Some people might have figured that it was possible that Rep. Steve Vaillancourt might have been simply blowing off steam when he was quoted in the March 1st Union Leader as having said:
“If it were up to me, I would say anybody should be able to end their life,” he said snapping his fingers, “just like that.”
In my previous blog entry, I suggested he was “engaging in misinformation and misdirection,” since people end their lives every day in this country – literally thousands of people take their lives in the US every year without any outside help.
I stand corrected. Vaillancourt really does seem to understand that many, many people take their own lives. More importantly, he knows that many – most, actually – fail in the attempt. As explained below, when you get his rationale in full, it makes a certain kind of “fiscal” sense.
Vaillancourt felt it important to clarify and amplify his views on “death with dignity,” writing on the NH Insider blog on the same day as the Union Leader article:
Yes, I was animated when I testified before the Judiciary Committee on Rep. Chuck Weed’s “death with dignity” bill (HB513) yesterday. In fact this is one area where liberal Democrats like Rep. Weed and libertarian-minded Republcans like me enthusiastically come together.
As a Libertarian who believes in personal freedom and responsibility, I can think of no reason why governement should be able to tell you when you should end your life. Rep Weed’s bill would allow doctor-assisted suicide similar to Oregon and Washington. While I would prefer that government not get involved in death decisions at all (in other words, totally legalize suicides), this bill is a reasonable attempt to address medical ethics involved.
We should live up to New Hampshire’s “live free or die” motto, fully realizing that living free is only half of that slogan. Freedom to die should be equally important to those of us who oppose nanny state government, who recoil at government intrusion into our lives (and our deaths).
But there’s a contradiction in a libertarian wanting “nanny state” government sanctions and medical intervention into the private choice to end your own life, which isn’t really a medical matter – and as a libertarian, I’m guessing he doesn’t support guaranteed health care in any case.
It turns out he has a reason. As a libertarian, he’s very concerned about limiting the amount of (his) money the government spends supporting people, as he explains here:
The problem of course is that if I attempt to kill myself without the help of a doctor, I may botch up the effort. I may leave myself in a maimed condition and live on at state expense. That’s why the assist from doctors is important. (Emphasis added.)
I’m guessing he’s not a fan of the “too big to fail” concept that led to the huge bailout of the banks. However, he does seem to be articulating a “too expensive to let them fail” concept here.
He’s right about the failed attempt, of course. According to the 1999 Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Prevent Suicide, overall, “there are an estimated 16 attempted suicides for each completed suicide.” And – yeah – a lot of those survivors might have no insurance and be in need of services that the government would need to pay for.
Obviously, the current bill he’s cosponsoring isn’t what Vaillancourt ultimately wants, and he says so:
Rep Weed’s bill notes that only terminally ill patients would be eligible. It’s a step in the right direction of allowing individuals to control their own destiny.
When Vaillancourt says this nominally narrow bill “is a step in the right direction,” I feel it’s safe to say that Vaillancourt will be looking for opportunities to expand the scope of “eligibility” for assisted suicide.
That is what you call an “incrementalist” or “slippery slope” strategy. In this instance, from Vaillancourt’s perspective, it would be using a “wedge issue” – “there are people with very unpleasant terminal illnesses who want help to end their lives early” to gain wide support for an initial step toward a final goal.
Vaillancourt could pursue his final goal more directly – introduce bills preventing law enforcement and health care professionals from interfering with someones suicide; forbidding health care providers to treat people who survive suicide attempts. But those attempts wouldn’t get very far. It’s more realistic to get everyone used to the massive change you want in small incremental steps.
There’s nothing new about “slippery slope” strategies – they’re used widely and by groups of all political stripes. There’s a good overview and discussion of the “slippery slope” strategy at the site Political Strategy.
Remember – in the world of political struggle, don’t let anyone corner you with the idea that the “slippery slope” is nothing more than a logical fallacy. It’s also an effective – and common – political strategy and it’s up us to redefine it.
I’d also advise folks to keep a sharp eye on this new crop of “Tea Party” elected officials. They all tend to share the same combination of libertarian outlook and disdain for supporting people through tax-supported government dollars. In other words, I doubt that Vaillancourt’s take on assisted suicide is unique among those who identify with the Tea Party. –Stephen Drake
While Vaillancourt may have an “R” before his name, he is nothing more than a depraved RINO since the GOP is the party of life, with a pro-life plank built into the party platform itself. That man is a disgrace to the party to say the least. I hope that he is soon replaced by a REAL Republican in that office. Most folks understand that we’re already on a slippery slope in America and as a disabled citizen I do NOT want to see the matter escalate into wholesale slaughter of my segment of the population. We’re Not Dead Yet…and we want to live!
My comment to the bill, and Steve Villaincourt (my spelling) is:
We’re not weeds. We, the disabled, the severely disabled, the elderly, and the poor (with much overlap) are not weeds.
First, I apologize for botching the link to the NH Insider blog. It’s fixed now.
Victoria, I suspect that *many* people voted in on a Tea Party identification might not meet your definition of Republican. And I doubt a lot of the folks who tied themselves to the Tea Party would be bothered if you called them a RINO – many have said that their primary allegiance is to Tea Party principles and goals and not to the Republican Party.
Sanda – you’re the second person I’ve seen who has intentionally changed the spelling that way. I like it. 🙂
Thanks for the “slippery slope” comments. For years I have been wondering about this. I too learned in school at some point about the fallacy of the “slippery slope” argument. But politically it truly is how agendas are moved forward. Thanks for pointing this out!