The other day at church I was talking with a woman about euthanizing a terminally ill cat. She, like so many people I've talked to lately, said that when it was her time to go she hoped someone would be so compassionate as to do the same thing for her. When I said that I had a problem with the idea of euthanizing terminally ill people, she visibly stiffened. I could see the defensiveness building in her eyes. And this is nothing new.
Yes, I can understand why someone might think it was the compassionate thing to treat a terminally ill person the way you would treat an animal in the same situation, but--and this is what I told her--I can see the potential for a lot of misuse. "Have you read the assisted suicide laws of Oregon and Washington?" she snapped. No. I don't have to. I know human nature. I mean, hey, we are dealing with a situation right here in West Michigan where a mother tried to kill her own child because that child was too much to handle. And there are a lot of people saying she shouldn't be punished for that. If you are going to talk about assisted suicide or mercy killing or euthanasia or whatever you want to call it, I want to know what kind of safeguards you intend to have in place to prevent abuse. Because the dead don't talk.
So I said to her, "well, yes, I have taken my animals to the vet to be put to sleep before and will most likely do it again, because I don't want them to suffer--BUT, you need to know, that compassion is not the only factor in my decision. Finances count, too."
Oh, was she shocked! The very idea, that I would frankly say that cost is also a factor in deciding what kind of healthcare to give or not give my animals. She mentioned pet insurance. Well, ok, but maybe I can't afford pet insurance. Maybe I don't want pet insurance. Like it or not, my choice--and that is what it is--to put my animals to sleep for any reason whatsoever is one that is legal. I told her, "I have the power of life or death over them. They don't know it, but I do." When I take my animals in to the vet to be euthanized, I am breaking no laws. Animals do not have any right to life (unless perhaps they are endangered species). And I haven't seen anyone picketing veterinary clinics because they kill animals. But yes, finances do play a big part in my decision. And anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a bubble.
So please do not tell me that when it comes to assisted suicide that these same factors will not also play a role in the decision-maker's decision. I mentioned that I had heard that insurance companies were refusing to pay for cancer treatments, but they were willing to pay for assisted suicide. Oh, she said, insurance companies won't pay for experimental therapies. Denial, denial, denial. Of course there is nothing to fear, you don't have to worry about people being euthanized against their will, etc., etc., etc. No, you have nothing to fear IF you are relatively well-off, if you belong to the right racial and ethnic group, if you are not disabled, etc., etc., etc. You can be assured that your choice will be your choice and not someone else deciding for you.
If I recall correctly, right after Hurricane Katrina, there was a scandal when it was discovered that one of the hospitals had given several extremely ill patients terminal overdoses rather than try to evacuate them--and that this happened after the storm, when help was on its way. Of course the ethicists wrung their hands saying that there was no way they could judge what was the right thing to do in the circumstances. And if I recall correctly, not one person who was involved in giving the overdoses ever served one minute of prison time. Talk about sending a message! I am willing to bet that those euthanized were poor and had nobody watching their backs. Well, they are dead now. Whether they wanted to be or not. But people like this woman who think that allowing people to choose assisted suicide is fine and dandy do not want to talk about cases like this. Why the hell not? If we are going to put this on the table, then put everything on the table!
There is another thing to consider. Because animals have traditionally not been considered to have the same right to life as humans, veterinary medicine has lagged far, far behind human medicine. My friend was shocked that I would even consider costs in treating my animals. But it has long been a fact of life. When the racehorse Barbaro broke his leg during the Preakness, the reason that his owners fought so hard to save him was that first, they had the money to do so, and also, his potential worth as a sire made it a reasonable gamble. No doubt they loved their horse. I'm not saying they didn't. But had Barbaro been one of the cheap claimers in any of the other races on that afternoon's program, he would have been euthanized on the spot and all that anyone outside of the racing world would know about it is maybe a small article in the Baltimore paper. It makes a difference who you are. When you start opening up assisted suicide as an option, when you start lowering humans to the level of animals, you are opening up something that could be very nasty.
As my mother likes to say, "Be careful what you ask for. You might get it."
Yes, I can understand why someone might think it was the compassionate thing to treat a terminally ill person the way you would treat an animal in the same situation, but--and this is what I told her--I can see the potential for a lot of misuse. "Have you read the assisted suicide laws of Oregon and Washington?" she snapped. No. I don't have to. I know human nature. I mean, hey, we are dealing with a situation right here in West Michigan where a mother tried to kill her own child because that child was too much to handle. And there are a lot of people saying she shouldn't be punished for that. If you are going to talk about assisted suicide or mercy killing or euthanasia or whatever you want to call it, I want to know what kind of safeguards you intend to have in place to prevent abuse. Because the dead don't talk.
So I said to her, "well, yes, I have taken my animals to the vet to be put to sleep before and will most likely do it again, because I don't want them to suffer--BUT, you need to know, that compassion is not the only factor in my decision. Finances count, too."
Oh, was she shocked! The very idea, that I would frankly say that cost is also a factor in deciding what kind of healthcare to give or not give my animals. She mentioned pet insurance. Well, ok, but maybe I can't afford pet insurance. Maybe I don't want pet insurance. Like it or not, my choice--and that is what it is--to put my animals to sleep for any reason whatsoever is one that is legal. I told her, "I have the power of life or death over them. They don't know it, but I do." When I take my animals in to the vet to be euthanized, I am breaking no laws. Animals do not have any right to life (unless perhaps they are endangered species). And I haven't seen anyone picketing veterinary clinics because they kill animals. But yes, finances do play a big part in my decision. And anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a bubble.
So please do not tell me that when it comes to assisted suicide that these same factors will not also play a role in the decision-maker's decision. I mentioned that I had heard that insurance companies were refusing to pay for cancer treatments, but they were willing to pay for assisted suicide. Oh, she said, insurance companies won't pay for experimental therapies. Denial, denial, denial. Of course there is nothing to fear, you don't have to worry about people being euthanized against their will, etc., etc., etc. No, you have nothing to fear IF you are relatively well-off, if you belong to the right racial and ethnic group, if you are not disabled, etc., etc., etc. You can be assured that your choice will be your choice and not someone else deciding for you.
If I recall correctly, right after Hurricane Katrina, there was a scandal when it was discovered that one of the hospitals had given several extremely ill patients terminal overdoses rather than try to evacuate them--and that this happened after the storm, when help was on its way. Of course the ethicists wrung their hands saying that there was no way they could judge what was the right thing to do in the circumstances. And if I recall correctly, not one person who was involved in giving the overdoses ever served one minute of prison time. Talk about sending a message! I am willing to bet that those euthanized were poor and had nobody watching their backs. Well, they are dead now. Whether they wanted to be or not. But people like this woman who think that allowing people to choose assisted suicide is fine and dandy do not want to talk about cases like this. Why the hell not? If we are going to put this on the table, then put everything on the table!
There is another thing to consider. Because animals have traditionally not been considered to have the same right to life as humans, veterinary medicine has lagged far, far behind human medicine. My friend was shocked that I would even consider costs in treating my animals. But it has long been a fact of life. When the racehorse Barbaro broke his leg during the Preakness, the reason that his owners fought so hard to save him was that first, they had the money to do so, and also, his potential worth as a sire made it a reasonable gamble. No doubt they loved their horse. I'm not saying they didn't. But had Barbaro been one of the cheap claimers in any of the other races on that afternoon's program, he would have been euthanized on the spot and all that anyone outside of the racing world would know about it is maybe a small article in the Baltimore paper. It makes a difference who you are. When you start opening up assisted suicide as an option, when you start lowering humans to the level of animals, you are opening up something that could be very nasty.
As my mother likes to say, "Be careful what you ask for. You might get it."
