...has the right to interject prescriptively – using the law - against those who disagree with them, that is, the many sane, rational individuals who have lived with a debilitating illness or chronic condition who KNOW that of which they speak and face the reality of their dire circumstances.
Even when couched in terms of being for the greater good, we are consequently forcing some individuals to die, in a manner that horrifies them, because of our assumed certainty to know what is best. We accept the suffering of the minority as being justified for the ‘greater good’. Sweet – as long as it’s not my suffering! Is it me or isn't this heavy handedness just unbelievably arrogant and lacking in both compassion and understanding?
As we approach our own death, however strongly we think we feel about how it will be, until it becomes a reality, we cannot know what choice we will want to make given the uniquely personal aspects of this for us as individuals. To prioritise an assumed greater good position as a basis to ignore minority views here is nefarious as, in reality, the issue will always be an abstract one for the greater number of us. Where is our humanity for those who suffer?
Allowing a right to die, with appropriate assistance, to a very small number of people who are suffering greatly is not, and should not be seen as, a slippery slope to forced euthanasia for the elderly, sick or disabled. It does not mean we do not value life - all life. There is no obligation to exercise a right to die – does anyone seriously suggest this?
I think the law on this should be changed to legislate against ill doing, malicious intent and hasty or ill-informed decision-making but beyond this - NO. If, in extreme circumstances, we choose to end our suffering and need assistance, is this not solely a matter for the individual conscience's of us, our loved ones and our doctors.
Why can’t the politicians and lawyers KISS – keep it simple, stupid! OK, rant over…for the moment!
|