Another “quick takes” on items where there is too little to say to make a complete article, but is still important enough to comment on.
The focus this time: 9 out of 10 doctors say “KILL ‘EM!”
First, a little mood music:
Carrying on…
Looks like people in Congress want to join in on the medical murder mambo!
“The bill plays the usual euphemism game, pretending that assisted suicide isn’t really suicide. From H.R. 8137:
“‘Medical aid-in-dying, an authorized medical practice, is not euthanasia, mercy killing, or assisted suicide.’
“Sigh. This tactic is as predictable as it is disingenuous. If a bill referred to a dung beetle as a butterfly, it wouldn’t change the reality of the thing. The renamed insect still wouldn’t fly and would roll in feces on the ground. The same is true here. The term ‘assisted suicide’ is accurate and descriptive. ‘Suicide’ means the intentional killing of oneself. To be “assisted” means to be helped in completing an act. Moreover, ‘suicide’ is a ‘what’ that causes death, not a ‘why.’
“‘Medical aid in dying,’ in contrast, is a euphemistic, culture-of-death catchphrase deployed to shroud the reality of what is done. If we care about integrity in legislation, we should recognize that the term ‘assisted suicide’ is apt — let alone that it is used in the current funding ban.
“The new bill, if passed, would make the current federal law inoperative in states where assisted suicide is legal.”
Palliative care has gone from making dying people comfortable to just killing them and getting it over with.
“[There is a] proposed policy around assisted suicide that has been published by the Hospice and Palliative Nurses Association (HPNA). It is both abject and a betrayal of Saunders’s humanitarian vision for the care of dying people. And the statement contains not a hint of the many problems and abuses that have been associated with “medical aid in dying” (MAID), reasons why the European Court of Human Rights recently ruled that access to assisted suicide is not a human right.
“First, the proposed policy position embraces the word-engineering tactic of calling assisted suicide MAID. I have repeatedly criticized this euphemistic deflection and won’t repeat those thoughts here.
“Then, the statement calls participation in suicide a form of palliative care. From the proposed “HPNA Position Statement: Medical Aid in Dying (MAiD):”
“‘HPNA acknowledges that some patients with terminal illnesses may seek medical aid in dying (MAiD) as an end-of-life care option where legally available. Although suffering is not a requirement in order to qualify for MAiD in the United States, some patients may utilize this option to relieve their suffering, which is consistent with the ethical principles of palliative nursing care. Suffering at the end of life may be caused by loss of control; death anxiety; feeling like a burden; and refractory physical, social, emotional, spiritual, and existential symptoms. MAiD is consistent with the fundamental ethical principles of patient autonomy and beneficence.’
“It is actually the opposite. As Dame Cecily knew so well, the proper compassionate approach to suicidal ideation — whether in terminally ill people or otherwise — is suicide prevention, not participation and facilitation by medical professionals, of all people. Indeed, when I trained as a hospice volunteer in the 1990s, I was strictly instructed to alert the multidisciplinary team if a patient ever indicated a desire for suicide or immediate death.”
Remember, it’s not malpractice if it’s intentional!
“The myth that legal assisted suicide is about terminal illness is becoming harder to swallow.
“Evidence can be found in a recent survey of doctors, published in the Journal of Cutaneous Oncology, which asked doctors this question: ‘In addition to adults with terminal illnesses, [which] other groups of patients who should be MAID eligible?’
“…
“Majorities of doctors surveyed answered that they would be willing to be present when the deed is done. Here’s the question: “If it were available (or is available), what is your willingness to be present when patients took MAID drugs?” Again, disturbing results, with 61% either probably or definitely, yes:
- Definitely not: 6%
- Probably not: 33%
- Probably yes: 39%
- Definitely yes: 22%
“That’s only a hop, skip, and a jump to willingness to do the deed. And no doctors would definitely refuse to ‘refer for MAID.’”
TTFN.
Pingback: In The Mailbox: 07.26.24 (Evening Edition) : The Other McCain