Golmer's Blog

Each individual person of sufficient age and mental capacity ought to have the right to do with their body and make life and death decisions about that body as THEY see fit. No other person ought to have the right to have any say in that, unless they are a loved one or doctor that the individual has entrusted to make such decisions should they need them to do so. 

Many people call this “right to die” or “death with dignity” or “doctor assisted suicide.” It ought to be a constitutional right that cannot be interfered with by any silly religion-based laws. We give more consideration and actual care to the suffering of animals than we do people capable of making decisions about what they actually want. 

Opponents of doctor assisted suicide claim that and aid to a terminally ill or chronically pain ridden patient who wants to end their own suffering is tantamount to murder and harm. I submit that in many instances it is actually MORE harmful to allow a person to either remain in pain long-term or remain in a drug induced coma until “natural” death is more harmful still. It is harmful to the individual and it is harmful to the family of the individual in oh so many ways. Sometimes there is no clear-cut choice for “do no harm.” Some times the only choice is “do less harm.” And sometimes “do less harm” is to help someone die with dignity instead of a protracted struggle with pain or a worthless induced coma until they die from some other cause.

I understand the arguments that euthanasia for the infirm and ill brings up horror stories of what Nazis did during world war II, but that is simply not being argued with respect to individual choices regarding the right to die. Advocating personal right to die decisions is completely different from the state making those decisions for patients. It isn’t even a factor. Individual choice in right to die is just that - an individual choice. If a person makes said individual choice, then they ought to be able to individually reach out to a professional (i.e. trained anesthetist) to ensure their desire is carried out properly. 

Of course many will argue that suicide (the taking of one’s own life is considered suicide by the religious, no matter what) condemns the person’s soul to hell no matter what the reason, so therefore the weight of government should be used to protect them from eternal damnation. But our laws ought not be structured to take away a person’s free will to make that choice - even if - no especially if - a person is a Christian - God has left that choice up to the individual, not to society. It is the individual’s business what happens to their soul, if they believe such a thing exists.

Of course in any situation where money is to be made, people will make arguments to make as much of it as they can, and laws to allow it to happen. The drawing out and prolonging of death is a huge business. The fortunes of the terminally ill and the funds of all of the immediate members of the families of the terminally ill are consumed in protracted death watches - hospitals and hospices, nurses, doctors, drugs, machines that go ping, feeding apparatuses, etc. Of course the establishment wants to prolong a person’s death - there is good money in it. And then they can gouge teh newly dead with funerals, caskets, flowers, services, etc. 

The bottom line is that there are zero valid reasons why each individual person should not have complete control over decisions of where, when, how, and why they should die, and whom they want to help them on their way. There are zero valid reasons why any licensed doctor should be penalized in any way whatsoever for providing proper professional assistance when requested.