Compassionate Tyranny

Is Medically Assisted Suicide Really The Answer?

Jun 14, 2024

Article voiceover

1×

0:00

-5:05

There is ample evidence throughout history, much of it recent, that claiming compassion to justify government-sanctioned suicide is a trap. Yes, chronic pain is terrible, but not nearly so much as the power of a State that inevitably sees it as a way to solve problems it created or just things it finds to be a “problem.”

To deny this end to liberty is to ignore the nature of humans and government.

When local legislation was on the verge of becoming law in New Hampshire, my thought was - just like socialism, we will not “get it right this time.” Hawaii, Canada, and The Netherlands are all proof that the system will fail to protect people who are “not likely” to die in six months. And wherever Medically Assisted dying takes hold, ideological descendants of the original Progressive Eugenicists who inspired Hitler will, in successive legislative sessions, remove safeguards, lower barriers, and soften restrictions (more on that below).

The Compassion Mule

Compassion, the foundation of every effort to advance government-managed “suicide,” is often genuine but terribly misguided - and far too trustworthy. At some point, this basis for legislative oversight will shift from those “near death” to those with chronic but tolerable illness, to the autistic, the homeless, the economically disadvantaged, drug abusers, and inevitably, people who ask (or even people the state got rid of whom they then claim had asked).

You can agree or disagree on religious grounds, human rights grounds, sanctity of life, equity, or whatever motivates you – but what you need to fear is State power to manage the terms for the end of life other than by natural causes.

I’ve shared several examples of what going sideways looks like, one as recently as this morning. Canadian Allison Ducluzeau was diagnosed with stage 4 peritoneal carcinomatosis. She was told to get her arrangements in order and to consider medically assisted suicide. Appointments with specialists (in Canada) were months away, but she was terminal. It was time to shuffle off the mortal coil, and Canada was ready and willing to help.

Allison chose to do some research instead. She spoke to specialists worldwide, raised money online to pay for treatments, left Canada to get the scans she needed in California, and then received treatment she couldn’t get back home in Baltimore.

Today, Allison is in remission. She lifts weights daily, and goes running and cycling. She recently married her partner on a beach in Hawaii in front of her children. But she remains infuriated that Canadian doctors offered to kill rather than treat her.

Allison is living a worthy life, improving herself, and adding value to the lives of others long after her Public Health Experts tried to convince her hope was not an option. What’s compassionate about that?

Path to Tyranny

What guarantees can you provide that your state or nation won't find itself in this situation a few years after embracing the practice?

You can’t. At some point, it will become about reducing costs and making space for someone else—saving money, not lives. This culture is inevitable.

Oregon has had assisted suicide for decades. Today, nearly 80% of the people who end up committing suicide (counseled toward it, no doubt) are on government health care.

States like Colorado and Hawaii have tried to shorten the wait time before assisted death. Is it so patients can be convinced to take the death drugs rather than strain resources in the hours and days after a terminal diagnosis? Perhaps not, but given the trajectory of health care in the West and its increased alignment and dependence on government—or at least the bully pulpits of politicians and the massive grant funding they control—the issue is not if but when.

Another woman suffered debilitating severe side effects from the Moderna “vaccine,” and rather than treat her for the harm it caused, public health suggested medically assisted dying.

These are not rouge “doctors” or out-of-line regulators. It is a culture of death.

A few examples:

Skin in The Game

I do not write to you about these issues in a vacuum. As noted earlier, Assisted suicide almost made it to our Governor’s desk this year. It was sidelined for study—a temporary stay on any number of future non-compassionate executions. It will be back, and depending on the makeup of the legislature and who sits in the “corner office,” the pro-death people could get their foot in the door.

Once it arrives, there will be no going back.

Yes, there are reasonable arguments among those with chronic pain or illness to end their lives. But is the problem that they should or that they can’t? Should the state, instead of regulating suicide, regulate how the rest of the world responds to it?

Anyone can kill themselves. Since Obama opened the borders, people have been overdosing on drugs in record numbers. While unintentional (we hope), it still happens. I value life too much to suggest or support suicide, but if the problem is that your life insurance won’t pay - why not regulate that instead?

It can’t be more complicated than trying to regulate the Second Amendment out of existence. Why not give that a try before becoming the go-to consultant for assisted suicide or its number one advocate?

Yes, there are a lot of factors, but here’s the thing. The problem isn’t whether there are people who deserve to end their suffering. It is the threat or creeping tyranny of a government that uses the suffering it creates as an excuse to end lives.

Steve’s Substack

Discussion about this post