(Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
January 22, 2013
SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA– [Excerpt provided by Inclusion Daily Express] Like many people, I was struck by last week’s story about 45 year old deaf twin brothers killed by “legal euthanasia” in Belgium. According to reports, they were both going blind and were frightened of losing their independence and had “nothing to live for”.
An excellent piece by Leah Hobson published on Ramp Up last week makes the case against stacking judgments on brothers Marc and Eddy. However our view on legalising euthanasia here in Australia needs to weigh personal rights, disability rights, financial, emotional and other pressures which we may experience to take our own lives.
It is significant that the focus of articles about euthanasia and end of life planning like this one in The Australian hastily drift into how much it costs the community to keep people with intensive support needs going. How quickly compassion dies and the calculators come out.
In the current world of rationed care and economic rationalism, it is not hard to imagine a situation where the availability of euthanasia becomes seen as a cheaper, easier, ‘rational’ option to providing intensive support, community living and care for those most vulnerable. Instead of having the support to make well-considered choices, the services that make life bearable could fall away and people with disabilities could be levered into taking their lives as the default option.
Entire article:
Euthanasia: let’s look at the bigger picture
http://www.abc.net.au/rampup/articles/2013/01/21/3673497.htm
Related:
In pursuit of good lives, and good choices
http://www.abc.net.au/rampup/articles/2013/01/16/3670700.htm
Posted with Blogsy
Planet of the Blind 
Wow, Leah Hobson’s words truly are incredibly powerful, and well worth reading at:
http://www.abc.net.au/rampup/articles/2013/01/16/3670700.htm
Some excerpts: “…suffering draws different circles around each of us. Some of them are loose, and let us join hands with the people who can help free us again. Some are so tight they feel like binds just waiting to stop our breathing no matter what we do or how we move. If we truly want disability to be seen as just another aspect of life, doesn’t the suffering caused by disability have to be no more or less diverse, no more or less special than any other kind of suffering?”
As a woman who traveled from hearing impaired to deafness, she also writes, “This is simply what I know, about a subject that sometimes feels unknowable. The twins didn’t die to make a statement for their cause, they died because they thought about their suffering, now and to come, and made a decision all their own. If you believe that suffering alone shouldn’t be cause for assisted suicide, that someone has to be terminally ill, or that it shouldn’t happen at all, then you should rail loudly against these deaths. If you believe that a person’s sense of suffering should be cause enough for the right to die, then you should support them with equal vigour.”
The issue of being able to control the time and nature of one’s own death is disquieting to many, for many different reasons. Before it is decided whether or not to implement laws supporting personal choice euthanaia, the concept must be thoroughly examined and discussed in this country to determine how potential systems of euthanasia might affect both individuals and their social enviornments.
When I use the term “euthanasia”, I want to first define it more specifically. People euthanize their animal friends. It is not the animals that choose their own euthanasia, but rather their human friends that do it for them. This is not the euthanasia option that I advocate when rational people consider their own deaths. I advocate euthanasia of personal choice. It is not a euthanasia mandated by another, but, instead, to support the belief system of the individual to choose death for him- or herself, and to have competent, voluntary assistance to accomplish an expedient, peaceful and painless death.
Why might some people voluntarily choose euthanasia? Would some individuals choose to have themselves euthanized to benefit society? Sure. Many people willingly die in for their countries each day in wartime battles. Would people euthanize themselves for the convenience of their loved ones? Absolutely. I know many a parent who has worked and sweated to an early grave providing for children. For people who might think that these two examples are self-denying horrors, think also about the possibly even more disturbing spectre of people who might feel free to carouse and indulge their every whim knowing that they could choose euthanasia to free themselves from paying any earthly consequences for a wanton life. Independent thought is the hallmark of our species.
But so saying, if euthanasia of personal choice were widely available, would people who find meaning and value in their existence, regardless of what others might think to the contrary, still fight for their right to exist? Would these people still find societal allies who would aid them in their right to exist? Would many people continue to choose lives of civic and family responsibility and accountability over leading lives of unrestrained hedonism? The answer is yes to all. Values that support perpetuation of the species will continue to flourish even if the option of personal choice euthanasia were to become a widespread reality.
But in our great desire to survive, many also choose to usurp the personal choice of others to an intolerable degree. A very glaring example of this currently can be found in the deserts of Afghanistan. You and I, as United States citizens, continue to offer some members of society “voluntary” enlistment in the armed services while providing few other sustainable career options. We then send these “volunteers” into situations that are so intolerable, re-deploying them time-and-time-again against their wishes, and have so damaged them, that these soldiers are currently committing suicide in alarming numbers.
This is a horrific and tragic problem. Americans should be ashamed of each suicide. But these deaths also have become a barometer of our failure as a nation to the individuals who we are supposed to serve. The suicides are not the problem for these people, they have been their only solution. Their suicides have allowed them both to escape an intolerable situation, while also communicating their distress for the possible benefit of current and future soldiers Death is one very definite personal remedy when all other avenues have failed to end cruel oppression or misery without the perceived possibility of relief. And wars that unduly victimize soldiers cannot be waged when soldiers have options of escape. Is it possible to create conditions that sustain happy soldiers? As long as soldiers have ways to end their lives, this is a question that war wonks must seriously address.
Is there a difference between suicide and euthanasia of personal choice? Semantically, the term euthanasia of personal choice does not seem to carry the burden of tragedy that suicide embodies. Rather, it conveys a desired, merciful, compassionate, assisted death. Soldiers in Afghanistan are committing suicide. A person who rationally decides that he or she should have control over the manner of death in the same way that other decisions were made throughout life, should have the option of euthanasia of personal choice.
If euthanasia became an option of personal choice, it seems as if our options would be broadened so that everyone’s personal belief systems would be better supported…except, of course, for those people who, for their own reasons, are adamant that they should retain power to restrict another person’s right to euthanasia of personal choice.
LikeLike