.jpg) |
| Gordon Friesen |
President, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
I agree 100% with calling a spade a spade. And yes, in public debate we are already at the point where using the word suicide is condemned to the point where speakers before government reviews, or the writers of serious articles will be entirely discounted for using it. Murder, is just impossible to use. However, we know the truth. And by speaking to the people, we may, I believe, eventually turn the tide on this. In the end, politicians and academics are paid by the people. They are not paid to insult and belittle our convictions.
We have their food bags in our hands.
That said, in academic debate, I think we should push this distinction of Lester's "medical killing", (Link read comments) because it is separate from a libertarian "right to die". Hard core right to die activists believe that anybody should be allowed to choose to die, for any reason, at any time.
I don't agree with that, of course, but (as we are learning in Canada) medical killing is even more pernicious, because the pretense in that case is that people suffering from medical conditions have a special, reasonable, motivation to die. It therefore becomes normal to suggest that such people die. To believe that they SHOULD die. And as we see in Canada, a medical system tooling up to do just that as efficiently as possible.
In fact, the basic right to die folks believe that mental competence is absolutely necessary to the proper exercise of such a right, but the medical killing folks are setting their sights on the incapable as well.
So let us agree among ourselves that this is homicide, and let us combat it in the most articulate way we can, in language that ordinary people understand, and also, at the government and academic level, using whatever terms we must (in order to get through the door).
The main thing is to continue our work of opposition. Bring ordinary people on board. Democratically move the goal posts on what our would-be rulers can get away with in suppressing ordinary language, ordinary feeling, and common sense.
Thank you for reminding us of that.
3 comments:
Thank you for this article, Gordon. There has been a troubling shift in how society views euthanasia and MAiD, with these terms being romanticized to the point that many no longer recognize them for what they truly are—suicide, homicide, and death. We strongly discourage suicide in other circumstances, yet when it’s reframed in medicalized language, it becomes not only accepted but even promoted as a compassionate choice. This shift is dangerous, as it normalizes the idea that some lives are less valuable and should be ended. We must continue to challenge this distortion of language and truth so that people see the reality of what is happening. Thank you for challenging the language!
Thank you for the encouragement, Yvonne. You have also written a very clear analysis. Lives less valuable indeed! This is the Eugenic strain of selective extermination in MAID advocacy. There is also, I believe, a devaluation of all life. (Certainly we all get old, and MAID, as route to death to allegedly avoiding the suffering of aging is a devaluation of an entire phase all of our lives). We are right to speak of Eugenics, then, but I think we should not forget Malthus. (Too many people on the planet.) In this narrative, it is claimed we need a maximum of death: At the beginning of life, at the end of life, and everywhere in between. Clearly, such concerns, both Eugenic and Malthusian, are very far from a compassionate choice.
All things connect. Can you see these parallels?
Regarding the furtive devaluation of lives, the proliferation of MAID seen today mirrors the deceptive co-optation that ended up supplanting the original and more noble intent of the initial animal humane societies of 200 years ago. Thus, through the 'humane' animal 'shelter’ administrations and policies that took over, general populaces were already primed to become comfortable with these twisted and hidden manoeuvres.
What resulted were high-kill animal 'shelters’ whose officials then defended mass killing as 'necessary' to prevent animal 'suffering’ (e.g. their misleading terminology of the hypothetical “fates worse than death”), and to provide a "public service,” including cleansing the streets of 'surplus’ animals, in the manner of "out of sight, out of mind”…also akin to the same phenomenon as became common concerning most “senior care homes.” Both animal and human “killing for convenience” and “expediency” hence became ingeniously ingrained as more acceptable in people’s minds.
Then bear in mind the "economic benefits” and drivers of human deaths. To illustrate this point, here’s an excellent, three year old podcast on who profits/benefits from human deaths, and by how much. Although It talks about "voluntary euthanization,” it was not a talk about MAID, so the additional profits to be made from that, too, weren't factored in at the time. You can just imagine how MAID would be further escalating these numbers now.
https://soundcloud.com/user-50904611/podcast-113-jason-christoff-canadas-population-set-to-drop-by-11-million-by-2025-heres-why
Post a Comment