Sorry this post is so outdated, I'm just getting caught up on mail. First,
let me say that I'm hoping not to offend anyone with what I'm about to say.
I have a problem with the idea that all people with disabilities are (or
should be) anti-euthanasia. Why should we all feel a certain way, just
because we were dropped into a common category of disability by fate?
Whether I was disabled or not, I would still want to live a life that was
full of dignity and relatively free of pain. When it becomes impossible for
me to do that, I do not wish to live anymore. To me, everyone should have
choices. No one should be forced to live a life they do not want, just as
no one should be forced to die.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
~Joy~
http://www.geocities.com/joy0823
Currently Reading: "1st to Die" by James Patterson
Last Movie Seen: "Charlie's Angels" - 4 out of 5 stars
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Betty B" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: From another list... Life Worth Living.
> In a message dated 04/15/2001 11:16:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask]
> writes:
>
> > i do believe you have a point, betty. pretty sad isn't it?
>
> I know I'm nervous. Hitler and the Nazi influence is probably not a bad
> analogy either. Take a look at Peter Singer. He's in a position of great
> influence with potential power under the right administration. Why do I
say
> that?
>
> Harold Shapiro, the president of Princeton University, sat on a federally
> established bioethics committee as a Clinton appointee. That was in
between
> the two time periods that Peter Singer came to Princeton. The second time
> Singer came was to accept a tenure position: The Ira W. DeCamp chair.
> Shapiro knew what he was getting. Singer isn't teaching statistical
analysis
> or random photon underwater basketweaving. He's teaching bioethics. He's
> teaching his theories, and one of his theories is that some disabled
people
> aren't persons.
>
> Singer advocates in his book, Animal Liberation, that infants under the
age
> of 28 days, as well as humans who are not self aware, should not be
accorded
> the status of "persons," nor should they be entitled to life (primates
are,
> however). Moreover, he believes that parents who have infants with
> disabilities under the age of 28 days should be able to have their infants
> euthanized so that the family can have a normal child, thereby increasing
the
> happiness of that family.
>
> "Dutch Minister 'Not Against' Suicide Pill
> Very old people who are sick of life should be allowed to kill themselves
> with a suicide pill, the Dutch health minister said in an interview."
>
> That is the headline and bio for an AOL article currently running. The
> Netherlands just legalized euthanasia, although in one way or another, the
> Netherlands has tolerated euthanasia for the past two decades.
>
> The right-to-die movement is busy at work in America too, and I predict
that
> this nation will see the legalization of euthanasia long before disabled
> people are regarded as equal. Euthanasia is quietly tolerated now. If
that
> were not true, then Jack Kavorkian would have been convicted after the
first
> time he gave assistance to someone who wanted to commit suicide. He
wasn't
> though, and went on to kill other people, including two who's disabilities
> were not life threatening, at least not at the time of their demise.
>
> The public has never said anything about those two people. Why would
they?
> They have been conditioned from the beginning of man's existence to
believe
> that no one with a severe disability could logically want to live. That's
> one of the reasons why so many of them patronizingly pat us on our
precious
> little heads. They really believe that we don't want to live, and
> congratulate us when we smile anyway. That's beside the point though. I
> will digress, as you know.
>
> The percentage of elderly people is increasing, and will continue to do
so.
> Due to disability rights legislation, we are enjoying ever increasing
> visibility. This is wonderful for elderly and disabled people, but we
must
> be ever mindful that we are doing all of this in a society filled with
those
> who believe in Darwin's survival of the fittest theory, and who have no
> apparent compunction about applying that theory to the human race.
>
> In my not-so-humble opinion, we'd better quit worrying about whether
people
> call us "gimps" or "persons with disabilities," and start worrying about
the
> people who want to kill us. If you have a severe disability, and even if
you
> don't, it's important for you to realize the implications of our
increasing
> rates of survival, and increasing visibility, in a society that thinks we
are
> its drain.
>
> I submit to you that Darwinism is synonymous with able body supremacy.
>
>
> None of that scares me nearly as much, however, as coming to a list like
> this, and asking for vocal support for the lives of conjoined twins, lives
> that someone said should have been terminated for the betterment of
society,
> and not getting any. That scares the hell out of me.
>
> I've heard a number of people say that Gore would have been the disability
> community's friend as President. Personally, I don't think Gore is a bad
> guy. But he would have been a lot more likely to support right-to-die
> legislation than Bush. Additionally, and perhaps most immediately
important,
> with a major government on this planet that still subscribes (as should
now
> be obvious to the casual observer) to the maxim "Political power grows out
of
> the barrel of a gun," I want a guy like Dick Cheney close at hand. Again
> though, I digress (told ya I would).
>
> International politics notwithstanding (even though it very much is), I
> wanted to see one element that could serve to hurt us, albeit
> unintentionally, out of the loop. That is why I supported George W. Bush.
I
> don't care for him, but for now I think he is the best person of the two
to
> have in the White House. For disability rights purposes, I don't want the
> party that loves Harold Shapiro -- who loves Peter Singer -- to be in
power.
> That, in conjunction with these other elements I have mentioned, might
have
> been a more potentially dangerous cocktail than some may realize.
>
> Moreover, we find the environmentalist movement firmly rooted in the
> Democratic party. Where can we find more "Darwinettes" than in the
> environmentalist movement? Again I mention the survival of the fittest
> theory. Those people scare me, because they do not realize how much
> influence Peter Singer has already had on the way they think. If you go
to
> Amazon.com, and search "Animal Liberation," you will see that the reviews
on
> the first page give laud and praise to Singer, all except one, who
targeted
> Singer's sanction of infanticide and euthanasia. The first review calls
his
> book the most important of the 20th century, and shares how it will change
> the way people think about animal rights.
>
> It has already done more than that. Singer has been influencing the
> environmentalist movement for a long time. I haven't the proof to offer,
but
> I have heard that PETA based the tenets of their organization on Singer's
> book, Animal Liberation. If you pay close attention to that Amazon.com
> reviews, you will see that the rave reviews on the first page make no
mention
> of infanticide or euthanasia. They didn't miss reading about that, they
just
> missed putting it in the forefront of their thinking.
>
> The point I am making is that when someone says some among us should die,
it
> is critically important that we not be silent. It is not sufficient in a
> society such as this to complain only amongst ourselves.
>
> Someone once told me that many disabled people were afraid to speak up for
> fear of what they may lose -- for fear of repercussion. Is that not the
> moment of truth for any human being?
>
> Respectfully submitted,
> Betty Alfred
|