slippery-slopeWesley J. Smith reports that the Dutch government is drafting a law that would legalize euthanasia for the perfectly healthy who feel that they have “completed life” and want to die.  This is not surprising given the logic of the pro-suicide position.  The two prongs on which it hangs are self-autonomy and ending suffering.

I’ve long thought that these two rationales would be decoupled, such that justifiable suicide would no longer require that both requirements be met.  In this case, self-autonomy alone is the justification for suicide.  A perfectly medically and mentally healthy person just wants to die.  No more justification is needed.


Wesley J. Smith writes about the strange ethics afoot in the medical world today. While more and more doctors and bioethicists are advocating the repeal of conscience rights for doctors, insisting that they participate in euthanasia and abortion because the patient’s desires are autonomous and trump the doctor’s conscience.  Ironically, however, many in this crowd also support futile care laws which allow a hospital to determine that due to your quality of life, the healthcare desired by the patient is not worth the cost and can be denied.  Smith ends by saying, “Autonomy rules if you want to die–even over medical conscience. But doctor/bioethicists values rule if you want to live.”  Clearly, this is not about patient autonomy.  It’s about strong-arming an anti-human view on the medical field, forcing everyone who values life out of the business.

Wesley J. Smith notes how prominent “bioethecists” are increasingly advocating that all doctors be required to participate in euthanasia and abortion.  The left is all about coercion, and we are seeing a steady march toward the death of conscience rights and freedom of religion.  If we value freedom, we must speak against this tide.

Oxford University has published a statement signed by prominent bioethecists calling for doctors to yield their moral convictions to their patients’ desires/needs.  They want all doctors to either perform morally contested services or refer patients to those who will.  The direction is clear: you must violate your moral conscience or get out of medicine.  This point of view is gaining wide traction.  It won’t be long before it is legislated and morally sane doctors will find themselves forced out of their professions.


HT: Wesley J. Smith

Ryan Anderson writes in the Daily Signal about a new study showing that contrary to the claims of some physician assisted suicide (PAS) advocates, legalizing PAS increases the number of suicides.  Did we really need a study to tell us this?  No, but these days common sense can’t get a hearing unless it is confirmed by a study.


HT: Wintery Knight

Push into GraveLong commutes, domestic responsibilities, teaching, and the need for more sleep (old age) have prevented me from blogging as much as I would like to.  That means I get behind on my cultural commentary. Case in point: the legalization of assisted suicide in California.

On October 5 Governor Brown signed the bill into law after years of failed attempts from the assisted suicide lobby (the CA Senate approved it by a vote of 23 to 14, and the CA House approved it by a vote of 43 to 34).  Assisted suicide is not something I write about too often, but it is a matter of concern to me. Here’s why I think it should be a matter of concern to you as well:

Legalizing suicide sends the message that there are some human lives not worth living. While suicide advocates say the option for suicide gives people dignity, it does anything but. It robs them of their dignity and value. It communicates a message to them that they are better off dead than alive. Indeed, to claim that this is “death with dignity” is a backhanded way of saying those who choose to suffer in life rather than choosing to take their own life lack dignity. The message is loud and clear: death is more noble than life.


burning carImagine with me the following scenario: You are resting peacefully at your home, when all of a sudden you hear a loud bang.  You rush outside to see what happened, and across the street is a wrecked car with a man trapped inside.  As you approach the car to offer help, it becomes engulfed in flames.  The man is fully conscious, but unable to escape.  You’ve called 911, but it will be 15 minutes before they are able to arrive with a fire truck and the jaws of life.  The man is burning before your eyes with no chance of survival, and you hear his blood curdling cries from within the car: “Shoot me, please!  Shoot me!  Ahhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!”

You own a gun, and have the means to honor this man’s request.  The choice is yours: Do nothing, and watch this man burn to death in excruciating pain for the next 10 minutes, or get your gun, and shoot the man to hasten his death to avoid the unbearable suffering.  What would you do?

Once you have answered this question, scroll down below for an additional question.



































Euthanasia is the practice of actively and purposely killing an individual because they are experiencing some form of unbearable suffering.  Think, for example, of the person with terminal bone cancer whose body is wracked with pain.  If you were to meet such a person, and they requested that you kill them to end their suffering, would you do it?

If you would kill the man in the car, but not the man with cancer, please explain what you see as the morally significant distinction between the two scenarios.  Likewise, if you would not kill the man in the car, but would kill the man with cancer, please explain what you see as the morally significant distinction between the two scenarios.

Next Page »