Sun 2 Oct 2005
But when we wake it’s all been erased and so it seems only in dreams.
Posted by Jeff under Jeff's Thoughts[9] Comments
I’ve been a little sick lately and not feeling up to writing about anything but I found some time and thought I’d discuss a topic.
When I was in debating I attended teleconference lectures from McGill in strategy and case writing. One of the most significant topics we studied was how to choose a topic to debate. In CUSID debating you can turn almost any Resolution into a debate on any topic you want. To prevent squirreling you must pick a topic that the other side will actually be able to debate with, and one that is relevant enough to actually spawn intelligent discourse. Safe topics are always ones that are up before the real courts and governments because everyone knows about them and has information. During the time I attended these lectures, Marijuana was a hot topic and I remember the creation of a case that we code named internally as the “Smoking Fag”, a pun in two ways, “Smoking” from “Smoking Gun” and “Fag” being a name for cigarette making the colloquial phrase actually make sense. Unfortunately, I’m not planning on discussing Marijuana. It’s a safe topic.
On one particular night the lecture came to what topics were unacceptable. First, I must point out that University debating is much different than high school debating and the off limit topics are much less in University. Example: It was always mentioned to me in high school to avoid touchy subjects such as religion because it might offend someone, while in University they just tell you to go all out and bring up whatever you want. The lecturer listed to us a few topics that have been overdone over the years and that no one wanted you to debate at tournaments. They includedCapital Punishment, Censorship, Abortion, and Euthanasia. (I think there was actually five but the last is alluding my memory though it may have been Intelligent Design vs. Natural Selection) I included Wikipedia links to the topics to show how much discussion there is on a topic. I must note that, yes, these issues are debated to this day in government, like in the US the topic of Capital Punishment is always lingering, Censorship discussions prop up from time to time (Video games anyone?), Abortion is about to hit the courts again (Sorry for bad joke: What does Bush think aboutRoe vs. Wade ? He doesn’t care how people got out of Houston and New Orleans!), and Euthanasia had a time in the spot light earlier this year withTerri Schiavo. When we were told not to debate it it was because we could pick better topics that that to bring up. Governments and courts don’t have a choice.
Recently there was an article (was posted in my articles sidebar…which you all should check every so often) which talked about a court battle over Intelligent Design in the Science classroom. I am in firm belief that all students should be exposed to a variety of topics that are controversial (including all the ones with Wikipedia links in the last paragraph). It is my hope that I could go up to a graduating high school student and ask them their opinion on Intelligent Design and get a thoughtful answer. Unfortunately this doesn’t happen, and many people who I bring the topics up with aren’t familiar with the terminology. Despite that, many do form opinions on these topics after a little background information. I just read an article that the Dutch government is revising their laws on Euthanasia. This is the real topic I wanted to discuss today.
I am pro Euthanasia and am a supporter of the Right to Die movement. To me, it is a very logical set of principles and beliefs to stand behind. I will try to explain some of my reasoning behind why I stand on this issue and you can make your own conclusions on it. Everyone has an opinion on this issue if they think about it. To me, Euthanasia is an unalienable right that is not being awarded to people at this time. Just as a woman has the right to choose, a person has the right to die. It makes alot of sense to me; one, it ends suffering (and is almost always at the request of the person in suffering), and two, it is more economically sound. When a person wants to die to alleviate their pain, who is to say that it is not their right to decide that? Are other people who oppose it on higher moral ground and can veto a person’s control over their own life? No. For me my independence and high functioning ability is highly prized. If I were to come to a diminished state of existence, either through an accident, medical condition or through age, I would lose the ability to enjoy life. What use to me is life when I would have to lie in bed all day and be attended to by people? I feel that it is a waste of resources, both monetary and emotional resources for people. If a person does not want to live under medical treatment, why force it on them and spend possible hundreds of thousands of dollars on unnecessary care that would be used for people who would benefit from it. I’d feel horrible if a newborn baby couldn’t get nitric oxide because the hospital couldn’t afford it because they spent their money prolonging my life. It’s logical reasoning to support euthanasia.
I feel very strong on this issue and I would enjoy comments from whatever side of the debate you are on. To me, no one should tell me what I can and cannot do with my life. Our society is scared of death, and as such, many have labeled this action as morally wrong. I think it is cruel and unusual to not allow people to exercise this right if they choose to. It doesn’t hurt anyone, and it can alleviate their pain and troubles. During the Terri Schiavo case, interest in Living Wills and Do Not Resuscitate orders increased drastically. I personally now have one and feel that it is a responsibility of people to look to the future events that could happen and be responsible; create a living will to make your views known, be it on either side of this debate, but make it known clearly your wishes and save the pain and suffering the Terri’s family had to go through. For Canadians, the one I chose to do can be found through theJoint Centre for Bioethics at the University of Toronto. It is quite instructive and informational. At the very least I suggest you look into it. While the last statement I will end this with may seem very harsh, it is only due to social stigma: If I want to die, let me and support me in my decision.
Random Wikipedia Article: Optimus Prime
Currently Listening to: This Is How It Goes – Billy Talent
Well I know you appreciate debate on these things, but you are already aware of my opinions on the matter, not just because I’ve told you which of the points I agree with and why I disagree with your conclusion, but because my stance is hardly original.
Although I can see where you are coming from, I think that your view is a little limited.
Do you think that it would be fair to allow someone to die when you know that there is a possibility for their survival and future happiness? I mean, there is always hope. There have been cases where nearly miraculous (I cannot spell….) events have occured and allowed for another good 30 or 40 or more years in a persons life. If we just kill them on the spot, don’t you think that we could be limiting their potential happiness?
And as for the living wills, yes they are a good idea, but it should always be taken into consideration the state in which they created these living wills. I know you may disagree with this, but if an individual is irrational while making this living will then it should be void.
To be honest, I do agree with euthanasia-in some cases. Where there is no possible solution to whatever plagues these individuals, where they are in chronic pain, and where the only other option would be for them to just wait to die a painful death. In cases like these, then this does seem the most merciful approach. I am just wary that this “mercy” will turn into murder, or in the case of the living will, suicide.
If this were the case, then it should not be allowed. No form of intentional death should be legal or supported. I have made the mistake of signing a living will of a close friend of mine and regret it every time I think about it. Yes it is good to make preperations, but when these preperations turn into plans of suicide or murder, then it has crossed the line.
I think you’re discussing one issue for most of the piece, and then jumping tracks with your final statement.
To say “when a certified medical practitioner estimates my physical condition be X, pull the plug” is one thing, however,
This sounds more like a tagline off some pro-suicide site. (Or out of that ludicrous Imprint article this week about decriminalizing assisted suicide… “Yes, your honour, I was helping him shoot himself in the head.”)
Of course, the other interesting side of all this is the comparison to the capital punishment debate. If keeping vegetables alive in the hospital is stupid, what about keeping criminals in prison for life? What about offering them a choice, too? “You will be in prison for life. You have a choice of taking the injection tomorrow morning if you’d prefer.”
See, the problem with offering prisoners that choice is the same one (if not more so) with legalising euthanasia. There will be pressure, of various kinds, to accept the injection. So someone who might want to keep living might choose otherwise because they’re being told that’s the better descision.
Just like what happens with abortion.
Here’s a question to pose: What’s the difference between Euthanasia and Suicide? I’m inclined to believe nothing, thus, extending my piece to suicide, as Mike implies my last comment does, I’m pro suicide as well. I think it’s just the negative connotation term for Euthanasia.
I support the offering of life term criminals without the chance of parole the option of capital punishment. It’s a bargain. They don’t suffer the pain, the public gets rid of a meanace, and the government saves the money that can be used in better places, like welfare.
Christine: I’m outlining my belief so don’t get offended. I don’t believe setus’ are sentient, hence they can’t make a choice on weather to live or die. They don’t understand the concept, or anything. Prisoners can make the choice, hence I don’t agree with your comparison.
When it comes to living wills, i beleive that such a document should not have permanent power. As opposed to a regular will which simply deals with monetary posessions (and custody of children), this is a document which deals with life. Life in general is a topic one may change his or her opinion on, at any point. Therefore I beleive that a document like that should not be effective for long periods of time.
Furthermore, the expiration date would promote one to rethink their position about what they want. If it just remains laying in a safe place one is more likely to accept a desision they made a long time ago, and not allow themselves to change their mind.
Oh, I agree that there is a difference, however I was talking more about the impact to the mothers, not to the child, when I was using the abortion comparison.
And I agree with you that euthanasia is a form of suicide. And by saying that I believe I easily doubled the number of reasons I’ve given here why I’m against euthanasia.
I’m a conservative in terms of hands-off non-meddlesome government. And nor should the Church (any church) be trying to legislate something like this.
However, it’s fine for churches to tell their people, “You are fearfully and wonderfully made, your (baby’s) life is not yours to throw away.”
Because ultimately, that’s what the whole value-of-life argument is about. Are our bodies our own? If so, we can do with them as we please. Otherwise, perhaps not.
Well, I know you guys know my view on if my body is my own…
I have a few things I’d like to add. I was reading this article from Christianity.ca. It talks about why people should oppose Bill C-407. While the bill will never pass, it’s exactly in line with what I believe should be law (note it is a private member’s bill).
The article discussed how the bill will hurt the most vulnerable in society. I disagree. Even if it was for the least vulnerable, they would oppose it. I don’t buy it. They have no proof it will hurt them. Furthermore they go to bash Living Wills saying they are ineffective. I feel like putting that to the test. Show them up.