Wesley, you write that Kevorkian’s more important place in contemporary history was “as a dark mirror that reflected how powerful theavoidance of suffering has become as a driving force in society.” I’ll give you the “dark mirror.” Kevorkian was a very odd bird indeed, but count me less convinced than you about the importance that “society” (at least the politicians that presume to represent it) really attaches to the avoidance (more accurately, alleviation) of suffering. From the excesses of the government’s war against painkillers to the almost unsurmountable obstacles that the state places in the way of a terminally ill individual who wishes to end it all but (due to physical impairment) is unable to do so, at least some of the evidence would appear to suggest something rather different.
One of my main points of difference with most NRO writing. It's not that I don't respect or even appreciate the arguments made against a "culture of death" approach to the world, or deny that there are many advocates of euthanasia who come across as representatives of a menacing ideology, or have a freakish aspect like Kevorkian. Nor do i want society to fail in its moral duty to provide palliative care and moral support to those who want to live if they can.
I just want to retain the right to finish it for myself, if I need to, and with help if I need it. Pain is not fun, even at the modest levels I have known. When, I hope in many years, I am closer to death, I might change my mind, but given my view of pain now I rather suspect that even then, and given how much pain the very old are liable to be in, I will still fear it more than death.
Some might find that disgraceful. That doesn't matter. Nor should it define the law.
No, as a conservative, not a libertarian, country, with deep religious values, we place life slightly above pleasure and understand that if we accept suicide (and abortion) which is death without purpose, we devalue human life. (death with purpose elevates human life) This devaluation will ultimately lead to a host of other horrors.
We also, separately, know that the legitimation and ready availability of mind and mood altering drugs will result in sloth, degeneracy and social and moral decay.
(People do not need to smoke pot for pain relief -- THC derivatives are readily available by prescription -- and relieing the pain of the ill is not the motivation behind the medical marijuana "movement" anyway)
Kevorkian was a parasite. I believe I know where he is now, and though God may lament the loss of each soul, Kevorkian forfeited his soul and did not apeear to have repented.
"we place life slightly above pleasure andif we accept suicide (and abortion) which is death without purpose"
There is a world of difference between "pleasure" and chronic, unending,uncurable extreme pain suffered by people who feel there is no way out except death.
"We also, separately, know that the legitimation and ready availability of mind and mood altering drugs will result in sloth, degeneracy and social and moral decay."
Not often i come across real, live prohibitionists these days :)
I really don't like Kevorkian, nor the movement he spawned and represented, and I really want to endorse your argument word for word. If I were in better health at right this minute I might.
I will agree with your comment on Kevorkian himself, albeit with the caveat that I claim no knowledge of the state or fate of his soul.
I will also agree that pain relief is not the main motive of the legalization movement. I find their criticism of the flaws of prescription THC self-serving, too. Though I certainly hope never to be in a position to need to find out.
I am equally a huge supporter of any argument against altering one's mental state. It is contrary to what I perceive as the requirements of my God for me, and at any rate I don't think one should be allowed to indulge in it without forfeiting the franchise, drivers' licences and so forth. I generally trot this line out when pro-drug types compare it to alcohol. As naive as it sounds, the latter actually can be enjoyed for its mild effect on the lower nervous system, taste and so forth without being taken in such quantities as to affect one's higher functions, identity, judgment and so forth. Not that everyone uses it in moderation, but many do. Whereas mental alteration is the only point of recreational narcotics.
But I digress too far into a mild exercise in the application of Greek philosophy to recreational habits.
I am even pretty close to agreeing with your first paragraph, though I suspect there have been men and women in every generation of American history who would have quibbled with that in theory and practice, and not just from the left.
After all that agreement, I have only one major problem.
Relief of pain/suffering is NOT the same concept as "pleasure".
SeanB, thanks for your comments. To clarify one thing, when I wrote about the the war against painkillers, I was not thinking about 'medical' marijuana (which is *primarily* seen as a remedy for nausea, vomiting and loss of appetite), but rather to the heavy-handed way in which the prescription of certain legal painkillers is policed.
There's just so much wrong here in the comments section that I hardly know where to start. People like Sean and random obviously base their opinions on worst case scenarios presented by the media. That's all right, as long as you're willing to pretty much ban everything. Indeed, who are we to decide what we want to do? Shouldn't someone in the government decide everything for us?
As to Andrew's point, I would like to say how the "prescription drug crisis" is currently the hot local news story. For God's sake, something must be done! And something will. I'm sure that the next time I go to my doctor, she probably won't renew my painkiller prescription. I'm retired and have had chronic back and knee pain for years, but no matter. The news found some teenager who stole his parent's painkillers, took half a bottle and died in a car wreck. Obviously, I must give up my pain relief because of that, right?
This is the way it works. The way it always works. The media has footage of a polar bear swimming, hence we must all change to twisty light bulbs. I'd just be careful. It's always easy to call for more government involvement in policing individual behavior. They'll be glad to oblige. But trying to get them to disengage is a whole 'nother matter.
@expat asia: already "assisted suicide" has claimed the lives of people who weren't even sick. And already it has claimed the lives of at least one disabled person who was bullied into "agreement".
The problem is that there is no way to make "assisted suicide" legal without resorting to arbitrary distinctions as to who does and does not qualify as a life "without value".
And there is no way to designate certain types of life as having "no value" without designating ALL such people as "better off dead" - and it is a well-established fact that other people generally rate disabled peoples' lives as more horrible than disabled people rate their own lives.
Not to mention the problems ensuring that no coercion has taken place - in a nation where there's already heavy shaming aimed at those who want to use more than "their share" of valuable medical resources.
The answer is not to make it easier to kill, but to recognize that the fact that people would want to die means we need to do a better job alleviating suffering.
One of my main points of difference with most NRO writing. It's not that I don't respect or even appreciate the arguments made against a "culture of death" approach to the world, or deny that there are many advocates of euthanasia who come across as representatives of a menacing ideology, or have a freakish aspect like Kevorkian. Nor do i want society to fail in its moral duty to provide palliative care and moral support to those who want to live if they can.
I just want to retain the right to finish it for myself, if I need to, and with help if I need it. Pain is not fun, even at the modest levels I have known. When, I hope in many years, I am closer to death, I might change my mind, but given my view of pain now I rather suspect that even then, and given how much pain the very old are liable to be in, I will still fear it more than death.
Some might find that disgraceful. That doesn't matter. Nor should it define the law.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, as a conservative, not a libertarian, country, with deep religious values, we place life slightly above pleasure and understand that if we accept suicide (and abortion) which is death without purpose, we devalue human life. (death with purpose elevates human life) This devaluation will ultimately lead to a host of other horrors.
We also, separately, know that the legitimation and ready availability of mind and mood altering drugs will result in sloth, degeneracy and social and moral decay.
(People do not need to smoke pot for pain relief -- THC derivatives are readily available by prescription -- and relieing the pain of the ill is not the motivation behind the medical marijuana "movement" anyway)
Kevorkian was a parasite. I believe I know where he is now, and though God may lament the loss of each soul, Kevorkian forfeited his soul and did not apeear to have repented.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"we place life slightly above pleasure andif we accept suicide (and abortion) which is death without purpose"
There is a world of difference between "pleasure" and chronic, unending,uncurable extreme pain suffered by people who feel there is no way out except death.
"We also, separately, know that the legitimation and ready availability of mind and mood altering drugs will result in sloth, degeneracy and social and moral decay."
Not often i come across real, live prohibitionists these days :)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSeanB,
I really don't like Kevorkian, nor the movement he spawned and represented, and I really want to endorse your argument word for word. If I were in better health at right this minute I might.
I will agree with your comment on Kevorkian himself, albeit with the caveat that I claim no knowledge of the state or fate of his soul.
I will also agree that pain relief is not the main motive of the legalization movement. I find their criticism of the flaws of prescription THC self-serving, too. Though I certainly hope never to be in a position to need to find out.
I am equally a huge supporter of any argument against altering one's mental state. It is contrary to what I perceive as the requirements of my God for me, and at any rate I don't think one should be allowed to indulge in it without forfeiting the franchise, drivers' licences and so forth. I generally trot this line out when pro-drug types compare it to alcohol. As naive as it sounds, the latter actually can be enjoyed for its mild effect on the lower nervous system, taste and so forth without being taken in such quantities as to affect one's higher functions, identity, judgment and so forth. Not that everyone uses it in moderation, but many do. Whereas mental alteration is the only point of recreational narcotics.
But I digress too far into a mild exercise in the application of Greek philosophy to recreational habits.
I am even pretty close to agreeing with your first paragraph, though I suspect there have been men and women in every generation of American history who would have quibbled with that in theory and practice, and not just from the left.
After all that agreement, I have only one major problem.
Relief of pain/suffering is NOT the same concept as "pleasure".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSeanB, thanks for your comments. To clarify one thing, when I wrote about the the war against painkillers, I was not thinking about 'medical' marijuana (which is *primarily* seen as a remedy for nausea, vomiting and loss of appetite), but rather to the heavy-handed way in which the prescription of certain legal painkillers is policed.
Here's one example:
External Link
And there's more here:
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWesley means society in a broad sense. Andrew means it in a narrow sense. Not sure they have established a common subject on which to disagree.
When society comes to mean the politicians whom represent us, our society is beyond doomed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere's just so much wrong here in the comments section that I hardly know where to start. People like Sean and random obviously base their opinions on worst case scenarios presented by the media. That's all right, as long as you're willing to pretty much ban everything. Indeed, who are we to decide what we want to do? Shouldn't someone in the government decide everything for us?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs to Andrew's point, I would like to say how the "prescription drug crisis" is currently the hot local news story. For God's sake, something must be done! And something will. I'm sure that the next time I go to my doctor, she probably won't renew my painkiller prescription. I'm retired and have had chronic back and knee pain for years, but no matter. The news found some teenager who stole his parent's painkillers, took half a bottle and died in a car wreck. Obviously, I must give up my pain relief because of that, right?
This is the way it works. The way it always works. The media has footage of a polar bear swimming, hence we must all change to twisty light bulbs. I'd just be careful. It's always easy to call for more government involvement in policing individual behavior. They'll be glad to oblige. But trying to get them to disengage is a whole 'nother matter.
@expat asia: already "assisted suicide" has claimed the lives of people who weren't even sick. And already it has claimed the lives of at least one disabled person who was bullied into "agreement".
The problem is that there is no way to make "assisted suicide" legal without resorting to arbitrary distinctions as to who does and does not qualify as a life "without value".
And there is no way to designate certain types of life as having "no value" without designating ALL such people as "better off dead" - and it is a well-established fact that other people generally rate disabled peoples' lives as more horrible than disabled people rate their own lives.
Not to mention the problems ensuring that no coercion has taken place - in a nation where there's already heavy shaming aimed at those who want to use more than "their share" of valuable medical resources.
The answer is not to make it easier to kill, but to recognize that the fact that people would want to die means we need to do a better job alleviating suffering.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse