Rules for the imposition of death: an ideological solidification.
ABSTRACT: the following piece is an analysis of the imposition of medical death in Canada circa 2016. It goes point by point as a structure, with analysis before and after.
The following is a distillation of my observations made at gatherings of euthanasia enthusiasts, both
informal and at their clubs. I noted recurring themes in the structure of their arguments and tried to itemize the elements as I encountered them. What I have not done here is put them together in a flowchart structure; I am more interested in outlining the elements as I encountered them on their own. Put together, we can see that there is a potential structured flow to the discussion. The outcome of that flow is to make an opponent silent and invisible; it is also to ensure that those who are on the fence remain there. In addition, the arguments are designed to emotionally drive observers to one accepted outcome: that death must be demanded for all who might want, or be defined as needing death.
What we are seeing therefore is the reification of an ideology which some twenty five years ago was an interesting series of philosophical arguments. The troubles started when people started deciding that acting on these ivory-tower notions would be good in practice. The reality of unintended consequences have been well-documented, but ignored.
In no particular order, I have clustered my observations in the following points.
• Anyone against PAD has no right to speak
• Anyone against medically provided death working in that sector must remain silent or leave
• Issues or problems must be pushed up the chain of command
• Issues or problems must not be discussed in public
• People who oppose aid in dying are defined as too close to the situation to be objective
• Anyone opposed to mercy killing must be either
o Religious or
• Examples in favour of assisted suicide given prior to legal approval are
o Ideologically driven
• Real world examples offered as criticism are dismissed as
o Unsubstantiated or
• Solid citations are dismissed as
o Ideologically driven against the euthanasia position
o Incomplete and needing other research
o Not appropriate to the specific Western regime where euthanasia will be imposed
• History and historical examples are not allowed to intrude on the ideology
o Historical situations of abuse are ignored
o The mention of Germany 1920-1945 is defined as off-limits
These are the rules as I have been able to determine them based on observations and readings. Since this is a theoretical reading (we have not had real-world examples codified in Canada yet), we must also demand real-world examples. There must also be a mechanism found which defuses the arguments cited above.
The overall conclusion I can reach on reading about the subject is that arguments for medically imposed death are theoretical to the extreme. The real world examples are forbidden in the creation of the death culture ideology. As well, opponents are forbidden from speaking by being conveniently pre-defined and isolated.
There is another worrying issue: the fact that the cause of death as euthanasia is hidden; the underlying disease as cause of death is the only admission allowed. This is precisely what happened in Nazi Germany. The counter argument is that the Nazis were ideologically driven and had an agenda beyond the mere killing. The notion that there could be an ideology beyond the killing in the twenty-first century era is not considered.
As an issue of public safety and oversight, this serious informational black hole should be enough for any thinking person to say no. If we don’t know how many people are euthanized and by whom, how will we keep control over who dies?
The point is not that if we have these safeguards that they will be effective, but rather that the actions taken by euthanasia enthusiasts render every ideological construct irrelevant. An ideological concept will not stop a physical act. And the ideology says that criticism or resistance is forbidden and a lack of criticism is defined as a lack of problems and this is not the case.
Therefore, I predict it will only be a matter of time until those who are against euthanasia will find themselves physically and legally sanctioned to silence. Once that happens, the killing of the disabled will be normalized to such an extent that the eugenic content of medical killing will be revealed as a virtue.
The difficulty to be overcome is that the ideology of death is based on bedrock selfishness, fantasy and fiction. The emotionalism of an untrained imagination will always seem more powerful than the quiet lived reality of actual options to death.
However we can use the real world stories and events to show to those who might waver in their position that they are right to be doubtful of the promises of euthanasia enthusiasts. The repeated denial and chosen social psychosis of those creating this ideology of death is a problem with which we should be deeply concerned.
One method of resistance is for those who are most vulnerable to claim and take their power; as well those who are responsible for killing the disabled should be named and shamed. Those who are willing to kill should be named publicly and a body count kept of their exploits. (In this way, it should be mentioned, that those who say that access to death is a problem can be pointed to the names list as a real-world reply. This should obviate any need to have every doctor kill or refer.
As one friend said, ‘I want death when I want it; I don’t care what happens after I’m gone.’ If I may inject another final comment: euthanasia enthusiasts want, in the word of pro aborts, ‘death on demand for any reason without apology’. It seems they will have their wish. Whether they get their wish remains to be seen…
The theoretical ideology is that once we have medically provided death every other problem around death will either disappear or be solved, and that faith is the essence of magical thinking. I think it can also be considered the essence of psychotic thinking. The sad part is that we will not even have official oversight to see what problems arrive when we have death imposed; my guess is that everything will be considered more precious than a national secret, which means pro-death people have something to hide.