Auschwitz in America

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


In terms of their posts, I think there's a distinct difference between not providing artificial means of life support indefinitely, and actively terminating life. It's not so much a slippery slope, as it is having to cross an entire valley and go down an entirely new slope.

In the recent past, there has been a valley between not providing service, and withdrawing one already in place. the posters support "pulling the plug" based on cost benefit, not just denying a new treatment based on cost benefit. Seems to me theyve already crossed a valley. Is the valley from pulling the plug to actively killing people wider? Maybe.


although in quite a number of cases the intervention is not something medically extraordinary, its just feeding someone. Surely denying a conscious person food would be murder, just as much as shooting them. In the case of someone in a coma, it seems worth at least examing the plug we're gonna pull. It starts with dont do something medically extraordinary for someone in PVS. Then pull a feeding tube from someone in a PVS. Then pull medically extraordinary care from conscious people already receiving it on cost benefit grounds. then deny routine care to conscious people on cost benefit grounds? Not the same as putting people into gas chambers, I agree, but not a road i want to go to down.

Does anyone argue for unlimited intervention for minimal life extension? evidently you dont travel in the same intellectual circles I do. Ive seen the writings of at least one Orthodox rabbi who argued precisely that. The argument is 1. life is of infinite value (based on various sources) - ergo any fraction of it is of infinite value - ergo even a second of it is of infinite value. Now the collective consensus even of Orthodox rabbinic opinion is not that extreme (and less so Conservative rabbinic opinion), nor am i saying that anyone here (other than myself) should care one bit what rabbinic opinion says, but I wanted to just expand your horizons a bit.

[Berzerker]

However, I, as others here, do not fully understand how the German people could have gone from accepting euthanasia as a personal option to state liquidation.

Part of the equation was the notion of "Aryan purity", and cleansing society of the impure was deemed necessary for the good of society. I don't know what percentage of Germans knew the extent of what was happening though...

[Ned]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Part of the equation was the notion of "Aryan purity", and cleansing society of the impure was deemed necessary for the good of society. I don't know what percentage of Germans knew the extent of what was happening though...

That's where it ended up. But, when it started with Germans, not non Germans. From euthanisia by consent, it went to euthansia by government order. Apparently, this was stopped by the German people even after the war started.

But it started as a effort to save costs in a nationalized health care system. This is the same argument we are now hearing in the US as we progressively move to the NAZI health care system where apparently all health care was paid by the state. When someone is paying their own costs for maintaining their elderly relatives or their familiy member on life support, the state is not involved. It is the move to a national health care system that involved the state in these decisions that made the NAZI move in the direction it did solely to cut costs, not to liquidate non Aryans.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Ned
It is the move to a national health care system that involved the state in these decisions that made the NAZI move in the direction it did solely to cut costs, not to liquidate non Aryans.

So does a nationalized healtcare system have a tendency to continuously expand its area of responsibility like the usual critical theory on how bureaucracies work would claim, and thus result in ever rising expenditures, or - was there in this case some abnormal development which forced the government to shift expenditures from one sector to another? In this case from healthcare to defense. I think the latter.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
In the recent past, there has been a valley between not providing service, and withdrawing one already in place. the posters support "pulling the plug" based on cost benefit, not just denying a new treatment based on cost benefit. Seems to me theyve already crossed a valley. Is the valley from pulling the plug to actively killing people wider? Maybe.

I hope you don't count me in among the posters who support the plug-pulling. The only thing I was pulling was your leg. I actually thought the sarcasm was obvious. Looks like I have to work more on that, since it is obviously deficient.

What i tried to say was that I find it ironic that when a society lacks money its justifications are so much different than when it is rich. That is why reason is based on neccesity.

[Ben Kenobi]

And if the patient requires assistance in achieving that, what right does any outside party have in interfering with the patient's wishes?

MtG:

Here's the flaw. On one hand you argue that no one has the right to interfere with the patient's desire to refuse treatment, but to assist in the suicide requires the caregiver to intervene. One's desire to die cannot compel the caregiver's assistance.

As for blood oxygenation, I understand your point. This would differ from a patient in a coma as he has suffered an irreverseable cessation of brain activity.

Spiffor:

So, you deny that this essay uses the comparison to nazi Germany as a rhetorical weapon and blatant fearmongerism?

Rhetorical weapons ought to be employed in decent arguments. As for fearmongerism, this implies that the writer knowingly distorts the situation to support his argument.

I would argue that he is right, in making the comparison, and secondly, that even if he were wrong, I believe him to have made a sincere contribution.

[Berzerker]

Ben -

Here's the flaw. On one hand you argue that no one has the right to interfere with the patient's desire to refuse treatment, but to assist in the suicide requires the caregiver to intervene. One's desire to die cannot compel the caregiver's assistance.

True, a right to die cannot translate into a right to compel someone assist, but freedom of association combined with the right to die does translate into legal assisted suicide, it just means the caregiver cannot be coerced or forced to give assistance and the state's only moral concern is guaranteeing the patient's desire to die is sincere and not concocted by would-be murderers.

Ned -

But it started as a effort to save costs in a nationalized health care system. This is the same argument we are now hearing in the US as we progressively move to the NAZI health care system where apparently all health care was paid by the state. When someone is paying their own costs for maintaining their elderly relatives or their familiy member on life support, the state is not involved. It is the move to a national health care system that involved the state in these decisions that made the NAZI move in the direction it did solely to cut costs, not to liquidate non Aryans.

I agree that national health care should be rejected, but I don't see any movement so to speak for state enforced euthenasia to save costs. The author seems to have been motivated by the Florida woman and that case was decided based on evidence of the woman's desire, not the states'.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
MtG:

Here's the flaw. On one hand you argue that no one has the right to interfere with the patient's desire to refuse treatment, but to assist in the suicide requires the caregiver to intervene. One's desire to die cannot compel the caregiver's assistance.

Of course one can not compel any caregiver to do what they are unwilling or feel themselves unable to do. When I dealt with this as a near hypothetical with my brother, we were both able to appreciate the issue in a much different way, namely as former soldiers. The taking of another life and the sudden loss of life, though neither desired nor pleasant, is not nearly so alien a concept. Nor is taking the life of someone you care about to alleviate suffering that there's no hope of alleviating any other way inconceivable. For ordinary people, including medical personnel and other caregivers, taking a life is much more alien of a concept, I'd expect. In fact, I'd expect a great number of caregivers to have trouble with it, or refuse, regardless of the patient's wishes, and that would be their right too. I know in my brother's case, if it had come down to it, I could have acted pursuant to his wishes, but whether I ultimately would have come down to an assessment of the practical effects on my family if I'd ended up going to prison for it. If it was just a matter of him and me, I would have done what he asked, if he'd come to that point.

As for blood oxygenation, I understand your point. This would differ from a patient in a coma as he has suffered an irreverseable cessation of brain activity.

Coma is a very tough area, because it is so broadly defined and so poorly understood. The brain has both a remarkable tendency to recover from tremendous structural damage to the cortex as long as some of it is intact, and to sometimes never recover when the extent of damage can't even be identified. Both are fairly rare extremes, but it's a very tough judgment to make, and a very tough issue to describe in advance in a living will. It would be nice if we could look at our future MRI and EEG's and other subj/obj indicators, but a living will by definition has to be anticipatory. Mine is.... a tad complex , but suffice it to say, there are some conditions where I'd appreciate it if they poked and jiggled and tried to jumpstart me for a while, and some conditions where I'd prefer they yank the plug and not subject anyone who gave a damn to false hopes.

Spiffor:



Rhetorical weapons ought to be employed in decent arguments. As for fearmongerism, this implies that the writer knowingly distorts the situation to support his argument.

In fact, the author has knowingly or negligently distorted the situation, first, in mixing and matching disparate events in 20 or so years of German history, and linking them chronologically and causally where no such linkages exist. The auther also distorts facts by comparing a massive and systematic campaign of extermination of certain classes of people based on a number of considerations, specifically including ethnic and religious origins, to a debate over isolated medical cases. Singer, an extreme proponent of a very small subset of that debate, is pointed to as the one example to be made in comparison. It is just as valid as if I wanted to smear Christianity in the US by holding out Fred Phelps as a widely followed and representative leader in Christian thought. He does get a lot of media attention to his message, so he must be representative of the slippery slope we are on leading to our descent into inquisitions and witch burnings.

I would argue that he is right, in making the comparison, and secondly, that even if he were wrong, I believe him to have made a sincere contribution.

By all accounts, Reinhard Heydrich was sincere. Certainly Phelps is. Sincerity is not necessarily a thing to be praised.

[Mr. Harley]

Ben Kenobi wrote: 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.

That statement shows that I should not waste my break time refuting this, but nevertheless I shall try. It shows a total insularity and arrogance that I find discouraging, but distressingly normal, when I attempt to have discourse with those who come from a moral, versus an ethical, view on morality (check out my posts on previous threads, I've had some stimulating and genuine discussions with some of my fellow posters).

Janists subscribe to THEIR beliefs, not to Mr. Kenobi's, nor his interptation of what Christ wrote. They share some of these, actually a very few, with Christians. Nor do they go farther than Christians:

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.

No, they DISAGREE, but they would be much to polite to put it in capitols. They belief system is different, and at times diametrically opposed, and at other times congruent, with Christianity. They do not CONFUSE the role of man, they disagree, with a series of consistant and devoutly believed teachings.

Mr. Kenobi can no more ethically convince me that he is correct, than a Moslem. Morally he can convince me only if I share the same moral system, and the point of my post was to highlight the attempt by many who devoutly believe in their moral system to force legislation down my throat that agrees with their moral system. I did oops and not read his signature.

Reference his statement concerning St. Augustine helping institutionalize anti-semitism in Christianity for over a millenium:

Ben Kenobi "Justifications for persecutions of Jews." Could you cite his claim?

A google seach took under 30 seconds, turning up one of many quotes.

415AD: St. Augustine wrote "The true image of the Hebrew is Judas Iscariot, who sells the Lord for silver. The Jew can never understand the Scriptures and forever will bear the guilt for the death of Jesus."

Anybody who can add to his signature Protestant and be so sadly unaware of the history of official Christianity and anti-semitism is also, typically, one who states Janists subscribe to Christian beliefs, rather the subscribing to a belief held in common. A Christo-centric and deliberately ignorant world view, and I say this based on his unwillingness to do a 30 second Google search.

Sigh, now on to statistics. I ran the multi-variant statistics for my wife's M.A. thesis on SPSS as she designed an Art Therapy assessment for inner city troubled youth. A woman who has an abortion has the same risk of breast cancer as a woman who has never had a child. Now if you compare the woman who had the abortion to women who have had children, especially women who have breast fed, then her chance is higher. It's the same as any other childless woman. Period. That is from the CDC site prior to it being rewritten by the Bush administration under pressure from the religious right. I carefully listen to religious right's own statements, where the various radio and web sites run by them have trumpteded their victory. Please don't play the same silly game as you did with St. Augustine (quote it), I'm not going to bother to do the research for someone too lazy and opinionated to do their own.

The situation with condoms is the same, and again the studies are innumerable. Does engaging in abstinence work. Absolutely 100%. Do condoms work (except for human papilloma virus, thankfully I attempt to qualify my statements for accuracy, like I did the first time) as well. No, they are in the high 90's, depending on whether the people involved use it every time (most people engaged in serial monogamy do not), do they know the proper way to use them, etc.

Finally, his claim to trolling. That is the old technique that see, it's all HIS fault. My point, in case Mr. Kenobi did not realize it, is that I dislike people of any religious affiliation meddling in politics and trying to pass laws and/or distort the facts, science, etc. to justify this. The so-called right-to-life movement, which includes their claimed anti-euthanasia message, engages in that very activity, which is why I posted on his thread.

Posting inaccurate historical factoids to mis-support his premise, using shocking language like "Auschwitz in America" (now who's trolling), are used by the same organizations who distort science and statistics to push their agenda, for example the not-so-aptly named Christian Coalition. It has been well-documented in the cases of the CDC/NIH web sites and the so-called breast cancer/abortion link and the "Condoms don't work" biased studies, that the Bush administration is catering to those individuals and organizations who share this certitude and intolerance in their beliefs (again, reference the ludicrous statement about Janists subscribing to Christian beliefs).

While it lends no credibility to my arguments, I will state why I have an interest. I left the Catholic Church over precisely this issue. My mother spent the last two days of life, as her brain function failed and she regressed to the mental level of a child, strapped into the hospital bed because she wanted to come home to die. The only problem. She was a claustrophobe, and my father a devout Catholic. She wasn't, and we didn't have living wills then. The Catholic Church was successfully blocking their adoption from the pulpit. I left. If Mr. Kenobi's ilk get to shred the constitution, then I won't have that option, the option our founding fathers carefully enshrined in the constitution.