As you get older, your life increasingly intersects with the lives of people who are much older and who are, medically, often in a very vulnerable state. I mention that at the beginning because this exposure means I am keenly aware how susceptible otherwise good people are to various rationalizations to withhold or withdraw treatment, on the one hand, and "aiding" the elderly to die, on the other hand.
What's really changed, however, is that like the virus that "jumps" from animals to humans, the anti-life virus has jumped age categories. Beyond that, the justifications for "aiding" people in dying have now predictably moved from so-called terminally ill patients to (for now) elderly people who are otherwise healthy but who are "depressed" or don't feel life is "worth living."
Canada just rejected Bill C-384, a euthanasia bill introduced by MP Francine Lalonde. According to Evan Menzies, writing in yesterday's National Post, the bill stated "that doctors would not be prosecuted if they help a person who is at least 18 years of age, who after being given or refusing treatment, continues to, 'suffer experience severe physical or mental pain without any prospect of relief,' or suffers from terminal illness."
It is of a piece with a movement in (where else?) the Netherlands "that demands that people who are more than 70 years old, and tired of life, should have the right to be killed humanely," Menzies writes. He adds ominously, "It is a movement gaining increased public support."
Menzies offers a thoughtful critique of this brand of thinking (http://life.nationalpost.com/2010/11/21/opinion-every-life-is-worth-the-compassion-of-saving). He begins with a thought experiment--a hypothetical with a guy threatening to jump off the roof.
Our traditional response is for the police to try to dissuade the jumper and then help him receive the kind of psychiatric help he needs.
But if a measure like C-384 passed, a police offer could say, in effect, just take a breath, step down and we'll help you "find a way to obtain physician-assisted suicide, a less messy form of self-destruction." As Menzies argues, that would not be a fanciful scenario.
In his final sentence, Menzies offers a value judgment you either gratefully accept and defend as a precious heirloom or grow annoyed at because you consider it an out-of-date hindrance that must be swept away: "No matter the physical or mental state of a person, the sanctity of their being and worth cannot be measured in quantifiable terms."
If you don't find this compelling, how far before legalized euthanasia hold sways? How long before patients have to justify NOT being killed? How long before quiet talk of "reliev[ing] the financial burdens of our families and the health-care system" becomes a loud and angry demand?
Closer to home, it is comparative easy to engage people's attention when National Right to Life explains how ObamaCare forwards the abortion agenda of the Abortion Establishment. But NRLC is one very few voices that consistently and forcefully talks about the inducements to rationing that are embedded in ObamaCare.
If you want to help repeal and replace ObamaCare, be sure to read the materials you find about ObamaCare and rationing found at http://powellcenterformedicalethics.blogspot.com.
An especially useful entry--several cogent, straightforward talking points--can be found at http://www.nrlc.org/HealthCareRationing/TalkingPointsHCR.pdf.
The bottom line is, as the Robert Powell Center for Medical Ethics puts it, "If the Obama Health Care Rationing Law is not repealed by 2013 before its most dangerous provisions come into effect, the result will be the rationing denial of lifesaving medical treatment, and consequent premature and involuntary death, of an unknown but immense number of Americans. The pro-life movement must devote itself over the upcoming critical years to ensuring that the American people are given the facts needed to counter the misinformation."
Contact: Dave Andrusko
Source: National Right to Life
Publish Date: November 23, 2010
