Friday, October 10, 2008

The Right to Die.


Lately PZ has been pissing me off with his uncritical acceptance of any anti-McCain/Palin propaganda (see here and here) so I haven't been reading Pharyngula as regularly. Today he seems a little more back on track with this post linking to excellent article by Dan Savage. He just lost his mother. Because of the christian dogma tied into our current legal system, she was forced to choose between three painful deaths. She had no other options.

I'm often asked why I have a problem with religion. This is a prime example. I won't leave religion alone because it won't leave me alone. If the catholic church is so against physician assisted suicide then DON'T DO IT! Leave the rest of us alone and allow us to die in the way that we choose. Initiative 1000 would give Washington State residents a choice. It doesn't require anyone to take part. It doesn't have any loop holes that would allow someone else to choose for you. It is simply allowing the freedom to choose, in what is supposed to be a free country.

3 comments:

John Kamman said...

I agree with you, but just for the sake of playing (non-existent)devil's advocate:

Do you think that the implications that one's death has on those close to him/her should be taken into consideration? How do you feel about Doctor-assisted suicide when the patient is physically well but mentally unwell? Freedom to choose? Situations like these would, inevitably affect family and friends and is, therefore, not simply a solution that affects only the decider.

Arguments like these step outside the realm of religion, i think...maybe its just government mandated "ethical" behavior.

John Kamman said...

PS. I hope you at least like this post: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/10/for_you_visual_thinkers_who_co.php

I laughed out loud at that one

Shane said...

To your first comment: Short answer NO.

Long answer. Of course those things should be taken into consideration but not by the law. The implications that spending your money unwisely will result in your family's unhappiness should be considered...by you. You do and should have the freedom to make the wrong decision. Not many decisions affect only the person making the decision.

As for the hypothetical mentally ill individual, there are already laws in place that would relieve them of their rights to choose for their own protection.

It gets deeper and more difficult in the case of a family member being truly and deeply emotionally damaged by the premature death of a loved one. Overall, I don't think that the government exists to keep us from getting our feelings hurt.

To comment 2: I e-mailed that link to a few people. I thought you were one of them. I must have forgotten. Yeah, it was hilarious.