tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9216787076261944467.post2805380200818395770..comments2024-03-28T13:26:59.030-04:00Comments on Euthanasia Prevention Coalition: October 7, 1933: Nazi's Plan to Kill Incurables to End Pain.Alex Schadenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07649977828342637842noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9216787076261944467.post-48274815813475438782020-12-07T17:05:30.117-05:002020-12-07T17:05:30.117-05:00We do not live under a dictatorship, but the Assoc...We do not live under a dictatorship, but the Associated Press article from 1933 offers a similar ideology that we experience today.<br />****************<br /><br />It is virtually identical in fact. Even including the exact same absurd "safeguards" such as supporting doctor opinion, (which is an empty formality as like minded-doctors would never presume to over-rule one another's judgement outside the most extreme circumstances.) (And once euthanasia has been normalized, there remains nothing extreme about it.)<br /><br />The only difference between Germany then and Canada today is that in Canada we do not (yet) explicitly state that a doctor may end the life of a patient (in consultation with family) if that patient "no longer is able to express his desire" (one also would like to know about a patient without family, or a doctor who thinks a decision must be made "on the fly"...). All of this, of course, is the burning subject of the euthanasia of the "incapable", which will definitely come front and center, probably sooner than later.<br /><br />According to this logic : At first consent is required, but it is still OK to proceed with those who can not provide it. And then, as subsequent German history shows : consent was no longer required at all, because good sense and good practice demanded that certain people "objectively" should be dead.<br /><br />One small comment however : You speak about the "subjectivity" of the doctor's decision. This is correct. However, the INTENTION was (and is today) objective. In other words, they were acting "as if" a clear (objective) diagnosis (of whatever criteria) would in fact justify the euthanasia.<br /><br />Once again, this does not detract from your assertion that the decisions were actually being made "subjectively" by the doctors involved. They were !<br /><br />They were (and are), if I might use such language, buying into their own B.S. They claimed the objective purity of "science" as a moral justification. But in reality, the application remains idiosyncratic to the judgement of the particular doctor. Ironic. Stupid. Just like today.<br /><br /><br />gordon friesenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14093992667966373256noreply@blogger.com