by Paul Russell
Straight from the “just when you thought it couldn’t possibly get any worse” files come reports that the Dutch Health Minister admitted in their parliament recently that her department is “considering” setting up mobile euthanasia death squads. Read more…
by Barbara Kay
An anti-euthanasia protest in France in January. Photo: REUTERS/Jacky Naegele Read more…
Disturbing on so many levels….
by Michael Cook
There seems to be no end to the creative energy of the right-to-die movement in the Netherlands. The latest innovation is a proposal for a euthanasia flying squad. The lobby group Right To Die wants mobile vans to buzz around the streets so that patients can die at home, not in hospital. Read more…
All attempts to legalise voluntary euthanasia protect doctors from prosecution and endanger the lives of their patients.
The criminal law in Australia holds that the intentional taking of human life is a major criminal offence. This accords with the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Australia is a signatory, which declares that the right to the integrity of every person’s life is equal, inherent, inviolable, inalienable and should be protected by law. Read more…
We have been habituated to think that the most pressing issues of life and death are really just issues of choice. “Abortion is a woman’s choice.” A choice to do what? is the question never quite answered. People should have the “right to choose” to use contraception, even if they are young and unmarried, as if there is ever a situation in which sexual intercourse is age-appropriate for a 14 year old.
I have long maintained that the issue isn’t about “choice” and never has been. The issue is creating a new moral universe, with ethical norms and social expectations that could not be defended on their own. So the issue of “choice” is thrown in as a smoke screen to cover up what is actually being done and advocated.
Now, comes Wesley J. Smith, with an example I would never have thought of, from his area of expertise, euthanasia. The “right to die,” means a person’s ”choice” to die is just as ethically valid as the choice to live under difficult circumstances. He quotes this report from the Netherlands:
A priest in the parish of Liempde in North Brabant refused to conduct the funeral of a man who had chosen euthanasia, news agency ANP reports. Norbert van der Sluis said he was following the advice of bishops that people who choose euthanasia have no right to a church funeral. ‘Nor will my conscience allow me to have a colleague conduct the funeral in my church,’ he told ANP. The church council is so concerned at the refusal it has stopped a campaign for the repair of the church organ and is demanding an apology from Van der Sluis.
Smith continues:
That will teach him to follow his faith. Let the organ stay off key!
Refusing a funeral wouldn’t be my preference, but it was the priest’s, and doesn’t his conscience deserve at least equal respect to that of the decedent’s to receive doctor-injected death? Here’s the bottom line: All of this talk of “choice” in the culture of death is just talk. It is really about enforced moral conformity. (my emphasis)
Exactly so. Unfortunately, in this case, it is the priest’s own community giving him a hard time.
The PR department of a hospital thought so, but patients are entitled to consider all sides of an issue such as euthanasia.
The ethics of communication – whether over-communication or under-communication – have been in the news over the last few months. WikiLeaks , the Murdoch press affair in Britain, and in Canada the public’s right to be informed of the details of the health status of the leader of the federal opposition, Jack Layton, have all made headlines. A recent incident caused me to look at the ethics that should govern communications in a very everyday context, that of hospital patients’ committees communications to patients. Here’s the story. Read more…
In case you had not noticed, Hungary has a whopper of a new constitution that is giving the European Union and other international organizations something to think (and gripe) about. Critics call the text’s reference to Christian heritage and its emphasis on strong families a dangerous blast from the past. A debate in the civil liberties committee of the European Parliament has been scheduled for next week and it promises to be quite acrimonious. Read more…
A new Gallup poll about moral issues in the US shows that Americans are most in agreement about marital infidelity and polygamy, with 91 per cent of people polled considering an extra-marital affair morally wrong and 86 per cent saying polygamy is immoral. Only two other issues come near a national consensus — 84 per cent condemning the cloning of humans and 80 per cent suicide.
The agreement about suicide seems strange in view of the result that shows people are almost evenly divided on the issue of doctor-assisted suicide — 48 per cent think it’s wrong and 45 per cent that it is morally acceptable. Read more…
Update on ‘Baby Joseph’
Joseph Maraachli, dubbed “Baby Joseph” by the media, is making a good recovery after receiving a tracheotomy at SSM Cardinal Glennon Children’s Hospital in St. Louis, Missouri. (from eCanadaNow) Read more…
And don’t make me lie about knowing you’re killing yourself, either.
Since euthanasia laws are in place in some of our states now, and that movement is spreading like a cancer, some basic reminders are in order. Like the ones in this column. Read more…
Some further info on this situation. The baby is aptly named since St. Joseph is the patron saint of the dying. He’ll be in good hands when the time comes. With the help of our prayers, too, of course.
The hospital involved in this sad story is representing itself as allowing the family’s wishes to take their child home to die there instead of in the stark atmosphere of the medical facility. And some news stories have reported that the parents are getting their wish, after all. Not exactly true… Read more…
I’m just curious to know how some of our commenters feel about this situation.
February 26, 2011–There’s an 18-month-old baby boy in Canada who is about to be put to death by the Canadian government. I’m writing to you today so that you can help Priests For Life save this baby’s life if possible.
Here’s the situation … The baby, who is known as Baby Joseph, is suffering from a critical condition that requires him to have a breathing tube in order to stay alive.
However, the Canadian government has decided that they don’t want to spend any more money on Baby Joseph to keep him alive. Read more…
How many of you are long-in-the-tooth enough to remember when pro-’choice’ folks ridiculed anyone who warned that legalizing abortion-on-demand would lead to things like euthanasia… and sex selective abortions… and aborting the handicapped… or euthanizing the handicapped?
Well this article, about “well-known Brazilian pro-abortion activist and anthropologist Debora Diniz” justifies all those fears, if you ask me.
Debora Diniz:
Subhumans are those whose lives are bound to ‘fail’—as Dworkin, a liberal American jurist who studies abortion, explains—or those for whom, to say the least, the concept of life is inadequate. Subhumans are extreme human otherness, those not expected by the miracle of procreation. Read more…
According to Gallup’s recent Values and Beliefs survey, Americans are “sharply divided” on 4 issues: doctor-assisted suicide, homosexual relations, abortion, and out-of-wedlock childbearing. Close to half of us perceive these activities in particular as “morally acceptable;” close to half disagree and find them “morally wrong.” (The survey asked about 16 behaviors; these were the most evenly divided among those polled.) Curious? Listen in. (Click the POD icon.)
It has been five years since the death of Terri Schiavo, and the misinformation still persists. The Orange County Register ran an article by Jane Glenn Haas, titled “Take a Moment to Decide about Death”, which used the occasion to remind people to discuss their end-of-life wishes with their families, and prepare appropriate legal documents to carry out those wishes.
So far, so good. Many of us put off making decisions about what medical treatments we want to have or avoid. A timely reminder is welcome.
But this is how Ms. Haas described the historical event that prompted her article: Read more…
The doctor mentioned in my previous post ought to have a long chat with this woman.
The moment I hear Elisabeth Shepherd’s voice on the phone I think she sounds like just the sort of person you would want looking after you if you were ill. Read more…
Killing oneself is becoming far too easy. Instead of letting them give up, can’t we help these people be happier and healthier? The suicide doctor mentioned in the article below, is far too glib when it comes to “euthanasia.” Glad people actually noticed. It’s disturbing.
Michael Cook
Euthanasia activists in Australia, the UK and the Netherlands have lost touch with reality.
Australian euthanasia activist Dr Philip Nitschke loves publicity. But whenever he opens his mouth, even the most progressive journalists avert their eyes in squeamish embarrassment. Read more…
I’m shocked, and saddened. I expected more from Montana.
Michael Cook, BioEdge.com
The state of Montana has become the third US jurisdiction to allow doctors to participate in assisted suicide. In a 4-3 decision, its Supreme Court held that state law protects doctors from prosecution for helping terminally ill patients die. Read more…
What happened to being happy to be alive? What’s with making it seem worthless and useless to be old? “Oh, I hear you’re 70 now. Here’s a special pill for you.” Good grief!
Michael Cook, BioEdge.org
Australian euthanasia activist Dr Philip Nitschke is a busy man in the frantic days before the holiday season begins. He caused outrage this week when he claimed at a seminar on how to kill oneself that elderly couples were buying each other suicide kits as Christmas presents. As he anticipated, his remarks sparked angry responses from Christian and pro-life groups. “A pill to kill yourself and your loved one as a Christmas present is absolutely reprehensible,” said Graham Preston, of the Queensland branch of Right to Life Australia.
Continue reading: http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/bioethics/bioethics_article/8787/
Margaret Somerville, Mercatornet.com
Both sides of the euthanasia debate claim to be advancing the cause of human dignity. Whom should we believe?
Euthanasia advocates argue respect for human dignity requires that euthanasia be legalized and opponents of euthanasia argue exactly the opposite, that respect for human dignity requires it remain prohibited. In short, the concept of human dignity and what is required to respect it is at the centre of the euthanasia debate, but there is no consensus on what we mean by human dignity, its proper use, or its basis. Read more…
Loading ...
