Well, that didn’t take long. The Olympian has editorialized in favor of the assisted suicide law to allow “euthanasia” beyond assisted suicide for the terminally ill. From a column by a member of the Olympian Board of Contributors:
To improve the chances of passage, the Death with Dignity Act was written to apply only to the choices of the terminally ill who are competent at the time of their death. This raises the question whether, if the act continues to work as intended, we should extend the choice of voluntary euthanasia to:
• Persons who are not terminally ill but suffering a severely debilitating medical condition they judge to be unbearable.
• Persons who are not competent at the time of their death but who previously made a competent choice of euthanasia as evidenced through a special type of advance directive.
Some will reject any extension of euthanasia on the grounds that all human life is precious and should in all circumstances be preserved. Yet our society places a great value on individual liberty. Those opposed to euthanasia are free to choose to endure great suffering at their life’s end. But why should they be entitled to force others to do so?
Then why prevent anyone with other than a transitory desire to commit suicide from being euthanized?
Slippery slope? No, facts on the ground! This is precisely what opponents predicted would happen once killing was accepted as an acceptable answer to human suffering. It can’t help but happen. Human beings are logical, we go where the trail takes us. And by the way, the Canadian commission I mentioned earlier today, also wants euthanasia available for the non terminally ill.
This movement is not, and has never been about the terminally ill for whom nothing else can be done about suffering. It is long past the time pretending that it is.
November 16th, 2011 | 7:01 pm
Wesley, I did hear someone on our Canadian news say that if The Canadian Federal Government did not want to co-operate and let Canadians take their lives when they wanted to then the provinces should go at “IT” alone!
I hear ya! Hey Victor maybe you won’t need to take your twelve string guitar out just yet and start singing “The euthanasia blues”
Who knows, maybe our Canadian Federal Government is on our side after all?
Keep UP the good work and words.
Peace
November 16th, 2011 | 7:47 pm
I notice the editorial also supports “voluntary” euthanasia for the mentally incompetent, if they said ahead of time to kill them. A very special kind of advance directive, indeed.
Kathleen Lundquist Reply:
November 16th, 2011 at 8:38 pm
@Lydia,
Yes – Actually, adding the phrase “…suffering a severely debilitating medical condition they judge to be unbearable” to the law would open the euthanasia door wide to anyone with an organic, physiological (i.e. chemical-imbalance-based) mental illness including bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and clinical depression. It would provide the foundation to eliminate the science of psychiatry as we know it.
There are plenty of mentally ill folks out there who I’m sure judge their suffering as unbearable – as well as some who don’t. This would consign them all alike to the human trash heap.
November 16th, 2011 | 8:30 pm
I commented on the Olympian site, answering the author’s question:
“Opponents also argue that even a carefully safeguarded expansion of voluntary euthanasia will erode the value that society places on human life and thereby open the door to involuntary euthanasia. But where is the proof for this claim?”
Answer #1: Belgium.
Answer #2: The Netherlands.
(… as you’ve already ably documented this in past posts.)
November 16th, 2011 | 9:22 pm
Wesley – If you really want to campaign for something that would reduce suffering and minimize the need/desire for folks to sign “assisted suicide” and “OK-to-waste-me” directives, how about some legislation to make it easier to get painkillers prescribed without having to be treated like a fkg drug addict when requesting such prescriptions for “multiple geriatric myalgia” (aches and pains of old age)… Would involve some voluntary screening, like for a CPL, to ascertain that one is a certified good guy not apt to abuse the privilege.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
November 16th, 2011 at 9:32 pm
I have so supported. And do.
November 16th, 2011 | 9:59 pm
The vast majority of those of commit suicide, were suffering from some type of mental illness at the time of their deaths. This information should should cause us to seriously reflect on whther it’s even possible, for soneone to be “competent”, and decide to kill him or herself. The choice to end one’s life is an inherently irrational act. Anyone who wishes to kill herself should be stopped from doing so, and given proper treatment.
November 16th, 2011 | 10:38 pm
If these people really want to die, why don’t they just do it themselves instead of involving the medical profession and the courts?
And if you don’t kill yourself, someone else kills you, how can it be called suicide?
It will be a sad day indeed when our doctors intentionally kill more people than the violent criminals we lock up for it.
And as someone who has witnessed a few botched animal euthanasia’s, to think of a human suffering that way, wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy.
November 17th, 2011 | 12:20 am
[...] Advocacy Begins to Expand WA Assisted Suicide LawFirst Things (blog)To improve the chances of passage, the Death with Dignity Act was written to apply only to the choices of the terminally ill who are competent at the time of their death. This raises the question whether, if the act continues to work as intended, …and more » [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact