I just read a letter to the editor of Daily mail which illustrates all that is heartless and brainless in the right to death movement.
Yesterday RJ Andrews wrote that he “was considering bumping into me next year”.
Why? Well, he is honest enough to admit that he is “not one of those whom the state is forcing to live in terrible suffering.”
But if that’s not the reason, what is it? It is this: he knows he has “accomplished everything I want; my ears and eyes are fading; and I’m sick of mowing the lawn â.
Moreover, he does not see why he “should suffer the discomfort of one of the usual methods when a doctor could do it without hassle.”
However, even those who share Mr Andrews’ point of view might regret making the decision to be ‘pushed back’ if it turned out to be less’ hassle-free ‘than he assumes. But, full of deadly poison, it would be too late for them to change their mind.
Financially, he adds that he accepts, “that my house pay for my end-of-life care, but I would much prefer my family to receive the money.” He does not say if he consulted his family to bump into.
There is a selfless side to Mr. Andrews’ desire to die. âThe world is overcrowded and I’m happy to make room for someone else,â he says. “What a solution for our time: reduce the population, recycle and help slow climate change.”
The population control movement would certainly be delighted to convert to their cult – even if it will no longer be there to worship on an altar dedicated to the god ZPG. Maybe her sidekicks will present âDay of the Deadâ celebration cards, as well as âsympathyâ cards for new mothers.
Mr Andrews insists he has ‘no interest in dignity when I’m gone’ and would like to be converted into ‘fertilizer pellets for farmers’. “I don’t believe in the sanctity of life,” he explains, “which denies our human right to an end when we desire it.”
Its contemptuous attitude towards life and respectful treatment of the dead – a crucial indicator of the value we place on the living – may explain its inability to recognize the potential for abuse, seen wherever “the right to die” has been implemented.
He wants to reject all legal and medical guarantees, it seems, and claims that “the fly in the ointment is Parliament”.
But this is precisely the sacred trust of Parliament in a democracy: to protect the most vulnerable. An “assisted dying” law would apply not only to one person but to everyone, affecting more seriously those who have less mind than Mr. Andrews – those who would like to be treated and cared for but who lack the means. energy and / or courage to demand their rights because they fear being a burden on others.
The right to death movement insists that only those who choose death will be eligible for this privilege. But it’s incredibly unrealistic. Such a law would inevitably affect the weak, the old and the disabled. If we accept that death is the answer to everything – indeed, the answer to life – we could hardly deny this blessing to those who need it most.
We would end our suicide prevention programs because until now it has been assumed that the natural human instinct is to live and not to die, and suicide is seen as a desperate act on the part of people mentally. unbalanced. While this is a rational response to the stress of lawn mowing, however, there is no point in funding expensive programs to discourage it.
In fact, if assisted dying were to be legalized, suicide could potentially be considered proof of sanity.
If Mr. Andrews is successful, how long will it be before people start mumbling that all sane people kill themselves, while all mentally unstable and foolish people are kept alive.
Storing these unproductive elderly and demented people at great cost to the taxpayer will be considered sheer folly.
What is at stake in the debate over legalizing assisted suicide is far greater than giving Mr Andrews the right to bump into his lawn because his lawn is overgrown. For him, trivializing death inevitably means trivializing the human rights of the most vulnerable.