Yesterday, the local archbishop was on page four of the newspaper, condemning euthanasia as immoral.
Of late, there has been in my country strong debate on the issue of euthanasia (currently illegal) and the low take-up rate Advance Medical Directive (currently available - signs away artificial means of support when life is no longer viable). Publicity in the press, though, seems to be directed at swinging readers away from support for euthanasia - a while back there were articles featuring five doctors morally opposed to euthanasia (as though that is representative of the entire medical community!), and this cheerful, loving gem was in the papers today.
The first article mentions that Archbishop Chia's pastoral letter was read out on All Souls Day. As far as I know, that means every Mass, at every parish. I can't remember exactly what the letter was about, because sitting in the congregation I was trying my best not to scream and cry (and getting angry looks from my parents and those around me), but the key points seem to be along the lines of A: all euthanasia (or medically-assisted suicide) is immoral; B: those who participate in it, including doctors, must be condemned; and C: compassion for the terminally ill is, in this case, "false compassion" (the archbishop's own words).
I feel very strongly about the need to legalise euthanasia. I would not go so far as to take the utilitarian view people like this letter-writer adopt, but in my opinion the terminally-ill and the elderly have given all they can to society, and should be respected when it comes to their final days.
More than that, the link between abortion rights and euthanasia rights should be apparent: the right to choose. Some conservatives have already taken the reverse stance on this, that is, the idea that since euthanasia is illegal, abortion should be criminalised again (in Singapore, abortion was legalised in 1974, although mandatory counselling is still necessary now). However, I believe that in recognising that with abortion a woman has control over her own body, then the elderly and the terminally ill have the same right to choose what is done with their bodies.
The slippery-slope argument is problematic, especially problematic to counter, because suicide is a crime here, and attempted suicides taken to court; it is therefore important to place restrictions (e.g. age or medical restrictions) on euthanasia. Yet if that were the case there must be a rational justification for these restrictions. I hope you do not find it offensive if I suggest "potentiality" as an explanation for this, despite the fact that the anti-abortion rights movement loves the word "potential": a foetus is potentially viable, and has potential after that viability, but has nothing to prove it will live to that potential; the young and the healthy, who may wish to commit suicide out of depression clinical or otherwise, have accomplishments in their past which backs up potential of the future, and should receive the care they need rather than abetting their suicides; but the elderly and the terminally ill, who have done all they can for themselves and society, should have their wishes respected.
I don't know if that argument is a sound or valid one, merely my opinion; and I really do shy away from utilitarianism in issues such as these. But I do believe that abortion rights and euthanasia rights are connected by their dependence on the acceptance of the right to choose, and would greatly appreciate your thoughts as well.
In slightly unrelated news, but also in today's paper: while yesterday's paper had the health minister promising five-figure compensation to those who donated kidneys, women who donate their eggs for medical research will only be reimbursed for taxi fare. And women who are donating excess eggs from fertility treatment will not even receive that. Apparently kidneys (which can be got from most people) and eggs (which can only be got from less than half the population) just aren't on the same level of importance.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The Rights of a Human Life.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/10226
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
That is absolutely infuriating! False compassion my rosy butt!
Personal story: Last spring, my aunt died of cancer. She had fought it for several years, beaten it into remission twice before, but the final time it spread far past the ability to treat. There were nodes throughout her torso, in all her major organs. And she finally said, No more. All the treatment was doing was making her sick and having no real discernable effect. I know it was a terrible choice to make, for her and for my uncle both. But they made the choice to stop treatment.
And then all they could do was place her in a chemically-induced coma and let her starve to death. Because euthanasia is illegal. My grandmother, who often stayed at the hospital with them, told me her eyes were a little bit open. I asked why, and she said, "Because the fatty tissue behind the eyes is wasting away and the eyelid can't stay fully shut anymore."
How, exactly, is a needle in the arm "false compassion" at that point? You'd rather let somebody starve to death in a chemical coma than humanely end their life? What the fuck? My uncle and my grandparents had to sit there for THREE FUCKING WEEKS and watch her waste away before she finally died. That should NEVER have had to happen. That is fucking TORTURE for the family. One hopes of course that the ill person cannot feel anything, but I'd imagine if they can, it's torture for them too.
I really get what you're saying and empathise with you.
As someone who comes from a family with a history of cancer - my grandmother, who's been struggling with a relapse for the past few years, lives with us - I've been feeling very infuriated over that insensitive phrase for the past few days too.
Something I saw on the internet put it best: most opponents of euthanasia are either in full health or have never had to see relatives suffer like this.
May your aunt have peace.
What a horrible story.
My fiance and I made a pact a while back. If either of us got a terminal disease like that and decided it wasn't worth it, and we couldn't commit suicide alone, we would help the other commit suicide, even if it means going to jail. We'll provide the other with a razor to slice the wrists lengthwise, which causes one to bleed to death in a very short amount of time, too short for doctors to intervene. And if the other is too weak to do it themselves, we will do it for them.
Neither of us is at all suicidal. We are in our right minds. But we know that that is the best choice. And it's heartbreaking that we would have to risk jail time to carry out the other's long term wishes.
First, I wish your grandmother strength and healing. Cancer is a horrible, horrible disease.
That's a beautiful way of putting it. Much like most opponents to abortion are either men or have never been unexpectedly pregnant.
I don't know much about church organization/hierarchy, but is there any way you can protest such offensive phrasing as the whole "false compassion" thing? It's just...a slap in the face for anyone who has had to see the kind of suffering that happens at the point where euthanasia would be welcomed. At least they could have euphemized it as "sanctity of life" or some equally pat phrase.
I don't know what I can do - the answer's pretty much: zero.
For one, I'm not even fifteen, so that seriously curtails my actions. For another, I'm a Sunday Catholic (leaning towards the deistic), and am just about as clueless as you are about church hierarchy (which probably has no room for questioning opinions).
Basically, the only thing open to me is to continue ranting here and on my blog and on the internet. Thanks so much for listening, and thank you for the goodwill toward my grandma. I agree wholeheartedly, the effects of cancer are terrible.
Are you a born human, and cognizant enough to make legal decisions?
Then your right to make decisions for yourself should be respected, particularly as they pertain to quality of life or end of life issues.
During my rotation at a women and children's hospital, I learned of a 12 year old girl with cancer who did not want her leg to be amputated as her doctor and parents recommended, in an effort to save her life. I never learned the outcome, but if a 12 year old girl would rather experience pain and fight her cancer (or even die) rather than go through life living without a leg, it should be her informed choice. Let her alternatives and feelings be discussed (she may find e.g., her peers are more supportive than she initially thought), but the final decision should be hers.
My father died of an inoperable tumor. He decided to try to be one of the 3% of five year survivors, and fought beyond what his doctor expected. Physically, emotionally, and financially, he and my mother paid the price. Finally, he bled to death when the tissue ruptured beyond repair. He died in the bland surroundings of an ICU, with concerned medical staff and my mother at his side.
Seeing this experience, his mother (my grandmother) decided to stay at home and die when she developed the same kind of cancer that same year. She was doped up on morphine to a near coma for her pain, and probably died of respiratory depression when the increasing dosage went too high. She died in comfortable surroundings a few months later with loved ones nearby. No one in our family questioned that decision, either, nor did anyone consider it a killing.
If you want to make sure your rights and wishes are respected regarding health care and end of life, I suggest people look into preparing a living will, or even something as simple and direct as a "do not resuscitate" form to be prepared BEFORE you need it. At the very least, let people around you know (like my mother did) if you do not want to live on a machine or have people pounding on your chest to prolong your life. After you develop Parkinson's or have a stroke and are lying in bed unable to move, feed yourself, or communicate, for the next 40 years is too late to decide you want to live or die differently. It is my good fortune to currently be working with no one with such regrets, because it is hard to listen to someone talk about wanting to die or requesting cyanide or a gun to kill themselves, on a near daily basis. Ironically, this man surprised staff by simply dying in the middle of a conversation one day.
Some oversight is needed to prevent exploitation or manipulation in euthanasia or assisted suicide. Only the patient or their designated representative should make those decisions. I've heard some bad things coming out of one country that does have legalized euthanasia, such as overeager physicians or family who consider their loved one a burden.