Is assisted dying a ‘clear and present danger’ to people with disabilities? New US film asks tough questions
Reid Davenport, whose documentary Life After is at Sundance, thinks euthanasia has ‘a lot to do with cost savings’
You're viewing a single thread.
This is the evangelical Christian myth that is being pushed. Christians do this because they believe there is virtue in suffering.
That is why grandma must choke to death on her vomit while everybody watches and sobs instead of having a celebration of life party with loved ones and then comfortably drifting off to cardiac arrest in her sleep.
All instances that these Christians bring up in Canada where it appears that MAID is being pushed on someone who doesn’t need it turns out to be a nothing story. No one is seriously being sent to their death because they are poor or require expensive care. This is a fear that is being manufactured so that grandma can die painfully. In Christ name amen.
I watched my great grandma slowly rot away in a nursing home. Three years. Three years of wanting to die, waking up in a puddle piss and shit every morning, can't get up after a stroke paralyzed her right side, almost blind, almost deaf, not even granted the ignorance of dementia.
She never wanted to die in a nursing home. She told me on her very first day there, that she just wants it to end. And I could do nothing to help her.
If you or I end up in that situation, if we end up deciding we want to end it, then no matter how much we want to die we won't be allowed to.
If I really wanted to get the fuck out of there and find something to kill myself with I would be strapped down and force fed if necessary.
If I still had strength they'd get someone big and strong to physically hold me down as they strap me to the bed.
That's not okay. That's wrong.
And unfortunately, not even suicide is an option in some cases.
My personal approach to, say, terminal cancer is to get doped up enough to get everything in order and then end it before the cancer can. Use the good weeks I have and avoid the long tail of suffering.
But if you're ripped from a relatively healthy life by a stroke or accident, there's nothing you could do.
Here in Germany, you can give a legally binding statement about what to do if you're incapacitated (Patientenverfügung), but that doesn't cover things like euthanasia, just organ donation, shutting off machines and stuff like that.
Nådestøt is a word we have in the Norwegian language, it means mercy-blow or mercy-stab.
It's interesting to think centuries ago men were kinder to their enemies than we are to our sick and old.
They respected their enemies' suffering and wishes, more-so than we respect the suffering and wishes of a patient today.
Oh I think we still respect that by and large. Ask any doctor or just, they're 100% on board. And I'm pretty sure, most people are in favor too.
The problem is, that life as a concept is framed as so incredibly valuable, that every tiny hint there might be someone "rescueable" being euthanized is an argument for "slippery slope" and thus literally Hitler.
Your second statement is in conflict with your first. No, we don't respect their suffering or their wishes. We have other priorities that completely supercede them.
What we do is pay lip service while completely overruling them in practice.
Of course this is a conflict, that's my entire point.
Humans, and especially societies, are always full of internal inconsistencies. If everything would be logical and consistent, we wouldn't need politicians.
We. Do. Not. Reapect. Their. Wishes.
Period.
I used the word conflict and you latched onto it. The one you should have paid intention to was the word "supercede".
You can throw semantic hissy fits as much as you want, that doesn't change the reality.
We also respect other's freedom of speech, unless it's libel. We respect your right to roam wherever, unless it's a restricted area.
And finally, the populations of many countries support e.g. abortions, but some countries restrict it anyway.
You seem not to understand the difference between public opinion and legislation.
Fuck you.
You don't get to hide behind this and stay cordial. You don't get to excuse indifference and tolerance of forcefully overruling the deathwish of the suffering.
Your opinion means nothing. It's fleeting, performative and inconsequential. You're still accepting the restraints put upon the people who wish to die.
You personally are fine with people who restrain people who suffer and want to die to end it. You are fine with the enforcers of natural death being unyielding to the will of the restrained.
You don't really give a shit.
You're only temporarily acting like you're on the right side because we're currently having a conversation about it and the right and wrong of it is kind of obvious for the most part.
Public opinion overrules law if the public really cares. If it doesn't, it's not a democracy.
The public doesn't care to right this wrong. You don't care.
I’m so sorry. Despite the radical anti-human lunatics that fight medically assisted dying, the world is moving towards expanding it. Let’s hope the next generation can choose how they leave this world.
Suffering is sharing in the passion of Christ. Suffering is the kiss of Jesus, a sign that you have come so close to Jesus on the cross that he can kiss you.
–Mother Teresa
Man I wish it was a nothing story. A friend of mine had MAID suggested to her after she spent only a couple days in the hospital for having a suicidal episode (mental health, long story but she's doing much better now... so why the fuck was it brought up after only two days there?!). Guess that's the result of my province's healthcare being gutted like a fish. Thanks conservative government!
MAID is important, don't get me wrong. People can keep their fucking gods out of healthcare in general. But saying that mistakes aren't being made with it is ignoring a problem.
Just because Christians say something for a stupid reason doesn't mean that the opposite is automatically 100% true. If you read the article, the film isn't coming at it from a Christian perspective at all but rather a leftist one.
Of course, "grandma" in your example should be allowed to die peacefully. But you can't use an extreme example to argue for a general case. There's plenty of room in between the extremes of, "Forcing grandma to live in constant pain" and "On demand suicide for anyone who wants it."
With those two tactics, you effectively shut down a necessary discussion on the issue - anyone who disagrees must be coming at it from an extreme, Christian perspective and can be automatically dismissed. But when we look at a young, healthy person doing it, we have to consider the broader sociological implications. Like, could the existence and normalization of that option be used as a justification against providing accommodations or trying to understand the source of the problem? Or, could the breakdown of the taboo against suicide lead more people to follow through when they might have otherwise reconsidered and gone on to work through their problems?
Suicide is violence, and very often it is violence that is directed at someone who is not the actual source of the problem. Sometimes it's the kindest, gentlest people who go down that path, not because of anything inherent to them as an individual, but because of external factors and shitty people.
Most crucially, no matter what laws are enacted, we must fight to maintain the social taboo, and push back against anyone who tries to dismantle it. Whether a person walks into a doctor's office and blows their brains out, or whether they politely ask to go through a particular procedure and sign all the forms, the end result is the same and should be regarded in the same way - the only thing that's changed is how it's dressed up. The idea that if it's legal and beurocratic, it's no longer a tragedy must always be rejected, and it's worth thinking about how to ensure that remains the case when thinking about what laws to allow.
I stopped considering your wall of text when you claimed that old people using medically assisted dying to relieve their terminal illness was an “extreme case”.
That’s just an extremist take. Legal euthenasia was implemented and is used in the overwhelming majority for these exact cases. You have a moral issue with it (as you’ve pointed out) and take issue with me calling it Christian. Your morals against euthenasia (calling it both “suicide” and “violence”) just shows your bias.
You are correct. There is no room for a nuanced discussion when you come at it with such an extreme take. Take care.
You completely misunderstood. I didn't call it "extreme" to say that grandma should be allowed euthanasia. What I said is that that's an extreme example, as in, a case where extreme circumstances make euthanasia a reasonable option.
Before I used the word "extreme" I literally said, "Of course, 'grandma' in your example should be allowed to die peacefully." In fact, I even called the idea that she shouldn't be able to, "an extreme position." At that point, I can only assume it's a willful misinterpretation to dismiss criticism. There is nothing "extreme" about my position that euthanasia should be legal but only in special circumstances, it's literally the moderate position on the issue.
Fetishizing pain is a defense against it. Better to deal with it in other ways.
I'm not saying you don't know that, just pointing it out.
This is not what the documentary is about though?
It’s about countries refusing to help disabled people who want to live because they tell them to choose assisted dying.
No this is exactly what I’m referring to. These instances where “countries are refusing to help people and instead want to kill them” is the fake fear they are trying to instill. It simply isn’t happening.
There have been extremely publicized instances where it has appeared that way like in Canada, where a rogue nurse went strictly against protocol and did that. They then fired that nurse. Too late though, because hundreds of opportunists like these documentary makers jumped on that story to retell it in a scarier way.
That instance and other similar and rare instances are being made to appear much bigger and more sinister so that they can manufacture a conspiracy theory for people to cling onto. That euthanasia cannot be allowed because it’s going to be used for evil instead of its intended use.
Edit: it appears from your account name and profile that you have a vested interest in this issue and are trying to push the same agenda as these religious radicals. I’m not going to engage any further.
yeah I don't see them showing the countries were taking care of people better before it was an option. All the same I do prefer the places where its not allowed to be brought up in an individual context except by the patient but the option is available and legal.
Yes of course you don’t see them showing the countries taking care of people. Why would they show you something that runs counter to their argument and agenda? Look critically at this and which groups are behind the push to force the suffering of those that are terminally ill.
Maybe you would like to have your body and/or mind progressively fall apart to prove your “machismo”, but you have zero right to dictate how others deal with their terminal suffering. Mazel tov on your preference.
