6 posts tagged “ethics”
"No person who is suffering is a problem to be solved. They're a person to be loved." -Rev Paul R. Smith
I-1000 is a proposed initiative to legalize physician assisted suicide in the state of Washington.
Assisted suicide. It would be hard to argue with the fact that anyone receiving the news that s/he had a terminal illness would be depressed. One cannot deny that depression would play a major role in one's choice to commit suicide. When doctors begin setting a precedent of assisted depressed people in committing suicide, can you imagine the consequences for depressed people everywhere?
Looking at assisted suicide, we can see how such a legalized action would create a feeling of a duty to die for those with illnesses, as well as the feeling by the rest of us that those with terminal illnesses have a duty to die. In Oregon's first years with legalized physician assisted suicide, a large number of people who committed suicide did so out of fear of becoming a burden to their family. With limited financial resources, or at least claims of limited financial resources, the rest of us might indeed feel that those who were 'dying anyway' had a duty to die, especially if the person is old or poor or has a severe cognitive disability. The kind of people who have 'used their share' of public or private health care, the kind of people we deem to have a 'low quality of life', after all.
Another factor in a person choosing suicide is a fear of disability. In the first two years of Oregon's assisted suicide law, those who committed suicide did so out of fear of being unable to pursue enjoyable life activities, fear of needing personal assistance with daily living, and worries about being a burden on their families. Disability Rights activist Paul Longmore spoke about this aspect of Oregon's experience:
Fear of disability typically underlies assisted suicide... The advocates play on that horror of "dependency." ...If needing help is undignified and death is better than dependency, there is no reason to deny assisted suicide to people who will have to put up with it for six or sixteen years, rather than just six months. Not that we favor assisted suicide if it is limited to terminally ill people. We simply want to ask, has this country gotten to the point that we will abet suicide because people can't wipe their own behinds?
Lastly, physician assisted suicide will lead to euthanasia. After all, what about those with disabilities who can't take their lethal prescription on their own? Isn't that discrimination? They'll need someone to feed the pills to them. Once we become accustomed to the idea of physicians practicing death, we will begin to tolerate more extreme versions, more extreme that a doctor 'simply' assisting a person who is dying, more than a physician who is providing a 'good death' to people who can't do it themselves. How far could this go?
From the Coalation Against Assisted Suicide's website:
"Pressure for improved palliative care appears to have evaporated [in the Netherlands]," according to Herbert Hendin, M.D. Dr. Hendin is a Director of Suicide Prevention International and was formerly the Medical Director of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention.
"Over the past two decades," Hendin continued, "the Netherlands has moved from assisted suicide to euthanasia, from euthanasia for the terminally ill to euthanasia for the chronically ill, from euthanasia for physical illness to euthanasia for psychological distress and from voluntary euthanasia to nonvoluntary and involuntary euthanasia.
"Once the Dutch accepted assisted suicide it was not possible legally or morally to deny more active medical (assistance to die), i.e. euthanasia, to those who could not effect their own deaths. Nor could they deny assisted suicide or euthanasia to the chronically ill who have longer to suffer than the terminally ill or to those who have psychological pain not associated with physical disease. To do so would be a form of discrimination.
Involuntary euthanasia has been justified as necessitated by the need to make decisions for patients not [medically] competent to choose for themselves."
Doctors can help people in severe pain due to a terminal illness with palliative care. The rest of can meet the need of someone alone with the fear of being abandoned in their illness, in their fear of being a 'burden'. Though we don't do it well, right now. How else could something like physician assisted suicide gain so much popularity?
There are other options besides sanctioning the suicide of people dying.
For more information, visit the Coalition Against Assisted Suicide at www.noassistedsuicide.com .
Update of Janet Rivera
From the Fresno Bee:
Rivera cousin granted temporary conservatorship
The cousin of Janet Rivera, a comatose Sanger woman, was granted temporary conservatorship of Rivera this morning, which means she will be kept on life support for now.
see full article
Related post, A Waste of Life?
Just in case you don't have enough blogs and websites to keep up with, I've been reading a very informative blog lately called Secondhand Smoke. It's authored by Wesley J. Smith, "a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, an attorney for the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, and a special consultant for the Center for Bioethics and Culture." (From the site.)
His blog consists of his view point regarding bioethics, etc. If you go to his site, you'll need your eyedrops, as his blog is quite the eye opener... so, your eyes will get dry after awhile from being open so long while reading... okay, sorry.
Incidentally, he's also the speaker from the lecture I wrote about a few days ago regarding the absolute value of human life. I found a short five minute clip of that lecture, btw.
There is so much talk out there in the world about suffering. There is so much talk out there about 'those people' who are *suffering. There is so much talk out there about how to help 'those people' who are suffering by ending their suffering. There is so much talk out there about ending 'those people' who are suffering.
The logic these days (these last days?), in this distorted world, is ending a person's suffering is worth ending the person.
I am wondering if we jump on the euthanasia, doctor assisted suicide bandwagon because we don't really know 'those people'? They aren't in our lives. I didn't know Mrs. Schaivo.
What if I did? What if she weren't just the woman I read about online or whose story I watched on the evening news? What if she weren't the woman whose disability was described differently in each article or story, as if reporters or bloggers couldn't exactly explain what was 'wrong' with her?
What if she had been someone in my life, say a friend or a family member or a woman I cared for as a caregiver? Would I be so easily tempted to talk about her in the abstract and form opinions about her based on different articles all written from different points of view?
If I had a relationship with Mrs. Schiavo, would it make it easier to recognize her life's worth, her dignity, and her personhood and do my very best to see that she has the best care and support and found a way to see that her bridge to Mrs. Schiavo and community stayed strong? Or in my pain of believing someone I love was suffering, would I accept the distorted philosophy of euthanasia?
What if I had a relationship with Mrs. Schiavo's family? Would I, in my fear of Mrs. Schiavo's disabilities, encourage her hurting family in the route of euthanasia? Or would I offer real, practical support, by way of sharing in the care of Mrs. Schiavo and of the family?
What if relationship with people with serious and profound disabilities and their families took those with disabilities out of the abstract in debate about human life and made them real people to us? Would we see ending their 'suffering' worth ending their lives? Or would we find a way to relate to them in their suffering, and instead of trying to end it their suffering at any means, would we recognize suffering as a shared human experience?
*Side, but important note, many with disabilities do not see themselves as actually 'suffering' in the way that suffering is used in the media and politics. They see their lives as normal, albeit with some hard things in their lives, but they resent that the rest of us see them as 'suffering'.
What would the world be like without Down syndrome? I don't know. What would the world like without the people who have Down syndrome living in it? How have they contributed to society? I can't say.
I can say how my life personally has been affected by people with Downs. Most of the people I know personally who have had Down syndrome and I have made friends. As with all friendships, some of these friendships came easily and others took a lot of work. Either way, through our friendships, I learned things like how to trust people who said they loved me, and I learned that's it's really okay to laugh and be silly sometimes. Something I really needed to learn.
I wonder why it matters. I wonder why it matters what life would be like without Down syndrome and what life would be like without people who have Down syndrome. I wonder why it matters what people with Down syndrome have contributed to society?
No one has ever looked at me, save perhaps my father in moments of frustration and myself in moments of despair, and pondered the question, "What does Julie contribute?" "What good does her 'kind' do?"
Yet, such questions come up when making a case for life. When deciding to terminate a pregnancy when tests show the child will have developmental disabilities or when deciding, as it is becoming legal here in the west, to euthanize an infant with a severe disability or illness. Those of us defending us these children and their right to life are quick to give our western answers which base their right to existence on what they can contribute to society. What they can 'do' and 'give'. These are action verbs, if I remember my 4th grade grammar.
Instead, though, I wonder if our arguments for the right to exist shouldn't be based on being verbs. If we shouldn't understand for ourselves first, before we 'preach' to others, that our right to exist, all of ours, is based on who we are. Or even that we are.
Peter Singer and other such 'ethicists', seem to be bypassing the argument of what one can contribute to society, anyway. They are attacking directly one's personhood. They are defining personhood based on whether or not one is aware of his existence and mortality.
So, they declare that infants, all infants, healthy or not, people with severe or profound cognitive disabilities, those in the advanced stages of Alzheimer's, etc., though perhaps human, aren't really a person. Therefore, if the human is not really a person, euthanasia is very much ethical.
Also, for parents and doctors who really care about children born or who will be born with severe disabilities or illness, they are not so much concerned with what the child can contribute but with the child's potential suffering. They have feelings of hopelessness, helplessness, despair, fear of the unknown, and guilt. In their grief over their child's potential suffering, parents can be swayed by the thought that the child will be better off if they let him/her die by the hand of their trusted doctor.
How do we help those parents make a choice for life? I'm asking because I don't know. While we passionately know that the child has a right to exist, how do we lovingly convey to parents that their child is better off alive and suffering than dead and at peace?
Is the child better off suffering than dead? Who are we to decide that the child must suffer? Yet, who are we to decide that death at the hands of doctors is the answer to suffering?
I think we should put down our protest signs, step out of the marching lines, with all due respect to the pro-life activists who have done much for the cause of life, and find a way to come along side suffering parents. Help them find hope because there is hope in the midst of suffering. Help them by enjoying and appreciating their child for who he/she is.
I think we should come along side those with disabilities and illness. It is through relationship with them that we will come to understand that most of their suffering does not come from their disability or illness. But rather their reception from the rest of society of prejudice, rejection, untold amounts of abuses, and the suspicion and judgment by some of us of their very existence.
