Latest news with #rightToDie
Asharq Al-Awsat
2 days ago
- Business
- Asharq Al-Awsat
From the Greek Stable Boy to Josef Mengele?
In one of his memorable comments on the current state of Europe, the late Pope Francis expressed the wish that in a world gripped by turmoil and war the old continent becomes a field hospital for victims from the four corners of the globe. The comment implies that real or imagined victimhood provides anyone with a seat at the high table of privileges cast as human rights. In other words, the unorthodox comment put the Catholic pontiff on the side of those who have tried to transform their definition of human rights into a secular religion unencumbered by the traditional concept of duty upheld by traditional religions. Last week, the French parliament debated the enshrinement of a new right in the law of the land: the right to die. The issue was first raised in Europe almost 30 years ago and led to Switzerland and Holland to become the first havens for the right-to-die. At first, the new 'right' was presented as 'mercy killing'. That had to change because of the politically incorrect word killing. A new phrase was put into circulation: assisted suicide. That too was discarded because suicide is illegal in most European judicial systems. Then we got: assisted dying. But to die is an intransitive verb; if you add assisted you make it transitive which implies murder. Politically correct lexicographers opted for 'the right to die', sending the ball back to the victim. However, that, too, caused a problem. First, dying isn't a right because every living being shall suffer or enjoy it when the time comes. As the Persian poet Ghazayei says: 'From the moment we are born-our death also begins!' Thus, what is at issue isn't the right to die but the exercise of that right. Woke elites couldn't accept the theological position that reserves the right to take life for the Creator. Nor is the pagan position that leaves that right to nature with a capital N or mythological gods and goddesses acceptable to wokeist elites that broke with Athens and Jerusalem long ago. The term that finally emerged and was used in the French debate last week is euthanasia, a crafty shibboleth from a Greek stem. The text, however, shows that what is proposed is killing of people branded as terminally ill and, you guessed it, victims who have drawn the wrong lot. In a sense, the right to die is an inevitable extension of the right to abortion which is also supposed to be exercised under strict limitations but often isn't. (One example: Last week the Islamic Office for Demography in Tehran announced that the number of abortions in Iran has risen to almost half a million each year.) Spokesmen for virtually all major religions have condemned euthanasia on the grounds that giving and taking lives is a prerogative of the Divine and not a matter of individual choice. Some of the language used by religious leaders recalls the 'bell, book and candle' vocabulary of the inquisition. Supporters of euthanasia argue that keeping terminally ill patients, who are often subject to excruciating pain, alive, is both inhuman and economically wasteful. Resources that are 'wasted' on keeping such patients alive would be better-employed in providing more effective treatment and care for others with curable illnesses. One estimate of the financial savings that euthanasia might generate for comes to $1 billion a year. Euthanasia is the latest manifestation of efforts to submit all aspects of life to the cold logic of scientific analysis in the hope of imposing strictly rational control on human existence. What is interesting is that 'the right to die' is not complemented by a corresponding 'right to be born'. In almost all cases those who support 'the right to die' also support the right to kill the unborn baby in the name of abortion. They are also vague on the subject of children born with incurable diseases and thus subjected to a life of suffering. The latter point merits emphasis because the number of incurable diseases, or conditions, is far larger than one may imagine. Diabetes is incurable, although it can be treated. Shortsightedness is also incurable, although it can be corrected by the use of spectacles. If we were to 'cull' all human beings who suffer from various ailments very few people would be left on this earth. The logic of euthanasia might make sense if applied to the source of life as well. It is senseless to allow people to be born when we know they will, at some stage in their lives, be afflicted by incurable disease that would cause them great suffering. The absolutely healthy and perfect human being is a myth that would appeal to Nazis and other fanatics of biological perfection and social engineering. Taking their position to its absurd, but logically consistent, conclusion we should organize a new global system of producing only 'perfect' human beings who will not fall ill or suffer, the dream or nightmare desired by Jozef Mengele. Many geneticists are already working in that direction. Research on ways of 'correcting' human DNA defects is clearly aimed at such a goal. New computer software to help individuals and couples achieve 'perfect' biological matches also fall into the same category. But the question is; who decides all that? The answer is: scientists and doctors who are answerable to no one. The new law requires that the decision to die be taken by the patient himself. But how can someone supposed to be subjected to excruciating pain be in a condition to make a life-and-death decision? The economic argument advanced in favor of euthanasia is even more scandalous. If we were to apply the principle of cost-effectiveness to every human existence, we would quickly realize the folly of such procedures. There are hundreds of millions of people in the poor countries who contribute nothing or very little to the global economy. And there are tens of millions of old-age pensioners in the richest nations who represent a burden for the public treasury. To decide who lives and who dies on the basis of financial calculations is one example of reason gone mad. Aristotle, the father of logic, was aware of the dangers of taking rationality into the uncharted territories of human existence. He had also warned that any system that exaggerates its fundamental principle is doomed to destruction. In this case, too much rationality kills reason. There are areas of life, some would say the most important that cannot and must not be subjected to cold scientific logic. These include love, friendship, taste, talent, and, of course, joy and pain. Why do we fall in love with those two particular black eyes and not others in the world? Why do we feel the grace of friendship with this or that particular individual out of billions of human beings? Why do we like the voice of this singer and not the other and the poetry of this poet and not another? How is it that we can paint reasonably well but sing worse than a frog? Some areas of human existence must be allowed to retain the mystery that they have always enjoyed in the mystical chiaroscuro of the human condition. We should not decree love, friendship and talent. Nor should we try to decree death. Euthanasia, a Greek word, means 'mercy killing' and was initially coined to describe the administration of the coup de grace to badly wounded horses. Human beings, however, cannot be treated the same way as horses. Nor can a doctor of medicine act like a stable boy.
Reuters
5 days ago
- General
- Reuters
French lawmakers approve assisted dying bill, paving the way for approval
PARIS, May 27 (Reuters) - French lower house lawmakers approved a bill on Tuesday to legalise assisted dying, paving the way for France to become the latest European nation to allow terminally ill people to end their lives. The final passage of the bill remains some way off, with the text now heading to the Senate. However, the legislation is expected to pass, with polls showing more than 90% of French people in favour of laws that give people with terminal diseases or interminable suffering the right to die. French President Emmanuel Macron called the vote in the National Assembly "an important step." The bill, which was approved in parliament by 305 votes to 199, provides the right to assisted dying to any French person over the age of 18 suffering from a serious or incurable condition that is life-threatening, advanced or terminal. The person, who must freely make their decision, must also have constant physical or psychological suffering that cannot be alleviated. Lawmakers stipulated that psychological suffering alone would not be enough to end one's life. The patient can administer the lethal dose themselves or by an accredited medical professional if they are physically unable. Healthcare workers who object to doing so are free to opt out. Anyone found to have obstructed someone's right to die can face a two-year prison sentence and a 30,000 euro fine. Laws to enable assisted dying are gathering steam across Europe. In November, British lawmakers voted in favour of allowing assisted dying, paving the way for Britain to follow countries such as Australia, Canada and some U.S. states in what would be the biggest social reform in a generation. In March, the Isle of Man, a self-governing British Crown Dependency off northwest England, approved an assisted dying bill, potentially making the island the first place in the British Isles where terminally ill people could end their lives. "France is one of the last countries in Western Europe to legislate on this issue," leftist lawmaker Olivier Falorni told Reuters. "We are in a global process ... France is behind, and I hope we will do it with our own model."
Daily Mail
7 days ago
- Health
- Daily Mail
The 'corpse' expecting a baby: Pregnant Adriana's braindead and decomposing but doctors won't turn off life-support. Now her family say it's 'torture' in case that's divided the world
In the intensive care unit of a hospital in Atlanta, Georgia, lies a patient whose fate has set millions of her fellow Americans at each other's throats. They're not fighting, however, over 30-year-old Adriana Smith's right to live – but her right to die. Adriana, a local nurse, was nine weeks pregnant when she went to a hospital back in February seeking treatment for intense headaches. Doctors sent her home with some medication but they didn't conduct a CT scan. The next morning she woke up struggling to breathe and making terrifying gargling sounds. The hospital discovered she had blood clots in her brain and, after an unsuccessful surgery to relieve the pressure, she was declared brain-dead. Given she already has a seven-year-old son who will now be left without a mother, the situation for Adriana and her loved ones was already terrible. However, critics say the situation has turned from tragedy into 'an absolute horror show' after Emory University Hospital – where the nurse previously worked – informed Adriana's family that, although she was legally dead, she was not allowed to die. The apparent reason, according to the hospital's spokesman, is that it's acting 'in compliance with Georgia's abortion laws'. As such, the hospital has reportedly demanded Adriana be kept alive on breathing and feeding tubes until specialists have determined the male foetus is sufficiently developed to be delivered – by caesarean section – as a baby boy. That is scheduled to occur in early August. Removing her from life support until that time, health officials reportedly believe, would violate Georgia's strict anti-abortion laws – which prohibit termination once a foetal heartbeat is detected, typically at around six weeks. The state's controversial law, the Living Infants Fairness and Equality (LIFE) Act, which was dubbed the 'heartbeat Bill' does contain an exception to save the life of the mother. But that doesn't apply to Adriana Smith, as her life is beyond saving. Her family say they hadn't made up their minds whether to switch off her life support systems but, at this nightmarish moment, are deeply upset that the decision has been taken out of their hands by faceless bureaucrats. 'This is torture for me,' her distraught mother April Newkirk told local TV station 11Alive. 'I see my daughter breathing by the ventilator but she's not there.' What's more, she revealed that the baby – who the family have named 'Chance' – has hydrocephalus, or fluid on the brain. Even if he survives the pregnancy (which is increasingly uncertain), he could be born with severe disabilities. 'He may be blind, may not be able to walk, may not survive once he's born,' Ms Newkirk said. 'Right now, the journey is for baby Chance to survive. Whatever condition God allows him to come here in, we're going to love him just the same.' While Georgia's heartbeat law was narrowly passed in 2019, it did not come into effect until three years later after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that established a woman's constitutional right to an abortion. Three other states have similar abortion bans that come into force around the six-week mark and 12 states bar abortion at all stages of pregnancy. Legal experts are in little doubt what is worrying Adriana's healthcare provider – a part of the Georgia law that gives foetuses legal rights as 'members of the species Homo sapiens'. If Adriana and the foetus are two patients with separate legal rights, even if the mother dies, the hospital might have a legal obligation to keep the foetus alive. But doctors anticipate there will be more problems for the child, pointing out life-support systems are not designed for long-term treatment of brain-dead patients. With blood no longer running to the mother's brain, the organ is starting to decompose. 'The chance of there being a healthy newborn at the end of this is very, very small,' said Steven Ralston, the director of the maternal foetal medicine division at George Washington University in Washington DC. The gruesome medical situation and apparent helplessness of Adriana's family has sparked the ire of the 'pro-choice', pro-abortion lobby, with critics saying the case demonstrates a 'pro-life' philosophy that ends up being anything but humane. Predictably, some opponents have likened Georgia to Gilead, the fictional America in Margaret Atwood's chilling novel The Handmaid's Tale. In this dystopian world, much of the US is ruled by a brutal Christian fundamentalist government which – to tackle a severe infertility crisis – forces the few women who can conceive to devote their lives to producing offspring for ruling men. While drawing an analogy with the book – a popular Democrat pastime in MAGA America – is once again a fairly extreme view, critics are correct in saying the state's leaders should have seen this coming. Legal experts say the vague way anti-abortion laws are written will naturally make doctors and hospitals worried about facing criminal charges. And they should have foreseen, too, how the movement (currently gaining ground in the US) to establish so-called 'foetal personhood' – whereby a foetus should have legal rights, including the right to life – would inevitably end up pitting the rights of the mother against those of their unborn child. Now, keen to avert a public relations crisis that could lose them votes in a key swing state, even some of Georgia's conservatives are fighting back by claiming that Georgia's LIFE law is being misinterpreted. The state's Republican attorney general, Chris Carr, last week released a statement declaring the law does not require doctors to keep brain-dead patients alive, because turning off the life support 'is not an action with the purpose to terminate a pregnancy'. Others disagree, however, and say the hospital has taken the correct – and humane – course. 'While Adriana can no longer speak for herself, her son's life still matters. Her doctors are doing the right thing by treating him as a unique patient,' said Students for Life of America, a national anti-abortion group which has even launched a campaign to raise money to help Adriana's family. Georgia state Senator Ed Setzler, who sponsored the state's abortion crackdown, has agreed, saying: 'I think there's a valuable human life that we have an opportunity to save, and I think it's the right thing to save it. To suggest otherwise is to declare the child as being other than human. 'This is an unusual circumstance, but I think it highlights the value of innocent human life.' It's certainly an 'unusual circumstance' but it's actually not the first time an American woman has been kept on life support because of a pregnancy. In 2014, Texan Marlise Munoz collapsed on her kitchen floor when she was 14 weeks pregnant. The hospital informed her husband and parents that she was brain-dead because of a pulmonary embolism. However, medical staff refused to honour Marlise's previously stated wish not to be kept alive by machines, citing a state law that stopped hospitals from withdrawing or withholding 'life-sustaining treatment from a pregnant patient'. Marlise's husband launched a legal battle to get her taken off life support, during which the family revealed the foetus was severely deformed due to oxygen deprivation and the fact it was developing in a brain-dead body. A judge ruled in the husband's favour and Marlise was removed from organ support before the baby was born. But 2014 was a very different America – less riven by culture wars and a triumphalist Donald Trump who was voted in as President on a wave of anti-abortion sentiment driven by supporters in the so-called 'Bible Belt' states of the South and Midwest. There's no indication Adriana Smith's ghastly limbo state – neither alive nor entirely dead – is due to end any time soon.
Irish Times
16-05-2025
- Health
- Irish Times
Temperatures rise in UK's assisted dying debate amid claims of ‘chaotic' process
Supporters and opponents of the UK's landmark Bill to legalise assisted dying – known by its detractors as assisted suicide – gathered in different verdant corners of sunny Westminster on Friday as MPs debated inside the House of Commons. Those supporting a change in the law to allow terminally ill patients in England and Wales to seek medical help ending their own lives gathered beneath an array of bright pink banners on the lawns of Parliament Square. 'My dying wish is dignity,' they said. Around the corner, at the statue of King George V off Abingdon Street, opponents of the proposal struck a darker tone, holding mocked up headstones engraved with a warning about the apparent watering down of oversight of future assisted deaths: 'RIP – 'strictest safeguards in the world.'' Pink to support the right to die, and headstones for the sanctity of life. Therein was captured the incongruity of Britain's national conversation about the right, or otherwise, to an assisted death. Increasingly fraught and tetchy, the mood of the national debate was reflected inside the Commons chamber, as MPs grew frustrated as they ran out of time to speak. READ MORE It was originally thought MPs might get their final say on Friday on Labour MP Kim Leadbeater's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which passed its crucial second reading in the Commons last November by 330 votes to 275. But there have been so many amendments proposed since, the speaker of the House, Lindsay Hoyle, has kicked the crucial vote out until at least June 13th, and possibly later. Even then, many MPs on Friday complained the Bill was being rushed through parliament without proper scrutiny. [ Assisted dying: Do we understand it properly? Opens in new window ] One Labour MP, Naz Shah, described the process as 'chaos . . . a disservice to parliament and our constituents. We shouldn't be playing games with people's lives like this.' She complained of only being told by Leadbeater that her amendment might be accepted when she arrived in the Commons that morning, leaving her no time to study the wording. Prime minister Keir Starmer's government is ostensibly neutral on the Bill, although everybody knows that he favours it. He has granted a free vote, meaning MPs are not party whipped and can vote with their conscience. As the government did not bring the Bill forward, it has been proposed as a private members' Bill by Labour backbencher, Leadbeater. This means, however, that it can only be scrutinised during the time set aside each week for private Bills, Friday mornings and afternoons until 2.30pm. Opponents say such a landmark proposal should have been proposed by the government, allowing it to be scrutinised at greater length during government time in the parliamentary week. Supporters, meanwhile, believe they still have the numbers to push it through the House. They must wait until next month to find out. [ Assisted dying: 'If I cannot consent to my own death, who owns my life?' Opens in new window ]
Times
12-05-2025
- Health
- Times
Anorexia sufferers may use assisted dying bill to end their lives
Scotland's proposed right-to-die law risks allowing people with anorexia to end their lives even though they may eventually recover, experts have said. Chelsea Roff is the founder of the charity Eat Breathe Thrive that works to help people with eating problems. She said the legislation as it stood could be misused by people in deep despair and unable to access vital treatment on the struggling NHS. Roff and her colleague, Professor Catherine Cooke-Cottone, studied assisted dying around the world and found at that least 60 people with eating disorders had been allowed to end their lives. That number is expected to be far higher due to inadequacies in record-keeping. Scotland's lawmakers will vote on Liam McArthur's private member's bill on assisted dying for terminally-ill patients
