Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
There were four speakers at our event, (Left to right: Alex Schadenberg, Alexander Raikin, researcher and visiting fellow in Bioethics at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, Ales Primc an organizer of the referendum campaign that overturned Slovenia's assisted suicide law, and Wesley Smith, author, lawyer, bioethicist and long-term campaigner against euthanasia and assisted suicide.
Wesley Smith spoke first concerning the use of language.
Wesley stated these points.
Smith created a list of terms that should and should not be used. He insisted on using descriptive terminology.
The first word that was stolen by the death lobby was euthanasia by changing its meaning to mean killing as an answer to suffering. They don't like using that term anymore because it is associated with killing. So they have created gooey euphemisms with terms that avoid what they are talking about.
We should never use the death lobby terminology and if you have to, make sure you refer to it as a euphemism.
When they say (MAiD), notice how the term MAiD doesn't refer to dying. We need to be accurate and say assisted suicide or lethal injection homicide or medical homicide or euthanasia. The death lobby activists will say that our language is not accurate but it is perfectly accurate and discriptive.
Suicide means to kill yourself, assisted means to have help.
Medical Aid in Dying (MAiD) is a gooey euphemism that is intended to deflect from the actual agenda that is being described. They are also using the term Medical Aid in Dying (MAiD) to transform killing into a medical treatment.
When they say that MAiD is really not suicide because the person is terminally ill, the statement is nonsensical.
Whether a person has a health condition, a mental health condition, or a terminal condition, the act of suicide remains suicide. Just because a doctor prescribes the poison, doesn't change what is actually happening.
When we are advocating we must always use the proper terminology: assisted suicide, euthanasia, medicalized homicide or poison.
In terms of euthanasia, the lethal jab is a homicide. Homicide means one person killing another person or a human being killing another human being. Even where it is legal it is still homicide.
As I wrote in my first book, Forced Exit, when it is legal it may not be defined as murder but it is homicide and it is a form of killing. It is alway perilous and dangerous to society and individuals.
When the death lobby uses the term "medications" (they will often say they are prescribing medications). A medication is supposed to make you feel better or alleviate pain or symptoms, therefore it is not a medication. It is poison.
Always use the term poison and never use the term medication.
When the death lobby uses the term "choice" we need to say that it is the end of all "choices."
When they say "dying on our own terms," we would say that applies to all suicides. Anyone who commits suicide is dying on one's own terms. Again, it is a nonsensical statement that is based on emotion.
This whole death agenda is being pushed through emotionalism and not rationality.
When they say "death with dignity" we need to challenge their implication that dying naturally is not dignified.
When they say it is a "medical treatment" we say no killing is never a medical treatment.
When they refer to their organizaton name - "Compassion & Choices" you can make fun of it. They used to have a much more honest name, the Hemlock Society. The term Compassion & Choices is a name that was poll tested into existence.
When they say nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come, our response should be that it is not a good idea. Our job is to ensure that this is not an idea whose time has come.
Beware of social movements that use euphemisms to promote their agenda's. It means that they are trying to pull wool over people's eyes. If you have to use euphemisms and word engineering then there is probably something wrong with your agenda.
Links to previous articles on language by Wesley Smith:
5 comments:
Yes, I'm from Victoria BC.....spot on with the "word engineering." Here in Victoria the lethal injection is now being called a "provision" in some written materials. The strong Dying With Dignity lobby has the benefit of legal representation who would likely aid them with terminology.
As a matter of public discourse, I prefer the term medical killing to medical homicide. Homicide is a legal term used by prosecuting attorneys, judges and people in the criminal justice system. The term medical homicide is suited for situations where, for example, one is speaking to a room of attorneys, judges and police officers. But in circumstances where one is attempting to appeal to the Joe six-packs of the world, there's nothing clearer than the term medical killing. While the Joe six-packs of the world understand the term homicide, the term homicide is not in common usage. It's not a word that is "owned" by the common person. It's a word that's "owned" by cops, judges and lawyers. If we hope to win the battle and rescind all the death laws, speaking to, and resonating with the common person is what it's going to take. Common people are not the same as politicians. Politicians listen to the pointy-headed medical ethicists. That makes them elitists. And who are judges and lawyers? Elitists. They're college educated. In order to be successful, we need to be running away from any language that smacks of elitism. Only the collective power of common people can check the onslaught of death, not the efforts of elitists. -- Thomas Lester
From the article below:
Euphemizing is a deadly weapon in the euthanasia movement’s arsenal. Its rhetoric and mission description are totally saturated with corrupt language usage that aims to camouflage the true meaning of its agenda. The advocates' brutal abuse of our common language is a clear sign that a powerful moral disengagement mechanism has been activated to consolidate their ideal image. It is all about verbal engineering used to convince themselves, as well as to influence general opinion, that something which initially fills most people with a sense of disgust is in fact something indicative of high moral standards. If that were not so, why not use adequate terminology? No, this is all about abominable deeds that have to be sanitized with the use of euphemisms. Through linguistic creativity, fatal deeds are made to appear as beneficial, curative treatments. The examples of euphemisms are legion. Their frequent use in the rhetoric of the euthanasia movement is a clear indication that it is an inhumane activity that is being advocated.
https://irp.cdn-website.com/c0d44f22/files/uploaded/JEMH_article_Stahle_final_proof_-_copy-edited.pdf
I commend Wesley Smith and our other commentators for exposing the misuse of language by those favoring assisted suicide and medical killing. Nearly a decade ago, I made a similar argument in a psychiatric journal. For those interested, here is the link:
https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.pn.2018.7b29
Ronald W. Pies MD
Excellent article!
Post a Comment