“If you’re a politician who has ever voted against doctor-assisted suicide, or you would vote against it in the future, I hate your f*****g guts and I would like you to die a long, horrible death. I would be happy to kill you personally and watch you bleed out. I won’t do that, because I fear the consequences. But I’d enjoy it, because you motherf*****s are responsible for torturing my father. Now it’s personal.”
Clearly Mr. Adams was suffering from emotional trauma when he wrote in his blog that he wished his father would die soon, after prolonged suffering.
“I’d like to proactively end his suffering and let him go out with some dignity. But my government says I can’t make that decision. Neither can his doctors. So, for all practical purposes, the government is torturing my father until he dies.”
It is a worthy debate. But of course, Adams, writing through the haze of his despair over his father’s suffering, is not winning hearts and minds by wishing excruciating death on people with legitimate arguments against euthanasia.
Bioethics has been tackling the question of physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia for years. But sadly, the field cannot be trusted.
Academia, in the form of bioethics, has been long feared as promoting a “Culture of Death”, as noted in the book by Wesley J. Smith (Lawyer and author), “Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America”.
Smith has stated,
“…bioethics has, generally, crystallized into an orthodoxy, perhaps even an ideology.”
He is correct.
The problem with physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia is not that that the topic is not worthy of debate.
The problem is that, buoyed by experts in bioethics, it is a slippery slope that often stops being about a scenario described by Adams, but quickly morphs into a discussion on resources, or whether others, such as the mentally ill, should be encouraged to off themselves, or as Debra J. Saunders, who interviewed Adams for SFGate wrote today,
“I fear that if we legalize assisted suicide, overworked providers will eliminate inconvenient people…”
As Wesley J. Smith wrote in a must-read article from 2011,
“Ten years ago, supporting suicide for the mentally ill would have been unthinkable, even among hardcore Hemlock Society types. Now, alas, giving approval — or shrugging indifferently — to all manner of suicidal desires is becoming increasingly common.”
“If I could push a magic button and send every politician who opposes doctor-assisted suicide into a painful death spiral that lasts for months, I’d press it. And I wouldn’t feel a bit of guilt because sometimes you have to get rid of the bad guys to make the world a better place.”
Wesley Smith responded to Adams today at the National Review.
He said in part,
“Adams either doesn’t care about the horrors that have been abundantly documented, or he is utterly ignorant but feels free to hate those with whom he disagrees anyway.”
Debra J. Saunders writes,
“I tell Adams I fear that if we legalize assisted suicide, overworked providers will eliminate inconvenient people, just as shelters dispatch unwanted cats. He knows it could happen. He argued that “good things” – hospitals and police – come with risks.”
When academia gets to a point where all views are welcome, then they may be able to gain back a modicum of trust from those who are paying attention. Until then, their relentless enthusiasm to promote death must be viewed with harsh skepticism.