AdvanceUSA Blog - Assisted Suicide

“Pro-Life Group Worries Kagan Could Push Supreme Court on Assisted Suicide”

AdvanceUSA — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 19:56:11 GMT

‘A "Duty to Die"?’

AdvanceUSA — Wed, 12 May 2010 01:33:50 GMT

Economist Thomas Sowell explains how Obamacare could affect end-of-life decisions for the elderly. Excerpt:

Make no mistake about it, letting old people die is a lot cheaper than spending the kind of money required to keep them alive and well. If a government-run medical system is going to save any serious amount of money, it is almost certain to do so by sacrificing the elderly.

“Obama Supporter Krugman Admits ‘Death Panels’ in Health Care Allow Rationing”

AdvanceUSA — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 21:38:19 GMT

LifeNews reports.

“Washington Report: At Least 36 People Died in Assisted Suicide Law's First Year”

AdvanceUSA — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:59:45 GMT

LifeNews reports.

“Study Finds Patients Thought to be in "Vegetative State" Have Active Brain Activity”

AdvanceUSA — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 20:14:22 GMT

LifeNews reports. Bioethicist Wesley J. Smith also comments on the findings.

“House Health Care Legislation Still Has End-of-Life, Assisted Suicide Problems”

AdvanceUSA — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 00:26:00 GMT

LifeNews reports.

“Social Engineering in the Guise of Health Care Reform”

AdvanceUSA — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 23:00:55 GMT

FRC explains in a very helpful memo.

“In Revolt Against Euthanasia”

AdvanceUSA — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 01:25:10 GMT

Kathryn Lopez explains.

“Pro-Life Amendments to Baucus Bill Would Remove Financial Incentive for Rationing”

AdvanceUSA — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:29:17 GMT

LifeNews reports.

“Baucus Health Care "Reform" Bill Pushes Doctors to OK Rationing for Seniors”

AdvanceUSA — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 21:58:24 GMT

LifeNews reports.

“New Book Profiles Victims of Rationing in Government-Run Health Care Systems”

AdvanceUSA — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 01:23:44 GMT

LifeNews reports.

‘Elderly Should be Scared of Obama Administration Over End-of-Life "Death Panels"’

AdvanceUSA — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:30:41 GMT

LifeNews reports.

Health Care Town Hall Tool Kit

AdvanceUSA — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 18:32:40 GMT

FRC provides helpful information about health care town halls being held across the country. Click here to find a town hall near you. Click here to read FRC’s document “20 Questions to Ask Your Legislator About Health Care Overhaul.”

“Death Panels Already Exist, Health Care Bill Makes Current Rationing Even Worse”

AdvanceUSA — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 18:29:51 GMT

Phil Kline explains.

“House Health Care Bill Gives Doctors Financial Incentive to Push Euthanasia”

AdvanceUSA — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 18:28:34 GMT

LifeNews reports.

Oregon Woman Compares Health Care Rationing to her Brush with Assisted Suicide

AdvanceUSA — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 19:50:52 GMT

The Cloakroom blog by FRC explains.

“Healthcare Reform Sets off Euthanasia Alarm”

AdvanceUSA — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 20:29:55 GMT

OneNewsNow reports.

“Assisted Suicide Endangers All”

AdvanceUSA — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 03:47:46 GMT

Ken Connor explains.

“Washington Sees First Person Die Under Second-in-Nation Assisted Suicide Law”

AdvanceUSA — Tue, 26 May 2009 18:39:47 GMT

LifeNews reports.

“Life Advocates Gather to Take On Assisted Suicide”

AdvanceUSA — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 20:03:31 GMT

CitizenLink reports.

“Suicide Isn't a Painless Debate”

AdvanceUSA — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 18:57:39 GMT

Kathryn Jean Lopez explains.

“Four Years Later: Remembering Terri Schiavo”

AdvanceUSA — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 18:46:11 GMT

CitizenLink reports.

“California Man Wakes Up From Coma Right Before Disconnecting Life Support”

AdvanceUSA — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 02:20:40 GMT

LifeNews reports.

AdvanceUSA Interview with Wesley J. Smith

AdvanceUSA — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 19:27:46 GMT

Daniel Herbster reporting

Wesley J. Smith is an influential writer and commentator who has dedicated his career to preserving human dignity and educating his fellow man on the principles of bioethics and justice. He is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and a special consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture. He has also written a number of books, and he blogs at Secondhand Smoke. Smith was kind enough to share with AdvanceUSA’s readers about important bioethics issues facing our society today and about his work.

DH: Why are bioethics issues so important?

WJS: Bioethics is a contraction for “biomedical ethics.” It is a field that has profound influence over core areas of human endeavor that help establish and define the morality of society, and indeed, the meaning of human life itself. Should elderly people have their health care rationed? Is assisted suicide a proper medical service? Is it right to create cloned human embryos for use in research or to bring to birth? Is it wrong to abort fetuses because they test positive for Down syndrome? Should parents be able to genetically enhance their children? Are there morally relevant differences between humans and animals? What should happen if a nurse refuses to participate in an abortion or a physician wants to cut off wanted life-sustaining medical treatment because the patient has a poor “quality of life?” These and other equally important bioethical issues are much larger than the sum of their parts because they establish philosophical norms that exert tremendous influence upon society beyond the policies themselves. Indeed, I can think of few fields more important than bioethics in determining the kind of society we shall become in the 21st century.

DH: What is “human exceptionalism” and how does it relate to issues of life and justice?

WJS: Human exceptionalism refers to the sheer moral importance and unique value of being human. I believe strongly that adhering to human exceptionalism is the predicate to defending universal human rights. Indeed, whether we accept or reject human exceptionalism may be the most important issue we face as a culture. For if we say that simply being human is not what gives value to life, we have to ask a second question: What does? That second question leads directly to a system wherein those with power decide which of us has greater--and which lesser—value, and who decides those who don’t make muster. Thus, many in bioethics support “personhood theory,” which denies the objective moral value of being human and claims that what matters morally is being a “person,” a status earned by possessing minimal cognitive capacities. In this view, there is such a thing as a human “non person,” such as fetuses, newborns, and people who have lost these capacities, such as Terri Schiavo. Worse, because the human non person is defined as having lesser value, they lose the right to life and, can be used instrumentally such as in medical experimentation or as sources of organs. Indeed, there is much agitation in bioethics and within the organ transplant community to redefine death to include a diagnosis of persistent vegetative state—meaning that if this view prevails, severely compromised people could essentially be killed for their organs. This isn’t happening—yet—but the only way to make sure that such policies are never instituted is to adhere to human exceptionalism.

DH: How did you become interested in bioethics and how has your legal training helped in your work?

WJS: My legal training and experience as a lawyer have been essential to my current work because I developed a way of thinking that is invaluable in analyzing arguments, connecting dots, and in powerfully advocating for my beliefs. Whether or not one wishes to practice law, when in doubt, go to law school. It was the best formative experience of my life.

I didn’t plan on getting into these issues, that’s for sure. I had quit practicing law—which is a story in itself—and was writing books with Ralph Nader. Then, in 1992, an elderly friend committed suicide under the influence of Hemlock Society literature. When I saw this material, I was outraged—it was literally proselytizing for suicide. The literature had “witnessing” stories, told readers what drugs to take, and how to use a plastic bag to make sure they died. My friend underscored all of this text in yellow ink. That was how she killed herself. I was furious: These people who didn’t even know her had given her moral permission to commit suicide and taught her how to do it! As I mentioned, I wasn’t thinking of going into this work, but was upset enough to write a piece warning against the euthanasia movement for the “My Turn” section of Newsweek. “The Whispers of Strangers”—which I thought was utterly uncontroversial—was published in the June 28, 1993 edition. Well, you should have seen my hate mail—and this was before e-mail! I was accused of being cruel. I was told I wanted people to suffer. Many letters wished for me to get cancer or hoped that I lived a long and “suffering” life. I was told that euthanasia was noble and suicide was the way of the future. I was floored; stunned. I remember thinking, “What happened to my culture and where was I when it happened?” At that time I was contacted by the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, headed by Rita Marker, wanting to reprint my piece in the Task Force’s newsletter. I read Rita’s book Deadly Compassion, which described the goals of the euthanasia movement. I have never been so profoundly impacted by a book. At that point, I knew I had to enlist in this fight and my life changed forever.

DH: What kind of work do you do for the Discovery Institute and for the Center for Bioethics and Culture?

WJS: It’s not quite accurate to say I work “for” the Discovery Institute. I am a senior fellow in the Human Rights and Bioethics project. The DI is a think tank that helps underwrite my work simply because its administrators believe in what I am doing. It also provides intellectual help and advice if I need it, as well as promoting my work. I am very proud to be associated with The Discovery Institute and we hope to build the project into one that will one day have a permanent staff and a sufficient budget to allow us to be more proactive on these issues than is the case today. I consult for the Center for Bioethics and Culture, that is, I give its leadership advice, I am available for speeches, and I write for its newsletter. You might say I am on call to the CBC to help it in its work that focuses primarily, but certainly not exclusively, on biotechnological issues. I also serve as an attorney and consultant for the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide.

DH: Scientists are making great strides in adult stem cell research and induced pluripotent stem cell research (iPSC). Do you think these developments will dampen the enthusiasm for unethical research (ex: embryonic research and human cloning)?

WJS: Yes and no. I think among the general public, people want treatments and cures. They would prefer that it be from adult and IPSC type cells. The more successful those fields are, I think, the less public support there will be for pursuing contentious areas such as embryonic stem cell and human cloning research. However, I don’t think most scientists are unwilling to be so limited. They want to pursue all areas of research, and indeed, view those of us who raise significant ethical concerns as somehow being “anti science.” We are not, of course. Indeed, I am a strong supporter of science, but believe that like all powerful endeavors, there should be reasonable ethical parameters to guide its activities. In the end, these are not science disputes. They are ethical controversies: Too many of those who push for ESCR and cloning intentionally conflate these two distinct concepts.

DH: What do you think are the motives of those who promote unethical embryonic stem cell research and forms of human cloning (besides those with a genuine but misguided desire to help people with diseases and injuries)?

WJS: I think most have a genuine desire to help people and ameliorate disease. But I also worry that a level of hubris has entered the field, a sense of entitlement, if you will. I think that the leadership of the science sector—as distinguished from the bench scientists—believe that they, and they alone, should decide what is right and wrong, ethical and unethical, in science. Our job as society is to provide resources for the important work and get out of the way so that we can garner the benefits. I disagree strongly. I think that democratic processes have a very important role to play here—particularly when the public’s money is funding much of the work.

DH: What are the most important bioethics issues facing us today and what issues are the next generation of bioethics issues that you see on the horizon?

WJS: Actually, it is bigger even than bioethics. I think humanism is mutating into an explicit and misanthropic anti-humanism. Indeed, I now believe that we are in the midst of what I call a “coup de culture” in which the social order founded in Judeo-Christian/humanistic view that upholds the unique importance of human life is being supplanted by a philosophical system steeped in utilitarianism—which is where bioethics comes in and the potential of creating disposable castes of people—hedonism—by which I mean the presumed right to indulge almost every urge and desire and not be judged—and radical environmentalism. Thus, Ecuador’s new constitution just granted “rights” to “nature” that are co-equal to those of people and Spain is about to pass into law the Great Ape Project that creates a “community of equals” among humans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and other apes. The new movie The Day the Earth Stood Still, a remake of a great old science fiction film from the 1950s, has the aliens coming to earth not to save mankind from self destruction, but to obliterate humanity—a complete genocide—in order to save the earth. Think about it! An A-List Hollywood extravaganza explicitly sends the message that we are the vermin species on the living planet, which is the heart of the Deep Ecology ideology. I think the goal is to knock us off the pedestal of human exceptionalism so that we will be so humbled and self-degraded that we will willingly sacrifice our own welfare and prosperity to “save the planet.” In this light, the problem of bioethics is a part of a larger overarching threat. Sorry if I went deeper than perhaps you intended for me to go.

DH: Not at all. This is important information.

What actions do you expect President Obama and the 111^th Congress to take on bioethics issues?

WJS: I think they will federally fund abortions. I think they will move toward passing the Freedom of Choice Act that would obliterate state regulation of abortion, such as it is. I think they will also try to destroy the “conscience clause” rights that the Bush Administration established protecting health care workers from discrimination if they refuse to be complicit in acts such as assisted suicide or abortion. Think about that: There is a danger that medical professionals who adhere to the Hippocratic Oath will be declared persona non grata in health care! I think we will see moves to establish federal control over health care on a national level, leading to fights over health care rationing. I think that on the international stage, the cause of human exceptionalism will suffer in support of more utilitarian and supposedly feminist reproductive and other health care policies. On the other hand, I think that President Obama will continue President Bush’s commitment to help people with AIDS, particularly in Africa, and will work mightily in the fields of disease prevention.

DH: How can our readers stay informed on these issues and how can they make a positive difference for human dignity?

WJS: If you don’t mind a plug, I think the single easiest way is to read my blog Secondhand Smoke, at www.wesleyjsmith.com I call SHS, “Your 24/7 Seminar on Bioethics and the Importance of Being Human,” and intend it to be a one-stop information factory helping people who wish to engage these issues obtain the facts and analyses they need to impact the debate. I think it is so important, that I spend several hours a day perusing stories and writing posts, and trying to sort out what it all means. The blog is also a great research tool that allows people trace important stories over time. I use my own blog for that purpose, as a matter of fact. I also think that people should read books, visit the Websites of groups such as the CBC and the International Task Force, as well as attend lectures. There is no dearth of information on these issues; that is for sure. The main thing is to know that while some like to pretend these issues are over the heads of most people, I think they are readily understood once you get past some of the jargon. Then, once they are informed, I really hope people will share what they have learned every chance they get, with friends, colleagues, family, etc. They should write letters to the editor, engage in Internet debates, call radio talk shows, educate, educate, educate. I don’t think these issues can be won among the intelligentsia—they are already too far gone. But we can definitely prevail on Main Street and in the public square if enough people learn about these issues and make it their jobs to inform others.

DH: I recently read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley and 1984 by George Orwell. Do you think there are important lessons for our generation in these books (particularly Brave New World) in the realm of bioethics and human dignity?

WJS: BNW is probably the most prophetic novel ever written and is more relevant today than it was in 1932 when it was first published. I think we are already on the path to the inhuman society Huxley depicts, which not coincidentally, is utterly utilitarian and hedonistic. The only aspect he missed was the radical environmentalism that has come to the fore in recent years. Huxley’s characters believe in nothing. But I don’t think humans can believe in nothing. We seem to be hard wired to seek the transcendent. With theism under attack, a new form of earth religion based on deep ecological principles could well fill the developing belief gap. I also think 1984 is well worth reading because of how vividly Orwell depicted the power of word engineering—a hallmark of the coup de culture today.

DH: Thanks for sharing this information with our readers and for your dedication to preserving human dignity. Please let us know of any important issues and developments you see in the future.

Note: The views of any interviewee do not necessarily reflect the views of AdvanceUSA.

“What Future for the Cause of Life?”

AdvanceUSA — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 20:15:06 GMT

Bobby Schindler (brother of the late Terri Schiavo) explains.

“Assisted Suicide Could be Legalized in Third State Under Montana Court Ruling”

AdvanceUSA — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 20:25:24 GMT

LifeNews reports.

“California Legislature Sends Bill Promoting Suicide to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger”

AdvanceUSA — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 00:04:51 GMT

LifeNews reports.

“Assisted Suicide Backers Mislead the Public: Not About Alleviating Suffering”

AdvanceUSA — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 22:25:04 GMT

Bioethicist Wesley J. Smith reports at LifeNews.

“Is Euthanasia Next After Oregon Promotes Assisted Suicide Over Treatment?”

AdvanceUSA — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 19:08:12 GMT

LifeNews reports.

“Competent Enough to Live”

AdvanceUSA — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:15:19 GMT

Bobby Schindler explains. Excerpt:

Recently, yet another situation similar to that of my sister Terri Schiavo has made headlines. In West Palm Beach, Florida, Raymond Weber is asking the court to dehydrate his disabled wife, Karen, to death.

“California Assembly Approves Bill Promoting Euthanasia of Terminally Ill Patients”

AdvanceUSA — Sat, 31 May 2008 01:36:37 GMT

LifeNews reports on this dangerous batch of new insanity from California.

“Promoting Death: Analyzing the Language of Euthanasia, Suicide Advocates”

AdvanceUSA — Tue, 27 May 2008 17:22:44 GMT

LifeNews provides helpful commentary in reading through euthanasia spin. Excerpt:

Even the most despicable ideas can be made palatable when euphemisms are used to spin them. That's why abortion advocates call themselves "pro-choice" rather than "pro abortion." It's also why they talk about "terminating a pregnancy" rather than "killing a baby."

Controlling the language not only controls the argument, it often determines the outcome of the argument.

Proponents of euthanasia understand the power of language in shaping debate. Therefore, instead of using the term "physician-assisted suicide" to describe the practice they advocate, they use euphemisms like "death with dignity" and "end of life choices" to sugar coat the reality of the killings they have in view.

Influential Methodist Church Makes Pro-Life Progress at Recent Conference

AdvanceUSA — Tue, 06 May 2008 18:41:29 GMT

Not only has the United Methodist Church recently made progress in recognizing the need to protect the sanctity of traditional marriage and upholding Biblical teaching on sexual morality, but it seems this influential, global organization is moving closer to a position of defending the sanctity of unborn and elderly human life. At the recent global conference (which occurs every four years) the sanctity of human life was upheld by resolutions in the following ways (source: The Institute on Religion and Democracy):

"Affirm and encourage the Church to assist the ministry of crisis pregnancy centers and pregnancy resource centers that compassionately help women find feasible alternatives to abortion."
"Respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother and the unborn child."
Support for adult "notification and consent" when a minor is seeking an abortion.
"Reject euthanasia and pressure upon the dying to end their lives."
Delete language from a previous United Methodist statement that had been used to support abortion as a means of back-up birth control.
Decrying the international problem of gender- selective abortions, while describing abortion as "violent" and opposing "trivial reasons" for abortion.

LifeNews also reports. Excerpt:

Mark Tooley, the director of the UMAction Committee of the Institute on Religion and Democracy told LifeNews.com he's pleased with the small steps to move in a pro-life direction.

"These incremental steps continue a trend from the last several General Conferences towards an increased acknowledgement of the sanctity of all human life," he said.

"The United Methodist Church is slowly moving towards the historic Christian concern for the most vulnerable," he added. "These latest moves continue this positive trend."

Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia Update

AdvanceUSA — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:56:04 GMT

Pro-lifers should be careful to recognize the sanctity of all human life, whether early (unborn) or late (elderly).

The effort to legalize assisted suicide in Washington State is being stalled by a lawsuit challenging the accuracy of the ballot summary of the proposed assisted suicide referendum (reported by LifeNews). CitizenLink also reports.

LifeNews also reports on the case of a man who is being prosecuted for murder for killing his wife under Oregon’s assisted suicide law.

The campaign for assisted suicide and euthanasia are symptoms of our society’s “culture of death” and must be opposed.

CMDA Resource on Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia

AdvanceUSA — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 16:42:03 GMT

The Christian Medical and Dental Association has unveiled an important resource for monitoring the latest news and information regarding the dangerous push for assisted suicide and euthanasia. Pro-lifers must be careful to protect the sanctity of life in all its stages (including end of life) and AdvanceUSA applauds CMDA for providing this helpful resource.

“Washington [State] Begins Assisted Suicide Debate as Former Governor Files Papers”

AdvanceUSA — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:25:39 GMT

LifeNews reports on this latest attempt to move toward government-sanctioned euthanasia under the guise of compassion.

New York Teenager Could Become Victim of Euthanasia

AdvanceUSA — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:38:25 GMT

LifeNews reports on this difficult situation. Once again, starving a person in a coma is being advocated in the name of compassion and convenience.

Javona Peters: in coma facing possible euthanasia

New Institute Will Study How Abortion, Euthanasia Target Disabled People

AdvanceUSA — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:55:01 GMT

As LifeNews reports Regent University will be conducting important research on how abortion and euthanasia are particular threats to the disabled.

Disability Rights Groups Lead Fight Against Assisted Suicide

AdvanceUSA — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:35:23 GMT

The LA Times reports that many disability rights organizations led the fight to oppose assisted suicide in California recently.

“Does My Doctor Want to Kill Me?”

AdvanceUSA — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:51:49 GMT

This important piece discusses a pending bill in the California legislature that would legalize physician-assisted suicide Oregon already allows it). This should be a wake-up call for the pro-life community. The “culture of death” not only seeks to minimize early human life but also targets people at the “end of life” who are deemed to have “poor quality of life.”

"Dr. Death Returns"

AdvanceUSA — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 20:01:53 GMT

Wesley J. Smith has a great article in the National Review today that exposes the depraved agenda of Dr. Jack Kevorkian. "Dr. Death" was released from prison today and despite likely media attempts to lionize him, the facts of what this man stands for must be known.

Expect "assisted suicide" and other aspects of the "culture of death" to become prominent issues in the near future.

The Exploits of Dr. Death

AdvanceUSA — Wed, 30 May 2007 13:48:00 GMT

This article gives a timeline of major events in the “career” of Dr. Jack Kevorkian promoting assisted suicide. Dr. Kevorkian is scheduled to soon be released from prison.