Monday, November 21, 2016
Concerns about assisted suicide, because it is cheaper
If PAS is available, since people other than the patient have to pay for end-of-life care (which is expensive), wouldn't there be pressure on patients from their financial caregivers, whether family members or insurance companies, to make use of the PAS option? (We won't pay for that, can't you just kill yourself instead and make life easier on us?)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
35 comments:
Of course, and *everyone* knows this; this is, after all, the appeal of PAS, and it's a feature, not a bug of socialized medicine.
Just noting that with truly socialized medicine, an option apparently inconceivable to Americans, the general community taxes pay for end of life care. So that motivation to PAS is not present.
Now, if only something like this could happen in our country - how beautiful that would be!
(Just one more reason for me to be proud of being a Polish-American.)
^ Oh! That's kind of a Protestant thing to do, isn't it?
Constitution Party of NC: There Is No King But King Jesus
Yet, you'll never vote for a Constitution Party candidate, will you?
some intellectually dishonest leftist (but I repeat myself): "Just noting that with truly socialized medicine, an option apparently inconceivable to Americans, the general community taxes pay for end of life care. So that motivation to PAS is not present."
Here are just a few items demonstrating that the above assertion is false --
I've already linked to a news story out of socialistic Belgium, in which a woman who wasn't even physically ill was first sexually mutilated, and when that didn't make her happy (as how could it, since her problem was not in her genitals?), she was "put down".
And then, there is the infamous 'Liverpool Care Pathway' in socialistic Britain's "healthcare" system, under which people who aren't even "terminal" are purposely and non-voluntarily denied food and water such that they die.
Here on my blog is yet another post on what socialized medicine is really like, again out of the socialized "medicine" of the UK. In this case, it's about the NHS denying funding for a disabled boy's surgery to relieve 'agonising pain' ... even as it contemplates a "sex-change" do-over
=====
Gentle Reader, keep this in mind at all times -- everything leftists say is a lie. Even if a specific sub-item of a leftist claim is factually true, its purpose is to deceive.
"Yet, you'll never vote for a Constitution Party candidate, will you?"
Dunno. I know nothing about that party. The problem with 3rd party candidates in the USA is they're spoilers. Vote for one, and you're basically enabling the major party candidate that least matches your own views to win.
I toyed this election with voting Libertarian just to push them over the 5 percent threshold, but for the most part (although I would dearly like a true multiparty system in our country) I regard 3rd parties as a hobby, and not at all as anything serious. Like it or not, we're stuck with the Democrats and Republicans for the foreseeable future.
On my blog, which you do visit, I posted links to the platforms of both the Dems (the Evil Party) and the GOP (the Stupid Party) and to the Conservative Party and the Constitutional Party ... and pointed out that the Constitutional Party makes explicit appeal to God in its platform.
"Vote for one, and you're basically enabling the major party candidate that least matches your own views to win."
As I keep pointing out, there is no such thing as "voting for the candidate, not the party". It's not just that Clinton as a "bad candidate"; it's that the Democratic Party is wicked, it is morally evil, root and branch.
"I regard 3rd parties as a hobby, and not at all as anything serious. Like it or not, we're stuck with the Democrats and Republicans for the foreseeable future."
Oh! Your real "problem" with the Conservatives and the Constitutionalists is that both are solidly on the right, and you're still stuck on hovering in that "a pox on both their houses" mode that most leftists adopt when the Leftists *finally* "go too far".
As for myself, as I've said before, while am I registered as a Republican -- so that I can influence the only major party that isn't wholly wicked, I'm not really a Republican, I'm a (small-c) conservative. I was raised to be Independent ... but, of course, the Dems weren't hard-core leftists when I was raised.
Depending on how the GOP behaves over the next two years, I may switch my registration to the Constitutional Party.
"On my blog, which you do visit, I posted links to the platforms of [various parties]"
Oh my, do you actually read party platforms? And if so, do you actually believe a word in them? You know, we disagree on many things, but I did take you to be smarter than that!
You may not vote for (or against) people (a.k.a., "candidates"), but I do.
To avoid any ambiguity, I'm against PAS, but I'd be interested in hearing what people make of the following "argument" for the practice of euthanasia which has come up as a point of discussion in several contexts. It's not rigorous, but more of an intuition pump ...
(1) It is inhumane to prolong suffering unnecessarily.
(2) Euthanasia allows us to avoid doing that.
(3) So, euthanasia should be permitted under the right circumstances.
Now when applied to animals, such as pets, we seem to regard considerations like that to be conclusive. Why doesn't the same apply to humans?
To repeat myself, I'm against PAS, but am genuinely interested in how people respond to this.
^ One may respond on the basis of what God has taught mankind over the millennia, as recorded in the Bible, in which case one will get one answer.
Or, one may respond on the basis of *rejecting* what God has taught us (which is how the argument is already sited), in which case one will get the opposite answer ... and one will find that one's rejection of God's will keeps spreading; which fact is, after all, the whole reason that euthanasia and PAS even is a political issue.
There is no other basis than those two: accept God's will and commands; reject God's will and commands.
Ilion, that's possibly one of the least helpful things you've ever said.
Firstly, you aren't saying what is wrong with the argument ... except that you think the conclusion is false because it's contradicted by the Bible (unless you refer to some other form of teaching from God).
Secondly, in respect of the Bible you don't quote chapter and verse so don't give a fair right of response. What if I just say that that's not contrary to what God has taught us.
Thirdly, depending on the context in which the issue is raised you going to get very mixed mileage with that.
Fourthly, we don't normally suppose God's commands to be arbitrary, we'd like to know "why". There may not be a why, but in many cases we can find sensible things to say.
"Ilion, that's possibly one of the least helpful things you've ever said."
And you're a fool, so what else is new.
"Firstly, you aren't saying what is wrong with the argument ... except that you think the conclusion is false because it's contradicted by the Bible"
See. You're a fool. (Hint 1: That wasn't my purpose; Hint 2: I said noting of the sort)
"Secondly, in respect of the Bible you don't quote chapter and verse so don't give a fair right of response. What if I just say that that's not contrary to what God has taught us."
See. You're a fool. (Hint 1: That wasn't my purpose; Hint 2: Irrelevant to what I said; Hint 3: You'd be lying, and everyone would know it)
"Thirdly, depending on the context in which the issue is raised you going to get very mixed mileage with that."
See. You're a fool. (Hint 1: Irrelevant to what I said; Hint 2: Irrelevant to the truth)
"Fourthly, we don't normally suppose God's commands to be arbitrary, we'd like to know "why". There may not be a why, but in many cases we can find sensible things to say."
See. You're a fool. (Hint 1: Irrelevant to what I said; Hint 2: God's commands are God's commands, irrespective of what rationales we may be able to work out for "why" they are right/good/moral)
For the reader who cannot work out for themselves the point of "possibly one of my least helpful posts ever", and yet who are not fools who will decline to understand --
Almost no one who advocates euthanasia (nor abortion), nor physician assisted suicide -- nor the next step, which is *already* in the works, of *compelling* physicians and nurses to participate in euthanasia (and abortion) -- does so because he was persuaded by rational argument. All attempts such people make at presenting arguments to support their position are after-the-fact rationalizations: being such, no counter-argument will reach them, no act of showing them the flaws of their own arguments will affect them, because they are not actually making arguments, they are making rationalizations for what they *know* is false and wrong and immoral.
Concerning rationalizations, I give you this, from Rabbi Kushner's book When All You've Ever Wanted Isn't Enough:
"To rationalize means to do something wrong, and then invent reasons to justify it. We use our intelligence not to figure out the right thing to do, but to make clever excuses for having done the wrong thing."
^ That's why I used the word.
There is no going back to what CS Lewis referred to as "innocent paganism"; not for the West, certainly, but also not for any of the other broad civilizations of the world.
Christ has come, he is the King, and his glory shall fill the earth. The past 2000 years cannot unhappen. There are no more "third ways": either men and their institutions will willingly submit to Christ, and consciously become more Christ-like, or they will reject his rule and consciously become more anti-Christ.
So, with the above in mind -- consider the "intuition pump" (his words) that Steve Lovell presented --
"(1) It is inhumane to prolong suffering unnecessarily.
(2) Euthanasia allows us to avoid doing that.
(3) So, euthanasia should be permitted under the right circumstances.
Now when applied to animals, such as pets, we seem to regard considerations like that to be conclusive. Why doesn't the same apply to humans?"
How many hidden assumptions can the reader identify?
How do the hidden assumptions of a worldview that seeks to justify abominations such as euthanasia and abortion and infanticide differ from the not-hidden assumptions of a worldview based on (or worldviews consistent with) God's self-revelation as recorded in the Bible?
Is it even possible for worldviews with such divergent basic assumptions to live together?
I take it back, Ilion, you've now made a few more less helpful comments.
"How many Hidden assumptions can the reader identify?" ... and yet you fail to tell us what any of them are. Classic Ilion. So far, no one has actually said anything against the argument. Ilion has asserted that the conclusions is false. I already did that myself.
That's not what's wrong with the argument. Try harder Ilion.
"That's why I used the word."
I know. I was seconding you.
Steve:
"inhumane" foreshadows the comparison to putting down an animal.
prevention of "suffering" is presented as the primary value. The assumption is that pain is an evil to be avoided, perhaps at all costs.
"unnecessarily" is vague supporting the conclusion of "right circumstances"
Ilion is correct that world view is at play with the inclusion of humans and animals in the same moral category.
Euthanasia is assumed to be the only solution to pain.
There is no attempt to measure the value of suffering.
Looking over the articles about euthanasia in Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, I did not see any references to any problems caused by the cost of end of life care. So, the concern raised in the op doesn't appear to be an actual problem - just a potential problem.
Isn't it amusing that Steve Lovell imagines either that I care about his opinion of me or that I answer to his demands? Why, it's almost delusional.
I recall when I first understood what is meant by "putting a pet/animal to sleep". I was still quite young, a bit older than the stage at which small children think of animals (or, at any rate, the ones they know which with names) as small furry people.
So, since I was a bit older than that, I wasn't morally outraged about it, though I was still young enough that I was uncomfortable about it.
And -- this is my point here -- I saw through the rationalization that most people give for doing it, "It's for Fluffy's own good to put her out of her misery".
No, the *reason* we "put animals to sleep" is because we don't value the animal highly enough to expend the time, effort, money, and other resources that would be necessary to attempt to relive its suffering and restore it to health. Or, if restoring the animal to health is not an option because it is clearly "terminal", we "put it to sleep" because we don't value it highly enough to expend the time, effort, money, and other resources that would be necessary to alleviate its suffering until "nature takes its course".
========
The mindset/worldview that justifies euthanasia, abortion and infanticide is one which seeks to reduce human beings to the moral status of animals.
There can be no "dialogue" with those people; we're speaking different languages. So, all attempts at "dialogue" necessarily become exercises in surrender to their false (and demonic) worldview.
The best argument I know of against the notion that "alleviating suffering" is sufficient cause to consider euthanasia is in the novel A Canticle for Leibowitz by Walter M. Miller, in Part Three.
I recommend the book to everybody.
Prokop,
It has been many decades since I've read Canticle, could you refresh my memory?
Thank you Ilion, your latest comment was genuinely helpful.
Re-reading some of the comments, Ilion has attributed some pretty dubious motives to proponents of euthanasia, and perhaps also to me. If it helps him not to see me as a monster (I care what he thinks about me, even if the reverse isn't true) ... Please see my request for responses to the "intuition pump" as a request for help.
I'd like to think "Christian-ly" about this ... and living and being generally educated in a thoroughly secular environment doesn't make that easy. These questions come up naturally in all sorts of contexts, including in conversations with non-Christian friends and indeed with my 11-year-old daughter. She has a knack for asking questions for which we aren't prepared.
Ilion's approach is interesting and I'm going to need time to think it through. I think the fact that I've not come across that line of thought before is pretty remarkable. I've read books on the topic of euthanasia, it was a topic of debate in courses on ethics which I took at uni ...
A few thoughts occur to me pretty much immediately. One obvious question is whether it makes any difference if the person in question genuinely wants to die. Now one might say they shouldn't want to die, but there are certainly cases where one can at least sympathesise with someone who feels that way. Indeed, this relates to oozzielionel's point about viewing humans and (other?) animals as on a continuum or as radically different. That big difference can be thought to cut both ways ... humans are capable of contemplating their sorry state of affairs, being aware of having many years of pain and suffering ahead. These differences can heighten physical pains by adding psychological torments that only humans are capably of experiencing. On this basis, one could argue (I do not), that under such circumstances prolonging life is more inhumane (if you'll allow me that word) than it would be to do the same with an animal.
I think the approach also raises interesting questions about vegetarianism and whether we are doing the wrong thing by animals when we raise them for food.
Couched in these terms, I also think it's VERY difficult to keep the question of costs at bay. Resources are always finite. We do what we can, but every decision over costs is a compromise. Here if medicine is under state control then the state has some difficult decisions to make ... and I think we'd be right to be nervous about legalising PAS.
However, that also raises the question whether there is a moral difference between "active" and "passive" euthanasia. All my philosophy professors and every writer they ever recommended seemed to think that the act/omission distinction was morally worthless. I was never convinced, and have long had on my reading list (and shelf) some works defending the distinction. (When will I ever get round to reading them?)
Are we morally obliged to keep someone alive as long as possible, to exhaust all available financial resources, or are we sometimes permitted to let the person die? To my mind this is a separate question to whether we are ever permitted to actively kill the person ... but my professors would certainly not have seen it that way.
jdhuey,
In the last section of the novel, the government sets up euthanasia stations to put civilians mortally wounded in the latest war out of their misery. The abbot of the St. Liebowitz Monastery condemns the stations as a means by which the government papers over the evil of their actions in engaging in the war in the first place - an attempt to hide from the populace the consequences of a demented policy.
My pathetic summary does not do justice to the raw emotion of the passage, or to the devastating clarity of the light it sheds on the subject. No hiding from the truth here!
A Canticle for Leibowitz may very well turn out to be one of the dozen or so most important books to have been written in the 20th Century. There is no question that it will outlast our time. Our great grandchildren will be discussing this novel some day.
"Are we morally obliged to keep someone alive as long as possible, to exhaust all available financial resources?"
No.
"are we sometimes permitted to let the person die?"
Yes... As long as the death is not induced.
Prokop,
I found a pdf of the book online. Time for a reread.
"we don't value the animal highly enough"
But we do value it enough to do something about its pain. We don't leave it alone.
And now people have oncologists and MRI scans for pets so clearly they are do valuing their pets quite highly. But still, they would put it to sleep once it is clearly hopeless.
So, valuing animals not highly enough may not be the entire reason. Also, the question whether pets should be valued high enough or not remains.
Steve,
I wanted to give a less flippant answer to your questions. We are of course permitted to "let a person die". This is the whole point of hospice care. When the doctors told us that my wife had no hope whatsoever, and that she was 100% certain to die from cancer within a month or 2 at most, all treatment was stopped other than that aimed at making her more comfortable. She was gone in maybe 2 weeks. When my father died from complications due to Alzheimer's, he was moved to a hospice facility where they did everything they could to ensure he would die in peace. But no attempt was made to "cure" him. My maternal grandmother made the same decision for herself years ago. When she realized she was never going to recover, she secretly stopped taking any of her medication (secretly, because she knew others would try to stop her) and died within a month or so.
But that is a far, far cry from PAS. So far that the two do not deserve to be lumped together in any fashion - they're simply two different things.
Thanks Bob,
It's nice to have a solid point of agreement. There are some hard cases however ...
(a) In keeping with what you've written, in the UK it is (sometimes) legally permissible to allow people do die by withholding medical treatments. But what counts as medical treatment is a disputed question. I remember a case when someone who in addition to being medicated in a variety of ways was also being fed intravenously. Withdrawing medical intervention in this case included stopping feeding the person. Along with many others, I was very uncomfortable about that. Was it okay to stop feeding them?
(b) If the patient is attached to a life support machine, and switching off that machine will result in death, is that an "induced death"? I want to say no (for at least some cases) ... but it is certainly a debatable question.
(c) What if the only way to make the person comfortable also drastically shortens the time they have left? Here the doctrine of double effect (DDE) comes into play, which like the act/omission distinction gets a very poor reception among secular thinkers. And if we think this is permissible but reject DDE, it becomes difficult/impossible to distinguish this from "active euthanasia".
It's not hard to see how considerations such as those in (b) and (c) can push you towards thinking PAS might sometimes be morally acceptable.
How should we think about such cases?
DDE is little help when it comes to the law, because it deals (practically) entirely with intent. We heard a lot about this principle in the recent presidential election. Catholics were advised that it was morally wrong to vote for Clinton if one did so because of her pro-abortion stances, but entirely permissible to do so, if one were voting for her despite those very same positions, if one considered her to be the "lesser of two evils".
I would imagine that one could make a similar case concerning PAS. If the intent of an action was to end the patient's life, that would be crossing a bright line. But if the aim was to alleviate pain, with a hastened death being at most a possible side effect.. well, that's one for the theologians.
Also, one has to distinguish between an action and a refraining from action. Two different things. Not treating is not the same as dispensing a death-dealing drug. Not feeding (at first glance, at least) seems to fall under the first category. Same for turning off a machine. You're not actively killing the patient - you are simply not actively treating them anymore.
I'm just thinking out loud here. But the issues raised here show why this subject is so controversial. Despite what Ilion wrote, there are no clearly defined categories to hang one's conclusions on. (If there are, he failed to articulate them. He simply claimed they existed.)
^ He did? Where? (damn that Ilíon!)
Post a Comment