Re-entering the Restrictions of the Dark Ages

I want to finish my critique of Phillip Nitschke's arguments against restricting assisted suicide that he presented at a debate August 25, 2011.

Nitschke proclaimed that any legal restrictions on assisted suicide would put us back in the dark ages. He didn't explain or define what he meant by the terms dark ages. He just assumed they were a bad thing. Assuming what he is trying to prove seems to be the hallmark of Dr. Nitschke's rants in favor of legalizing assisted suicide.

There are a couple of possible implied judgement that the "good" doctor could have in mind when he uses the terms dark ages:

1. The dark ages were a time of ignorance and unlearned beliefs. Some people would characterize the period of the dark ages (476AD - 1000AD) as a time when ignorance ruled the day. In this case the doctor was saying that to place any legal restrictions on assisted suicide is to be unlearned or ignorant. This really isn't an argument. I can call anyone's position ignorant, but that is simply engaging in name calling. It doesn't tell us how lack of learning makes the position incorrect or fallacious.
2. The dark ages were a time very long ago. This in effect is saying that restrictions on assisted suicide are old fashioned beliefs and the only reasonable and correct beliefs are those in vogue right now. C S Lewis called this the fallacy of chronological snobbery. If Nitsche is claiming this belief he is forgetting that what is in vogue today will very soon be out of vogue in the not too distant future. All this claim proves is that a belief is not popular today-it says nothing about a belief's truth or falsity. Besides, popularity is very poor test for truth.

Phillip Nitschke is right on one point. During the dark ages restrictions on assisted suicide were in force. It would've been considered wrong to assist someone in killing himself/herself.

In review of these brief arguments I find it apparent that Dr. Nitschke's approach is heavy with rhetoric and emotionally charged statements. His arguments are not really arguments, but rather rants. Rhetoric may prove to be persuasive, but it is no substitute for logic.

Nitschke's Comfortable Climate of Cuddling for Assisted Suicide

I am continuing my examination of Phillip Nitschke's presentation at a debate held August 25, 2001. In his presentation Nitschke cited the case of Bob Dent. Dr. Nitschke assisted Mr. Dent to commit suicide by providing a lap-top PC that controlled the administration of a lethal dose of drugs. Such suicide was legal at the time until the law was later overturned.

Comfortable Killing
Dr. Nitschke praised the fact that Bob Dent died while holding his wife in his arms. Nitschke is implying that because the killing took place in such a serene scene of husband and wife bonding over poison this was a good and proper act.

Critical Condition
According to reports Bob Dent was in pain with prostate cancer and was having difficultly controlling his bowel movements. He was dying from the cancer. This is a terrible condition from which to be suffering and not something I would hope to have to endure.

Confusing Red Herrings
The real question Phillips Nitschke ignores is whether it is morally and ethically right for someone to:

1. kill himself/herself
2. assist he/she in such an act.

The fact Mr. Dent bonded in love with his wife while he killed himself does not determine the right or wrongness of the act. It simply describes the setting where someone committed suicide and nothing else. This is Dr. Nitschke's attempt to deflect our consideration of the real issue and is called in logic a red herring. Later in his argument he charges that it is sophistry to say it is okay to give morphine to the terminally ill to alleviate pain because as a side effect it can also speed up dying.  Well, Dr. Nitschke, your clouding of the real issue with an image of a husband and wife bonding is the true example of Sophistry.

The Real Issue
The ethics of assisted suicide should be decided based on its moral rightness or wrongness. The supposed side benefit of producing a climate of comfort and bonding has no bearing on that decision.

Philip Nitschke: Suicide's Carnaval Barker

I have read a great deal written about Dr. Philip Nitschke and his crusade to legalize assisted suicide. To be fair to the man I listened to him during a recent debate in Australia about assisted suicide. I want to look at each of his arguments over several day, to determine their validity and the truth of his judgements.

Argument 1: Suicide Instruction and Drugs Should be Readily Available

Dr. Nitschke cites the statistic that in Australia in 2011 the most common way the elderly end their lives is by hanging. He cites that the victims used rope that is readily available in a hardware store. He concludes because rope is readily available therefore death inducing drugs and information about killing yourself should also be readily available.

Now, the purpose of rope differs greatly from purpose of drugs like Nembutal used to end a person's life. Ropes are packaged and sold as helpful item. You can use rope for many healthy and productive things. That is its primary purpose. Rope can also be misused for harmful things such as tying up someone abducted by criminals, or to hang someone. These later two uses of rope are misuses of the product and it purpose as a household item for security things. Nitschke is in effect arguing that current illegal misuse of a product (rope) means that another misuse of a product (Nembutal) is therefore justified. Ever hear your Mom say that two wrongs don't make a right? Apparently the good doctor never was privy to such wisdom.

Ropes are not packaged and marketed in hardware stores as suicide devices. Dr. Nitschke is saying that because there is illegal and unsanctioned misuse of a hardware item (rope) it justifies another illegal activity, namely for assisted suicide. If we apply this principle to other illegal and unsanctioned activities it would spell disaster. We could say look at the high rate of shootings in America. It is already happening, so guns and marksmanship classes should be readily available to the criminals shooting up houses.

He is in effect arguing that because the elderly illegally use rope to end their lives by hanging that it justifies the legalization of another wrong and illegal activity. (Readily making available suicide drugs and how to manuals.) You simply cannot take one wrong and illegal use of something and use it to justify legalizing another wrong and illegal act.

In the first place, Dr. Nitschke never makes presents any type of logical argument about why it is right for someone to kill themselves. He is arguing in a circle and assuming that the ability to commit suicide is a good thing. He simply cited some cases of people who were suffering and requested to end their lives. The patent's desire is all the justification he requires. But, are people's desires enough to justify legalizing their fulfillment? Should the rapist's desire to assault women be legalized because the rapist wants the freedom to do it?

Under all of his posturing the good doctor is driven by one mandate: provide people with the freedom to do what they want, period. Accommodating this freedom makes suicide a good act in his eyes.  Civilizations have always restricted certain freedoms as a way to ensure the well being of their citizens. If we put the argument into a syllogism it would look something like this:

Freedom is a good thing.
Legalized assisted suicide is freedom to kill yourself
Therefore, legalizing assisted suicide is a good thing.  

Unbridled freedom of the dark kind advocated by Phillip Nitschke is not a good thing, it is chaos,  anarchy, and the State sanction of murdering oneself. That does not meet my definition of a good situation. Dr. Nitschke needs to examine the rightness of his assumptions.

Eugenic Groundhog

I  firmly believe that the pundits of eugenics played possum, as we say in the USA, for a number of years. What kept this monstrous groundhog underground was the fresh memory of the murderous activities of Hitler and The Third Reich. The story of inhuman sanctioned killing in Germany has a powerful lesson to teach all of us. People in greater numbers have no interest in the past and its lessons for us. When a society and her people forget the past and lose their moral compass hell literally breaks out on earth.

Our society is becoming increasingly nihilistic in its outlook.  Victor Frankl survived two stays in the fearsome death camp called Auschwitz. Frankl's words should serve as a wake up call for all  us:

"I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers."

From the Land Where Euthanasia has Been Legal for Some Time

Considering that the Netherlands legalized euthanasia a while ago a recent survey is telling about the effect that legislated killing has had on the mindset of Dutch doctors:

How much can on-line polls be trusted? Not much. An on-line poll about euthanasia? Even less. However, in view of the sketchy state of information about euthanasia in the first country to legalise it, any poll is welcome. The EinVandaag website in the Netherlands surveyed general practitioners in the last week in July and found that Dutch doctors support it, though sometimes reluctantly. (The number of official notifications of deaths by euthanasia rose 13% to 2,636 in 2009, although many deaths are apparently not reported.)

Here is what the poll of 800 doctors found. The vast majority – 87% -- were willing in principle to participate in legal euthanasia. About 68% said that they had participated in euthanasia in the last 5 years. Of these, 29% did it once; 25% twice; 33% 3 to 5 times; and 11% more than 5 times.

This information was featured on Mercantornet.com. I wonder if this isn't a glimpse of where the mindset of doctors in America will be in the near future. The killing of the disabled and terminally ill is becoming sadly more accepted.

Snake Oil Sale of Euthanasia for the Elderly and The Suffering from Dementia

Over on Mercatornet there is an excellent article that exposes the slick salesmanship of euthanasia salesmen like Philip Nitschke.  We of course can't forget that eugenic storm trooper the Baroness Warnock. Here is a sample to whet your appetite:

Think about it: if euthanasia and assisted suicide are legal do you really think that the excellent, but often expensive and sometimes time-consuming, treatments that are now available to us will stand as a genuine option if there’s a cheaper, easier solution? Sure, perhaps no one you know would be as callous to suggest to an ailing relative that they’d be better off dead, but subtly in those circumstances people may well come to feel it their duty to die. That was certainly the opinion of the UK’s Baroness Warnock when, a few years ago, she had the audacity to tell an assembly of elderly dementia sufferers that they were an unacceptable expense on the public purse and they had a “duty to die”. Euthanasia and assisted suicide limit choice, not Alzheimer’s or dementia.

Cowardly Compassion and Caring

I checked recently for responses to my comment on the Compassion and Caring blog in response to Dan Hankinson's recent blog post. To my surprise, I found that the imbeciles at C and C had removed my comment. So much for their alleged support for freedom. That is, unless the freedom you seek is to murder yourself.

This proves that the folks are at C and C truly are cowards..