I've been a bit tied up with other things and have not done much blogging (for me) lately, so I've fallen behind. Wesley J. Smith, however, has not fallen behind, and several of the pieces of news he has been reporting are very important. So here goes:
--Quebec has put a stacked commission onto the question of assisted suicide. Predictably, the commission has produced a set of truly awful recommendations. These include, inter alia, the requirement that doctors who refuse to murder their patients, that is, to assist their patients to commit suicide, must refer the patient to a doctor who will do so. In this case, the assistance provided would probably be significant, because doctors are often reluctant to cooperate in assisted suicide, so the patient might otherwise have trouble finding one. Assisted suicide clinics, unlike abortion clinics, aren't yet the norm in Canada or in the U.S. Such a referral would definitely be direct and knowing material cooperation in evil, akin to knowingly telling a suicidal person where to find a loaded gun. And this is the commission's notion of accommodating doctors' conscientious objections! I'd hate to see what their idea is of being coercive.
Occasionally our cousins up north get a tiny bit defensive when Americans say, "Oh, Canada!" and assume the worst. And it is fair to point out that often the United States isn't all that far behind in some disastrous social experiment. Yet the fact remains that usually, and in a number of areas, the Canadian provinces tend to push the really bad experiments before we down here do, and that our own "progressives" watch their buddies up north for inspiration. As far as I know, even in Oregon doctors are not thus forced to refer for assisted suicide, so the Hemlock Society has to "help" suicidal patients to find willing doctors.
It remains to be seen whether Quebec's lawmakers will accept the commission's recommendation, but I have a sneaking suspicion that they will.
--Moving much farther south, a bad law is in the works in Texas, and we should hope it doesn't pass. It would permit doctors to put a DNR on a patient's chart without the permission or consent of the patient or surrogate, even if the patient is conscious. The law would graciously permit the patient to pay for a "second opinion" if he agrees with the DNR. But that apparently doesn't mean the patient can actually stop the DNR. And if the patient is expected to die within "days to weeks," no notification or opportunity to seek a second opinion is even required. Unilateral placement of DNR. And doctors would be protected from lawsuit as well in such cases. Bad, bad news.
It's important to remember, too, that DNRs are sometimes used beyond what the name would imply--that is, they are sometimes used to block not only resuscitation, such as CPR, but also to authorize the removal of food and water. In the case of Zach McDaniel, the placement of a DNR was closely correlated with the removal of nutrition and hydration, and his life was saved only because (for a change) his family was able to find a transferring facility.
--A teen girl's parents are trying to force her to abort her child. Even though this post is called "bad news," the news at the moment in this case is good, as far as it goes: A judge has issued a temporary restraining order against the parents. This is one of those "choice devours itself moments." I'm waiting for all the left-wing outrage. I may wait long. It sounds like these particular parents are especially negligent and not a model for what most elite lefties aspire to be. So maybe the latter wouldn't actually plot to spike their daughter's drink with a pill they hope will be abortifacient (as these parents did) or be physically abusive. Instead, they just ratchet up the psychological pressure until the girl gives in and says, "I don't have a choice." And then they have no qualms of conscience. Anyway, kudos to the judge in Texas, and may the young mother bear her baby in safety and get her life together.
Comments (11)
and that our own "progressives" watch their buddies up north for inspiration.
I want to disagree vehemently with this, as one of those Northerners who does get tired of American misunderstandings of Canada. In fact we had a guest preacher at church a few months back who remarked on this very topic, quite correctly in my view, saying that although Canada may *seem* to be further along the leftward-experimentation track, in truth we are really victims of the Hollywood-media-industrial-complex that spews its values all over the globe. Leftist decisions like this most recent one are mostly made by elites, and the average Canadian, though further left in a general sort of way than the average American, is not *nearly* as leftist as the radicals in Berkeley or wherever who dream it all up.
Anyway, please say a prayer about it all for us. Speaking as a Canadian physician, I don't know what I will do if this legislation comes to my province.
Posted by Samson J. | February 15, 2013 5:26 PM
I don't know what you're disagreeing with. I'm fully prepared to believe that the average Canadian isn't totally on-board with this legislation, but the fact remains--and I could cite multiple instances--that in a number of ways the _legal_ situation in Canada is further along in a leftward direction than in the United States. I will give here as just _one_ such instance the fact that Catholic schools in Ontario (Catholic schools!) are required *by law* to recognize official homosexual student clubs. The education ministers doubled down and even made it explicit in the law that the Catholic schools _must_ permit these clubs to be called "Gay-straight Alliances." I know of no legislation requiring that of U.S. Catholic parochial high schools.
When I referred to "their buddies up north," of course I meant Canadian progressives in positions of power who are successfully spearheading these initiatives.
Posted by Lydia | February 15, 2013 7:07 PM
So it's unacceptable to force doctors to help people who want to die because they are in pain, but perfectly acceptable to force someone who wants to die to remain alive? I always laugh when Christians (especially Catholics) get upset at being forced to do things by the state, they're such hypocrites.
Posted by Roto | February 20, 2013 6:34 AM
There's a fundamental difference between being forced to kill and being forced NOT to kill-and yes, killing yourself IS killing. I would think that this was pretty obvious.
Posted by MarcAnthony | February 20, 2013 10:43 AM
So presumably, it should be perfectly reasonable to provide loaded weapons to suicidal poor people in Canada. It should also be legal, in the presence of witnesses, to simply shoot a suicidal person in the head when they ask for help doing the dirty deed. But then this is Canada. The land where private health insurance is not legal. I would assume that their opposition to the aforementioned approaches to providing greater access to assisted suicide for the needy would be that it involved private actors engaged in cooperative murder-suicide arrangements not, you know, moral opposition to the legalization of murder-suicides.
Posted by Mike T | February 20, 2013 11:54 AM
Commentator Roto appears to think that refusing actively to cooperate in an act of suicide is "forcing someone to remain alive." By that reasoning, refusing to engage in sexual intercourse with someone is forcing that person to remain a virgin.
Speaking for myself, yes, I would indeed support actively *stopping* people who are attempting to kill themselves, for the reasons that Marc Anthony gave. Self-murder is indeed murder, and stopping someone from killing himself is completely justifiable on those grounds. The objection in the main post isn't generally to forcing people to do *something or other*, including forcing people to refrain from some act or other. We would have no society at all if some actions or other were not proscribed! The objection is to forcing doctors to help kill people.
However, the implication that the doctors themselves, simply by refusing active cooperation, are "forcing people to remain alive" is more than a little silly and is subject to many reductios along the lines I just gave.
Posted by Lydia | February 20, 2013 12:19 PM
I don't really care if you consider "self-murder" to be the same as murder, that view is as absurd as claiming that letting someone have sex with you is the same as being raped. If I want someone to kill me I am consenting to what is taking place, and if I am being murdered I'm not. People should be able to live their lives they way they want to because they are the ones who own their lives. You don't have a greater say over my life than I do, no one does. If I want to do something to myself or to another consenting adult you need a very good reason to stop me, and your belief that all life is sacred isn't good enough.
"e on those grounds. The objection in the main post isn't generally to forcing people to do *something or other*, including forcing people to refrain from some act or other. We would have no society at all if some actions or other were not proscribed! The objection is to forcing doctors to help kill people.""
I don't like to force people to do things they don't want to do, I just want to stop them from doing things to people that don't consent. In other words, I have libertarian social views. To someone with my views you are just as authoritarian as liberals who want to require that Catholic doctors perform abortions... You both want to force people to live in accordance with your values, and there is no substantive difference between you. It doesn't matter to me that liberals are following Rawls and you are following the Bible, you're just two sides of the same authoritarian coin.
Posted by Roto | February 20, 2013 1:43 PM
I actually take offense to the idea that we should just be able to allow people to kill themselves, considering that I've had very close friends and even an ex-girlfriend who have at times seriously considered suicide. It's not fun to be in the position of talking them down. If necessary I would have tackled them, held them down, and called 911, rather than let them kill themselves.
I've spent hours trying to convince people that life is worth living while they spilled to me their anger about God and the hopelessness that engulfs their lives.
Don't even try telling me that their "personal right" to "control their own bodies" matters more.
The problem with the "It's only if you're very sick" crowd is that the logic doesn't change. "All life is sacred" is a pretty big deal, and I'm not going to pretend it's not a good reason because a liberal tells me so.
Posted by MarcAnthony | February 20, 2013 2:02 PM
"The problem with the "It's only if you're very sick" crowd is that the logic doesn't change. "All life is sacred" is a pretty big deal, and I'm not going to pretend it's not a good reason because a liberal tells me so."
I think anyone who is mentally competent should be able to decide to commit suicide. It doesn't matter to me if they are sick or not as long as they are able to consent. It's clear that you don't agree with me, but that's fine, we just have different values. I value freedom and personal choice and you don't. As long as you are willing to admit that then there is no problem. Just don't cry about freedom when those who don't share your views win elections....people always seem to remember the value of liberty when the other party is in power.
Posted by Roto | February 20, 2013 2:14 PM
Instead of responding to this, I', just going to let this comment stand. It speaks volumes.
I feel slightly nauseous right now.
Posted by MarcAnthony | February 20, 2013 2:32 PM
There was one time, and only one time, when I convinced a libertarian that suicide should not be simply permitted in society--that it should be stoppable. That was when I pointed out to him that a father pulling his son back from a cliff would be liable for assault in a society that truly took seriously the right to suicide. Similarly, a loving parent or friend who took away a gun from a suicidal person would, if the gun were his property, be liable to charges for theft. So the cops arrest the "interfering" parent or friend while the suicidal person goes into the other room and goes "bang." I was very proud of having changed just one mind.
And as Wesley J. Smith says, which MarcAnthony senses here--permission to commit suicide is abandonment. Neither more nor less.
In any event, the entire liberal/extreme libertarian position is not something I was intending to debate here. I do think it's interesting how often "freedom" to do x turns into "a right to have access to" x. Hence, "freedom" to commit suicide becomes a mandate to doctors to assist or find someone who will. I had a post about Poland, similarly, where a European court ruled that Poland has to make abortion accessible rather than simply legal. Meaning, if they don't blow off the ruling (as some readers suggested they could do with impunity), Poland has to make sure they have some abortionists around and that the non-abortionists will refer to them.
Posted by Lydia | February 20, 2013 5:41 PM