I think readers here will appreciate this piece by Megan Fritts on MAID in The Point Magazine. It does a good job of highlighting the abhorrent issues with Canada's program, but also honestly grapples with the deeper question that some seeking MAID may pose to its opponents: why do you want me to be in pain?
"We as a culture are excellent at ignoring suffering, in all its forms. We bury the sick and elderly alive behind the walls of nursing homes, in underfunded hospitals and overcrowded shelters. We push the vulnerable out of our line of vision by placing spikes on benches in town, building methadone clinics outside city limits and enacting zoning laws that ensure the suffering of poverty need never be seen by those who have sufficient wealth. There is, perhaps, no more human response to suffering than the urge to turn away from it, no more human response to inevitable disaster than to say, “Surely it can’t be that bad.”
Thank you for the link. This is why our response has to be about responding to suffering well and generously, rather than snuffing out the sufferer. I really admire the hospice care offered by the Dominican Sisters of Hawthorne: https://hawthorne-dominicans.org/index.html
I think these movements suffer from the characterization of MAID and abortion as “despising the weak” and the lack of diverse and empathetic perspectives on what policy in these areas should look like. Should a woman have to wait to go into sepsis while her fetus has a heartbeat but is slowly dying? Should a person dying of cancer endure years of unendurable pain?
When the only ‘acceptable’ position for opponents is complete bans and complete opposition, and a ‘receive an inch, take a mile’ is the endorsed political approach, there is little chance to win over public opinion.
On the one hand - as someone who opposes bans - I appreciate the honesty! But on the other hand, I think it stifles real and valuable debate. I also see little evidence of the compassionate (fully funded safety nets) approach from political actors who champion these perspectives which makes it look like a cover for a power grab (which, transparently, I fully believe it is). A lot of terrible things have been justified when opponents to a fickle movement are characterized as evil, despicable, etc.
I had a lot more faith that there was a way to do euthanasia without pressure on the poor and the weak ten years ago than I do today. This New Yorker piece (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/06/22/the-death-treatment) marked a big turning point in how I thought about the practicality of the issue, and I think Canada is following in Belgium's footprints (particularly with their rolling out MAiD to teens with mental illnesses).
I read that article back in the day. And I do think that countering a culture of euthanasia is vital. But I don’t think it is helpful to that end to ban MAID completely. Not least because a ban is not politically viable. And it’s not viable *because* there are cases where it is very much a least-cruel option.
I think readers here will appreciate this piece by Megan Fritts on MAID in The Point Magazine. It does a good job of highlighting the abhorrent issues with Canada's program, but also honestly grapples with the deeper question that some seeking MAID may pose to its opponents: why do you want me to be in pain?
"We as a culture are excellent at ignoring suffering, in all its forms. We bury the sick and elderly alive behind the walls of nursing homes, in underfunded hospitals and overcrowded shelters. We push the vulnerable out of our line of vision by placing spikes on benches in town, building methadone clinics outside city limits and enacting zoning laws that ensure the suffering of poverty need never be seen by those who have sufficient wealth. There is, perhaps, no more human response to suffering than the urge to turn away from it, no more human response to inevitable disaster than to say, “Surely it can’t be that bad.”
https://thepointmag.com/examined-life/touch-the-man-of-grief/
Thank you for the link. This is why our response has to be about responding to suffering well and generously, rather than snuffing out the sufferer. I really admire the hospice care offered by the Dominican Sisters of Hawthorne: https://hawthorne-dominicans.org/index.html
Wow. That's the best essay I've read this year. Thank you for sharing!
I think these movements suffer from the characterization of MAID and abortion as “despising the weak” and the lack of diverse and empathetic perspectives on what policy in these areas should look like. Should a woman have to wait to go into sepsis while her fetus has a heartbeat but is slowly dying? Should a person dying of cancer endure years of unendurable pain?
When the only ‘acceptable’ position for opponents is complete bans and complete opposition, and a ‘receive an inch, take a mile’ is the endorsed political approach, there is little chance to win over public opinion.
On the one hand - as someone who opposes bans - I appreciate the honesty! But on the other hand, I think it stifles real and valuable debate. I also see little evidence of the compassionate (fully funded safety nets) approach from political actors who champion these perspectives which makes it look like a cover for a power grab (which, transparently, I fully believe it is). A lot of terrible things have been justified when opponents to a fickle movement are characterized as evil, despicable, etc.
I had a lot more faith that there was a way to do euthanasia without pressure on the poor and the weak ten years ago than I do today. This New Yorker piece (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/06/22/the-death-treatment) marked a big turning point in how I thought about the practicality of the issue, and I think Canada is following in Belgium's footprints (particularly with their rolling out MAiD to teens with mental illnesses).
I read that article back in the day. And I do think that countering a culture of euthanasia is vital. But I don’t think it is helpful to that end to ban MAID completely. Not least because a ban is not politically viable. And it’s not viable *because* there are cases where it is very much a least-cruel option.