It was a week of turning the head in shame; of the horror of seeing politicians make the honorable institution of Congress into a honky tonk show; of listening to craven men lie and tattle, pushing each other in their efforts to lick the boots of their vilifiers; publicly trying to wreck the lives, not of strangers, mind you, but of men with whom they have worked and eaten and played, and made millions....
- Lillian Hellman, December, 1947
Hellman was writing about the House Un-American Activities Committee, but her words are contemporary. Hellman's outrage at cynical Congressional attacks on individual citizens connects with emerging issues 50 years later.
 |
| Tanzania Photos Courtesy of Gordon (Either he has a great telephoto lens or he's really brave) |
I had a tweet from @modernbioethics yesterday about a controversy in Australia advocating extension of their euthanasia laws. The case made in the Aussie article - meaning no offense - was pretty standard. It said we need euthanasia laws based on the suffering of people at the end of their life and also because of the ethical distinction between killing someone and helping them to take their own life when they're unable to do so alone. As usual, the Canberra piece cites Swiss assisted suicide laws (dating from the same era as Hellman's resistance of the witch hunt), and more recent euthanasia laws in other countries and US states as evidence of respectability.
I learn things about my country when I see it portrayed by others. I so enjoy looking in the mirror held up by the Brit TV hit "Midsomer Murders." In that show, Americans always drive with the radio on too loud, they say ghastly things at just the wrong time, and they consistently dress inappropriately. That pretty much describes me, how about you?
In Australia, our country is seen as so conservative socially that the Canberra euthanasia article essentially says, sheesh - if two American states can pass euthanasia laws, we more sensible and progressive Aussies ought to. Since I recall a less enlightened era when Australia's laws banned the immigration of black people, I'm less convinced of intrinsic Aussie moral high ground.
I view myself as politically progressive, but a number of times I've been alone among political friends in opposing state-sanctioned euthanasia. Last year I wrote here about Not Dead Yet and others who oppose liberalizing assisted death laws. I don't take this position to join rightist religious zealots, nor those who like to demonize government for having power, nor the spoiled whiny white boys of libertarianism who don't want any rules (except the ones that they personally approve).
 |
| Courtesy of Gordon |
Instead of fearing extremists, I'm worried about the rest of the cast members of the honky tonk show. The majority of Republicans and some Democrats - including Maine's Second District Rep. Mike Michaud and Sen. Collins - voted to roll back the gains women have made over the past 40 years resisting domination of their bodies and health by rich male politicians and their pals with extreme religious and social opinions. Challenging contraception or abortion rights all over again is more than a fad, it's a public flaunting of unaccountable unreasonable power. If women are worried, they're meant to be, and they should be.
This clicks like a key in a lock to demonstrate why we can't turn over the lives of people who may be least able to defend themselves to the political winds.
I accept the argument that anyone has a right to start another life - or end their own. But everything we do occurs in a social and political context, few decisions are really fully under our sole control. I went through about 6 years of helping Mary in her inescapable deterioration from ALS. Friends, family, medical people, government and private agencies and church people all tried to help and give support. As Mary became more helpless, assertions about "quality of life" from others picked up pace. Mild opinions became contentions, help from some became pressure. During this time Mary had a pit bull husband who was glad to be occasionally let off the leash. So Mary was protected, but not everyone has someone.
Law and custom use the statements a person has made about continuing their life as the basis for deciding if and when to withdraw life support. This is as it should be. I've made sure that my health care wishes are in writing at local hospitals and doctors, and that my kids know what I want. The system we have is a good one, and it works most of the time.
 |
| Courtesy of Gordon |
What about when it doesn't? What about when a person has some money and relatives are greedy or impatient? What about changes of heart, revenge, jealousy, or procedural mistakes? I have a friend who works on wrongful convictions. I've learned form him that a complex system designed to provide justice sometimes doesn't - whether by accident or by design.
There are some issues that can't be left to the majority. Our country's laws try with mixed success to protect minorities. That's why President Kennedy sent troops to defend our country's civil rights laws, and why it was wrong to put marriage equality up to a vote in this state two years ago. Some people are by definition a minority, so putting anything concerning them up to a vote risks their rights.
In the allocation of certain resources, society sometimes has to make choices. This is a hot topic now in health care. I'd like to suggest that when a possibly helpless person's life is involved, we need the most stringent standards possible to protect them from social excess or political theater by reckless politicians. Coming up with a system that permits all people to be helped at the end of their lives to the furthest extent of their personal belief is really hard to do.
Just as I'm impatient with the simplistic generalities of the reactionary right, I'm just as unhappy with the coalition of liberals and libertarians who advocate for sweeping euthanasia laws that would put small numbers of people in jeopardy.
The reminder from Santorum and Limbaugh and others of the smug right is that even health and human rights we think we've protected can be put back into play. And the willingness of President Obama to sign the December 2011 Defense Appropriations bill that abrogated protections of Americans from arbitrary imprisonment by the US military shows that we can't be positive about our security even when our preferred politicians are in charge.
Most of the time, officials I meet are decent people trying to do a good job, and most of the time I feel trusting of the social and legal mechanisms they employ to protect me in matters like end of life care. But in deciding to end another person's life, even one innocent death would betray the euthanasia system, and if such laws became widespread here, we'd inevitably see the number of unmerited deaths rise. If that Australian article suggested that we have a conservative and unreliable social system in our country - well, they may have been right after all.
