All of these sensible-seeming regulations lay bare the illogic of the claim that there is “right” to die. This is because if there really is a right to die, why should the scope of who is permitted to commit suicide be limited to the terminally ill, or those who are in pain? If one begins with the premise that there is a “right” to die, then it follows logically that all suicide should be legalized....More deeply, this indicates the foolishness of legalizing assisted suicide at all. Indeed, legalizing assisted suicide has the effect of bureaucratizing what would otherwise be a personal, private choice. In sum, rather than increase the scope of personal liberty, legalizing assisted suicide actually shrinks it. Laws like Oregon’s Death With Dignity act say: you only have the power over your own body if a group of doctors and government officials says you do. How is this consistent with the notion of the individual ”right” to die? And where is the dignity in submitting yourself before a panel of doctors who will determine whether you qualify for state-sanctioned suicide?
For someone who calls his column "Epstein's Razor" and tops it with a picture of himself looking supercilious as all hell, you would think this wouldn't be too hard to grasp, so I suspect he's missing the point on purpose.
First of all, "rights" are, by definition, granted (and revoked, let's not forget) by the state, so anyone pressing for the legal right - see, the word "legal" should be a clue here - to do this, that, or the other will obviously be looking to the state to grant it to them. Despite his smarmy attempt to pretend otherwise, this doesn't have anything to do with personal liberty, any more than the absence of legalized gay marriage means that gay couples can't love each other or enter into committed relationships. You can and may die whenever you want, by whatever means you choose, as people always have and will. But if you want to die in a hospital or hospice by means of a lethal dose of highly controlled medication administered by a professional, as opposed to messier, more painful DIY methods, you'll need the state's permission, and the utilitarian standard they've pretty much settled on is a loss of autonomy due to terminal illness. These people are agitating for the right of certain terminally ill patients to die in highly specific circumstances of their choosing, not as a general principle for all citizens at all times.
And while having to petition a panel of doctors to consider your case may be undignified to some, most people who don't have a religious or extreme anti-statist agenda would certainly concur that it beats slowly wasting away in agony while needing a nurse to wash your ass and change your diapers.
6 comments:
Plus, he misses entirely the other main point: If someone assists you in dying, said person(s) faces severe legal consequences (aven murder charges).
Tis excerpt just makes me think this dude is a twat who sleeps with a volume of Ayn Rand under his pillow. :)
Oh, Christ, he's at it again.
OK...The beard alone made me immediately turn off the link. (LOL-is this "lookism")
I only started reading True Slant because of Matt Taibbi, who is excellent, but this Epstein guy is stupid. Over and over conservatives say the government shouldn't tell us what to do EXCEPT FOR THE MOST INTIMATE AND IMPORTANT THINGS IN OUR LIVES. Oh, and it's very important that our president, who is a communist alien usurper, has the right to torture anybody he wants to.
As for the second link, he does nothing to disprove the contention that poor teabaggers vote against their interests because they are mislead. Wealthy liberals are more educated, wealthier, and acting out of good will toward the less fortunate when they vote against their interests, so his equivalence argument is ridiculous. Man that guy is dense.
Yeah, I laughed at seeing his commenters immediately slap that nonsense down by pointing out that some people don't narrowly define self-interest as "I got mine, so fuck you and drop dead."
Not to mention that wealthy liberals are not going to be ruined by a slight increase in the top marginal tax rate, whereas working class people with no degree and no special skills are putting themselves in a seriously deep hole by being distracted with largely irrelevant social issues.
The smug "aren't I so clever" tone he takes is what makes me think he's not stupid, he's just being purposely disingenuous.
Hey, remember how it was Oregon's assisted suicide law that made John Ashcroft throw all that bullshit about state's rights out the window and try to use the power of the federal government to get the law overturned? I had so much fun taunting my "Republicans will get the gubmint off my back" acquaintances with that one.
Post a Comment