8mm
Posted on 09/28/2008 5:14:02 AM PDT by Kaslin
A waste. A burden. That is how influential medical ethics expert Baroness Warnock views people suffering from dementia. Lady Warnock, a prominent adviser to the British government, told the Church of Scotland's Life and Work magazine that people suffering from dementia should be allowed to kill themselves rather than continue to burden their families and Britain's National Health Service. Sadly, Warnock's comments are all too consistent with our modern utilitarian view of life.
Lady Warnock argues that people suffering from dementia are "wasting" their families' lives and the nation's resources. She believes that merely having dementia makes one's life not worth living. She maintains that people should be allowed to give advance notice to a third party that they wish to be killed when they reach a set point of mental deterioration. And she wants to expand this "advance directive" to include just about any situation where a person believes their life is no longer worth living. Her ultimate goal is to license people to "put others down." "Put them down"—like a sick dog. At least she's frank.
Warnock's vision is particularly disturbing because she has served as a prominent moral adviser to the British government on matters of life and bioethics, having chaired the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology in the 1980s. Conservative Member of Parliament Nadine Dorries criticized Lady Warnock's comments, stating, "Because of her previous experiences and well-known standing on contentious moral issues, Baroness Warnock automatically gives moral authority to what are entirely immoral view points."
At the heart of Lady Warnock's comments (and, indeed, the entire euthanasia movement) is an atomistic, subjective, utilitarian view of life. Once one becomes dissatisfied with the quality of their life or determines that they have outlived their usefulness, the door is open for them to end their life. They are the sole arbiters of whether their life is worth living. And if they are unable to "do the deed" themselves, they should be free to select a proxy to do it for them.
This "freedom" ignores the duty and responsibility people have to their families and communities. As John Donne famously said, "No man is an island." Perhaps the greatest modern lie is that every person has the right to do with themselves whatever they please. This lie fuels the selfish desires of every person: the elderly person who is too proud to let themselves "be a burden" to others, and those "others" who don't want to have to care for a person suffering from dementia or physical maladies.
The weak are the first to suffer when a society embraces a "quality of life" standard as the measure for human worth. The truth is that the strong and the rich in society are the true beneficiaries of euthanasia. Their responsibility to care for the sick and infirm is lifted when euthanasia is encouraged. One honest British commentator admits as much: "We in Britain, and across the industrial West, have an ageing population. The old are living longer, and the young are breeding later and less. This presents a simple resource-management issue... We are heading for a situation where we're deciding between care for the elderly and education of the young; and in which the quality of life of a family caring for a grandparent or great-grandparent in an advanced state of senility can be significantly impaired, perhaps over decades."
So there you have it: Grandma's life is worth less than your child's education. Not even a hint of the value of sacrifice or self denial is included in the equation. For us moderns, it's all about me.
The "quality of life" rhetoric of the euthanasia movement is the same rhetoric that the Nazis embraced when they embarked on a policy of killing and sterilizing the mentally or physically handicapped. Genocide of the "defective" became the means of removing the "waste" from society. This same mindset was present in the sterilization of the mentally handicapped in the U.S. in the early 1900s. These historical examples show the end result of "quality of life" thinking. Grading lives on a scale of "quality" implies that some lives are more or less worth living than others. It is a natural step from such thinking to advocate that those unfortunate people leading "lesser lives" ought to be put out of their misery.
The Bible exorts us to "look after orphans and widows in their distress" (James 1:27 NIV), but this is hardly the message of the euthanasia proponents who want to get rid of the elderly widow who is a drain on the system. We are also commanded to help those in need: "If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has not pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth." (1 John 3:17-18 NIV) People like Lady Warnock tell us that it is good for society to be rid of the burden of the suffering, the handicapped, the elderly, and anyone who does not have a "good enough" life. Such a view is contrary to the truly compassionate Judeo-Christian principles which laid the foundation for our culture.
Tell her to go first. Maybe others will be inspired by her act. /sarcasm
One can only hope that she gets to experience dementia herself, (if she isn’t already.)
I am watching a dear friend care for a demented parent and another parent in the early stages. Both are in their 70s. My friend is the very best nurse practitioner and trauma nurse I have ever seen. She served in Gulf War I and is now diagnosed with MS as a service-related disabilty brought on by exposure to chemicals encountered by the troops, who came into the hospital in their field uniforms/gear which were full of the poisons. She is only 54.
While she has been prepared to continue her practice from a wheelchair, the organ most affected is the optic nerve.She has 20/20 vision, yet her visual field is full of what she describes as *holes*.
None of us are assured that her 25-year-old daughter will be able to care for her, should she need that care.
She didn’t even tell anyone until the MS became obvious. While she would never in a million years allow either of her parents to be *put down*, she herself will quietly do whatever she must if she can when the time comes.
I have had someone I loved ask me to end their life. It would have literally involved pulling the plug on life support equipment. I could not do it. It is not that easy to take that responsibility. For me, it was impossible.
There should be no state coercion in such matters. They must remain in the hands of each individual and apply only to themselves. The corruption that would ensue from any sort of mandate by so-called objective observers is far more frightening to me than the conditions being endured. And those conditions are indeed quite horrible.
I think I would agree with you that I would not want to have my life prolonged if I was extremely debilitated. But we must each make that decision and not give it up to anyone at all. The outsider cannot weigh the value of a stranger’s life if they have no connection to them. The close family cannot be made to bear that burden of being the one to end a loved one’s life.
I think no one wants to have to make such a decision for anyone else.
And the "modern utilitarian view of life" is a direct outcome of putting health care under the aegis of government and taxes.
Secular humanism/Godless liberalism has destroyed Europe. The final chapter we see unfolding now is the vaccum being filled by Islam.
When the only way you can cut taxes going to a wasteful bureaucracy is by killing people or allowing them die, then people will be killed or allowed to die.
I can tell you that in this country, specifically in the Atlanta area, my experience has been the opposite extreme. Misguided families who don't know better and doctors sometimes either consciously or unconsciously exploiting those medicare payments. Elderly people being kept alive against their will is about 99% of the problem the way I see it. Frankly, it's unconscionable. Being force-fed with stomach tubes and essentially preserved while their bodies break down, they get bed sores, which is very costly, very painful and unnecessary. Admittedly I have no idea what's going on in England but there's a happy common sense median everywhere and it's called hospice!
Sure, liberals should off themselves.
Worth repeating.
End of life care, or life ending care, is not a decision that can be made objectively. Every individual has their own wishes and how they are to be carried out should be arranged privately with trusted individuals of their own choosing.
The only duty anyone should have is to know when an elephant in the room should be ignored.
What I do take issue with it the way the elderly have become marginalized. It used to be the elderly were revered and looked up to for wisdom. They were protected as they protected when they were young. Now, they're constantly bombarded with propaganda telling them they're useless and a burden on family and society. No wonder so many are willing to let go of life.
How horrible it must be to have a family member ponder between your life and your grandkid's education.
ping
I don't think she'll like a taste of her own medicine.
I for one (on this board anyway) sympathize. We had a tough situation with my elderly mother over the summer. I won’t go into all the details. Clearly expressed in her health care proxy were directions not to allow any medical procedures to prolong her life. DNR, no intubation, respirators, etc. (She recovered and is doing well now, enjoying her grandchildren).
She was a nurse all her life and most of her patients were elderly. She hated how families extended the lives of their very sick relations while their quality of life was horrible.
How can we not respect our parent’s wishes? If they don’t want to waste away in pain or pain-killer induced fogs they shouldn’t have to.
Just my $.02
Get it in writing and you will have nothing to worry about.
First they came for the unborn, but I'm not the unborn, so I did nothing.
Then they came for the handicapped, but I'm not handicapped, so I did nothing.
Then they came for the mentally ill, but I'm not crazy, so I did nothing.
Then they came for the senile, but I'm not senile, so I did nothing.
Then I got old and sick and they came for me, and I could do nothing.
Read my post man. I said if the PERSON wants to go out with their dignity intact, it’s their own choice.
I’m not advocating that the hospital or the government make the decision. In my mother’s case it was her wishes, clearly written in a legal document when she was of sound mind, dictating the way she would like to be treated in the event of a medical emergency or medical condition that may cause her death.
Read with your glasses on next time.
They will die in God’s time, not at Lady Warnock’s urgings.
Sounds like this lady needs prayers.
I may have addressed the post to you, but it's really to FR at large.
Do the demented have a duty to die?
Good question.
If the answer is “Yes”, then American will be exceeding short of Democrats.
That'd pretty much empty out Congress.
Bada BING!
I'd laugh, but it's too close to the truth.
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.