On March 23, the LA Times published an editorial titled Sense and suicide, which bemoaned the damage that the Final Exit Network could do to the mainstream assisted suicide movement. From that starting point, they went on to extol the virtues of legalized assisted suicide, arguing that the expansive eligibility criteria of the FEN would never be tolerated by society. The editorial staff, who, like most of the reporters and editors covering FEN, seem to be drinking from the same large cup of “stupid,” haven’t noticed that a lot of public reaction is supporting the FEN.
Today’s issue of the same paper features a “blowback” op-ed by Stanton J. Price, “a health lawyer and member of the Los Angeles County Bar Assn.’s Bioethics Committee, which he recently co-chaired.”
Below are some excerpts from Price’s excellent refutation of the Times Editorial:
Different assisted-suicide groups, one goal
Both Compassion and Choices and the Final Exit Network take the definition of “intolerable suffering” beyond terminal illness. They believe that a person suffering from a condition that he or she believes is unbearable (rightly or wrongly) should legally be allowed assistance in ending their own life, whether by inhaling helium from a tank or overdosing on barbiturates. This is a frightening prospect for people with disabilities, particularly those who think they may be burdens on their family and for those of us fighting for disability rights.
Price reminds people of a pivotal deciding vote in the legislative defeat of the last attempt to legalize assisted suicide in California:
For The Times to write about the Final Exit Network, “Society is unlikely ever to condone the kind of ethically questionable ‘help’ such groups offer,” is naive. When this issue was before the California Senate’s Judiciary Committee two years ago, then-state Sen. Joe Dunn (D-Santa Ana) voted against the bill and said that he “could not resolve the risk that the power of money will ultimately define [assisted suicide’s] parameters.” To me, Dunn has a more realistic view of society than The Times.
Please go and read this op-ed in its entirety and comment on it. Right now, there are no comments, and it would be good for Mr. Price and the editors to know there are people out there who appreciate his insight. –Stephen Drake
This is spot on.
The group Californians Against Assisted Suicide also has a Facebook page for all those interested. Other anti-PAS groups should utilize the Facebook platform too if they haven’t already.
Makes me wonder how much is due to severe cutbacks in staff, resulting in less research, fewer interviews, and so on. It’s mirrored in all kinds of reporting, such as econonic mess. Less accurate news, fewer sources, recycling “errors”, distortions. At the same time, newspapers are “dying” themselves, assisted by the media biggies consolidating newspapers, radio/tv (getting waivers to own more than one of various kinds of media in the same media market). It’s all connected: inaccurate stories, myths flying around from one place to another, cycling with the internet. The danger is bad laws, court decisions based on insufficient and/or inaccurate information. Oddly enough, fewer places to go for real news might make the job of NotYetDead and Stephen Drake (and all of us) easier in getting the truth and our message out.
Anonymous,
I am glad you mentioned this. I joined the group/page on facebook. I plan on setting up something for NDY in the near future. –Stephen Drake
sanda, those might be aggravating the sheer lack of professionalism in the coverage, but I don’t think it explains all of it. Not that I have a better explanation. –Stephen
Stephen, In reply to your comment. I know there is bias against disabled people in our society. I know it from news articles, books, movies, comments on blogs on the internet, lots of bias. There are myths that we’d be better off dead. Your fight, our fight goes on. I may not have been clear enough.
sanda,
I think you were clear. I think I made a mistake. I was in a rush that day and dashed off replies to comments. I replied to one part of what you said in an abbreviated way. Anyone who has read your comments here – like me – would know that you were offering some insight into factors that could – at the very least – be worsening the historic trends against PWDs in this kind of coverage. –Stephen