“On Euthanasia,” or “Another Reason Why I Think Pro-lifers Are Whacked”

NPR junkie that I am, I was listening to All Things Considered as I was driving home from work yesterday. They were doing a report on assisted suicide in Switzerland. Apparently, although assisted suicide isn’t legal in Switzerland, it’s “widely tolerated.” The only organization (non-profit, of course) which is willing to help foreigners die is located there–damn, but I’ve forgotten its name–and many terminally ill Europeans who don’t have any alternative are going to Switzerland in order to die. There’s even a movement in Switzerland to officially legalize assisted suicide.

I find it heartening that there’s a place in the world that is sane and sensible on the matter of euthanasia. Did I mention that Jack Kevorkian is my hero?

But then there’s the aggravating counterpoint, which is the pro-life contingency that’s trying to shut them down.

Damn, I just don’t get the pro-life thing at all.

LIFE in and of itself doesn’t matter. It’s the quality of life which should be the yardstick upon which ethics are measured. And with that quality of life issue comes the fundamental right of being able to choose whether or not to keep on living, or pick up the tab, tip the waiter, and check out. Suicide being a crime (or a sin–not a word I have much truck with, being an Atheist and all) is one of the most ridiculous, ghastly, and appalling things I can conceive of.

So, I guess I’m starting off the morning feeling pissy and ranty. Well, better than sick and exhausted, I guess.

Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to “On Euthanasia,” or “Another Reason Why I Think Pro-lifers Are Whacked”

  1. silicates says:

    If you try to kill yourself here in the US, for whatever reason, they treat you like a criminal, locking you in a cell and convincing you that there is even less reason to live than you initially thought.

  2. mery_bast says:

    It’s a worthwhile thing to get pissy and ranty about though- “pro-life” makes no sense at all. It’s frustrating to think about these pro-life people pitching fits about the basic rights that other people are wanting to exercise over their own bodies. Ugh. Too early in the morning for me to start foaming at the mouth…

  3. kittymel says:

    You may be interested in looking into the following group if you are really interested in supporting this issue…

    Tha Hemlock Society
    P.O. Box 101810, Denver, CO 80250-1810
    1-800-247-7421
    hemlock society

    I am aware of other groups, but this one is probably the most prolific.

    • Eugie Foster says:

      Actually, I already know about the Hemlock Society. Matthew and I are big fans of them and their work. Once upon a time we were even members, but, err, we’ve let our membership lapse . . .

      Bad Fosters. No Biscuit.

      But thanks for the reminder. Renewing our support is one of those things we definitely need to do.

  4. I couldn’t agree more.

  5. mslilly says:

    Wink wink, nudge nudge

    Just for the record, I couldn’t disagree more on the life/quality of~ question. Fundamentally, I believe that Quality has to take a backseat to life because, basically, without the presence of life in the first place, you never get a crack at the quality of life. It doesn’t make sense to me. The implications are too costly. If quality matters more than life itself, should we euthanize the ghettos? Allow me to take that a step further. Or maybe a step back. I take stray cats. We have seven acres on which they can roam, so I keep moderately nutritious cat food on the porch, and now I have the cats “fixed” if I can catch them.

    A while back, we had 13 cats. They had 8 children present on the farm to love them. We even allowed Sheila, the matriarch, to reproduce. We let her give birth to 3 litters, then took them all in to get fixed. We took full responsibility for each and every life that come on to our property, whether they roamed there or were born there; we felt it was our ethical duty to honor the fact that they existed by giving them what we could. Some of the cats have lived long and healthy lives. Some of them died as kittens. But all of them had life.

    A woman here at work who apparently shares your view on the quality issue informed me that we were guilty of cruelty. I found that assertion absurd–in the literary sense–because all of our actions were geared toward alleviating suffering that was already there.

    I heard the same euthanasia segment on npr last night, and I can honestly say that I consider this a gray area. While I believe that patients should have the right to choose to give up, I would hate to see it become so accepted that (for example) people with psychoses chose to commit suicide rather than pursue medication. I believe their lives are inherently valuable, even if they have different challenges to overcome. I believe all our lives are inherently valuable.

    I also think it’s important that we “pro-lifers” live by our words. I believe abortion is dangerous and wrong, but I do not picket abortion clinics or hand out pamphlets or join the “lifelines” on the sides of roads. Instead I have offered to adopt any time I’ve spoken to a woman considering the act. So far none have taken me up on it, but I can know that I am not responsible for letting a woman do something that will hurt her emotionally and physically. I have friends who take in single women who are pregnant. They do this not out of charity but from a life-shaping belief that life is valuable enough to honor with everything you have. I tend to agree with them; I’ve seen too many people transformed through my friends’ sacrifice.

    • silicates says:

      Re: Wink wink, nudge nudge

      People with psychoses often choose to commit suicide, whether or not it’s accepted. Often they’re not helped in the least by medication, and choose that death is preferable to being so completely screwed up.

      Have you ever had a psychosis?

      • mslilly says:

        Re: Wink wink, nudge nudge

        No, I have not, and I would not deny another person his or her choice to commit suicide; however, my point was that suicide is far too serious a step about which to be trivial.

        • Eugie Foster says:

          Hang on there . . .

          I would not deny another person his or her choice to commit suicide

          Lilly, by your own statement here, this makes you pro-choice, not pro-life. Labels aside, you support a person’s right to choose life or death for themself. It’s a stated goal of the anti-assisted suicide camp (and they call themselves pro-life, it’s not me slapping on labels) to remove that right to choose.

          Pro right-to-die people aren’t pro-death, y’know. They’re pro-choice, pro-dignity, and pro-mercy.

          suicide is far too serious a step about which to be trivial.

          Thus far, I haven’t heard anyone here say anything which trivialized suicide.

          • mslilly says:

            Re: Hang on there . . .

            The pro-lifers are not out to hurt anyone, though. It’s not like they are anti-dignity.

            I decline the pro-choice label, regardless of whether it would stick. I also declined the pro-life one, though.

          • Eugie Foster says:

            Re: Hang on there . . .

            The pro-lifers are not out to hurt anyone, though. It’s not like they are anti-dignity.

            Actually, they are out to hurt people. Their stated goals hurt people. They hurt the pregnant woman who doesn’t want to bear the child in her uterus when they make it more difficult for her to get a safe, legal abortion. They hurt the terminally ill person who’s in mortal pain and wants nothing more than an end to their own suffering when they stop them from terminating their life.

            They’ve also killed doctors, Planned Parenthood receptionists, and other pro-choice supporters.

            And yes, being opposed to a person’s right-to-die does indeed make them anti-dignity. Right-to-die means being able to live with dignity and die with dignity.

            I also declined the pro-life one, though

            Did you? Was that recent? ‘Cause in your previous post, you said “I also think it’s important that we “pro-lifers” live by our words.” In any case, I applaud your disdain of labels. Labels, all too frequently, are just another way of baaing, convenient as they may be.

          • mslilly says:

            Re: Labels, schmabels

            I think you’re doing a little bit of generalizing and stereotyping here . . .

          • Eugie Foster says:

            Re: Labels, schmabels

            Generalizing and stereotyping, moi? Undoubtedly. But here? Where?

            It is indeed the self-styled “pro-life” contingency who engages in all of the abhorrent activities that I mentioned in my previous post. They call themselves “pro-life.” I’m more than happy to stick them with the much more accurate nom de action of “anti-choice.” Or “anti-human rights.” That’d be fitting too.

            But, if a woman wants to be addressed as “Mrs.” instead of “Ms.,” I call her “Mrs.” It’s only polite.

    • Eugie Foster says:

      Sheepless at night

      without the presence of life in the first place, you never get a crack at the quality of life.

      But is it right to take away someone else’s decision to forgo that crack? If a person decides that the potential of a prettier future isn’t worth slogging through their current misery for, isn’t it their decision to make? And what if they know there’s nothing to look forward to? That their next months will be nothing but a drugged stupor punctuated by terrible agony, ending in a painful death? Is it right to force them to “tough it out”?

      If quality matters more than life itself, should we euthanize the ghettos?

      Lilly, that’s not euthanasia, that’s murder. Taking away a person’s right to make decisions pertaining to their own life is what I’m against.

      A woman here at work who apparently shares your view on the quality issue informed me that we were guilty of cruelty.

      Well, you see, this woman doesn’t share my views on quality of life, because I don’t agree with her. You took care of your cats humanely and compassionately. Sounds like lovingly too.

      I would hate to see it become so accepted that (for example) people with psychoses chose to commit suicide rather than pursue medication. I believe their lives are inherently valuable, even if they have different challenges to overcome. I believe all our lives are inherently valuable.

      Which is laudable. But does that give you the right to force your belief on someone who disagrees with you? That is what’s at issue here. Is it right to force people who no longer view their lives as valuable, worthwhile, or desirable, to keep living them? Shouldn’t it come down to: my life, my decision?

      • mslilly says:

        Re: Sheepless at night

        You know, as I said in my original comment, I definitely see the euthanasia thing as a very gray area. I don’t think it’s as simple as murder/suicide or sin.

        I think what I was really reacting to was the overall assertion that quality of life is more important than life made in conjunction with the statements about not understanding pro-lifers. In the case of a lucid but terminally ill patient, I leave that question to the patient to decide; however, I believe that the patient should be able to pursue counseling to ensure he or she has thoroughly considered the decision. (Perhaps a valid argument for legalization of euthanasia)

        The problem is that the quality of life statement is often used to justify abortion (thus my reaction to the pro-lifer commentary), which does not allow a lucid, mature adult to make the decision about his or her own life (yes, this assumes the child is alive, because it’s the child’s life that will be terminated; I know that there is disagreement about what constitutes “life.” Different debate, and I’m debating from my belief [based on experience] that the child is alive).

        The argument is often made in the context of, “The child will have XX deformation/disease/genetic disorder; consider terminating the pregnancy.” I think that this devalues handicapped people. Are their lives so predictably miserable that they should never have the opportunity to live it? Of course not. I believe that life takes care of itself. Babies are miscarried, for example. I also believe that many of the people who are terminally ill and choose euthanasia have already prolonged their lives by unnatural means (medical intervention).

        Of course, I’m not arguing against medical intervention in illness; that would be asinine. I’m simply saying that using quality of life as a gauge of whether or not another person should live (or be allowed to live in the case of abortion) is probably not a very “safe” application.

        • Eugie Foster says:

          Re: Sheepless at night

          The problem is that the quality of life statement is often used to justify abortion (thus my reaction to the pro-lifer commentary), which does not allow a lucid, mature adult to make the decision about his or her own life

          Abortion slippery slope or no, concern for the unborn does not make it acceptable to take away a person’s right-to-die. If, as you grant, it is right and good to ensure a person’s has the right to chose to terminate their own life, then to deny their right-to-die, no matter what the legal repercussions are on related issues, is still wrong.

          The abortion issue is one fraught with its own issues and concerns. I’d like to avoid getting too deeply into that ’cause I’m not really looking to hash that out here. But, for the record, a fetus is neither lucid, mature, or an adult. However, the gravid woman is (for the most part–there are the very rare exceptions where girl children become pregnant due to rape, incest, or freak of nature).

          Is the fetus alive? Of course it is. A growing carrot is alive. So’s a paramecium. Life is easy to measure.

          But, is it sentient? Science says “nope.” In order to be sentient, a creature must have the brains and nerves to be aware and feel. Roughly, the point when sentience is possible in a human fetus (although there’s argument on this) is generally agreed upon by the medical/scientific community to be the end of the first trimester.

          When a fetus isn’t sentient, why give it more consideration than any other random cluster of cells? Because of its “potential”? Then why not treat every random gamete with the same reverence?

          (Everyone sing it with me: “Every sperm is sacred . . . “)

          Okay, once sentient, does its welfare supersede the welfare of the mother? Again, fuel for much debate and disagreement. Suffice it to say, I believe, quite adamantly, it does not.

          I’m simply saying that using quality of life as a gauge of whether or not another person should live (or be allowed to live in the case of abortion) is probably not a very “safe” application.

          In my experience, right-to-die proponents are not saying that quality of life should be a gauge on longevity. They’re saying that it’s a person’s right to live and die with dignity, to be able to say when “enough is enough,” and not be forced to endure unbearable suffering.

  6. fin9901 says:

    There’s a fine line between ‘my life is not worth living, I want to die’ and ‘your life is not worth living, you are going to die’. Many people see the former as a stepping-stone to the latter, and thus oppose it.

    • Eugie Foster says:

      Those would be the same people who have difficulty understanding the difference between and stealing and buying, yes?

      I completely understand being opposed to any elimination of personal rights. I’m utterly there. But eliminating personal rights in the name of being opposed to eliminating personal rights? Um, lucid thinking has left the building there.

      • fin9901 says:

        Nevertheless, this kind of logic is used all the time to justify doing things whether or not they’re actually wanted. E.g.: people donating time and money to worthwhile causes is a Good Thing, so if they don’t do it enough, then let’s raise their taxes and use that money to do the Good Things that they’re too lazy/greedy/selfish/etc to do themselves.

        Considering how many people there are in the government that think they Know Better how to run your life than you do, do you want them anywhere near being able to decide whether your life is worth living? Granted it is pretty twisted logic, but considering how many things keep being Decided For Us at the federal level, the chance is pretty non-zero that if we claim the right to end our lives, then the government is going to try to claim that right for itself eventually, justified or not. (How often does the government justify taking our rights away, anyways?)

        • Eugie Foster says:

          Hang on. Are you saying that you’re in favor of the government taking away a person’s right to die as precaution against the government taking away their right to live?

          So, somehow the government taking away right X is going to keep them from taking away right Y? That’s like saying yah, discrimination against black people sucks, but if we don’t let white people treat black people like second class citizens, then they’ll just kill them instead.

          I mean, wouldn’t it make more sense to be opposed to the government taking away any rights?

  7. zoloft says:

    The thing that I’ve never understood is that it’s perfectly acceptable to say “Well, I might be able to buy old Shep another year or so, but I really can’t afford the surgery” or “Fluffy’s had a good life, & I don’t want her to suffer through any more treatments that might not even help”, but people can’t choose the same scenario for themselves.

    Why is euthanasia humane for animals who don’t even get a say in the matter, but not for humans who choose it for themselves?

    • Eugie Foster says:

      No arguments from this corner. I think it’s the height of hypocrisy too.

    • meffen8 says:

      Equality?

      Animals, especially pets, should be treated humanely. However, animals should neither be placed on a par nor accorded EQUAL right as human beings.

      • Eugie Foster says:

        Re: Equality?

        animals should neither be placed on a par nor accorded EQUAL right as human beings.

        (Neither “on par” nor “equal,” huh?) Well of course not, silly. Animals, being unable to communicate their wishes should be shown greater consideration on matters of quality of life, and suffering than human beings. Duh!

      • zoloft says:

        Re: Equality?

        I was actually suggesting the opposite: that humans have the equal right to humane treatment as do animals. :} I’m not saying that animals shouldn’t be euthanised because they can’t vocalise their opinions on the matter, but that humans *should* be able to be euthanised if they wish.

  8. meffen8 says:

    On Yardstick

    “LIFE in and of itself doesn’t matter. It’s the quality of life which should be the yardstick upon which ethics are measured.”

    A yardstick should be something that is, inherently, unchanging. “Quality of life” could mean different thing to different people. So how could the ethics of LIFE be measured by such a standard?

    I see images of malnourished, wretched-looking children from Third World countries on CNN all the time. If I classified them as not having any “quality of life”, should they be destined for death?

    NO, “quality of life” should not be a yardstick. It is too subjective.

    • Eugie Foster says:

      Yardsticks are for smacking

      I see images of malnourished, wretched-looking children from Third World countries on CNN all the time. If I classified them as not having any “quality of life”, should they be destined for death?

      What is with this inability to determine the difference between “murder” and “suicide”? Are the public schools teaching that whole word crappola again? Damn.

      NO, “quality of life” should not be a yardstick. It is too subjective.

      Not to the person who’s life it is. If someone says “enough, I want to die” there’s no “subjective” about it. Are you saying your judgment of their quality of life gives you the right to say “well fooie on you-ie. Suicide is wrong, so you’re just going to have to writhe in unspeakable agony until your body gives out, ha!”? I’m sure not.

      People have the right to dictate their own quality of life. That is, when they want to keep kicking, and when they want to throw in the towel, without having someone screaming “Live! Damn you! It’s criminal/evil/wrong/sinful to want to end your suffering, because life is sacred!”

      That’s what I’m saying. Quality of life over sanctity of life.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *