Skip to comments.EUTHANASIA - by Malcolm Muggeridge
Posted on 12/16/2005 5:58:27 PM PST by sionnsar
An extract from The Humane Holocaust dating back to the early 70's.
"Which vision are we for? On the one hand, as the pattern of our collective existence, the broiler house or factory-farm, in which the concern is solely for the physical well-being of the livestock and the financial well-being of the enterprise; on the other, mankind as a family, all of whose members, whatever physical or mental qualities or deficiencies they may have, are equally deserving of consideration in the eyes of their creator, and whose existence has validity, not just in itself, nor in relation to history, but in relation to a destiny reaching beyond time and into eternity.
Or, in simple terms, on the one hand, the quality of life; on the other, the sanctity of life.
The sanctity of life is, of course, a religious or transcendental concept, and has no meaning otherwise; if there is no God, life cannot have sanctity. By the same token, the quality of life is an earthly or worldly concept, and can only be expressed legalistically, and in materialist terms; the soul does not come into it.
It follows, at the end of our life span, that geriatrics unable any longer to offer in the way of aesthetic, carnal and egotistic satisfaction - in other words by virtue of their years losing out on quality of life - should be subjected to euthanasia or mercy-killing, and discreetly murdered.
On this basis, for instance, Beethoven would scarcely have been allowed to be born; his heredity and family circumstances were atrocious, a case history of syphilis, deafness and insanity. Today his mother's pregnancy would be considered irresponsible and as requiring to be terminated.
Dr. Johnson, when he was born, was scrofulous, and already showed signs of the nervous disorders which plagued him all his life. He, too, under present conditions, would probably not have been allowed to survive.
Imagine a young girl, unmarried and pregnant, who insists that the Holy Ghost is responsible for her pregnancy, and that its outcome, according to a vision she has been vouchsafed, would be the birth of a long-awaited Messiah.
Not much quality of life potential there, I fancy, and it wouldn't take the pregnancy and family planning pundits long to decide that our Saviour, while still at the fetus stage, should be thrown away in hospital waste.
....To quieten any qualms Christians might have about abortion on demand, an Anglican bishop has devised an appropriate prayer for use on the occasion of an abortion which received the approval of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
It runs "Into Thy hands we commit in trust the developing life we have cut short" - though whether with the idea of God's continuing the interrupted development elsewhere, or of extinguishing in Heaven the life that was never born on earth is not clear.
In the case of euthanasia, a hymn may seem more in keeping with the occasion - " The life thou gavest Lord, we've ended ..." Euthanasia, it is true, has not yet been legalised except in some American states, but notoriously it is being practised on an ever-increasing scale.
Already among old people there is reluctance to go into government institutions for fear of being done away with. As for governments - hard pressed financially as they all now are, and unable to economise on defence expenditure for fear of laying themselves open to the charge of jeopardising national security, or on welfare expenditure for fear of losing votes - will they not look ever more longingly at the possibility of making substantial savings by the simple expedient of mercy-killing off the inmates of institutions for the incurably sick, the senile old, the mentally deranged and other such?
With abortions and family planning ensuring a zero population growth rate, and euthanasia disposing of useless mouths among the debilitated old, besides mopping up intervening freaks, the pursuit of happiness should be assured of at any rate financial viability. ...To destroy life, be it in a fertilised ovum one second after conception, or in some octogenarian or sufferer from a fatal illness, is the denial of life and so the antithesis of love.
In life-denying terms, as we have seen, compassion easily becomes a holocaust; garden suburbs and gulags derive from the same quest for quality of life, and the surgeon's knife can equally be used to sustain and extinguish life."
"Love toward men, but love without belief in God, very naturally leads to the greatest coercion over men, and turns their lives completely into hell on earth" Dostoevski.
We routinely dehydrate the elderly to death in this country in institutional and even home settings. We just don't call it euthanasia.
Bump, and ping!
One does not lightly undertake to disagree with Malcolm Muggeridge, but I believe he is quite mistaken about the economics here. People by and large produce more than they use, creating a surplus and increasing prosperity for all. Growing populations equate -- correctly -- with an improving standard of living. (I do not add "free" populations because oppressed populations tend to wither rather than grow.)
The notion of disposing of "useless eaters" for financial gain is based on the socialist claptrap that there is only so much money/goods/wealth to go around. Those who have more, they believe, get it by stealing from those who have less. All this is complete nonsense, based on Marx's primitive "surplus labor theory of value" from the 1860s.
Perhaps in this instance Mr. Muggeridge remembered too well his childhood lessons growing up in a very prominent and active socialist household.