Saturday, July 29, 2017

Thinkpiece


            The current situation allowing people to be killed by their doctors in Canada is showing its ideological contradictions. We have seen how a nurse euthanized eight of her patients and is now in jail. We have also seen how a mother of a disabled daughter was offered euthanasia in front of the daughter – even though the daughter was capable of making her own decision and request.

            The demand of the doctor in Newfoundland to kill his patient is not abnormal, by the way. It’s the way euthanasia is supposed to work. The reason is that we have seen how the disabled community has warned that they are the canaries in the coal mine on the issue. How we disabled people are treated is how the rest of Canada’s citizens are going to be treated.

            We have the Wettlaufer case, where that nurse had euthanized eight of her patients. I say this because there is no resultant difference in the act. Had she not confessed at CAMH, we would not have known about the killings.

            We have the case of Charlie Gard, the infant who became a political prize in a professional fight between his doctors (care team) and his parents. Surprise! We learn that he could have benefitted from treatment five months ago, but this was refused. Charlie won’t even be allowed to die with dignity: he won’t be at home in a peaceful environment, he will be in a hospice where the nurses there will kill him by removing his ventilator.

            The reason the judge refused to release Charlie home, by the way, is so the medical machine can keep control over the information that gets out. We won’t see public pictures of Charlie, showing his moments, which is presumably what they fear since they are hiding something.

            Then we have the case of Candace, the 25 year old disabled woman whose mother was told to euthanize her. I am putting it in these terms because of what the doctor has said. In theory in Canada, euthanasia is supposed to be done to the person who has demanded it. The doctor is not to suggest it, apparently.

            But this is what happened, and so we can see that the safeguard of a patient’s own request has already been vaulted over as if it didn’t matter. So if this is the case, then what other safeguards will fall? We might not be allowed to know.

            The safeguard of immanent death has also been glossed over. We have two people who demanded death for their mental health issues and their disabilities. In addition, I have seen articles that show how euthanasia is being considered for those who have dementia. So the safeguard of immanent death was a sop to keep the objectors quiet and those who thought they were neutral disarmed.

            Now that we have euthanasia, those who have social power over the disabled are going to use it for social and economic control. An article in the spring of 2017 argued that there were cost savings ($139 million Canadian) to be found each year. Given that the budget for medical care is in the billions, I would consider that article to be a probing piece to find out if ‘the public is ready to accept euthanasia for economic reasons’ yet.

            That’s another issue: we see these little steps taken, as if the euthanasia enthusiasts are testing the alarm mechanism of society. No response? Great, let’s take another step. Oops, there’s a blowback, we’ll keep quiet for now and try again. That ideological action structure shows how there is a plan in place to enforce euthanasia, after the citizens have been softened up sufficiently. I was at a protest where a euthanasia enthusiast said to me that they were going to introduce euthanasia for children after it was legalized “…but you don’t say anything about that.”

            This is the insidious nature of the act: once it is done here, it can be done there, and the results don’t really matter, as long as the target isn’t suffering. In fact, I would argue that it’s not the person suffering who is the object of the narratives, it’s the person observing the suffering who wants the other dead. That is dehumanization of the worst kind: it reduces a human being to one abnormal aspect of their life, and that aspect can be fixed by proper, basic, humane care that does not eliminate the suffering as the ultimate act.

            Human lives are at stake, yours and mine. For now, we have an open discussion. There will come a time when you won’t be allowed to speak against it. That day is coming. Decide now if you’re going to go with the flow, because the euthanasia enthusasts won’t give you a choice later.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please feel free to comment; I might have a turnaround time to post!