 |
| Gordon Friesen |
President: Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
It is possible to defeat medical homicide bills. Our predecessors and allies have done so many times.
To do this requires the use of every possible argument, from common morality, from medical ethics, and from the particular lived experience of persons with disabilities. Above all, we must always remember --and clearly articulate-- that we are not only resisting death by choice, but much more importantly: we are resisting medical homicide.
We also know that these battles may be lost.
And yet, even then, lost battles do not always equate to lost wars. Many ultimately victorious armies have been forced to retreat, only to mount a successful defense in some other place.
But to prevail in such a strategy will generally require the forethought to prepare that new position before the retreat arrives. For otherwise there will be nothing --earthworks, supplies, reinforcements-- of that which is required to break the momentum of their pursuing foes.
In terms of our war against medical homicide: if we are unfortunately unable to stop legalization in some particular State, then our next immediate goal must be to prevent further expansion of the harms caused. But if we wish to do that effectively, much will depend upon the prudence with which we have prepared for that task in the course of the original battle.
Our adversaries have but one powerful argument in their arsenal. And that is the argument of autonomous choice. It should be our goal to make sure that the force of this weapon is fully expended in the first encounter, so that in the event that we are defeated there, our opponents will have nothing left, or as little as possible, with which to renew the struggle at a later time.
To that end, we must use all of our knowledge and all of our experience, gained from other States and from other countries, in different phases of the medical homicide debate, to demonstrate that the projected ideal of choice is a fraud; that the inevitable endgame of medical homicide is not personal freedom, but an impersonal utilitarian regime of managed death.
We must force the sponsors of assisted suicide legislation to spontaneously yield on those points which might most effectively enable that medical logic. They must be forced to piously claim that they have no such ambitions, and must be held to a statute implementation which can be justified by choice alone.
For example, the use of doctor administered death, and other similar terms, must be explicitly renounced, in any text of law, not only because it is easier to obtain consent and carries a stronger weight of professional validation, but because doctor administration opens up --to the possible euthanasia of patients incapable of choice-- a path which is already well beaten elsewhere.
Not only must we demand a requirement of terminal condition, but we must also demand a written explanation, that such a requirement is necessary to prevent the assisted death of persons suffering from mental illness alone, or other chronic conditions.
All of this must be spelled out at length in any such law, as written proof of solemn engagement.
For the same purpose of protecting free choices equally, we should ideally peel away any privilege or mandate of "information", any mandated access in any institution, and any restriction on the formation of care teams which are literally sworn to renounce the practice of medical homicide. (And, once again: to do this explicitly in the text of law)
For our adversaries must be forced to acknowledge the choices of those patients who wish to live.
The more of these concessions we are able to gain (even if we lose the final vote) the better will be the end result: not only in the same State (when medical homicide advocates are forced --in the course of future proposed expansions-- to explain why they are now repudiating earlier promises); but also in other States, which may --in observing such cynical hypocrisy-- find the wisdom, themselves, to reject the seductive deception of choice, at the first step on this infernal medical staircase.
At the same time, we must never renounce our rejection of medical homicide.
Generally speaking, the public have only supped on the logic and promise of choice. They have no suspicion of the medical possibilities that await. It will be our job to forcefully and perseverantly correct that ignorance.
For make no mistake: we are combating medical homicide (not mere assistance to suicide). We must not, under any circumstances, debate these questions only within the limits of our adversaries' narrative of choice.
We have a battle of fifty States where each will influence every other. And we must effectively use even the battles we lose.
Gordon Friesen, Montreal, Québec Canada
No comments:
Post a Comment