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…
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…
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.)
Dr J’s interview on Issues, Etc. this week deals with Gallup’s annual Values and Beliefs survey. According to their findings, Americans are most likely to disagree over four issues: physician-assisted suicide, gay/lesbian relations, abortion, and out-of-wedlock childbearing. (The others on the list we’re more and more likely to agree on, culminating in condemnation of adultery.)
All of the findings are interesting, and some are surprising. For example–many of us apparently think physician-assisted suicide is okay but suicide (without a physician) isn’t. If I’m interpreting this correctly, that means that there’s a section of the populace who wouldn’t condone self-suicide but would be fine with a physician ending lives. Did they assume the question included them, or were they applying it only to others? Is this some sort of attempt at checks and balances? It comes across as muddled thinking.
Also, when the respondents were grouped by gender, men tended to be more accepting [of these hot-button issues] than women. However, there was one category where men were less accepting than women: out-of-wedlock childbearing. More women viewed this as “morally acceptable” (55%) than did men (52%).
The interview is now up on our podcast page (and iTunes) for your listening pleasure.
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…
Charlie Butts – OneNewsNow -
Switzerland has earned a reputation for suicide tourism.
Although assisted suicide is technically illegal in the country, it is tolerated if the person assisting is not doing so for personal profit. But the reputation has prompted the Swiss to crack down, according to media reports. Rita Marker, head of the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide (ITF), reports that this “crack down” is not as serious as the public may think. Read more…
Margaret Somerville, Mercatornet.com
Legalising euthanasia will have incalculable consequences for healthcare professionals.
Last week, the Quebec College of Physicians and Surgeons tentatively approved euthanasia. That means it’s essential that we look, specifically, at the impact that euthanasia would have on physicians and the profession of medicine, in order to understand why this approval is a very bad idea. Read more…
Barbara Kay, National Post
They don’t call it the scary-sounding “Hemlock Society” any more. The new name is “Compassion and Choices.” Under this cuddly rubric, bespoke death is now endorsed by respected society matrons and politicians as euthanasia’s version of Planned Parenthood. The once-reviled euthanasia obsessional — and criminal — Dr. Kevorkian, is raking in $50,000 a pop on the lecture circuit. The cultural wind is in euthanasia’s sails and the most unlikely people are heeding its siren call. Read more…
Michael Cook, BioEdge
“Amicably separated” parents in Britain are at loggerheads over whether to let their disabled 13-month-old son die. RB, as the boy is called to protect the family’s privacy, has congenital myasthenia syndrome, a rare neuromuscular condition that prevents him from breathing on his own and severely restricts his power to move his limbs. The British health service has applied to the High Court in London to allow life-saving care to be withdrawn.
His doctor, who cannot be named, has described the child as at the “most severe end” of physical disability. He lacks the ability to cough or swallow and must be moved every two hours to prevent pressure sores. The mother believes that her child will be better off dead. But the father contends that he should have a tracheotomy so that he can be cared for at home. Unlike many children with severe developmental disorders, RB may have normal intelligence. The father contends that he can see, hear, feel, and recognise his parents and deserves to live. Read more…
Michael Cook, BioEdge
Swiss suicide clinics are facing a crackdown. Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf says either the clinics will have to accept much tougher regulations or they will be closed down. A bill will come before parliament in March. Read more…
Loading ...
