different solutions to the world’s problems.
You do know what we say about people who talk to themselves, don’t you…?
Hey look – random Christophobic hatred.
HistoryWriter Reply:
April 2nd, 2011 at 7:06 am
@Blake,
No, just quoting what somebody else said. Christophobic? Phobia relates to fear. To me, fundamentalist Christianity is a form of entertainment.
HW
Blake Reply:
April 2nd, 2011 at 12:48 pm
@HistoryWriter,
Christophobic? Phobia relates to fear.
By the criteria used to diagnose “-phobic”, you are as guilty as anyone who was ever tagged with that phrase.
“Phobia relates to fear”….yeah, everyone says that.
HistoryWriter Reply:
April 3rd, 2011 at 11:59 am
@Blake,
Nevertheless “phobia” means a “fear of something.” I know you’d like to change the dictionary to suit your arguments, but I’m afraid that doesn’t work. If it’s any help, I find you entertaining too.
HW
April 4th, 2011 | 3:38 am
Nevertheless “phobia” means a “fear of something.” I know you’d like to change the dictionary to suit your arguments, but I’m afraid that doesn’t work. If it’s any help, I find you entertaining too.
Yes, but a person with an irrational hatred of Christians must be phobic.
HistoryWriter Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 6:15 pm
@Blake,
How many times do I have to tell you that I don’t hate Christianity? Thinking that a particular theology is absurd doesn’t mean either fearing or hating it; it means thinking that it’s absurd.
I can understand that it’s more tolerable psychologically for people to feel their beliefs are hated rather than an object of humor, but that’s another matter entirely. “Phobia” continues to mean “fear of,” rational or otherwise.
HW
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact