Sunday, June 03, 2007

“Outsourcing” Suicide??

Euthanasia Operation T4All the pundits are talking about Europe’s decline. This news, via Drudge, makes abortion clinics pale by comparison:

From The Telegraph:

“Swiss suicide clinics ‘helping depressives die’”

Prosecutors are calling for tougher regulations on Switzerland’s assisted suicide clinics after uncovering evidence that some of the foreign clients they help to die are simply depressed rather than suffering incurable pain.

The clinics, which attract hundreds of foreigners, including Britons, every year, have been accused of failing to carry out proper investigations into whether patients meet the requirements of Switzerland’s right-to-die laws.

In some cases, foreign clients are being given drugs to commit suicide within hours of their arrival, which critics say leaves doctors and psychologists unable to conduct a detailed assessment or to provide appropriate counselling.

Andreas Brunner, the senior prosecutor of the Zurich canton, told The Sunday Telegraph: “We are not trying to ban the so-called death tourism, but the outsourcing of suicide must be put under stricter control…

This reminds me of the convenient lie the pro-abortion faction used to get Roe v Wade past us: abortions ought to be “rare.”

It appears that euthanasia and abortion are fellow-travelers, doesn’t it? And human life gets cheaper by the day. These are the same people who lecture us for our "aggression." I guess it's okay to kill as long as it is Swiss-like: orderly and neat. Just as abortions are a "pro-choice" validation of women's freedom?

What kind of person can bear to work in a "suicide clinic"? I guess the same type who staff abortion mills.

The idea of "first do no harm" is definitely anachronistic.


Thanks to commenter Hank F_M for the graphic above, of the Nazi building devoted to euthanasia. 70,000 "defectives were killed in 1940 and 1941. The building no longer exists; there is a bus stop in its place.

[ends here]

24 comments:

gun-totin-wacko said...

Wow. This is pretty extreme. I wonder what the law would say if the family of one of these improper suicide people sued the clinic.

The other, more naughty thought that I had is that the timing is good: Kevorkian just got out of jail, so he can move there and get a job.

rickl said...

I just can't wait until we have government-controlled healthcare.

Those pesky decisions about "to be or not to be" will be made for us, by experts.

"Feeling depressed? Here, just take this pill."

ricpic said...

I believe, and I mean this seriously, that Western Europe's biggest problem has been the ease of life there for the past forty plus years. Humans aren't made for sustained peace and prosperity. Ease literally sickens people over the long run. I would be willing to bet that Europe (both sides) during WWII was almost suicide free. The time of troubles that is almost certainly coming, terrible as it will be, will also be the catalyst that ends Europe's sickness unto death.

Dymphna said...

ricpic--

You could be right. As Wretchard said, ironically, the other day, Europe just handed off its need to be aggressive in keeping order off to us, making us the villains (my paraphrase).

So Europe has it to easy, and in addition, the over-arching sense of meaning that spirituality provides has been leached out in making of scientific progress a kind of faith. When you reach the limits of what science can or should provide, then it becomes perverted into easy abortion on one end of the life cycle to easy euthanasia on the other.

Meanwhile, the harsh reality for Iranian girls sold off into Pakistan has also resulted in a very high suicide rate.

One must have meaning, as Erik Erikson said, and one must have hope. Without those, life has no use and one experiences the notion of surcease as a solution to meaninglessness and hopelessness.

I could envision myself in such a spot. If the pain were unrelenting and there was no doctor willing to provide decent medical help, I wouldn't want to continue. In this country, we often leave the terminally ill to suffer needlessly. It's getting better with the Hospice movement, but still...

...do you remember that governor out west some years ago who procured some LSD for his wife, who had spine cancer, so her last days could be peaceful? He talked about it later, and was never charged, but he wanted to bring the plight of the terminally ill to public attention.

Docs in the US have to be very circumspect in prescribing pain meds or they'll find the DEA knocking on their door...and locking up their practice.

Dymphna said...

gum toter--

What do you want to bet that many of these self-slected euthanasia patients don't have much in the way of family?

There was a case in England (last year, I think) when a man with Lou Gerigh's Disease was trying to make a legal medical directive for when the time came that he could no longer speak (the end stages). He wanted to be kept alive as long as possible AND THE COURT TURNED HIM DOWN...

I never did find out what the higher court ruling was.

Our ethical development has not kept pace with our technology, has it?

hank_F_M said...

Dymphna


He lost.




A graphic for your post - just to keep things clear.

http://www.epilepsiemuseum.de/english/geschich/t4.html


In May 1945 anyone with a 2 digit IQ knew they better not admit to being a NAZI. So they changed the names and added better sugarcoating. new names - same old garbage.


From the German Epilepsy Museum in Kork Germany. And a background article
I pulled this example because it is definitely a non-political site.

Paul said...

Somehow I don't think God is shocked by what he sees in our societies. He knows what is in the heart of man.

In reference to, "This reminds me of the convenient lie the pro-abortion faction used to get Roe v Wade past us: abortions ought to be “rare.”"

I am reminded of the carpenter I met in Phoenix, Arizona, some years ago. He told me of his experience during a time when he was unemployed. He managed to secure a job building out the interior structure of a commercial building. As he was working on the interior framing of the structure, 'knowledge' came to him by intuition in his 'spirit' that the building he was working was an abortion clinic. To clarify for those not familiar with this type of thing, the Holy Spirit confided to him that he was working on an abortion clinic. The man was a devoted Christian.

When he recognized the message, and understood he could not continue to contribute his labor to the enterprise of baby murder, he put away his tools and walked away from the job. His boss asked him what he was doing, and the carpenter told the man what the Lord made known to him. He added that there was no way he could continue to work on the project, even though he desperately needed the work. The building was in fact an abortion clinic.

This is a true story. I know the man, and I knew what he was talking about when he told me the story.

God is no more pleased by the murder or suicide of elderly people than he is of the murder of innocent babies in their season of vulnerability and need.

Let those with ears hear.

Walter Clark said...

With the wonderful socialized medicine in England those who are clinically depressed but have yet to see the psych could very well decide to go for assisted suicide knowing how many months they have before the chance to get even anti-depressants, much less therapy.

Jesus Christ Supercop said...

Real life is not quite that simple, paul. Killing someone isn't either absolutely wrong or absolutely right. Abortion is justifiable in certain circumstances just like euthanasia is justifiable when it's necessary.

Also, opposing euthanasia is the same thing as supporting torture.

Towering Barbarian said...

Supercop,
Your apologia on behalf of murder is duly noted. But murder remains murder however much you try to condone it.

Jesus Christ Supercop said...

It might technically be murder to perform euthanasia because it's a premeditated killing, but that's a technicality, or maybe just semantics. It's not the same thing as actual murder.

Archonix said...

That depends on whether the person consented, whether they were in a state to actually consent and whether the law allows such consent to even be given. Countries where euthenasia is legal to to suffer a phenomenon where otehrwise healthy elderly people are encouraged to 'do the right thing' by their familes who don't want the burden of caring for the old duffer. Or, worse, they're popped off by a doctor who wants the bed. I've even heard of coma patients being dosed up so they stop breathing when there's a fairly high chance they would awaken. I'd call that murder meself.

Now it could be argued that these problems are largely the fault of a society that doesn't respect life, and I'd agree. It's the malaise of a society that no longer has any bonds between family. People talk about letting their > dont' want to see them like that. Not necessarily because the elder wants to go, but because they dohn't want to see them suffer. For the majority it's a very selfish act.

A healthy society may well be able to support euthanasia without such things occuring. We dont' know this, because it's never been tried in a healthy society, but only unhealthy ones.

Now, as for abortion, the only time I can think of it being necessary is when the mother's life is actually threatened. Even in cases of rape the mother can put the child up for adoption, or even come to love it - I've read a moving story about that exact thing happening, too. I guess it's no surprise it was a christian mother.

Archonix said...

Umm... slight html goof.

People talk about letting their significant other die with dignity because they don't want to see them like that.

That is all.

Lao said...

Im left with the impression that the murder of Terri Schiavo was the seminal event that marked the quickening of societies disposal of their undesireables.

Great post as usual Dymphna ~ stop by some time ;-)

Jesus Christ Supercop said...

archonix
That depends on whether the person consented, whether they were in a state to actually consent and whether the law allows such consent to even be given.
I'm specifically referring to euthanasia where the person gives consent.

lao
Im left with the impression that the murder of Terri Schiavo was the seminal event that marked the quickening of societies disposal of their undesireables.
I don't see why we should keep braindead people hooked up to machines for decades.

Lao said...

Jesus Christ Supercop,

What you seem to be doing whether you wish to admit it or not is evaluating another person's "worth" to society.

Playing the devil's advocate, I could present the arguement that I really don't see why we should allow retarded people to live or the homeless. They are a drain on society and don't produce anything so why not just kill them off.

History though has always shown us that abortion and euthanasia are the forerunners of death camps and eugenics. History also teaches us that conditions in society of "overcrowding" people begin to view human life as a commodity and as such begin to evaluate the "worth" of life.

Our respect for the sanctity of life has in the past, and has always been our greatest protection from the ultimate tyranny of an all-powerful state and yet we have willingly subjugated ourselves by allowing the State to become the ultimate arbitrator in determinations now of who is worthy of life and who is not as is now the case in Switzerland.

Such now were my comments that the murder of Terri Schiavo will perhaps be seen one day as one of the seminal events that marked the killing off of our undesireables.

gun-totin-wacko said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jesus Christ Supercop said...

lao
What you seem to be doing whether you wish to admit it or not is evaluating another person's "worth" to society.
This has nothing to do with worth. If a patient is beyond recovery, what is the point of keeping him/her artifically alive?

History though has always shown us that abortion and euthanasia are the forerunners of death camps and eugenics.
This sounds exactly like the rhetoric you hear from liberals: when you start condemning somebody's culture or religion, it's only a matter of time before the death camps and ethnic cleansings are in full swing.

Such now were my comments that the murder of Terri Schiavo will perhaps be seen one day as one of the seminal events that marked the killing off of our undesireables.
There's your problem: you think this is about some nefarious conspiracy to purge society of "undesireables."

gun-totin-wacko
Perhaps this man could answer your question:
There are different levels of coma, which is not the same thing as persistent vegetative state. This is not a choice between "let's kill every sick person" and "let's never ever euthanize anyone for any reason."


What if someone was paralyzed from the neck down and asked for euthanasia? Would it be a horrible and immoral act of murder to comply, and if you wouldn't comply how would you morally justify the act of torturing the patient?

Lao said...

Jesus Christ Supercop,

So what if they are beyond recovery, why don't you let God make that choice of who is to die. There are countless cases where people considered to be "beyond recovery" have indeed healed. I know because I was one of them.

And what is this "artificially alive" remark? An infant can't eat by himself either ~ do we say that he is artifically fed?

Jesus Christ Supercop said...

lao
o what if they are beyond recovery, why don't you let God make that choice of who is to die.
We don't yet live in a theocracy, thank God (some pun intended).

There are countless cases where people considered to be "beyond recovery" have indeed healed. I know because I was one of them.
I believe I already stated that there are different circumstances. Don't try to oversimplify the matter.

And what is this "artificially alive" remark? An infant can't eat by himself either ~ do we say that he is artifically fed?
I fail to understand how an infant is comparable to a person who is so far gone he will never recover.

Since you didn't answer to my last question, I can only assume that you are in favor of torture and therefore anything you say on the subject of morality should be taken with a considerable grain of salt.

gun-totin-wacko said...

Just saw an article from Mark Steyn, which discusses some of this. Warning: He also talks about abortion as the other side of the coin.

http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/304/30/

Janelle said...

Sometimes how we treat those who are despairing says much more about us than it does about them. Supercop is making the assumption that there is only one way out of pain for those requesting euthanasia and that it is torture for others to encourage them to look elsewhere either by passively refusing death or actively pointing out other options. Nearly all of those who I have encountered who have suffered considerable or chronic pain of various types (both physical and psychological, including family members, friends, coworkers, patients and my husband) have at some point begged to die so that the pain will end. I show love and compassion for them not by saying, "Go ahead, you don't mean anything to me or the world. Here, let me help you," but by encouraging them, caring for their needs and, yes, praying that they will find hope and cessation of suffering. Even the terminally ill (I am around them too) express the most gratitude in their dying for the care that shows them their worth to God and ourselves even though it doesn't change the outcome. Those who are not able to receive and understand the compassion fully still benefit in some way from it and I benefit more in my ability to recognize, mourn over and begin to work to alleviate human suffering in a multitude of forms.
What does murdering the helpless do for you? And yes, YOUR ACT of killing those who put forth no hindrance is murder, however they may view it.

Phanarath said...

I agree with Supercop, I usually do, I must be evil just like him ;-)

If someone wants to die and someone wants to kill them, by all means, let them sort it out together.

There are more important things to worry about.

Jesus Christ Supercop said...

janelle
Supercop is making the assumption that there is only one way out of pain for those requesting euthanasia and that it is torture for others to encourage them to look elsewhere either by passively refusing death or actively pointing out other options.
If a person is convinced that he can no longer live in his/her present condition, it has nothing to do with what I assume or don't assume, it's their decision. And yes, it is a clear case of torture to forcibly keep someone alive in a such a situation. Torture is supposedly illegal, but...

I show love and compassion for them not by saying, "Go ahead, you don't mean anything to me or the world. Here, let me help you," but by encouraging them, caring for their needs and, yes, praying that they will find hope and cessation of suffering.
Are you somehow attributing that quote to me? I am merely saying that people have the right to make their own decisions. Unlike you, I don't want to make those kinds of decisions for other people, and it's not my place to do so.

What does murdering the helpless do for you? And yes, YOUR ACT of killing those who put forth no hindrance is murder, however they may view it.
Is there some kind of communication problem here, or do you just completely ignore everything I say and argue againts strawmen?

1) This has nothing to do with murder. This is about people having the option to die if they want to.

2) This has nothing to do with "murdering" people because they're a "hindrance." Again, it's about giving people a choice instead of making one for them.

3) What is "YOUR ACT?" I am not doing anything, ergo I am not taking action.