2009-04-05

Assisted Suicide And Euthanasia: Preserving The Sanctity Of Life Part 2

Everyone was singing, girl is washed up On Redondo beach and everyone is so sad. I was looking for you, are you gone gone ? Pretty little girl, everyone cried. She was the victim of sweet suicide. I went looking for you, are you gone gone ?
Patti Smith, Redondo Beach, 1975.

"I instantly realized that everything in my life that I’d thought was unfixable was totally fixable — except for having just jumped." Ken Baldwin who survived jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge.

***

Hugh Anderson's article titled, "The death for euthanasia could be death for us all"in the Montreal Gazette, contained a couple of paragraphs that left me queasy:

"Imagine carrying around with you at all times a sort of get-out-of-hospital-alive card, sometimes called a sanctuary card. Its message: I do not want to be killed even though my quality of life seems to you to be unbearable.

Hard to imagine? In Holland and Belgium right now such cards are in demand."

"...The strange thing is that we do have an ominous real-life or real-death demonstration of what this kind of thing can lead to. Holland legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide three decades ago, first in practice and later by law. Advocates said it would be limited to competent adults who are terminally ill and ask to be killed. Then it was extended to competent adults with incurable illnesses or disabilities, although not terminally ill. Then it was extended to competent adults who were depressed but otherwise not physically ill. Then it was extended to incompetent adult patients like Alzheimer's sufferers, on the basis that they would have asked for death if they were competent.

And now it is legal for doctors in Holland to kill infants, if parents agree, if they believe their patients' suffering is intolerable or incurable. This is a long way from the soothing image of an elderly person choosing with full understanding to die with dignity, assisted by compassionate relatives and friends."

This part reminds me of Peter Singer and his chilling version of bio-ethics. There isn't a whole lot distinguishing eugenics (even Nazi social engineering) from what Singer posits. For an interesting read, see Margaret Sommerville/Peter Singer debate here.

For his part, philosopher and psychiatrist Thomas Szasz argues suicide is the most basic right of all. If freedom is self-ownership, ownership over one's own life and body, then the right to end that life is the most basic of all. But he does not believe physicians have a place in preventing or assisting in suicide. In fact, he applies a scathing attack on "euthanasia as practiced in the Netherlands as nothing more than physician assisted murder of the Holocaust."

Personally, I agree. It's also state-sanctioned murder.

We speak of "safeguards" but who really believes safeguards to be effective with such an issue? The safeguards are meaningless when the process gets infected with political and money concerns.

Which brings me to a letter to the editor I read:

"Being of sound mind and body, I do hereby declare my steadfast commitment and irrevocable desire to cling to life with every available means - medical technological or miraculous - even if everyone else around me disagrees.

I insist not only on being hooked up to any and all life-sustaining equipment, but demand that the equipment itself be hooked up to emergency generators in case the power fails.

For those around me who declare themselves unable to cope with my decision or my suffering, might I suggest that they consider euthanasia for themselves. After all it's their misery not mine. As for those in the medical profession who might feel that they would be doing me a service by ending my life with dignity, I say, just make sure the hydro bill is paid and leave my dignity to its rightful owner."

Alex Stavropoulos

I applaud this letter since it confronts the prevailing view which is presently taking root.

I indeed lament the lack of debate concerning the issue. We're using big words like "ethics" and "dignity" but do we really know what the imply in the context of euthanasia?

Here's the conclusion of one researcher:

"The definition of euthanasia remains narrow, with terms such as „unbearable suffering‟ continuing to be interpreted widely. There is not adequate protection for the disabled, elderly, children or anyone with reduced autonomy and little appreciation for the fact that people can come out of suffering. An alarming reality is that non-voluntary euthanasia has been justified as „necessary‟ or in some cases even good palliative care. Palliative care, whilst improved, is still not sufficiently provided. This is indicated partly by a cut in funding. Reporting, also improved, remains inadequate. Whilst there has been an improvement of compliance with guidelines it remains as John Keown wrote: „The reassuring picture of the euthanasia landscape portrayed by the Dutch is surreal."

Indeed, the most startling fact beginning to emerge is doctors in Belgium and Holland are beginning to kill people without consent.

Sommerville notes:

"...the desire of so many Oregon officials to keep from public scrutiny the facts about assisted suicide in Oregon, is particularly troublesome. … Particularly disturbing in Oregon — and most similar to the Netherlands — is that those administering the law and those sanctioned by government to analyze its operation have become its advocates and its defenders." "By 1995 there had been an increase in the number of deaths in which physicians gave pain medication with the explicit intention of ending the patient’s life from 1,350 cases [in 1990] to 1,896 (1.4 percent of all Dutch deaths). … As reported by the physicians in the 1995 study, in more than 80 percent of these cases (1,537 deaths), no request for death was made by the patient. Since these are cases of nonvoluntary, and involuntary (if the patient was competent), euthanasia, this is a striking increase in the numbers of lives terminated without request and a refutation of the investigators’ claim that there has been perhaps a slight decrease in the number of such cases." As a result of such information becoming available, a new group of people who oppose euthanasia is emerging. The traditional opponents are those who believe it is inherently wrong to kill another human being. The more recent opponents — some of whom have favoured legalization in the past13 — are coming to believe that abuses cannot be prevented and that the most vulnerable people in our societies — especially disabled and aged people — would be placed at the greatest risk of being victims of the abuse of legalized euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide."

***

It must be made clear, there's a distinction with cases of extreme pain and terminal diseases with what is being discussed here. The point of this post is to convey the path it can lead us onto. It's as if we become more and more comfortable with death (if not indifference to life) as literally a means to an end.

It's not just the Dutch who have grappled with this; it's just that they've decided to cross the pond. In Italy, the Eluana case has certainly led to debate there. Man of Roma discusses it here. In the United States we had the Schiavo case and in Canada Richard Latimer. Man of Roma does a great job describing how ancient societies and Christian world viewed suicide. There are many philosophical views about suicide.

***

Certainly, something is happening in society regarding assisted suicide. It's not enough to say "well people will continue to kill themselves by barbaric means so why not get a doctor to do it?" This logic is replete with so many holes and short sightedness it demands further investigation.

I will ask a question that may not seem to correlate to the discussion here but I think it does in some way:

Are we a post-nihilist society?

Are the lines between science, logic, compassion, indifference and murder now blurred?

23 comments:

  1. Paul Costopoulos4/05/2009

    It's very easy to go overboard in this instance. We need strong values and safeguards to prevent a free for all. The pendulum law, here, could apply full swing if we are not extremely vigilant.

    ReplyDelete
  2. And you've pinpointed exactly what I'm skeptical of. It doesn't look like, Holland for example, is "extremely vigilant."

    ReplyDelete
  3. Paul Costopoulos4/06/2009

    Holland is a very libertarian society where everything and anything goes unbridled. A reaction (extreme?) to their strict Puritan past.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Can’t we have a middle way between people going to hospital scared to get killed and showing their "get-out-of-hospital-alive card" (no idea if this happens in Holland, but it can be), and people tortured by pain for decades and not being allowed to die for any reason?

    In medio stat virtus.

    Frankly, here in Italy people are not much free in many moral choices. I don't think this is right and I don't like subtle, creeping theocracies.

    ReplyDelete
  5. PS

    I mean 'creeping' in the sense of a stealthily and non overt thing.

    ReplyDelete
  6. PPS

    I don't like extremes, but why, en principe, a society where different moral codes exist, should be considered nihilist (or post-nihilist)?

    In any case, strong values are a good thing. Don't mind this old skeptic.

    Non ti curar di me
    Ma guarda e passa.

    ReplyDelete
  7. MOR, either extremes seem excessive to me. Italy too little and Holland too much. At least, in my own ignorant perception.

    Paul, I don't know if hard core libertarians would consider the Dutch true libertarians insofar they rely on the state to dictate their "liberties."

    In this way, Holland is not unlike any country in the EU in terms of state regulation on social matters.

    Good interesting point about its puritan background.

    ReplyDelete
  8. MOR, I think we can strike a balance but when you see the limits of what conditions can qualify for assisted suicide loosen we should be concerned. The so-called ethical standards in a relativist framework is dicey.

    I don't think anyone would dispute or argue assisted suicide for severe, terminal cases - although the great liberal thinker Szasz doesn't believe physicians should interfere. Read the abstract I linked for more on his ideas.

    With this backdrop, I asked (perhaps speciously) if we're acting like "libertarian nihilists." Some call it the culture of death.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The so-called ethical standards in a relativist framework is dicey

    Comm, I don't understand what makes a framework non relativist: the insertion of catholic or Christian ethics in the constitution or in the main laws of a state?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I don't know if that was an appropriate statement to begin with but let's try and expand on that here.

    Moral relativism is a way of thinking now. There are just shades of grey with relativism. If we accept relativism is the norm then is it not a matter of time before legal frameworks are under duress to reflect this?

    The Christian (or any religion for that matter) philosophy has not been affected by relativism. It's the only institution that puts life first at all cost.

    So maybe there's your answer.

    Please I just came up with this now. I'm sure there are holes in it but this is why I blog. To expose ideas (however faulty they may be)and learn from the responses.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Commentator, I'm afraid this will be long, since I'm exploring while I'm writing.

    Let me tell you I like discussing with you or I wouldn't be here. And I am not more expert than you. I did teach ancient history and arts in high school but this is modern stuff.

    Surely religions are not relativist and they have many strong and good values. For example, in Italy the immigrants committing least crimes are the Polish and the Philippinos who are Catholic, while people from eastern Europe where religion was wiped out by communism behave in by far worse ways.

    If we accept relativism is the norm then is it not a matter of time before legal frameworks are under duress to reflect this?

    Yes, but the same can be said if we have a strong adherence to a set of beliefs, which some call fundamentalism (not to be considered necessarily pejorative.) The legal framework will reflect this as well. The Bush admin didn't allow by law stem cell research for example.

    So the point in my opinion is: can a ‘modern’ state adhere to a strong set of beliefs which exclude other beliefs?

    Of course some common deep values and principles must be in the constitution, together with rights and duties. But can we bypass freedom of thought, absence of religious involvement in government affairs, equal treatment of all religions and ideas (unless they violate the principles of the constitution)? This seems even more important (and ‘modern’) in a world where cultures and folks are mixing.

    Of course it can be scary, seeming to lead to a world with no clear values any more. But how can we escape that? Can democracy and 'modernity' not be based on pluralism, on separation of State and the Churches, on absence of religious involvement in government affairs? This I'm asking myself. I understand your points and fears, and have no solutions.

    Everyone is influenced by where he leaves. Here in Italy we have this problem of a lack of freedom due to the enormous influence of the Vatican, which is a foreign state by the way. In America, close to where you are, there was Bush and now you have Obama. Thence this perception of growing relativism, maybe.

    But in any case, discussion, moderation, honesty of mind, good will, cooperation should be the keys. And common sense: we all want to grow a good economy and families and we all want our kids to have a future etc. There’s enough common ground for mutual comprehension, collaboration in order to attain the goals we all want.

    Moral relativism is a way of thinking now.
    Is relativism growing today? From an American perspective, the Bush-Obama shift may let think so. Bush was maybe more on the fundamentalist side (no pejorative sense meant: he had clear beliefs), and now Obama more on the other side (free stem cells research, more freedom for gays etc.). But I really don’t know, since also fundamentalism seems to be growing. It is important to look at the whole picture, since America influences the world but the contrary is also true. For example Turkey was a secular state, now it isn’t any more. Intolerance seems to be mounting everywhere. Religious topics are hot today. Everybody seems to feel more and more this urge of imposing one’s deep values and mores on others. India is a good observation point. It is huge, it is a spiritual leader, and there are dozens of beliefs clashing there. Not to mention Islam. The Vatican is reacting with all the influence it can exert. Yes, maybe one of the big topics today is this relativism-non relativism thing.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Paul Costopoulos4/07/2009

    I'm not a philosopher but, to me, it looks like what we are discussing here under the name relativism is tolerance of other's ways of thinking and freedom of religion. I may not, for instance, approve of Hollanders stance on euthanasia...but I will defend their right to it as long as they do not impose it on me or try to compel my country to go the same way. Same for Sharia in Muslim countries, if they believe in it, so be it, but not in Longueueil or Laval or Montreal nor in Rome. We do not live that way.
    Should I ever move to Saudi Arabia, I'll live by their laws. Does that make me a relativist? It will not prevent me from keeping my values and beliefs but I will not ask that they change their worshiping days because theorotically mine is on Sundays.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yes, Paul, you succeeded in saying in a few lines what I could not in 1000. Tolerance of other views.

    ReplyDelete
  14. MOR, don't fall into the trap of tracing back social and philosophical trends with Presidents. Obama and Bush are very much besides the point.

    Relativism is a process that's been taking place well before these leaders. But liberal leaders tend to accept relativism more than conservative ones - which explains, in part, why conservatives look so alien. Mostly to the young populace.

    The worst kind of relativism reduces morality to the personal level. It allows everyone in a society to state their own "persona" morality without thought to its neighbor. This is a form of anarchy without purpose. There's no sense of community through this. This is not liberty of the good kind.

    Well, MOR - about the modern state believing one set of beliefs at the expense of another. If creationism becomes the sole discussion in the theory of the universe then it's a problem and the state will pay the ultimate price for its ignorance and adherence to dogma.

    But this doesn't mean a state can't take a stand on issues at the expense of others. There are always competing values and beliefs with each new government and leader. If we don't like what we see we can "boot the bastards out" so to speak. Then again, ironically speaking, we seem more detached from the political process than ever. I wonder if the internet can help to bridge this.

    Be careful with Obama. His world view is far less concrete than Bush's but it doesn't mean he possesses greater intelligence or morality. It can mean he's just pandering to his constituents or voters. Bush, as far as I know, never stood in the way of gay rights, he just stood against gay marriage - something Obama is in agreement with.

    Paul, if you're not a philosopher what does that make me!

    Our definition of relativism is different. But Sharia Law is a good example. Relativism would allow for Sharia Law to enter a secular, Christian culture like Canada because we no longer believe in "Christian" values. A relativist will say, "well, it can't be worse than Christianity. So why not?" It's happening already in the West: Ontario is/was considering it and the UK allows it.

    This is not tolerance. It's stupidity.

    ReplyDelete
  15. My condolences regarding L'Aquila, MOR.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Thank you Comm. L'Aquila people are tough montanari. I hope it’ll help them react.

    I think PC is right. We don't need relativism in this discussion. Tolerance is enough, something every modern society should possess.

    To a certain extent.

    Sharia should in fact not be accetped, since Sharia is pre-enlightment, pre-American and pre-French revolution, if I recall well. The West has processed and painfully agreed upon some common values that are mirrored in modern constitutions: Sharia is against them and basic human rights. Also in Virginia and in Boston in 1600 women where whipped if they behaved badly. But then things evolved.

    As far as relativism, if you like this concept, I confess I don't believe in universal truths valid eternally, hence I am a relativist. I like the said values of the West that came out of the wars of religions and later: laicité etc.

    The problem now is that the West is not the only real actor any more.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I agree with your description in the evolution of Western thought. Islam never had its "Englightenment."

    But surely, some universal truths exist? We see it in our music, films and literature. From Homer to Beethoven to Dickens - we see all sorts of universal themes about love, hate, war, virtue, vices, heroism etc.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Who knows, something could be ingrained in our genes ...

    ReplyDelete
  19. I do hope my scepticism will not disturb you or influence you in any way. I am only a cafe thinker. I envy those who have clear beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hello, my name is alex stavropoulos and I am the author of the letter" Don't kill me no matter what" referenced in your blog.

    Recently the Bloc Quebecois MP Francine Lalonde tabled a bill for discussion which would allow for euthanasia if an MD thinks this necessary.

    How ironic that we as a nation have deemed the death penalty to be an inhumane solution when it comes to sentencing some of the most monsterous criminals in our society, but yet we are now preparing to debate this as a viable solution for everyone else.
    A couple of weeks ago in the U.S., a young mother and her adolescent son went on the run because they did not want any treatment for the boy's potentially fatal cancer. The hospital initiated legal proceedings to force the child to treatment and a manhunt ensued.
    Listening to this in the context of the ongoing debate to "die with dignity and the right to choose" it occurred to me that it seemed almost as if one must always agree with the Dr.'s diagnosis. That if one disagreed and decided something contrary to the Dr's opinion about their own health, then that is when the trouble starts.
    In short, if you want to die and your MD disagrees then the law will take his side. On the other hand, if you want to live and your Dr. does not concur, then in accordance to this new bill proposed by Mme. Lalonde, you have to die.
    In essence, we are saying, that we must not kill the worst among us, just the neediest. Apparently there is no room for a faint hope clause when it comes to the elderly or the depressed.No possibility of rehabilitation, when it comes to the suffering and the handicapped,nor for those who cannot speak for themselves. According toMme. Lalonde and others, they all deserve Capital Punishment.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Thanks Alex.

    Absolutely 100% concur.

    That's because the state prevails over individual rights. There's no other way to describe it.

    Mme. Lalonde is blinded because she thinks Northern European nations have it "right" when it comes to this when in actuality, they probably don't.

    What else is new here? It's one bad idea after another.

    Progress my ass.

    Hope you continue to kick around here.

    ReplyDelete
  22. My name is Alex Syavropoulos and I am the author of the piece that you have referenced in your blog. Thank you for doing so.

    I find it very ironic that we as a nation have deemed the death penalty as an inhumane solution for some of the worst and most monsterous criminals in our society, and yet we are now preparing to debate it as a viable solution for everyone else. Of course I am referring to the bill proposed by Mme. Francine Lacroix Bloc Quebecois M.P., that will be up for debate.
    We will no longer be allowed to contradict our Doctor's diagnosis or prescribed treatment. To do so may entail legal proceedings, and if you try to run away the law will get involved. Think I'm exagerating? Look at the case in the U.S. with the young mother who took her adolescent son(suffering from cancer) and ran because they did not want the treatment. If it was an elderly person or someone who was also severely handicapped, would they take the same measures to ensure their treatment?

    And who really decides who lives or dies?

    So if your M.D. decides that you should be treated despite your own wishes you will be forced to treatment. By the same token, if you are unable to express your opinion, or you are sufferring and elderly, euthanasia can be prescribed. Whether one wants to or not...if they are too depressed or beyond the Dr's abilities, euthanasia becomes an option....only it's not your option.

    In essence, the message here is that we shall not kill the most murderous among us, just the neediest. Any sort of quality palliative care seems to be out of the question when it comes to the suffering and the ill, according to Mme. Lacroix they deserve capital punishment.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Requisite Ink Toners premium remanufactured ink cartridges deliver high print quality comparable to OEM Canon ink cartridges at unbelievable low cost. Our remanufactured Canon PG-245XL and CL- 246XL cartridges are manufactured under rigorous quality test methods compliant with the USA STMC certification.

    ReplyDelete

Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.