Monday, October 15, 2018

The assisted suicide bill was aimed at people like my husband.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Nancy Elliott is a former three-term elected representative from New Hampshire. As an elected representative she fought against the assisted suicide bills in her state. Nancy is now actively opposing assisted suicide bills throughout the USA.

Nancy explains why she opposes assisted suicide:
This is about state sanctioned suicide. This is about giving the government the right to decide who is deserving of death and who isn't.
 It was at the same time this bill came that my husband was very critically ill. He had heart disease, diabetes, Parkinson's, kidney disease, numerous diseases.
One of the reps had put in this bill the reasons why you might want to do this (assisted suicide). They had loss of autonomy, loss of dignity, loss of bodily control. And so I asked him, "What are you talking about?"

It was really pretty clear that they were aimed at people like my husband, who, in their opinion, shouldn't be living.

He would have been so hurt. It would be like saying:

"Your a piece of junk, you need to get out of the way, your taking up space, go kill yourself."
Join EPC USA and help Nancy defeat assisted suicide in your state.

This film clip was taken from the film - Fatal Flaws. Order Fatal Flaws today.


sophie jensen said...

It seems to me that, from the point of view of governments, it is more of an issue such as'you are using up funds', 'you are using up resources and man-hours for your care', 'we don't want to allocate the resources to dealing with people such as this'. Not so much as they are taking yo space or that they don't belong in the world. The intellectual argument is being driven, to a large degree, by the financial argument.

Paul Anderson said...

I agree with Sophie Jensen's comments. The pro-euthanasia lobby is definitely being at least partly driven by funding concerns. It is a measure of the pro-euthanasia lobby's awareness of the optics of such a position (that people should die when it becomes expensive to help them stay alive) that they take great care to avoid leading with the financial argument. Euthanasia is presented as a "service" to the victim, as an affirmation of their right to choose; but it is really directed primarily at reducing the cost of health care by eliminating the people with the most expensive health issues.

Bea Varley said...

There is no doubt in anyone's mind that the motivation is financial but also driven by younger people, the younger they are the worse they are and one word sums it up: Ageism. There was an article in the Zoomer magazine about that subject and apparently social media is the worse place for the spread of that idealogy. The article is in the July/August Zoomer magazine. Ugly truths waft out under cover of anonymity.

Ed Jackson said...

The argument of the left that the decision is an economic one for the government simply does not hold water.

They will spend $$BILLIONS on people who illegally crossed into the US by putting them on every government welfare program known to man, without even asking questions. These programs include free education, food stamps, free rent, free medical care, free school lunches, etc.

The cost for keeping someone who they would classify as a 'candidate for assisted suicide' is miniscule compared to welfare and free college for all and Obama phones, etc.

At any given time there would be at most a few thousand of these 'candidates' in the US. In this age of multi-trillion $$$ budgets for the federal government or even hundreds of billion $$$ budgets at the state level the cost of keeping these people alive doesn't even register as a percentage.

These are real people with families and loved ones. They are someone's Mom, Dad, Wife, Husband, Child, Grandparent, etc.

There is also a possible benefit to keeping the terminally ill alive to society. Not only can we still benefit from thier experiences, but the medical care keeping them alive may help to one day cure whatever disease, injury, or illness they have.

Unknown said...

But it is not the "left", necessarily. It can be private insurance companies needing to prop up profits. Or it can be local and regional governments needing to balance budgets. These issues become more critical as the number of elderly grow compared to the number of younger folks. Thus the above mentioned "ageism" problem comes into play.

The core problem is a societal selfishness and godlessness where children, or at least any more than two, are considered a burden. And caring for elderly, that no longer can care for themselves, is also considered a burden. Note how the second is exacerbated by the first. The desire for "abundant life" must include natural family planning. It is more foundational to "abundant life" than being against abortion and euthanasia since it is physical source of abundant life which allows the other issues to be more logically and easily resolved.

Pam said...

Yes, allowing God to bless us with children makes the burden of elder care lighter for many families. Having 3 other siblings (or 12!) spreads the caregiving responsibility out, so that aging parents and grandparents can be enjoyed as well as cared for. How often do we only think of what we (as parents) must endure while caring for our young children- (causing us to vastly limit our family size because more children are more work)? If we would for just a moment think of the burden our children will someday bear while caring for us, perhaps we might alow God to bless us with children much more generously!