This is another entry which should probably come with a "rant" warning....
There are many subjects which I feel strongly about, ("too many!" I hear you shout). But the one subject which really gets me spitting fur like an angry cat is that of 'assisted suicide' or euthanasia.
For any of you from the UK who haven't heard, a 66 year old retired doctor has been in the headlines recently for choosing to end her own life in Switzerland. Dr Turner had supranuclear palsy, a terrifying degenerative disease of the brain, which eventually results in the sufferer being unable to walk, talk or swallow. The disease is incurable, and Dr Turner knew that she would only go downhill rapidly from her already debilitated state. The decision of her and her family to invite along BBC film crews has brought the issue into sharp focus, with many criticising her decision, as they saw her as "not enough of an invalid" to warrant such action.
Now, according to my personal "Bill of Rights", there are two immutable and inviolable natural rights: the Right to Life, and the Right to Death. If one has the Right to Life, then one automatically has the right to end that life.
No one takes the decision to end their life lightly. It sounds like a stupidly obvious statement, but critics of euthanasia seem to entirely miss this point. Should these people be prevented from ending their life, against their will? The CofE obviously condemns euthanasia, due to their belief that all life is "precious", regardless of the quality of that life. Surely their standpoint is closely akin to "playing god" however? Every person should have control of their own life, their own destiny; and if their will is that they do not wish to carry on, then it should be done. Their god supposedly gave us free will, after all.
I heard a laughable statement from a GP on the national news. He said (paraphrasing) "our job is to ease suffering, not to end lives." So, if the only way the suffering can be eased is death, than where do we stand? Which overrules the other? An equally preposterous statement is of clinically trained persons claiming that Dr Turner's standard of living was not sufficiently bad, or that her suffering was not great enough, to warrant the action. Who are they to decide when someone has had enough suffering? People have different limits. Dr Turner's condition had reached a point where she was beginning to lose her faculties: she chose to go with dignity on her own terms: not let her family watch as she deteriorated beyond all recognition as a person.
Each of us is an autonomous, empowered being whose future is written only by ourselves. We can decide what we do in life, and so should we be able to end it; publically, with our family around, and our dignity intact.
There are many subjects which I feel strongly about, ("too many!" I hear you shout). But the one subject which really gets me spitting fur like an angry cat is that of 'assisted suicide' or euthanasia.
For any of you from the UK who haven't heard, a 66 year old retired doctor has been in the headlines recently for choosing to end her own life in Switzerland. Dr Turner had supranuclear palsy, a terrifying degenerative disease of the brain, which eventually results in the sufferer being unable to walk, talk or swallow. The disease is incurable, and Dr Turner knew that she would only go downhill rapidly from her already debilitated state. The decision of her and her family to invite along BBC film crews has brought the issue into sharp focus, with many criticising her decision, as they saw her as "not enough of an invalid" to warrant such action.
Now, according to my personal "Bill of Rights", there are two immutable and inviolable natural rights: the Right to Life, and the Right to Death. If one has the Right to Life, then one automatically has the right to end that life.
No one takes the decision to end their life lightly. It sounds like a stupidly obvious statement, but critics of euthanasia seem to entirely miss this point. Should these people be prevented from ending their life, against their will? The CofE obviously condemns euthanasia, due to their belief that all life is "precious", regardless of the quality of that life. Surely their standpoint is closely akin to "playing god" however? Every person should have control of their own life, their own destiny; and if their will is that they do not wish to carry on, then it should be done. Their god supposedly gave us free will, after all.
I heard a laughable statement from a GP on the national news. He said (paraphrasing) "our job is to ease suffering, not to end lives." So, if the only way the suffering can be eased is death, than where do we stand? Which overrules the other? An equally preposterous statement is of clinically trained persons claiming that Dr Turner's standard of living was not sufficiently bad, or that her suffering was not great enough, to warrant the action. Who are they to decide when someone has had enough suffering? People have different limits. Dr Turner's condition had reached a point where she was beginning to lose her faculties: she chose to go with dignity on her own terms: not let her family watch as she deteriorated beyond all recognition as a person.
Each of us is an autonomous, empowered being whose future is written only by ourselves. We can decide what we do in life, and so should we be able to end it; publically, with our family around, and our dignity intact.
VIEW 6 of 6 COMMENTS
lauralily:
I agree they are amazing and fascinating creatures. The term 'sloth' doesn't really do these animals any justice.
talena_caro:
At least your rants are more interesting than most..