I have nothing really to add to this article. No snarky remark. No 2 cents. No elucidation. But in case you can’t get around to reading the full column, I’ll highlight this one bit:
In 1998, 12 per cent of PAS patients in Oregon said they chose this irreversible course of action [euthenasia] because they didn’t want to burden their family. That rose to 26 per cent in 1999, 42 per cent in 2005 and 45 per cent in 2007, the last year figures are available. If that were a company’s bottom line, champagne corks would be popping!
In other words, for the infirm and disabled, the right to die quickly becomes the duty to die. Wanting to live despite being frail or ill increasingly is viewed as selfish in places where euthanasia is the law.
That’s not empowerment, it’s coercion, guilt for living, pressure to die.
Rebecca adds: And so few people discuss this. The percentage of people euthanized in the Netherlands without their own consent or that of their next-of-kin rose along similar lines. And countless young women are pushed into abortions against their own instincts and judgment by pressure from parents (we’ll kick you out of the house, you’ll never be able to get a degree, it’s selfish to have a baby when you’re too young) and boyfriends (I’ll leave you if you don’t abort, I’ll never leave you/love you forever if you will). There is a debate to be had about whether abortion and euthanasia are moral. But even if we were to stipulate that they are entirely morally acceptable, there is a whole different debate about what constitutes informed consent. The standards applied to any other medical decision are waived, when assisted suicide and abortion are the issue.by