Australia: Shutting down opposition to euthanasia at a medical conference

From Margaret Somerville at MercatorNet:

Last month, I was a participant in a Q&A panel on “Voluntary Assisted Dying” at the Australian Medical Association Victoria Congress 2017. I was pleased to have been invited and hopeful that there would be a balanced discussion, but also somewhat concerned that might not be realized in practice, given the membership of the panel.

The panel participants included the well-known advocate of the legalization of doctor-assisted suicide Andrew Denton and the leader of the Greens, Senator Richard Di Natale, who also supports its legalization in certain circumstances. The chair was Dr Sally Cockburn, another supporter of the legalization of doctor-assisted suicide. I oppose legalizing both doctor-assisted suicide and euthanasia.

Unfortunately, my concerns materialized.

First, my participation in the discussion was limited in several ways. The chair told me that the question of whether or not legalizing doctor-assisted suicide or euthanasia was a good or bad idea, ethical or unethical, was not open for discussion.

She explained that the only topic to be discussed was the conditions which should apply for access to assisted suicide and how it should be regulated. In short, the panel was based on an assumption that legalizing assisted suicide was inevitable in Victoria, even though legislation has not yet been tabled in the Victorian Parliament, let alone debated or enacted.More.

Reality check: It’s inevitable because Western populations are old and high maintenance. The increasingly globalist governing elite can make better use of bots and rights-absent Third World workers. Even unskilled migrants may be more useful than Western pensioners if the migrants are centres of need so that the outer party, the ‘crats and sob sisters can stay busy doing something that interests them more than the old folks do.

An unprecedented challenge we face today is that governments can be very powerful without needing very many people. Consider the illustration from the Bible:

“Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Won’t he first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? Luke 14:31

In this parable, Jesus assumes the historically usual situation that the bigger army has an advantage. But today’s warfare is increasingly fought with drones and, soon, bots. A bigger army is a bigger useless expense. And there is no controversy about euthanising bots, as there will be about euthanising veterans.

Global elites will still need the outer party, to be sure, but mainly to stoke their ego by approval and obedience of the sort that a bot cannot give. Orwell, recall, had supposed that the Inner Party would always need proles to work. but Huxley was more correct in seeing that automation could obviate any relationship between aqdult existence and usefulness.

Meanwhile, the outer party is being trained methodically at Asshat U for its duties.

Note: Numbers will remain for some generations a huge advantage at the ballot box but that is because only humans can vote. Whether there will be pressure to minimize the human advantage remains to be seen.

In the burgeoning anti-hate crime industry, however, expect proposals for laws against abortion-phobia and euthanasia-phobia – to prevent people feeling bad if their choices for their children or their parents are questioned. More on that later.

See also: Always remember, in the age of euthanasia, We’re all “the fetus” now

and

The churches of Europe, having accepted abortion, are training their replacements Their growing acceptance of euthanasia will move things along. The surviving great-granddaughters of Church-hating feminists will live under sharia law. And no similar rebellion against religious authority will be possible. It’s almost like a divine judgment on abortion advocacy, but I digress.

Share
  • Sounds to me like the “Hippocratic oath” has morphed into the “Hypocritical oath”. And not simply a spelling error.

  • Like Canada, are they looking to save money by killing off the disabled and elderly?