Unbelievable. Andrew Barnes tried to access suicide tourism in Switzerland because he had been diagnosed as terminally ill. He wasn’t, and in fact, has since recovered.
You’d think such a near miss would cause him some pause about the dangers of euthanasia. After all, if he had gotten his wish, he’d be dead now. But no. From the story:
Despite his near miss, Mr Barnes has no complaints about how he was treated – and is still an advocate of euthanasia. “When I was in hospital, I saw wards of people who were very ill. Some of them the nurses had to pick up with a crane, like a mechanic would to service a car. “They had no control over their bodily functions and, if they’d been offered death, I’m sure half of them would have taken it. There was no dignity to their lives any more. “If I was in that condition, I’d rather go to Dignitas.”
Get hit in the side of the head with clear proof of the danger of euthanasia, and still refuse to learn. How can such obtuseness be explained?
Chalk it up to the raw power of the fear of suffering and disability in our society. And here’s the thing that many will ignore or wave off: We will never know how many others have committed suicide or were euthanized, who, had they been given the time, would have recovered (like Barnes) or learned to live with their illnesses (like my once suicidal hospice friend Bob did).
For some reason, that doesn’t matter. It carries no emotional punch and will bounce off the collective forehead as the media and popular entertainment focus obsessively on televised assisted suicides and make heroes and heroines out of any sick or disabled person who publicly declares their desire to be allowed assisted suicide. A telling indictment of our popular culture and the uncompassionate times in which we live.
May 13th, 2011 | 4:41 pm
Only problem is, it’s not “clear proof of the danger of euthanasia;” it’s clear proof of the danger of incompetent doctors and medical misdiagnosis that might cause a person to do any number of things that wouldn’t be to his benefit. Pulling his own plug was only one of the possibilities. He could just as easily have given away everything he owned, spent the next six months in prayer or decided to trade in his 50 year-old wife for two 25 year-olds.
You say:”We will never know how many others have committed suicide or were euthanized, who, had they been given the time, would have recovered (like Barnes) or learned to live with their illnesses…” We can’t possibly know if there were 1,000 or none, so it’s simply idle speculation. In fact, it’s about as silly as the speculation that some woman who had an abortion might have aborted the person who was going to develop a cure for halitosis. Point is, its just as possible that she might have aborted another Ted Bundy.
HW
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
May 13th, 2011 at 6:34 pm
Culture of death, Wesley? What culture of death?
May 14th, 2011 | 2:21 am
Andrew Barnes thought he was dying – and so made plans to kill himself. His GP informed him that he wasn’t and he subsequently made a full recovery. When asked about his experience, he indicated that he would still want to die if he were afflicted with a sufficiently debilitating illness. Was he being “obtuse”? Hardly.
Bad experiences of this sort are “clear proof of the danger of euthanasia” only in the sense that soul-destroying marriages are clear proof of the danger of marriage or civilian casualties are proof of the potentially irreversible damage inflicted by military intervention. In each of these cases, establishing that there are dangers associated with a given activity falls far short of demonstrating that the activity ought to be discouraged. Euthanasia advocates are aware that the policies they promote are not risk-free. The argument is that all things considered, the benefits which result outweigh the potential harms.
Legalising euthanasia* would almost certainly lead to some unnecessarily premature deaths – but, advocates would argue, most of these deaths would be “freely-chosen”, swift and humane. Not legalising euthanasia would, just as certainly, lead to the continuing expectation of prolonged, painful, and “undignified” deaths for many patients (who would have freely chosen easier exits). There are “dangers” on both sides.
It is never enough to say “there are harms and that is an end to it”. One must demonstrate that these harms outweigh the benefits of the proposed policy.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 10:11 am
Raven: The point is that if it were legal, he might well have done the deed before finding out he wasn’t dying. My first hospice patient was a 90 year old man. As soon as I was alone with him, he fell into my arms crying that he wanted to die. “I want to die!” he kept repeating. He felt terrible and worried about burdening his son. Perfect candidate for euthanasia if it were legal. Well guess what, about 4 months later he had improved so much he was kicked out of hospice. Had euthanasia been legal, he would never have made it to that point.
My last hospice patient died of ALS. He told me he had been suicidal, wanted to go to Kevorkian. Motor neurone disease! How can anyone oppose euthanasia for that? Well, after awhile, despite continuing loss of physicality, he “came out of the fog” as he put it and was very glad to be alive. But had euthanasia been legal, believe me, he would not have lived to see that day.
But Raven would say: Hey, they didn’t kill themselves, what’s the problem? They didn’t because it wasn’t legal to have help doing so. And as a result, they had more life and life they liked living. That’s the problem!
If it is legalized, people will die who would have gone on not to want to kill themselves if it was illegal. That outweighs people who want to die sooner and have to do it without help or have to live lives unhappily because they couldn’t get help. Every day of the week.
Raven Chukwu Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 11:06 am
@Wesley J. Smith, My comment was about your dismissal of Barnes as “obtuse” – not about whether, in fact, the legalisation of euthanasia would be a good or a bad thing. As I have repeatedly stated, I am against the legalisation of euthanasia (or, specifically, of assisted suicide) – but I do not reflexly dismiss those with different opinions as ignorant or malevolent. If you re-read my comment you’ll notice that I’m actually trying to point out how Barnes continued support for euthanasia is rational, given what he believes about the balance of harms. There is no sense in which the events related demonstrate that, all things considered, assisted suicide ought to be opposed. The mere fact that Barnes has failed to learn, from his personal experience, the lesson you want him to does not make him stupid.
I too believe that it would, at present, not be in society’s interest to legalise assisted suicide. I too have had patients who have repeatedly expressed and later retracted a wish to have their lives cut short and who would, almost certainly have been adversely impacted had it, in fact, been legal to deliberately truncate their lives. This is probably the only “controversial” issue on which you and I, Wesley, are on the same side.
I, however, believe in treating my ideological opponents (or those who merely hold different opinions on issues of public policy) with fairness. The arguments for the legalisation of assisted suicide are logical, coherent, and based largely on ethical principles as sound as those which buttress the arguments against it. Our decisions about which policy to support are based on our interpretation of the “facts on the ground” – facts about human psychology, the reliability of medical diagnoses, the relative numbers of people who are likely to benefit or be harmed etc. Assisted suicide bills have been defeated in so many legislative bodies across the world because calmly rational lawmakers have been able to see that these “facts”, in their own societies and at the time of consideration, do not align with the opinions of majority of their constituents. This is not a conflict between a “culture of death” and a culture of life – and it would be, I think a grave mistake indeed to cast the debate in those terms.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 11:16 am
In this case, I think obtuse applies since he is missing the obvious. That isn’t ad hominem, which I too don’t use. Even when I call Kevorkian a ghoul, it is because he fits the definition.
Dblade Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 11:22 am
@Wesley J. Smith, It’s such a danger because according to the article the original man’s doctor so massively misdiagnosed him it was near criminal:
“Andrew Barnes, 55, applied to the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland for an assisted suicide after doctors told him he would be dead within months.
However, Mr Barnes’ GP refused to sign a consent form, telling him he could make a recovery if he cut down on alcohol.”
It worked. They gave him some drugs to increase his blood potassium levels and he was not terminal in 10 days. How is this “terminally ill?”
If the same doctor who had the power to diagnose him could sign off on his euthanasia, it would have been tragic. This is why he should be seriously thinking about on why its bad, because he could have been killed over nothing.
May 14th, 2011 | 2:26 am
Wesley: The “They regretted it later” rationale to outlaw assisted dying can only be used after an attempt fails.
It cannot be used as a justification to outlaw assisted dying and legalise torture.
May 14th, 2011 | 11:45 am
You do realize that if “not killing suffering people” actually equaled torture, we would be morally obligated to kill all severely suffering people, in order to avoid the moral crime of “torture?”
Or is it only “torture” if the person involved thinks it’s torture? If so, that’s a novel definition of the word indeed.
HCM Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 12:38 pm
@pentamom, It’s only torture if they do not wish to continue living, to the point of begging for death.
Consent matters.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
HCM: Then you decry the Netherlands, where about 800 people are euthanized a year without having asked for it? Also, babies are killed by doctors who, by definition, can’t ask for it. Ditto, Belgium. But that’s what happens once the premise is accepted that killing is an acceptable answer to human suffering. Eventually consent doesn’t matter.
HCM Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 1:20 pm
@Wesley J. Smith, How many are being murdered (killed without consent) in the US now (per capita)?
According to published studies, much, much more. Five times more in Australia than in the Netherlands.
That is the logical output of a system that encourages law enforcement officials to stick their heads in the sand.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 1:21 pm
Good grief, HCM.
HCM Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 1:28 pm
@Wesley J. Smith, Took me a while to find the study (old studies die hard):
“Our findings suggest that while the rate of active voluntary euthanasia in Australia was slightly lower than that shown in the most recent Dutch study (1.8 percent as against 2.3 percent), the rates of non-voluntary euthanasia in Australia are significantly higher. Our study thus refutes earlier speculation that the open practice of active voluntary euthanasia in the Netherlands had led to the practice of non-voluntary euthanasia. Our findings also suggest that making euthanasia illegal does not prevent doctors from practicing it.”
http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/20000407.htm
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
Singer is way off about the levels of Dutch non voluntary euthanasia from the original study (Remmelink Report). I describe in FORCED EXIT:
With that in mind, here are the figures about euthanasia-related deaths in 1990, derived from the Remmelink Report’s published statistical data:
• 2,300 patients were euthanized (killed) by their doctors upon request, and 400 people died through physician-assisted suicide, for a total of 2,700 doctor-induced deaths. That is approximately 3 percent of all deaths involving end-of-life medical care. The equivalent percentage in the United States would be approximately 41,500 deaths.
• 1,040 died from involuntary euthanasia, lethal injections given without request or consent-three deaths every single day. These deaths constitute slightly more than 1 percent of all cases involving end-of-life medical care. (The same percentage in the United States would be approximately 16,000 involuntary killings per year.)
• Of these involuntary euthanasia cases, 14 percent, or 145, were fully competent to make their own medical decisions but were killed without request or consent anyway. (The same percentage in the United States would be more than 2,000 who would be killed.) Moreover, 72 percent of the people killed without their consent had never given any indication they would want their lives terminated.
• 8,100 patients died from an intentional overdose of morphine or other pain-control medications, designed primarily to terminate life. In other words, death was not a side effect of treatment to relieve pain, which can sometimes occur, but was the intended result of the overdose. Of these, 61 percent (4,941 patients) were intentionally overdosed without request or consent. The equivalent percentage in the United States would be approximately 78,000.
These figures are startling. Of the approximately 90,000 Dutch people whose deaths involved end-of-life medical decision-making in 1990, 11,140 were intentionally killed (euthanized) or assisted in suicide—or 11.1 percent of all Dutch deaths involving medical decision-making! This is approximately 8.5 percent of Dutch deaths from all causes. Of these killings, more than half were involuntary (1,040 involuntary lethal injections and 4,941 involuntary intentional overdoses). Applying those percentages to the U.S. death rate would mean more than 170,000 deaths each year caused by euthanasia or assisted suicide, and about 85,000 of these involuntary, more than the current number of U.S. suicides and homicides combined.
HCM Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 1:53 pm
@Wesley J. Smith, Fair enough, but why deny painless and swift deaths to those who wish it?
And since no similar studies (to my knowledge) have been done in the US, isn’t it very possible that there is more abuse in the US?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 2:08 pm
Because that will increase suicides. And it will increase abandonment. And it will increase coercion. And it will undermine the importance of human life. For starters.
HCM Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 3:23 pm
@Wesley J. Smith, But no studies have shown a correlation between legal assisted dying and higher rates of suicide.
Also, I don’t see how torture and slavery increase society’s view of human life.
May 14th, 2011 | 2:10 pm
The Euthanasia debate, is often framed by those on the proeuthanasia side, as a matter of liberty. That is, since one has the right to control one’s body, indeed, one has utter sovereignty over one’s own body.
This argument, assumes the proper mental functioning of those comtemplating suicide. Can this always, or even frequently, be assumed? How many individuals who believe suicide, or assisted suicide, was a viable alternative, would think this way if they knew their pain would be adequately controlled, they could pay for their medical care, and knew others loved them, and didn’t consider them a “burden”.
By the way, Wesley, I agree, Kervorkian IS a ghoul. He trained as a pathologist, and as far as I know, had no clinical experience at all. He seems to see people as objects to be “studied”, or “experimented on”, as opposed to persons.
May 14th, 2011 | 8:04 pm
>>If physician-assisted suicide is legally available, the right to die may become a duty to die.<S (usual sinners) for eternity and God won’t be able to do anything about “IT” what so ever because that’s what the majority of our heart cells will have wanted in reality.
Although Jesus warned us all in so many SPIRITUAL words that if we found ourself with a bad organ then we should have “IT” plucked out. The reason we do that spiritually speaking is because the closer you get to heaven and/or come the judgement day, the faster the evil cells would team UP and corrupt the good cells left in U>S and you all know what would happen if your heart held too many bad cells.
Forget about trying to fool God cause He knows the difference and that’s why the good usually go first? Until God comes and in case of an emergency “IT” should be Women and Children First if you know what I mean?
Guys and gals, I’m taking a big chance here of being called a crazy fool but worst of all I might get in trouble with the alien acting gods who mean business and have been operating in a spiritual obtuse angle until the time is right if you know what I mean?
Look HW and friends! Honestly I’m not trying to push Religion here, only Jesus The Christ cause again He just saved my heart,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Literally…………..Sorry Victor!
You’ve said too much already and if you keep that UP we won’t have any body cells left worth saving that won’t have a Jesus cell in them and that would corrupt all our meat if you know what I mean?
We godly cells think that we have a few solid prospect here who are friends of well, let’s just say that they see eye to eye with our eternal ways if you know what we mean?
WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM U.S. ANYWAY Victor? Did we not show your Jesus and His so called friends over two thousand years ago what would happen to humans who stuck their noses in our business so give “IT” UP if you know what’s good and/or bad for you?
Let me think about “IT” and when I’ve made UP my mind I’ll contact you through one of your History Writers of course who has not at least “ONE” Jesus cell in them cause I, Me and Myself would not want to corrupt any of your followers. Right Satan?
RIGHT ON Bro! :)
Peace
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 8:12 pm
Victor: Crazy, perhaps. Fool. NO.
May 15th, 2011 | 2:07 am
[...] register …'Terminally ill' man who wanted euthanasia recoversExmouth JournalRecovered Near Euthanasia Victim Refuses to Learn Lesson of Mercy Killing DangersFirst Things (blog)all 6 news [...]
May 15th, 2011 | 5:49 am
[...] ASHES AREExpress.co.uk'Terminally ill' man who wanted euthanasia recoversExmouth JournalFirst Things (blog)all 9 news [...]
May 15th, 2011 | 7:16 am
[...] – I DON'T CARE WHERE DIGNITAS PATIENTS' ASHES AREExpress.co.ukExmouth Journal -First Things (blog)all 11 news [...]
May 15th, 2011 | 4:53 pm
If it were legalized, we could at least have some regulations and ethical guidelines. This goes on all the time now. There are many sympathetic doctors now and it’s very easy with a wink and a nod to accumulate enough sleeping or pain pills to choose one’s own exit. If I ever get a progressive and terminal condition, I will begin doing just that if no legal options are available. No Christian is going to dictate how I live or die.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 5:20 pm
Guidelines don’t limit or protect. They just give the illusion of control. It isn’t about “Christians,” but what is best public policy.
Dblade Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 12:55 am
@kenneth, I have to agree with wes. We legalized alcohol, but that’s done nothing to wipe out underage drinking or drunk driving. It’s just the legal use neutered serious organized crime.
There is no real organized crime or harmful aspect to it being illegal that would make up for the increased use and the abuse of the guidelines that would happen.
As for christians, I’d trust them over some atheist who thinks we have too many people in the world anyways, and thinks natural selection could use a helping hand.
HistoryWriter Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 10:06 am
@Dblade,
You raise an interesting point, namely that atheists probably see the problem more clearly than so-called Christians.
Assisted suicide doesn’t “give a helping hand” to natural selection; assisted suicide *is* natural selection insofar as it removes those with suicidal inclinations from the gene pool by their own actions. Ever heard of the Darwin Awards?
HW
May 19th, 2011 | 1:16 pm
“Assisted suicide doesn’t “give a helping hand” to natural selection; assisted suicide *is* natural selection insofar as it removes those with suicidal inclinations from the gene pool by their own actions. ”
Gene pool? Do you mean that if suicidal people died a natural death, they’d procreate in the meantime?
And I thought that suicide was a perfectly understandable, rational response to a situation that *should not be questioned* if it is someone else’s decision. Now you’re saying the gene pool is better off without people with such perfectly normal, perfectly rational, unassailable desires?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact