One of the ironies in the death penalty debate is that many people who oppose capital punishment also support euthanasia: "death with dignity." In some cases they support voluntary euthanasia on the basis of personal autonomy. But that inevitably shades into involuntary euthanasia for the senile or developmentally disabled. People who can't make life and death decisions for themselves. At first the family makes the decision. But because grown children suffer from a sentimental attachment to their elderly parents, they can't be trusted to make the "right" decision, so that's soon taken out of their hands. Since, moreover, doctors in countries which practice euthanasia may be gov't employees, it will be bureaucrats rather than the patient or family members who ultimately make the decision.
As a result, you have people who think it's immoral to execute a vicious killer, but virtuous to euthanize someone's mother.
Many of them are also pro-abortion.
ReplyDeleteThis all illustrates how a worldview is important. Regarding this, the pop Western worldview disagrees with a biblical worldview in at least two respects, perhaps three:
1. People are basically good.
2. Human life has no unique dignity beyond any other life on earth.
3. Self-interest is a virtue and self-sacrifice is a weakness.
The last line says it all. Very telling.
ReplyDeleteMoral confusion abounds.
ReplyDeleteHuman autonomy is god. Thanks Kant.
ReplyDeleteOne thing you can say about capital punishment, it has a 0% repeat offender rate. Do a search for "the monster of Miramichi" and you'll see what happens when you deny true justice.
ReplyDeleteWhat a curious way to describe the relationship between a grown child and an elderly parent as one of a sentimental attachment that the child suffers from. I thought sentimental attachments are more accurately described as between a person and an object. Maybe this is your point. If the child sees his parent as only an object, how much easier it will be to make the decision to pull the plug. But no, your next sentence says this sentimentality on the part of the child is immediately recognized by another person, presumably the doctor, as preventing the child from being able to make any decision at all, let alone the "right" decision, such that the doctor should step in to decide. Does the relative have to sign any forms relinquishing their right to make the decision or do they just defer to the opinion of the doctor, or should I say the bureaucrat, because he's a bureaucrat first and a doctor second.
ReplyDeleteLet's consider another more realistic scenario. A grown child has an elderly parent who has dementia and is terminally ill. This child loves his parent and knows from conversations they had before the onset of the dementia that the parent would have liked not to suffer needlessly before dying. The parent and child desire just as you say, "death with dignity", although I think you would have been better off leaving that positive description out as your point here seems to be to equate euthanasia with senseless killing.
@johzek
Delete"If the child sees his parent as only an object, how much easier it will be to make the decision to pull the plug."
Why should a child see his parent as "only an object"?
"do they just defer to the opinion of the doctor, or should I say the bureaucrat, because he's a bureaucrat first and a doctor second."
No, not all doctors are bureaucrats. In fact, I'd best most doctors aren't bureaucrats. Although there are some bureaucrats who are or were doctors. I'm referring to the US. But it can vary by nation.
"This child loves his parent and knows from conversations they had before the onset of the dementia that the parent would have liked not to suffer needlessly before dying."
Why do you assume the person with dementia is going to "suffer needlessly before dying"?
Also, the fact that someone may not wish to "suffer needless before dying" is not equivalent to "therefore euthanize me."
johzek
Delete"What a curious way to describe the relationship between a grown child and an elderly parent as one of a sentimental attachment that the child suffers from."
Nothing curious about that inasmuch as I'm describing the relationship from the viewpoint of those who favor euthanasia, rather than how the child views the parent.
"Does the relative have to sign any forms relinquishing their right to make the decision."
In countries where euthanasia is established, the relative has no say-so.
"Let's consider another more realistic scenario."
The fact that you think it's unrealistic betrays your ignorance of what's actually going on. You need to inform yourself. Wesley J. Smith and Lydia McGrew are good sources on current developments.
"A grown child has an elderly parent who has dementia and is terminally ill. This child loves his parent and knows from conversations they had before the onset of the dementia that the parent would have liked not to suffer needlessly before dying."
On the one hand, you assume the terminally ill are suffering. On the other hand, you assume that euthanasia is painless. But what if euthanasia itself (e.g. dehydration) causes suffering?
Or were you proposing something more direct, like injecting the patient with potassium chloride?