March
2007
Quality of Life - State Proposal to Let Go
Another bunch of tangled noodles to make sense of. There’s apparently a problem with a state law on “Death with Dignity”. The disabled are worried about being asked to be killed through “reduced protections.” And the law may lead to infant euthanasia (I’m assuming that’s a new term for “abortion”?).
I don’t know what the legislature was about, but given that the bill is now held because of a medical professional means it can’t be completely unreasonable. The writer implies that the state shouldn’t require doctors to act against their Hippocratic Oath (see wikipedia here), but then has no problem for an Ohana and their personal physician to take end of life decisions without legal sanction. So it’s better for a family to end the life of a loved one, than the state saying that they can do so without repercussions?
The word “dignity” seems to be a particular sore spot, as if there can be no dignity in any legal “killing.”
Yet
the state should never put itself in the position of sanctioning killing other than for the purpose of protecting society
This is icky. It’s ok to kill the bad guys, it’s not ok to assist the good guys. I thought the Hippocratic Oath said something about doing no harm (and that it also is against doctors assisting in executions). Sometimes when people get to the end of their life, you may be doing harm by not letting them go and helping them to go. People with terminal cancers are usually not “kept alive at all costs.” The decision is how to help them and increase their “quality of life.”
“Quality of life” is not the same as “alive.”
(Original found here.)
UPDATE: a day later another person wrote in regarding this article. He comes from a different perspective and sounds rather angry at the original views expressed. Of course more valid points. Sometimes you feel that it is time for new language to view all this. The Republican Administration is great at coming up with slogan, or new terms for things we already call something (like “Insurgents,” or “War on Terror,” or “Unlawful Combatants”). Let’s apply that same and rename something known. We have Conservatives and Liberals. But they’re conserving and liberating what - the Status Quo? OK - so how about “old fashioned” and “modern?” (or “stubborn” and “impatient” if that sounds better).
Anyways, the followup letter was pissed, though heartfelt.
Death with Dignity
Protect Marriage and the Terminally Ill
Saturday, March 10, 2007 9:49 AM HSTThe person who recently wrote a letter castigating Hawaii’s Legislature for not passing a “death with dignity” bill was evidently not present in the Health Committee hearing where public testimony regarding this subject occurred.
I was, and I can tell you the testimony against this very deceptive legislation was overwhelmingly against it. There were no arguments given that were more powerful than those from the community of the disabled, all of whom understood (as well as the U.S. Supreme Court) that this type of law can push us further down the “slippery slope” of reduced protections for the most vulnerable in society.
There is nothing “humanitarian” or “dignifying” about giving legal sanction to health care providers to begin functioning contrary to their Hippocratic oaths. When the state tries to define which people have more or less dignity based upon their physical condition in a given near death experience, it perverts its role in society to treat everyone as equal under the law, and it will ultimately fail. This is the “fruit” of such actions in Belgium and Holland and at a minimum, we can learn from their story. Indeed, these same countries are now slowly embracing the concept of infant euthanasia and it started with embracing the conceptual paradigm of “death with dignity”.
This bill never came before the Legislature as a result of any groundswell of public opinion, nor the breakdown of traditions that safeguard individuals prerogatives of deciding among their ohana and with their personal physician what end of life decisions to take without the force of legal sanction. The state should never put itself in the position of sanctioning killing other than for the purpose of protecting society.
Bob Dylan sang a song with a line “when we practice to deceive, oh, what a tangled web we weave.” This legislation, while perhaps well intended, would have created a tangled web of deception. Let us never participate in this deception under the guise of helping our neighbors and family members to die more peacefully, or with “greater dignity”.
Our local state representative, Josh Green, and his committee by a vote of 5 to 2, chose the wisest course of action and held the bill.
A far more serious issue at present (and one which hundreds of thousands of people did speak their mind on) is the Legislature seeking to overturn the results of the state wide referendum in 1998 that protected the institution of marriage by a majority vote of 69 percent.
House bill 908, entitled “Civil Unions” and described as “extending the same rights and responsibilities of spouses to partners in a civil union” would make a mockery of the 1998 vote.
It simply results in marriage being called by another name. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.
Husbands and wives take care for your children and let your legislators know your thoughts.
MS, Kailua-Kona
here is the follow up, found here.
Same sex unions
Conservative doublespeak
Saturday, March 17, 2007 9:47 AM HSTIn his letter to the editor published on March 10, Mark Spengler, in his argument for protection of the terminally ill wrote, in arguing for the defeat of the bill, the state “perverts its role in society to treat everyone as equal under the law.”
Yet in the second part of his letter, he goes on to argue against “extending the same rights and responsibilities of spouses to partners in a civil union.” As so many in the conservative fight against any kind of legal recognition of civil unions, Mr. Spengler argues for the state to treat conservative issues “as equal under the law,” all while talking out of the other side of his mouth and demanding that civil unions not be recognized.
For someone who is so concerned about protecting marriage, perhaps their attention would be better focused on Las Vegas wedding chapels and the two-day marriages of the Britney Spears of the world. Furthermore, I would think that the conservatives of this country, if so concerned with holding marriage up as the proper adult relationship between two committed, loving people, they would be clamoring for co-habiting gays and lesbians to marry instead of “shacking up.”
Instead, conservatives seemingly have to have someone to feel superior to. Think about it: Gays and lesbians remain the last group of people that it is still socially acceptable, and legal, to discriminate against in most of the nation.
Yes, even toothless residents of trailer park ghettos can sit in their smoke-filled homes waiting for their next government handout, but they can still feel superior to even the most successful homosexual in their town, because they have the legal recognition of their relationship, whatever that may be.
Are conservative marriages on such shaky ground that if the gay couple in your neighborhood had equal recognition under the law, your marriage would lose its sanctity? Would you end up in divorce court? Would the thought of gays having the same rights as you regarding hospital visitation, inheritance, taxes, and all the rest cause you to question your own sexuality? Is your grasp on heterosexuality so weak that you are concerned that you would join my “team” if, God forbid, we had the same tax deduction, or my partner could be covered by my medical insurance?
Conservatives of America, you should know that gays are not clamoring to burst into their local Baptist, Pentecostal, or Catholic church during Sunday services and demand to be married. This may come as a shock to you, but in many cities, we have our own churches. But even in small towns like Kona, where there is not a gay church, being humans, we are not generally inclined to barge in on a body of Jesus’ followers — where we likely would be viewed with disdain, be unwelcome, and in some locales we would be at risk for physical harm –in a church or just outside of it.
“What would Jesus do?” The Jesus I know is about love, and I don’t believe He would look favorably on people who treat others as inferior humans.
Happily there are denominations where generally, all are welcome, so if your church is not among them you can relax: don’t look for me in your house of bigotry and homophobia, I won’t be there.
I will admit that HB 908, as written, had a flaw. I do not think any 16-year-old should be allowed to “marry” — anybody. But I am not the least bit interested in a 16-year-old, but I remain interested in my 41-year-old partner.
And he thanks you Mr. Spengler, and all the taxpayers of this country, as Medicare has paid for two expensive hip replacement surgeries in the last two years.
I’m sure that Blue Cross thanks America’s conservatives too, since they do not have to recognize a legal relationship with my partner, they didn’t have to insure him or pay for his expensive surgeries.
I hope you think of that when you write your next big check to the IRS.
B.L., Kailua-Kona