Such, at least, is the logic of abortion; such is the logic of euthanasia. Such is the logic of the culture of death, which we might also call the culture of “might makes right.” And don’t let talk of “death with dignity” misdirect you; though there are certainly those who are suicidal because of illness or injury, those who advocate euthanasia have far broader concerns. As Dr. Bob of The Doctor Is In writes,
While invariably promoted as a merciful means of terminating suffering, the suffering relieved is far more that of the enabling society than of its victims. “Death with dignity” is the gleaming white shroud on the rotting corpse of societal fear, self-interest and ruthless self-preservation.
This is where we end up when our only concern is what is reasonable in our own eyes, and our only standard for reasonability is our own self-interest: with
a philosophy where the Useful is the Good, whose victims are the children whom Reason scorned.Euthanasia is the quick fix to man’s ageless struggle with suffering and disease. The Hippocratic Oath—taken in widely varying forms by most physicians at graduation—was originally administered to a minority of physicians in ancient Greece, who swore to prescribe neither euthanasia nor abortion—both common recommendations by healers of the age. The rapid and widespread acceptance of euthanasia in pre-Nazi Germany occurred because it was eminently reasonable and rational. Beaten down by war, economic hardship, and limited resources, logic dictated that those who could not contribute to the betterment of society cease being a drain on its lifeblood. Long before its application to ethnic groups and enemies of the State, it was administered to those who made us most uncomfortable: the mentally ill, the deformed, the retarded, the social misfit.
The immediate material benefits of such a policy are easy to articulate. The hidden long-term costs, material, cultural, and spiritual, are equally easy to overlook through deliberate short-sightedness, yet they are in the end far greater:
The benefits of suffering, subtle though they may be, can be discerned in many instances even by the unskilled eye. What are the chances that Dutch doctors will find a cure for the late stage cancer or early childhood disease, when they now so quickly and “compassionately” dispense of their sufferers with a lethal injection? Who will teach us patience, compassion, unselfish love, endurance, tenderness, and tolerance, if not those who provide us with the opportunity through their suffering, or mental or physical disability? These are character traits not easily learned, though enormously beneficial to society as well as individuals. How will we learn them if we liquidate our teachers?Higher moral principles position roadblocks to our behavior, warning us that grave danger lies beyond. When in our hubris and unenlightened reason we crash through them, we do so at great peril, for we do not know what evil lies beyond.
As Dr. Bob notes, the truth of that is clearly illustrated by the German history with euthanasia. Here’s hoping we will ultimately show ourselves willing to learn from their experience, rather than condemning ourselves to relive it.HT: Gerald Vanderleun, with special thanks to the Anchoress.
Oh man, Rob, I almost couldn’t possibly disagree more with your characterization of death with dignity and euthanasia in general. I think that you would really benefit from reading more widely opinions which put forth the actual arguments behind euthanasia. I’ve studied this a lot, and sat in on ethics committee meetings, and spoken to ethicists who advise those committees and write books about this topic, and I don’t think any of those people would agree with your characterization.
I also disagree with the characterization of abortion, but less so, because I can point to places where I’ve seen the convenience argument put forward. And I suppose it probably happens with euthanasia as well, but rejecting the argument that we should kill out of convenience, which is right in my view, doesn’t come anywhere near a valid refutation of arguments in favor of euthanasia…
The strongest proponent of euthanasia that I knew personally was my mother. She had met a woman in a nursing home, while visiting a someone else, and they got to be friends. My mother continued visiting her until she died. By then she was in so much pain that she longed to die. My mother was so angry that the doctors made her elderly friend (born July 4, 1876) keep suffering. She dreaded the thought of ever ending up that way herself.
My mother was never particularly useful to society, and made life unpleasant for people who knew her. But when she told people she wanted to die but didn’t know any good ways to go about it, no one considered helping her along. She contacted the Hemlock Society, and even they wouldn’t help her because she wasn’t considered terminally ill, only depressed.
She died two years ago, of old age, when she finally decided she was going to die and stopped eating or drinking enough to stay alive.
Doug, I’m not saying that the arguments are advanced (in this country, at least) on this basis; indeed, if they were, if this were the explicit case for euthanasia (and fully so for abortion), then a fair bit of what I wrote would be nonsensical. Looking back over what I wrote, I realize that “those who advocate euthanasia” was too broad and general a phrase, and could be taken to mean that all those who support euthanasia think this way; my mistake, that was not what I intended.
My point, rather, was twofold. First, that this is the fundamental logic of the pro-euthanasia and pro-abortion platform–this is the direction in which it takes us, as the examples of 1930s Germany and the modern-day Netherlands illustrate–and to some extent, this logic is involved in the beliefs and arguments of even its most high-minded advocates. (None of our motives are unmixed, ever; our own fears and self-interest contaminate even our best arguments and efforts. I claim nothing better for myself and my own positions.)
Second, that in the leading advocates of euthanasia and abortion (the people I intended to reference in the phrase I mentioned above), we do see this logic, and this deadly sense of what is reasonable. I don’t say we see it in all of them, but in some of their arguments, it is present.
I too, I should note, have learned from professional conversations on the subject of euthanasia–but the hospital in which I worked was committed to palliative care, as part of a medical organization that was committed to leading the way in providing palliative care, and to demonstrating that there is a better way than euthanasia. Perhaps that gives me a different sense of the arguments than others might have.
Pauline, my grandfather too wondered for a long time why he was still alive, and wished God would take him; for much of that time, I can honestly say I’m grateful he was still alive (even though he wasn’t), but by the time he finally did die, it was clearly God’s blessing. I know that there are those whom suffering and dying leaves depressed and suicidal.
I also know, though, that actual care for people who feel this way–both physical and emotional/spiritual–is possible and makes a big difference; I know this in part because I’ve had my hand in providing it. The fact that hospitals in the past have too often done a very poor job of this has been one of the things that has made euthanasia seem more reasonable to many than it should; but many of our hospitals are taking this seriously and getting much, much better at it, as pain management and palliative care become increasingly significant and respected specialties and responsibilities within the medical system. In a system that is far too prone to value “cure” over “care”–and to view those who cannot be cured as problems and even embarrassments–I consider this an important and heartening positive trend; I think we would be greatly impoverished to see it wiped away by the acceptance of euthanasia as a “solution” to the “problem” of those who cannot be cured.