I've commented here before, rather passionately, on the unpleasant equation of being lonely with having a worthless or futile life. In particular, I've commented on these quotations from Roger Scruton, which make exactly that frightening mistake:
A world in which increasingly many human beings are without affectionate relations with their kind, persisting as burdens to be carried rather than companions to be enjoyed, will be a world in which human life seems far less precious than it seems to us today.
The critical question is longevity itself, which has brought about a situation in which we all have something to fear worse than death, namely the living death of the loveless.
(There is a lot more at the linked older post, including more from Scruton and much interesting discussion.)
The word Scruton didn't use, instead of "the loveless" is "the unloved." That is, of course, what he's really talking about. It would have made a big difference to the meaning of the sentence had he done so--placing the blame for the situation at least not entirely on the elderly who live "too long" and at least somewhat on those who fail to love them. Another word, also beginning with L, that he could have used instead of "loveless" is "lonely."
And now, the Dutch have become practical about this. They have expanded the definition of "suffering" in connection with doctor-assisted death to include "non-medical factors such as income or loneliness." Here's a longer list:
As people age, many suffer from a complex array of gradually worsening problems, which can include poor eyesight, deafness, fatigue, difficulty in walking and incontinence as well as loss of dignity, status, financial resources, an ever-shrinking social network and loss of social skills. Although this accumulation of ailments and diseases is not life-threatening as such, it does have a negative impact on the quality of life and make[s] the elderly vulnerable or fragile.
Well, hey, if you're vulnerable or fragile, if you're impoverished or lonely, you might be in "unbearable suffering." How about dying, old chap? But let's not rush to judgement. If those factors are included, other "specialists" are to be consulted before the person is actually euthanized. I feel so much better.
Addendum: If you haven't previously read this well-written excerpt from a book by Thomas E. Schmidt--about a woman who might well have been said to be "persisting as a burden to be carried" and all the rest of it--it's worth a read. Please note that the blogger who posted the excerpt is not the author. I say this partly because Schmidt (inexcusably, especially in a Christian author) uses the "v-word" for two of the people in the nursing home he was visiting, and I wouldn't want the blogger who posted to be blamed for using the word. Despite that, Schmidt sees, at least in the case of Mabel, that the loneliness of the ill and the vulnerable is a challenge to the rest of society, not a sign that their lives are valueless.
What the Dutch case shows us, terrifyingly, is how easy it is for people who are presumably, by and large, as "nice" as most people, to come to hear words like "fragile," "vulnerable," and "lonely" not as calls to action, not as calls to active love and compassion, but as calls to kill. God preserve us from that change in our own hearing.
Comments (13)
"An ever-shrinking social network..."
The above fragment could be extended to, "a situation we intend to bring to as many people as possible by killing as many of their friends as possible."
Posted by jvangeld | October 22, 2011 9:14 PM
Good point.
Posted by Lydia | October 22, 2011 9:18 PM
It's a world turned upside down.
The Elephant
Posted by The Masked Elephant | October 23, 2011 8:45 AM
I've come to believe that pro-life people should protest this via jury nullification of actual cold-blooded murder. If society is going to embrace the culling of the weakest, then we ought to retaliate by making it open season on the perfectly healthy by ensuring that no murderer will receive their legal punishment in the courts.
Posted by Mike T | October 24, 2011 8:00 AM
I positively detest nationalist rants, but at this point I just have to say I am glad I am not Dutch. Shame on them to have let things reach this far. And then again, living in Portugal as I do, a country in the European Community, and looking objectively at the course things are taking, it probably won't take long to get where they are, so I probably should add a word of encouragement to and a prayer for all those brave, noble Dutch men and women trying to stem the tide.
Posted by G. Rodrigues | October 24, 2011 10:10 AM
I suppose one could try to find the faintest silver lining -- this position does, at last and least, amount to an implicit admission from the Dutch establishment that children and grandchildren are better at taking care of elderly citizens than the State is, because the family can do what the State cannot: Love them.
Now all we need is to make that point to the generation still young enough to benefit from it.
Posted by Stephen J. | October 24, 2011 11:06 AM
I don't know. It seems to me that they might point to some people who in fact have children and grandchildren and are lonely anyway.
Posted by Lydia | October 24, 2011 1:52 PM
This is the problem with our society. If society "doesn't work" for 0.01% of its members, then obviously its failed. As long as transgendered black pagan lesbians on disability can't live a dignified life, we are a heartless people.
Posted by Mike T | October 24, 2011 2:00 PM
Exactly, Mike T. Hence the foundational maxim of egalitarian liberalism: "It is better to screw everybody than to marginalize anyone"
Posted by Untenured | October 24, 2011 3:13 PM
Granted; but for some peculiar reason, the reverse maxim of "Better to screw a few than to screw everyone" is always a lot more appealing to those convinced they won't be one of the few.
Always be skeptical of someone who tells you that your particular personal suffering is "deserved", "a necessity", or "inevitable" -- it may be true, but there's a distressing tendency for such judgements to exceed knowledge and authority, and to be biased for the judge's convenience; especially when it comes down to specific cases and vested interests.
Posted by Stephen J. | October 24, 2011 3:58 PM
Same reason teenagers think "it'll never happen to them" on pretty much any issue.
That said, sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette.
Posted by Mike T | October 25, 2011 7:53 AM
The Right to Die inevitably becomes the Obligation to Die.
Posted by Christian | October 25, 2011 12:12 PM
The injustice of the elderly by the large corp. goes on today just in a smaller scale than the death of them. If this continues it will built up and we will become used to it. I was hurt in Home Depot and their ins. co. Seidgwick CMS simply ignored my claim for 3 years. Because I am elderly and it is too small for a lawyer. Now it is past the statute. Even though I did all the work and kept contacting them. When Big Company's can do this (and we know they control the Congress), that is the way the our country goes. The little person doesn't have a chance. We, the elderly, are becoming invisible.
Posted by Mary | November 8, 2011 12:42 PM