Medievalism Rampant
The bishops have no right to restrict our right to die…This week’s debate on Lord Joffe’s bill on assisted dying for the terminally ill turned into a remarkable battle between the forces of the enlightenment and a barely disguised medievalism. Who rules here? God or man? How loud the voice of religion sounded in this, the world’s most secular nation. So much religious thinking still permeates every aspect of public life as, somehow or other, the religious occupy disproportionate positions of power wherever you look – from prime minister and half the cabinet to the head of the BBC.
That’s one reason pious cant about ‘ceremonial theism’ won’t fly. It’s never safe to assume that ceremonial theism actually is ceremonial – it can always go from ceremonial to deadly earnest in the blink of an eye when somebody wants to force other people to stay alive when they don’t want to or to bear children when they don’t want to. Ceremonial theism, ceremonial fascism – not safe toys.
The tone of the Lords debate was set in a joint letter from leaders of the nine major faiths, beginning: “We the undersigned, hold all human life to be sacred.” It was thunderingly reiterated alongside the Bishop of Oxford’s refrain – we are not autonomous beings. Extraordinary how many religious speakers repeated this odd mantra.
Extraordinary, except that that’s the whole point, isn’t it. We are not autonomous beings; we are subject to the will of bishops. Because all human life is ‘sacred’.
Atheists did mention God. What was the creator’s view of the sanctity of human life in the tsunami and the ruins of Kashmir or New Orleans? Lord Gilmore mocked the Archbishop of Canterbury’s saccharine view that everyone was wanted and that every life was valued to the very end; he (Lord Gilmore, that is) would hit anyone who said that while leaving him suffering in agony on his deathbed.
Same here. I certainly hope I have a cosh handy for the purpose, and the strength to swing it good and hard. [makes mental note to self: keep cosh handy for deathbed] Why do people think it’s fine for their putative God to wipe out people in wholesale lots but it’s not all right for us to make a quick exit? Where is the sense in that? Why are we supposed (and expected) to have such reverence for the cruel sadistic bastard that we have to stick around for purposeless pain on his account? Why don’t they make themselves sick, saying things like that? I would really like to know.
The religious view distorts all reality to squeeze into its own dogma. It was shocking to hear a number of (religious) doctors claiming every death could be eased and painless these days…The Bishop of Oxford harrumphed in the Lords at this week’s Guardian leader that said the bishops “should be listened to with respect – and then ignored”. But he didn’t explain why we are obliged to listen to them at all within parliament. It is, says the National Secular Society, the only legislature in the west with ex officio religious lawmakers…
Ironic, isn’t it.
“This has been attacked with great fury by clergymen, editors and the writers of letters. These people contend that the right of self-destruction does not and cannot exist. They insist that life is the gift of God, and that he only has the right to end the days of men; that it is our duty to bear the sorrows that he sends with grateful patience. Some have denounced suicide as the worst of crimes — worse than the murder of another.
The first question, then, is:
Has a man under any circumstances the right to kill himself?
A man is being slowly devoured by a cancer — his agony is intense — his suffering all that nerves can feel. His life is slowly being taken. Is this the work of the good God? Did the compassionate God create the cancer so that it might feed on the quivering flesh of this victim?”
The sad fact being that this has been written over a hundred years ago, by R. G. Ingersoll.
Well, the reality in many western nations, especially the United States, is this may all becoming moot. The ultraheroic measures school of medicine costs MONEY. For example, $400,000 for an 85 year old diabetic man riddled with cancer and pain over the last few months of his life.
How many governments will be able to afford this (let alone how many individuals in the sink or swim environment of US healthcare?)
Look for the philosophy to begin changing.
What pisses me off about the self-righteous, God-bothering types is that they obscure a genuine concern about not making medical decisions solely on economic grounds (e.g., being careful not to pull the plug on a mentally alert, non-terminal patient just because he’s a “financial burden”). In our current dog-eat-dog, almighty-dollar society, that is a real worry.
Just so. That’s what I meant by ‘there are arguments to be had – secular ones’ in the earlier post on the subject. All the goddy prezzy stuff just occludes that.
Ingersoll. Good guy.
Jeez, you evangelistic atheists (contrast mere rational disbelievers) do get your knickers in a twist don’t you!
I will presume that OB and Karl have both suffered the experience of killing an animal at some stage to release it from suffering, like I and lots of others have. And I will guess that both of you have suffered the death in suffering of one you loved, as I and lots of others have.
Look at your feelings in those instances. Empathy is an amazing ability; it relates closely to projection. One takes on the other’s suffering and tries to suffer it for them, suffering guilt to the extent that is not possible to do it perfectly.
And at that point, the individual family member is very hard to trust because the emotional state gives so much incentive to end or prevent the suffering; I find it quite possible, faced with the legs-blown-off reality of suffering that I would assist or carry out euthanasia more to end my OWN emotional suffering, under the cloak of concern for others. I do not trust myself to judge.
This problem can be overcome by various levels of court action and independent review, and/or large doses of morphia.
But in looking at the debate going on, it is clear that compassion, reason and mutual respect for others trying to do the right thing are out the window because some can’t help grabbing a stick to whack their traditional opponents with. At least in this case we are not dealing with fictive people consisting of a few dozen cells!
But Chrisper, those are secular issues. They’re universal issues, they’re rooted in the human condition. They have nothing whatever to do with an imaginary deity giving us our lives as a present that we can’t do with as we like, or with the ‘sanctity’ of human life. The point is not to say that there is no argument against euthanasia (and I did say that, if you will notice), it’s that adding empty deity-talk to the discussion doesn’t help, and obscures, and is coercive.
And the problem cannot (always, necessarily) be overcome by large doses of morphia. Read Polly Toynbee’s piece on this subject from a few months ago. It’s a myth that all pain is treatable – not all of it is. (Nor can one always get large doses of morphia.)
Chrisper,
Do you generally start out by characterising everybody else in two words?
It is fair to assume that most of us are familiar with death. It goes with being human. So does empathy.
Your point about the family member being influenced by their own emotional suffering is valid, but it hasn’t been overlooked on this thread, which is focussed on the extent to which a religious viewpoint, representing a tiny minority of people, has disproportionate weight in current legislation.
‘others trying to do the right thing’; Could you be more specific?
“Jeez, you evangelistic atheists (contrast mere rational disbelievers) do get your knickers in a twist don’t you!”
I wasn’t aware that my knickers were twisted in my post above. After all, I did express some reservations about a too cavalier attitude toward pulling the plug. Are you referring to a different post of mine on another thread, perhaps?
Nick: since 1961 in Britain it has not been a crime to kill yourself or try to. I’m not that up of rights talk, and obviously there is no ‘right to kill yourself’ but generally we have the right to do whatever we like so long as it doesn’t break the law.
Stuart,
You are right, it is not a crime to kill yourself. They don’t even bury you at a crossroads anymore.
So if you are ambulant you have the right to shoot or hang yourself, or take some other desperate and easily botched measure. But once you are helpless, the only way you can legally have your suffering shortened is by slow dehydration.
This inhmane situation exists in large part because a minority religious viewpoint holds that ‘we are not autonomous beings’.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that believers must abandon that conviction, only that they don’t use their anachronistic power base in parliament to continue to impose it on the rest of us.
The secular and ethical arguments are difficult enough without having to deal with the phony trump card of ‘God says…’.
‘Since 1961 in Britain it has not been a crime to kill yourself or try to’
But unless I’m very mistaken, helping someone else to commit suicide is still murder, as opposed to Switzerland, where medically assisted suicide has been allowed for decades. Chemists have recently started selling lethal combinations of drugs to avoid the inconvenience of botched and/or painful attempts.
‘Generally we have the right to do whatever we like so long as it doesn’t break the law.’
That is a bit of a tautology, isn’t it?
Time to stock up…anybody know where I can get some cyanide pills? –Wait, I suppose I only need 1…but with my luck it’d take a whole bottle…what’s the shelf life on those, anyway?
Stay away from the cyanide, mate. Relatively quick but painful and can disfigure the features. Morphine, and plenty of it.
Morphine can be hard to come by for most people. Monoxide, however, is easily available and quite painless. Turns your face bright red, but I can live with that (pun intended?).
The ‘knicker-twist’ remark refers merely to the emotive referents to god-botherers. Maybe they seemed s natural that you didn’t notice ;-)
I have no quibble with leaving out God in a discussion of values and morality between non-believers, but the argument that ‘suicide is absolutely prohibited’ is ungrounded for a rationalist and perfectly grounded for a biblical literalist.
The notion that individuals can create their own moral system and it is equally valid with anyone else’s system is pretty relativistic, and I believe you (OB) are not tolerant of the relativistic view of truth claims on issues of objective fact.
Whether or not it is grounded on God’s existence or putative commandments, the prohibitions on buggery, suicide, abortion, infanticide, murder and rape have a pretty solid grounding in recent precedent – like several thousand years of precedent in theistic and non-theocratic societies.
We have moved from jailing homosexuals to gay marriage in so very few years. Peter Singer’s ethical ground-breaking show us it is just a few steps to murdering the disabled and genetically tainted from where we have come to already.
I think that given the risks, it is just as well some in our society point to a universal moral standard, even if to you it seems to be grounded in Puff the Magic Dragon.
“Peter Singer’s ethical ground-breaking shows us it is just a few steps to murdering the disabled and genetically tainted from where we have come to already.”
Slippery slope, anyone? Peter Singer, by the way, is an ass and a fool and a prating coxcomb.
“I think that given the risks, it is just as well some in our society point to a universal moral standard, even if to you it seems to be grounded in Puff the Magic Dragon.”
Don’t conflate “universal” with “supernatural”. And don’t assume that only godbotherers can subscribe to universal moral standards.
Thanks Karl, I don’t.
I post to point out that the condemnation heaped on godbotherers here ignores the track record of good work, good judgements, good decisions and good actions by godbotherers who don’t smack you in the face with theism.
I completely agree with you and OB that the scientific view is the best way to validate truth claims about reality, and likewise reject the idea of a split where science has its valid sphere and religion has a different valid sphere.
I don’t find anything in science that grounds moral claims. Religious texts do almost as bad a job of that as they do of anything else, but they are the grounding for some fine people whose choices I admire.
So why the hell should the opinions of those people, whose moral system is the inheritance of much time and many, many good lives be excuded from the debate on arguable public choices?
Just checking here Karl – do you mean by pointing out the deployment of a slippery slope argument to imply that a slippery slope argument would be invalid per se?
Whether or not it is grounded on God’s existence or putative commandments, the prohibitions on buggery, suicide, abortion, infanticide, murder and rape have a pretty solid grounding in recent precedent – like several thousand years of precedent in theistic and non-theocratic societies.
First, many societies throughout history have not prohibited suicide (ancient Greeks & Romans, the Japanese, even the Jews at Masada who are Israeli national heroes to this day, etc.).
Second, the Bible itself doesn’t exactly disapprove of infanticide (1 Samuel 15:3, Psalms 137:9, 135:8, 136:10, etc.).
Third, Jesus never, not once, condemns homosexuality. Strange omission on his part, if it’s so abhorrent and such a mortal sin.
Fourth, the fact that some things have been around for centuries doesn’t mean diddly. Slavery, for example, was common throughout much of the world, for most of history. Would you wish to argue that the institution of slavery represents some deeply ingrained wisdom of the human race that modern societies have foolishly discarded?
Fifth, what is “buggery” even doing on this list?
We have moved from jailing homosexuals to gay marriage in so very few years. Peter Singer’s ethical ground-breaking show us it is just a few steps to murdering the disabled and genetically tainted from where we have come to already.
What the #&*%$? What the hell is the connection between allowing gay marriage and exterminating the disabled? How the hell do you make that ridiculous leap? Why even mention gay rights in this context? Are you suggesting that we start jailing homosexuals again? That we should punish people for being homosexual because back in the good old biblical days they used to execute people for “buggery”? (And why are you so concerned with “buggery” anyway?)
Is this the kind of ethical reasoning we can expect from God-fearing Christian types? If so, give me a militant atheist any day!
I think Chrisper’s argument is based on an idea of tradition or convention (excluding God from the argument). It follows that we do something because we have always done it.
It is true that we cannot do without tradition- we need a base upon which to stand in all our reasoning. However it needs to be a *critical* approach to tradition. A living tradition is one that changes, a dogma is one that does not.
From all this I draw the conclusion that, within the “human rights” tradition, we allow homosexuality because it harms no-one (indeed quite the opposite) but disallow rape because it does.
This is the result of continual critical reflection on the human rights tradition.
“Murdering the disabled” for example is way outside the human rights tradition and I can’t see how any critical reflection can end up at that point.
Chrisper, do try to read accurately.
“I don’t find anything in science that grounds moral claims.”
I didn’t say it did. Please read carefully. I do so hate discussions that waste time clearing up misreadings.
“So why the hell should the opinions of those people, whose moral system is the inheritance of much time and many, many good lives be excuded from the debate on arguable public choices?”
I’ve said why. I don’t mention that to say that therefore there is no more to be said, I say it to say that there is no point in asking the question as if I hadn’t already offered an answer.
To recapitulate, the answer I offered is that arguments about secular issues should be grounded in secular (therefore public and shareable) reasons, not supernatural ones. ‘Because God’ is not a good argument because ‘God’ is a fictional character, so the because is not a because. (There are other reasons, but that’s the one I mentioned here.) It’s no good asking ‘why’ indignantly as if no reason had been given.
“Is this the kind of ethical reasoning we can expect from God-fearing Christian types?”
Hell, yeah. Crispie is the poster child for godfurring Christian ethical “reasoning”.
“And why are you [crispie] so concerned with “buggery” anyway?”
I think we all know why (see under Mel Gibson Syndrome).
Why thanks Karl, but if the godfurring types you refer to knew what I think they would probably excommunicate me. I am a mere rice christian, and a hypocrite is nobody’s poster child.
Buggery is intensely interesting because it is the single best example of an ‘absolute’ moral value being undermined and destroyed by a slippery slope of small shifts in fashionable values. We might also examine the conflicts of interest in post-modern philosophers undermining those absolute values too…
But what the hell, you will call me what you like.
OB, thanks for slapping my argument down so competently.
You force me to admit the distinction between what I thought you meant – excluding theists from public debate – and what you meant bottom line – excluding God as a grounding from an argument in public debate.
So it is OK for theists to stick at ‘WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS, and we absolutely believe it is wrong to commit [suicide, euthanasia, infanticide, buggery, abortion, divorce]’?
Is that individual belief aggregated to a voting bloc any better or worse grounding than the personal pleadings of those who want to make assisting suicide and euthanasia legal, based on our emotional preference for reducing pain and the implied absolute autonomy of the individual?
Sorry if I am irritating you, but you have roused my interest and moved me from merely thinking you let your distaste for theism escalate to excessive prejudice, to genuinely wanting to see what better grounding these moral arguments have without religion.
“Buggery is intensely interesting because it is the single best example of an ‘absolute’ moral value being undermined and destroyed by a slippery slope of small shifts in fashionable values.”
I’ll bet that’s not the only reason you find it “intensely interesting”. But hey, if we lock up all those filthy sodomites, maybe all those bad, bad feelings lurking in your bottom will go away and no one ever need find out your shameful secret.
In case you missed the point (and you did), we were all wondering why you indiscriminately lump “buggery” in with things like murder, rape, and infanticide, as if it were morally on a par with the others.
You aren’t very clear on the matter, but you seem to be suggesting that gay rights will lead to a nazi-style mass-murder eugenics program. A rather bizarre idea, to say the least.
Karl, Karl, Karl. Ad hominem attacks. :)
ChrisPer doesn’t NEED to be one of “THEM” in order to be so….interested,,,,in buggery. All’s it really takes is absolute certainty. After all, a collection of sayings cobbled together by a roving tribe 2500 years ago then collected and organized by a bunch of thuggish church politicans, bizarre monks, and aristocrats, says “buggery” is an absolute value. That’s all you need, don’t you know? That’s enmough to start burning and killing and “punishing” the sin out of them heathens. Plus, being on the burning and executing side is…kinda fun. After all, we “know” what an absolute is, don’t we enlightened ones?
You’re right, Brian M, he doesn’t need to be one of them. He can quit any time. He just enjoys wearing those outfits.
By the way, if you literally read between the lines of crispy’s last post, you’ll see it clear as day:
“thanks for slapping my […] bottom […] it is OK […] buggery […] you have roused my interest and moved me….”
Apparently, such codewords and hidden messages are very common in that subculture.
Chrisper,
“the distinction between what I thought you meant – excluding theists from public debate – and what you meant bottom line – excluding God as a grounding from an argument in public debate.”
Exactly. Of course I’m not arguing for excluding theists from public debate! (Well maybe it’s not of course, but anyway, I’m not.) I’m arguing for excluding (in an argumentative sense, not a call the cops sense) theism from public debate.
“So it is OK for theists to stick at ‘WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS, and we absolutely believe it is wrong to commit [suicide, euthanasia, infanticide, buggery, abortion, divorce]’?”
That’s not an argument. We’re talking about arguments. ‘Because’ is no better than ‘because God’. Reasoned argument, reasoned debate, requires reasons. ‘We absolutely believe’ is not a reason.
“Is that individual belief aggregated to a voting bloc any better or worse grounding than the personal pleadings of those who want to make assisting suicide and euthanasia legal, based on our emotional preference for reducing pain…?”
Yes. Because ‘because we absolutely believe’ is worse grounding than ‘because we don’t want to suffer’. Belief is one thing, suffering pain is another. (To put it another way, your absolute belief is a fine reason for you not to commit suicide, but it’s a terrible reason for you to prevent other people from doing so. You need more than that. Their desire not to suffer pain trumps your absolute belief – unless you can come up with some reason why it shouldn’t.)
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA82B.htm
Ten Myths about Assisted Suicide
In the bigger picture, it appears the opposition is not just a clutch of nut-job bishops citing ‘because God Says..’
“In the bigger picture, it appears the opposition is not just a clutch of nut-job bishops citing ‘because God Says..'”
No kidding. But as has been pointed out before, the religious nut-jobs, with their officious and irrelevant godtalk, obscure legitimate secular worries about institutionalized euthanasia. Let’s frame the debate in secular terms and go from there.
“I would think it right to myself assist a last-stage bone cancer patient to end their suffering, but I would prefer do it against the law than have a risk that it might be decided for someone either against their will or while they are incompetent.”
Those aren’t the only two options, you know. The first and absolute rule must be: No one should EVER be euthanized against his or her will, the only exception perhaps being when the patient is a permanent vegetable, with no chance of recovery.
ChrisPer
Interesting article, and certainly contains some points that need addressing, now that we are leaving God out of the equation.
‘…I would prefer do it against the law than have a risk that it might be decided for someone either against their will or while they are incompetent.’
I am inclined to agree, to the extent that in the UK courts have consistently been sympathetic to those who have genuinely made that decision in the face of extreme circumstances. However, the increasing involvement of lawyers, special interest groups and more and more people ending their days in an impersonal system, the option of a loved on being in a position to do that is decreasing.
Called away to work. Look forward to continuing this debate.
“Prevention of pain per se is not a moral value. Prevention of needless suffering is a good thing, but I am forcibly struck by the classical economics model, where the only value ascribed to ‘model people’ is to ‘maximise utility’ or perhaps here, minimise the dis-utility of life.”
I have no idea what any of that means.
“In the bigger picture, it appears the opposition is not just a clutch of nut-job bishops citing ‘because God Says..'”
I said that – see ‘The truth about cats and dogs’.
“‘Prevention of pain per se is not a moral value. Prevention of needless suffering is a good thing, but I am forcibly struck by the classical economics model, where the only value ascribed to ‘model people’ is to ‘maximise utility’ or perhaps here, minimise the dis-utility of life.’
“I have no idea what any of that means.”
Allow me to translate from vacuous goddy talk to plain English: Suffering can be good for the soul, so we shouldn’t try to build some brave new world where people live only for carnal pleasure and avoid all pain.
There ya go, OB. Learn to value the higher things in life, which you cannot do without accepting Sky Daddy.
Of course, that doesn’t work for everyone, Reverend Karl, so be sure to graphically illustrate in glorious stained glass windows, oil paintings and sketches dripping with bizarre demonic critters, and gruesome text how (loving) Sky Daddy will torture one for ever and ever if one doesn’t fall in line. Remember, suicides can’t be buried in hallowed ground.
Well, Brian M, we needn’t accept the old, nasty version of Sky Daddy. But we must accept some version of Him if we want to have beauty, morality, and meaning in our lives. Otherwise, we squander our empty days smoking opium and masturbating to goat porn.
OB, fair comment, it is not at all clear if I had any meaning there.
Karl, not a bad attempt at translation assuming that I were your lampoon stereotype. You guys are obviously having fun so I will keep the party going!
What I was trying to say is that it appears to me that preventing the feeling of pain is offered as a higher value to ground the argument, than the grounding of the supposed preferences of God.
I agree that the offered samples of god-type argument are pathetic in the context of public debate in a secular society. Here in Australia it probably looks even stupider than it does in Britain.
I strongly disagree that the value of pain minimisation offers adequate MORAL grounding for changing the law on assisting suicide. The grounding offered by OB to be better than ‘because God’ is the freedom of the individual to choose to die if the alternative is suffering. I suggest that it could be called ‘because I’?
This has the obvious benefit that ‘I’ exist, and is less controversial than the existence claims for God.
I suggest that the ‘because I’ grounding assumes the absolute competence and autonomy of the individual. This is valid for OB, Karl and me while we are healthy, but not for Greg the head-injured motorcyclist in a coma for 7 years or Alice the dithery old duck with bone cancer who always falls in with her forceful daughter-in-law, and who happens to own a nice house in Islington.
Having disposed of God in the argument, as OB suggests, we can get to the meat of the matter. So OB (and Don) you are right. Would you admit bishops to public debate on their authority as bishops, if they had a better-developed argument?
“Would you admit bishops to public debate on their authority as bishops, if they had a better-developed argument?”
Huh? What authority do bishops, qua bishops, have other than a religious one? And why should that constitute any kind of authority in a secular society? If a bishop can make good secular arguments against suicide, his arguments ought to be considered. He can restrict his “God says so” arguments to the faithful, preferably in church.
“Would you admit bishops to public debate on their authority as bishops, if they had a better-developed argument?”
No. On the merits of their argument, sure, but no more than another other arbitrary citizen.
I don’t mean to make light of the risk of coercion, but regarding ChrisPer’s suggestion of sneaking in and doing it illegally: This shows support for euthanasia, or assisted suicide in principle, but ignores the possibility that some legitimate candidates for euthanasia might be discouraged from doing the deed, either out of some misguided respect for the law, or for fear of getting loved ones in trouble. I am pretty sure that with appropriate safeguards the risks of coercion can be made very small (though not zero). For example the number of people who are assisted in dying in the Netherlands is pretty large, but no larger than before it was legal. Tiny risks shouldn’t necessarily be allowed to trump other people’s interest, even if the risks are serious.
ChrisPer’
You didn’t honestly think that the words ‘on their authority as bishops’ was going to slip by, did you?
This thread started with the assertion by a clergyman that we should not help a suffering human in the final stages of a terminal disease to end their lives painlessly because of his personal religious conviction, and a political system that gave the clergy unjustified influence over the relevant laws.
You have accepted that in such cases the decent thing to do is to help them to die, if such is their wish.
Shall we now turn to the other, troubling aspects of this question, some of which were raised in the article you linked to? In particular the matter of coercion and self-interested influence, and the question of ‘quality of life’ for the disabled?
Stuart seems confident that safeguards against coercion can be put in place, but I am less sure. If someone feels that they are a burden it may not take much to edge them further along that path. Exactly what safeguards are being proposed?
A large part of my job is seeking ways to enhance the quality of life of youngsters with profound and multiple disabilities, many of whom have no way of communicating beyond the most rudimentary expressions of distress. If it were suggested that minimising that distress was a moral grounds for euthanasia I would oppose it utterly. I’m with you on that point.
However, as an atheist I have nothing but personal conviction to back that view up. That’s a problem atheists face all the time; no divine sanction to turn to. So I promise, for the time being and on this thread only, to stay away from mocking the devout, if we could – as you say – get to the meat of the matter.
“However, as an atheist I have nothing but personal conviction to back that view up. That’s a problem atheists face all the time; no divine sanction to turn to.”
But of course it’s a good thing as well as a problem. Cuts both ways, as the saying goes. Because divine sanction can back up vicious sadistic hatered-riddled views as well as the other kind. At least when we get down to bedrock and have to admit that all we have is personal conviction, we can compare and discuss our personal convictions. Divine sanction is precisely a discussion shunting device. (Though it can also be useful, for instance when we are convinced something is cruel and wrong but are strongly tempted to do it anyway, because it’s in our interests.)
“ChrisPer: You didn’t honestly think that the words ‘on their authority as bishops’ was going to slip by, did you?”
I’m pretty sure Mr. Slick thought exactly that, which is why I remain so skeptical when he says that he’s not claiming any special privileges for religion.
Karl, you grow cynical.
Grow?
‘on their authority as bishops’ – well, I did slip those words in there for provocation, as my disagreement with OB is solely on the question of admitting theists to public discourse. That is resolved to the extent that they can be admitted as individuals but the bouncers are to be called as soon as they say ‘because God…’
The authority of bishops is derived biblically among christians, but is also secular. Firstly, you get the fact that they are regional managers of large organisations operating in an ethical and service sphere of operation, which is partly nationalised in the social welfare system. Secondly you have the weight of tradition that holds their role in public affairs as significant, and that they may be held to represent their members’ ethical concerns in the way an MP represents their constituents. Thirdly, in countries such as the UK or Denmark with an establishment religion they have a place in the formal power structure of government. (I don’t contend that that is a good idea).
I suggest that social connectedness and historic reality gives us a number of reasons why a bishops authority is appropriate to public discourse.
Of course my fundamentalist connections would say they are misusing it in that bishops (or equivalents) here have been for women priests, gay ordination, gun confiscation and poverty relief for the third world, while hedging the absolute admission of belief in any godlike entity – ie you can’t get a cigarette paper between the politically correct activist and the supposed theists.
Oh, goody. john c. halasz has been reincarnated as a right-wing godbotherer. Let the games begin!
Chrisper
Are you actually going to address the issue or just witter on about management structures?
“Exactly what safeguards are being proposed?”
Taking the Netherlands example again: two doctors must confirm that the suffering is “lasting and unbearable” and be satisfied that death is the best outcome. 10000 requests for euthanasia are made each year with 3800 carried out, implying that the suffering must indeed be dire to qualify. In other countries the request must be repeated after a fixed amount of time has passed, and the patient must demonstrate that that she has thought through her decision and considered the alternatives. They also have clauses preventing external pressure, it doesn’t strike me as all that difficult for a psychologist to make it very clear that external pressure (real or imagined) is not a satisfactory reason for proceeding. In Switzerland where it has been legal since 1942 only a couple of hundred cases of euthanasia happen each year. Again it should be considered against how often it happens illegally each year. There seems to me no evidence of slippery sloping happening in reality, and surely patients are at least as vulnerable without all this official supervision.
Another concern is that terminally ill patients will commit suicide while they are still competent because they know that they cannot count on assistance when they cease to be physically competent.
I agree that the risk of coercion is serious and can probably not be eliminated but why is that considered serious enough to block the activity? Just about everything we do carries a non-zero risk of death, we don’t ban the activities, we just try to deal with the risks as best we can.
Thanks, stuart. I wasn’t suggesting the risk should block the act, just expressing concern about the details of the safeguards, which you have now provided.
Don,
I regret I can’t address the issue of euthanasia and the risks for the handicapped at the level you can. I can ‘witter on about management structures’, but the guts of a well-developed and universally applicable ethical argument are outside my competence.
Having once addressed euthanasia in a five-minute speech I am perhaps more qualified than 80% of people who have spoken on it…
I read an article by a cerebral palsy (CP) person who met Peter Singer. I was fascinated that her viewpoint was so strong – to her, this man had justified the next generation of Eichmanns who would exterminate her and her friends. The friends could not believe she was able to be courteous to the man.
IMHO, any legal exception that allows others the choice of killing must be assumed will be misused.
eg Karl above: “Those aren’t the only two options, you know. The first and absolute rule must be: No one should EVER be euthanized against his or her will, the only exception perhaps being when the patient is a permanent vegetable, with no chance of recovery.”
IMHO any non-competent patient is at risk of misguided or self-interested decisions by their next of kin or guardian. How much more risk for a person who cannot communicate!
We have seen the assisted suicide of a healthy person who thought she was escaping a painful death from cancer; I don’t have full info but it appears the momentum of her supporters carried her all the way to death, even though the initial diagnosis was wrong. We have seen the disabled killed in a number of societies, and in our own we do not openly allow the killing of eg a CP person.
But broadly we would have no problem with even a late-term abortion if we detected they were likely to be CP.
I think the CP people would be right to interpret this as showing that their very existence (not merely their condition) is widely viewed as a wrong, and could easily be used by some to justify taking their lives.
ChrisPer
I wasn’t claiming any particular level, and I’m sure you can address ethical arguments perfectly well.
I think we can agree that Singer has nothing of value to offer. I agree that ‘any legal exception that allows others the choice of killing must be assumed will be misused.’ Which is why safeguards must be put in place. One of which must clearly be that it is a considered decision.
Those who can make that considered decision should have that decision respected, those who can’t must be protected from others with their own agendas.
‘We have seen the assisted suicide of a healthy person who thought she was escaping a painful death from cancer; I don’t have full info …’
Not familiar with this case. You really are expected to provide sources for this sort of thing. I know it’s time consuming, but if you want to introduce it, you have to back it up.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/12/15/1039656299607.html
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/11/25/1038173700166.html
Thanks
No mention of cancer, or any mistaken diagnosis. She appears to have taken a rational decision, although of course police should investigate for undue influence.
Interesting that she is quoted as saying; ‘ that although she had been planning her death for three years, she would not have acted so early if euthanasia was legal.
“A lot of people go out and do it because they fear becoming so infirm that if they leave it too long, they won’t be able to.”
Under the safeguards outlined by stuart she would not have qualified for legal euthanasia, but then she apparently would not have felt the need.
Yes, I had heard a description of the case by someone and not read these reports myself, so I was out beyond the facts there (aka wrongo.. bzzt)
“Yes, I had heard a description of the case by someone and not read these reports myself, so I was out beyond the facts there (aka wrongo.. bzzt)”
Convert the mistaken anecdote to a thought-experiment, though, and you can continue the discussion.
So, what if…?
Good thought Karl: hypotheticals.
What if…(1) a person assisted the suicide of a healthy person who thought she was escaping a painful death from cancer;
From the point of view of the law, has the assister acted wrongly? Should they be charged or protected?
And what is the moral position of the assister? How about that of the suicider him/herself?
I think that in an after the fact situation, we start from the beliefs and intentions, then judge the actions based on those beliefs and intentions.
If the law permits this in the case of genuine imminent painful death, it would also permit this case, excepting if the false belief arose from negligent medical practice or deception.
Obviously legalisation with a ‘board of review’ requirement for these decisions could offer a quality filter, don’t you agree Karl?
What if…(2) a person assisted the suicide of a handicapped person under the belief that the handicapped person intended escaping a painful life; but the difficulty of communication with the handicapped person meant that the helper and/or the handicapped person were actually misinfomed on the matter of the handicapped person’s actual state, intentions, and consent to die?
Note that handicapped people’s competence is in question and others legally decide matters for them;
Even healthy people with full faculties and communication fail to get emotional subjects right – eg the screwups in evidence from children in the false child abuse cases at Shieldfield (www.richardwebster.net).
I think it very likely that the result of legalising assisted suicide will be a substantial drop in the hurdles; not the official ones, but the emotional ones. It will put the option of death on the table for every severely handicapped person, whatever they want; it will become an unspoken possibility in every relationship they have, that the carer or family or partner may desire their death, may promote it.
The assumption that a life not meeting the standards of the healthy is less valuable will become institutionalised.
To quote the old sales tactic, the person goes from whether, to which and when.
So, this issue comes down to: Should I be forced to suffer horrifically, because there is a chance, remote or even well within the realm of possibility, that someone else may be improperly “murdered”?
That’s a tough one. In a case of a terminal pain, I would still be selfish and say “Don’t punish my caregiver, let him help me depart.”
“If the law permits this in the case of genuine imminent painful death, it would also permit this case, excepting if the false belief arose from negligent medical practice or deception.“
Depends on who the assister is. If it’s the doctor who made the deceiftul or inexcusably sloppy diagnosis, then yes, by all means prosecute–especially in the case of deception (a farfetched sceneario, to be sure). If merely a family member who acted in good faith but under a mistaken or deceitful misdiagnosis in assisting the suicide, then no, do not prosecute the family member (but feel free to prosecute the doctor who negligently or deceiftully misdiagnosed the patient).
“Obviously legalisation with a ‘board of review’ requirement for these decisions could offer a quality filter, don’t you agree Karl?”
Sounds fair and reasonable. The devil is always in the details, of course.
“The assumption that a life not meeting the standards of the healthy is less valuable will become institutionalised.”
This, of course, is the great worry and extreme care must be taken to avoid it. I’m particularly worried about the various financial pressures that might come to bear in such situations, particularly given our current money-worshipping, devil-take-the-hindmost society. So, I’d say: no assisted suicide or euthanasia without consent of the patient, and even then only after extensive medical and psychiatric evaluation by an independent board of qualified doctors. One of the things that disturbs me about Kevorkian is that many of his “patients” (a shocking large percentage, in fact) where not terninally ill or even in unbearable pain. Many were, in fact, depressed, recently divorced, middle-aged women suffering mainly from depression compounded by a moderately painful but not terminal disease. I absolutely refuse to join those euthanasia activists who lionize the creepy, despicable Kevorkian.
As I said before, the only exception I would make to this rule is that of permanent brain-death, after a reasonable period of time–perhaps five or seven years? In such cases, at least the patient isn’t suffering (although family members might be, emotionally). This is a much more tricky case, particularly when the patient hasn’t left a living will. But I think it’s possible to set up reasonable safeguards in such cases.
Agreed that safeguards can be set up that ought to work in many cases.
Permanent brain-death is in fact death of the person, and the body kept as living tissue is IMHO not in the question; it has the appearance of euthanasia or asisted suicide in the media, but it is a totally different ethical issue. Present laws covered that correctly in the Schiavo case. The controversy there was mainly people who wanted to believe that life was being taken, so they could validate their positions both pro-life, and pro-choice.
Its the situation of the severely handicapped that I believe is most important; human, self-aware, moral persons whose lives are in the hands of others and are already subject to so much guilt and anger around their existence. Hard, hard life to be trapped into but escape and freedom are nowhere to find. I believe these people value their lives, hold them as precious as anyone does.