Posted on 08/13/2011 12:33:29 PM PDT by wagglebee
SUICIDE has been legal in Canada since 1972, so it's OK to kill yourself. There is no consequence, except to you. You're not arrested if you succeed or even if you bungle the job -- your life is in your own hands.
But while there is no consequence for you, there are considerable consequences for the family and friends you leave behind and those aftershocks can be emotionally and circumstantially devastating. That is why suicide is hardly ever considered a noble or self-sacrificing act. It is more usually described as the ultimate expression of selfishness, cowardice, carelessness, in the true meaning of that word. G.K. Chesterton likened suicide to spitting in the face of God and suggested people who commit suicide should be buried at crossroads so the world could walk over their graves. Some religions consider it to be the unforgiveable sin, and if they are right, there may be other-worldly consequences even for the person who commits suicide.
But that's neither here nor there. Suicide is more acceptable now than it was in Chesterton's day. It is actually encouraged in some quarters -- and there are lobby groups actively campaigning for the suicidal right to allow somebody else to kill them or, more bizarrely, for the right to help other people kill themselves. Somehow, they seem to think it is covered by the Constitution.
Two such cases are now before the courts in British Columbia. In the first, Gloria Taylor, a woman suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or Lou Gehrig's Disease, as it is more commonly known, asked a B.C. court for a speedy decision of her plea to be permitted a physician-assisted suicide, which is currently illegal, on the grounds that if it were not decided quickly, she might die before a doctor could kill her.
The federal government argued that the issue is too complicated for a case to be prepared in a matter of weeks, but the trial judge ruled differently. "I am satisfied time is urgent," said Justice Lynn Smith in scheduling the case for Nov. 15, ignoring the fact assisted suicide is one of the most emotional and complicated ethical issues facing Canadians today and one that should not be disposed of for one woman's convenience.
Ms Taylor, after all, has a legal right to kill herself without forcing the rest of us to be complicit in the act.
The second case involves the Farewell Foundation for the Right to Die, whose 117 members have petitioned the same B.C. court to rule on the constitutional right to assisted suicide. The group -- one could perhaps call it the Canadian Kevorkian Society in honour of the American doctor who so eagerly sought suicides to assist that he ended up in jail -- is first seeking recognition as a legal organization, which is complicated by the fact that it is acting in favour of an illegal activity. Many of its members are in good health and not immediately seeking suicide, but several have chosen the honourable route and killed themselves.
That is the paradox of assisted suicide. Killing oneself is the ultimate act of isolation, yet those who belong to groups such as the Farewell Foundation do not want to do it alone. They want the rest of Canadians, regardless of what moral scruples they may have about suicide, to join them as accomplices in their act by giving it a social sanction. That is truly cowardly and worthy of a burial at a crossroads.
Perfectly stated!
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Permanent solution to fix a temporary problem.
>> G.K. Chesterton likened suicide to spitting in the face of God and suggested people who commit suicide should be buried at crossroads so the world could walk over their graves.
“The beatings will continue until morale improves.”
If someone wants to commit suicide, likely because of intense pain and a degenerative condition, the best thing for them to do is the “Mexican solution”. Which is not suicide, per se, but literally to take a holiday in Mexico, rural Mexico.
You can rent a pleasant place to stay, and hire locals to help and take care of you, and to bury you there when you die, with a local doctor to certify your death, and to keep prescribing you the drugs you need.
And you can eat good food, and drink good drink, smoke if you like, and be generous to the local people.
Before you go, you can put your affairs in order, and bid farewell to your family, with them knowing that they will never see you again.
So how, and how fast do you die? Without the interference of doctors and hospitals, and taking care of your own pain, in such a place you will perish in your own time, but far faster than you would in a hospital up north, full of tubes and using a ventilator to breathe, barely alive until your family is impoverished.
You will not die by your own hand, so it is not true suicide, but instead a willingness to let death come when it may.
And there will be considerable joy in denying the American busy bodies the ability to play with your dying body, and mutilate it with an autopsy, and require an elaborate an expensive funeral. And it will foul up their paperwork royally, though your death certificate will be legal and final.
It truly is “the Mexican solution.”
Very well said! Thank you for posting this. Describes exactly how the “assisted suicide” people are hypocrites of the first water.
Canada ping
“Describes exactly how the “assisted suicide” people are hypocrites of the first water.”
These are the ones that admit what they are doing - and definitely a screw loose somewhere in all of these organizations. However, death by morphine-assisted dehydration is no less assisted suicide and happens more often than people who claim to seek the moral high-ground on this issue will admit.
It’s a fair question to ask - is unspoken assisted suicide more moral than open, admitted assisted suicide? I don’t see how it can be.
Thanks for the ping, Don W.
All of which is demonstrably wrong.
This is the most succinct definition I have ever read :
"Suicide is the sincerest form of self-criticism."
You sounds as though seeking the moral high ground is a bad thing. You think rushing into the moral abyss is better?
With state authorized doctor assisted suicide, it is inevitable that after a while consent is not even sought, and people are “suicided” against their will or without their or their families knowledge. Or maybe the families want their family member killed. The countries that allow doc assisted suicide are all proof of this.
Plus, the sick and elderly are pressured to die. Children are now “offered” doc assisted suicide, in Belgium and maybe other countries like the Netherlands, I know Belgium for sure. Sometimes just killed.
By giving suicide the official government stamp of approval, and turning state aparatus and the medical profession into executioners, a terrible pandora’s box is opened. It leads to the ovens. No doubt about it.
Regarding doctors who give so much morphine that the patient either dehydrates to death or stops breathing, individual misuse is a matter for hospital boards or courts. Just becausesometimes people murder each other or commit rape is no reason to legalize such crimes.
“You sounds as though seeking the moral high ground is a bad thing.”
There is nothing wrong with seeking it. There is also nothing wrong with pointing out you may not be where you think you are, regarding the moral high ground.
You also sound unsure of yourself.
What you seem to be unaware of is how prevalent “death by morphine” is in expediting end-of-life. It is very common, and a very uncomfortable discussion with folks involved. I’ve seen it first-hand, unfortunately.
I merely ask if legalized assisted suicide is more or less moral than death administered through morphine by doctors or nurses under license by the state.
It’s ok if you don’t know the answer. But if you are worried about a “slippery slope”, as I think is only reasonable, I submit that we’ve already started down the hill.
Couple of things:
I’m not unsure of myself at all. OTOH, you are not making your position clear. Are you in favor of doctor assisted suicide, or not? Spit it out.
Second, usually when people tell others that they are seeking moral high ground it means that the ones seeking the high ground are trying to feel superior or holier than thou in some arrogant and phony way. So unless you explain yourself otherwise, I can only assume that’s what your intent was.
You’re not the only one who’s seen death and dying, so your first hand experience is not the end of all authority on the subject.
Your “merely asking if legalized assisted suicide is more or less moral than death administered through morphine by doctors or nurses under license by the state” is a trick question.
I already said that any doctor or nurse who knowingly administers fatal doses of medication is a matter for the courts. It’s murder. The fact that it sometimes happens doesn’t make it right. Many people have explained right here on FR that doctors and nurses who know what they’re doing can alleviate pain without killing their patients.
Of course we’ve already started down the slippery slope. Time to screech to a halt and climb out of the abyss, not shrug and say “Oh well, it’s too late, it’s already happening, might as well legalize it” which appears to be what you are hinting at. But because you are not making your position clear, until you do, I can only surmise.
Correct me if I’m wrong.
Wagglebee, pinging you to this interesting discussion.
My dad did it a lot simpler, he told all of us that he wanted out @ 92 because he couldn’t totally care for himself and just refused to eat or drink until he died.
No one in the family tried to intervine as it was his choice.
If (when)that time comes for me I think I will take an easier way out.
I am, no doubt, not the end authority on death as you say, but between us I seem to be the only one who makes no distinction between those that openly wish to help people die, and those that hasten their way to the other side under license from the state.
That is where you are not sure of yourself. You leave a large gap in the moral argument, unless your argument is merely that there is legal sanction to kill people some places and that is bad. I agree with that part, but it seems pointless to do so given the larger context that is dismissed by you as a “matter for the courts”.
Do I have your position wrong, and does that clear up any doubt on my position on the issue?
The trouble is that what you might *think* is the easier way out can be complicated by busybodies, enough to become a major nightmare.
For instance, a death at home by an elderly person might prompt a homicide or abuse investigation, based on 1+1=3 logic, which could severely impact estate probate, and cost the family a fortune. With such involvement, the family might even have to pay for an autopsy.
Then, the funeral industry in many States is a terrible racket. They have long lobbied for laws that mandate frivolous extra expenses, such as embalming, silly coffin quality standards, and even that cadavers must be incinerated in a wooden coffin. And on and on.
Back in the 1970s, I saw a coffin made of thick cardboard with cloth stapled to it, specifically for burial of Orthodox Jews, for $500. For a cardboard box. Today it would probably cost $2000.
What can be a lot worse is if you attempt suicide and fail. If you are not conscious, but breathing, the government can take control over you and hospitalize you involuntarily, yet still send your family the bill.
There is a trick used in emergency services that if someone is ill or injured, yet refuses medical care, paramedics will just wait for them to pass out, then they can do what they want. And so can the hospital, to a great extent, even over the objections of the family, which varies between States.
Compare that to the simplicity, peace and calmness of passing away in rural Mexico. Certified by a Mexican M.D., and buried locally, with several hundred notarized copies of your death certificate sent to your family, and the busybodies can go get knotted. And even if it was suicide, it won’t matter, because Mexicans do not get excited about small things.
Your gaps in the moral arugment, and the uncertainty you see, is all in your own mind. I have made my position perfectly clear, while you have not made your position clear in the least.
You appear to be purposely trying to misunderstand me in order to validate whatever position you hold, yet you refuse to clarify your own position.
IOW, you are using dirty debating tactics. Unless and until you clarify your own position, it’s worthless for me to continue the charade of “debate”.
That is where you are not sure of yourself. You leave a large gap in the moral argument, unless your argument is merely that there is legal sanction to kill people some places and that is bad. I agree with that part, but it seems pointless to do so given the larger context that is dismissed by you as a “matter for the courts”.
Do I have your position wrong, and does that clear up any doubt on my position on the issue?
This is an awfully verbose answer, but it still fail's to answer the simple question that little jeremiah posed:
Are YOU in favor of assisted suicide? YES or NO.
We aren't interested in an nuances or libertarian talking points, just a simple yes or no answer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.