Auschwitz in America

[molly bloom]

An inaccurate title which trivializes the experience of those who died and suffered in Auschwitz and other extermination camps.

A thesis which confuses and conflates a state policy of genocide towards undesirables (the disabled, the mentally ill, 'racial' and sexual and political outcasts) with attempts to give dignity and control over their sick bodies back to individuals, and which utilises a hit and miss approach to history and philosophies to 'prove' its theory.

Well the Spartans exposed physically malformed infants, and Chinese peasants exposed/murdered female infants. Why not blame them for social utilitarianism? Of course, it doesn't have the pizzazz of 'Auschwitz in America' or 'Bergen-Belsen in Great Britain', and it's so much more exciting to tag someone whose ideology you disagree with as an ideological by-blow of National Socialist philosophies.

If I find myself terminally ill, with no conceivable cure, I intend to kill myself. I watched a friend die, doubly incontinent, blind, almost completely deaf, his brain destroyed by cytomegalo-virus and meningococcal disease. I have no intention of ending up like Nick- more importantly neither had he- but his mistake was not to draw up a living will, so that he could end his life with a semblance of dignity, rather than a drooling defaecating blob in a nappy, bib and with a labyrinth of tubes in his veins (those not collapsed from previous use) and with a cannula in his chest.

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Holocaust/disabled.html

http://www.disabilityhistory.org/t4prog.html

[Berzerker]

Tripledoc -

Sorry for my former ranting.

What I tried to say was that there is a distintion to be made between what you would consider 'terminal patients' and patients, or non-patients for that matter, who are merely suffering from a loss in 'qualty of life' however that quality is decided upon.

Apology accepted

Yes, distinctions exist and should be made, but euthenasia, except for loony toons who decide to off retirement home occupants en masse, usually involves spouses who love their partner and don't want to see them suffer. Euthenasia has to be on a case by case basis, not illegal with zero tolerance. I wouldn't want it completely legal or illegal... But since a law can't deal with such ambiguities, jurors have to be able to nullify the law when prosecutors and judges can't use common sense for political reasons. Unfortunately jury nullification is demonised by those in power because it's the final check on government power envisioned by the Founders, and God knows the last thing politicians need are jurors getting in their way.

[/rant]

[Mr. Harley]

While I found the various logical flaws in the original post disturbingly typical and familiar, they have been well refuted by prior postings. I have found little though dealing with this (except for Berzerker's one comment, thanks) :

Ben Kenobi quoting TR :There is only true Christian ethics over against which stands the whole of paganism. If we are to fulfill our great destiny as a people, then we must return to the old morality, the sole morality.

Are we including Buddism? Technically, as I understand the term pagan as used by Christians and Moslems, it includes anyone who is not monotheistic. Are we including Janists, the Hindu individuals who try not to kill even an insect? They are genuine pagans, beleiving in a pantheistic religiion.

Are we including the many animist native American tribes, whom Theodore Roosevelt held in contempt and helped continue the policies to destroy their culture and language, tearing their children away from their mothers and forcing them into schools where they were beaten for speaking their language, or turned into legalized house slaves when adopted (not always, there were some people who genuinely cared - not enough).

Christian moralism, from its earliest times, has had an intolerant streak. Just read St. Augustine and his justifications for persecution of Jews. When it comes to Islam and pagans, read what Mohommed says is appropriate conduct - forcing them to convert or killing the men and enslaving the woman and children. Its going on across Africa right now, just look at the Sudan.

Please note that there are tolerant and loving Christians and Moslems who do not support the idea of government forcing their ideas of morality down my throat via legislation. Unfortunately it only takes the intolerant ones winning once, look at Iran. The United States is engaged on its own slippery slope, including Christain fundamentalists deliberately distorting science (the NIH and CDC web sites), via the Bush adminstration, to advocate their moral views. These include that abortion causes breast cancer (it doesn't) and that condoms don't protect versus STD's (they do except against human papilloma virus, and even there they help). They are willing to kill people - "condoms don't help against STD's" - to force their fundamentalist ideology of sexual abstinence only on those of us who do not share it. Thankfully there is a constitution, or at least what remains of one after Ashcroft and Scalia finish with it.

[Asher]

It examines some of the causes of the Holocuast, asserting that it is through euthanasia in Germany, was the starting point.

OTOH, birth was the starting point for euthanasia, which was the starting point for the holocaust. Naturally, then, only Nazis are pro-life.

[Berzerker]

Are we including Janists, the Hindu individuals who try not to kill even an insect?

Jains, I've seen these people on pilgrimmages. They use a brush to sweep the path before them to avoid stepping on bugs and they wear masks so they don't breathe bugs in. They eat only fruit that has fallen from trees and depend (Jainist priests anyway) largely on handouts of dried fruit. Their religion began after an Indian emporer fought a big and bloody battle around 200 AD I think, and as he walked the field of the slain, he felt great remorse at the loss of life and vowed never to kill again...apparently that meant anything...

That, to me, is the most moral of all religions (just not practical for large populations) and it's quite amazing how it's adherents have maintained the principle of "ahimsa" - non-violence. It usually doesn't take very long for a religion to become perverted by power seekers. Christianity remained largely consistent with Jesus' teachings up until Constantine gave it his approval and almost immediately 2 Christian armies faced off and slaughtered each other in the subsequent power grab...

[Zero]

Maybe its just me because Im an amoral person.

Why is killing considered so highly immoral? We need to do killing in order to live and survive.

Oh and jainist do try to avoid killing as best as they can, but they still commit killing of other life during their lifetime. You cant completely avoid killing other life beings.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by molly bloom
An inaccurate title which trivializes the experience of those who died and suffered in Auschwitz and other extermination camps.

A thesis which confuses and conflates a state policy of genocide towards undesirables (the disabled, the mentally ill, 'racial' and sexual and political outcasts) with attempts to give dignity and control over their sick bodies back to individuals, and which utilises a hit and miss approach to history and philosophies to 'prove' its theory.

Well the Spartans exposed physically malformed infants, and Chinese peasants exposed/murdered female infants. Why not blame them for social utilitarianism? Of course, it doesn't have the pizzazz of 'Auschwitz in America' or 'Bergen-Belsen in Great Britain', and it's so much more exciting to tag someone whose ideology you disagree with as an ideological by-blow of National Socialist philosophies.

Congrats Molly for this post. You are very eloquent, and you say my exact line of thought.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Tripledoc


According to a Danish page on palliative treatment the usual dose is 10mg morphine per night (repeated until effect is reached, whatever that means), but may be more depending on how long the patient has been given the medicine. usually other drugs are given as well in combination with morphine, to stimulate appetite and combat nausea.

I watched my friend's father die of cancer. He asked and received an overdose of morphine and he died the next day. My friend said; "I guess you could say that they killed my dad." Of course he was right. This happens in the United States without much fanfare and I personally find nothing wrong with it. The patient requested a steadily increasing dose and everyone knew the result.

The problem arises, in my opinion, when the state decides to help with the patient's "quality of life" by killing him. Living wills are the way to go with clear written instructions to the next of kin and attending physicians.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Lincoln


I watched my friend's father die of cancer. He asked and received an overdose of morphine and he died the next day. My friend said; "I guess you could say that they killed my dad." Of course he was right. This happens in the United States without much fanfare and I personally find nothing wrong with it. The patient requested a steadily increasing dose and everyone knew the result.

To you results oriented secularists the difference may not matter. To some there is a world of difference between attempting to reduce someone's pain by administering a high dose of a painkiller, with the knowledge that death is a possible result, and administering something that doesnt reduce pain, and whose only purpose is death.

[Lincoln]

That's the first time I have been called a "results oriented secularist."

[MichaeltheGreat]

ROFLMAO!

Probably won't happen very many times in your life, Lincoln - you should cherish this moment.

[Ben Kenobi]

with attempts to give dignity and control over their sick bodies back to individuals,

Molly:

They already have this. No need for euthanasia. The only cases that ever go to euthanasia are those in which the patient cannot express their desire so the state or someone else intervenes.

Hardly giving control back to them.

Well the Spartans exposed physically malformed infants, and Chinese peasants exposed/murdered female infants. Why not blame them for social utilitarianism?

Broader essays have done so, to pinpoint this idea of a quality of life. This one has a focus on the comparison between the ethics of Nazi Germany and of those in America today.

Just because the essay does not address all instances, does not render the essay any less correct in the comparison it does choose to make.

a state policy of genocide towards undesirables (the disabled, the mentally ill, 'racial' and sexual and political outcasts)

The two are not the same, the essay looks at the way people view the lives of the disabled, and concludes that this matches the attitude in Germany during the Holocaust, that such lives are not worth living.

Will we end up the same? I would argue that we already have. Rather than euthanasia preceding the holocaust, these attitudes antecede the genocide in America.

[Ben Kenobi]

That could have been minutes, or hours, or at most a day or two, but the simple fact was he had no chance of any recovery.

MtG:

I'm not a doctor, and I would hate to be put in your situation. However if all he had at most was a day or two of some brain function, he is very close to death, but not there yet. I think, without knowing more about the situation, that I would have kept him on life support for the day.

CICU space from people who had a chance to recover.

And then we come to this. Scarce resources. Did they say they needed the room for someone else?

Things that he wanted to do, like have some final "clear" time with his wife and two small kids, could only be done under much lower doses of painkillers that only had a minimal effect.

That's the decision of the patient, should they wish to refuse painkillers. If he wants lucid time, he ought to endure the pain. If he no longer wants the pain, he ought to take the painkillers.

I have absolutely no problem with a person who wants to spend his last moments outside of the hospital by refusing treatment. That is his right. What I do have a problem with is in the care of the hospital, that they would try to end the life of their patients.

But whatever a patient decides about dealing with their situation, if they're competent to make that decision, and do so without external duress, we should support it, even if it means assisting them in ending their suffering.

Many times the patient is not competent. What should we do in these situations? I disagree with assisting in the suicide of anyone rather than trying to alleviate the source of their suffering.

[Ben Kenobi]

As a result of that treatment death might arive earlier, than it would otherwise have had had there been no alleviating the pain. There is nothing unethical about this since the medical profession has the responsibilty of alleviating the consequences of sickness, if no cure is feasable.

Tripledoc, LoTM, this is a very important clarification known as the doctrine of double effect. It differentiaties between palliative care and euthanasia.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben Kenobi quoting TR :There is only true Christian ethics over against which stands the whole of paganism. If we are to fulfill our great destiny as a people, then we must return to the old morality, the sole morality.

Well, I can't claim that I wrote the article. It's not mine, nor do I know the author. I just recieved the essay from a friend.

Are we including Janists, the Hindu individuals who try not to kill even an insect? They are genuine pagans, beleiving in a pantheistic religiion.

Christian ethics. I suggest you examine my location sig. It may allow you to anticipate my response. I would argue that in being a pacifist, that these Jains adhere to some of Christian ethics, though they do not believe in Christ.

Now, they go father than Christian ethics and confuse the role of man in the world. Man is given dominon over the animals, hence they ought to take care of them. They are still permitted to eat animals according to their needs.

Christian ethics do not equate with the practices of their followers. T. Roosevelt was a Christian, but it does not excuse his actions, which are outside of Christian morality.

Christian moralism, from its earliest times, has had an intolerant streak. Just read St. Augustine and his justifications for persecution of Jews. When it comes to Islam and pagans, read what Mohommed says is appropriate conduct - forcing them to convert or killing the men and enslaving the woman and children. Its going on across Africa right now, just look at the Sudan.

"Justifications for persecutions of Jews." Could you cite his claim? Now, as for the Muslims you can hardly call that Christian morality since they persecute Christians in the Sudan.

These include that abortion causes breast cancer (it doesn't)

Time to start a thread! I have many sources that cite the link, and I just met with the doctor who discovered the link. Dr. Joel Brind.

and that condoms don't protect versus STD's (they do except against human papilloma virus, and even there they help).

HPV is an intersting case. Post in the condom thread and we can discuss that there.

They are willing to kill people -

Trolls are fine. However I suggest you troll the proper thread. You can't fish without water.