From Margaret Somerville at MercatorNet:
Very recently, two senior physicians who have championed the legalization of euthanasia in their jurisdictions, Dr Boudewijn Chabot in the Netherlands and Dr Guy Robert in Quebec, have rejected current “appalling” developments in euthanasia in their countries. Yet, these developments should have been anticipated. So, why weren’t they?
Pro-euthanasia advocates focus just on individuals and only in the present – a combination of radical autonomy/ intense individualism and “presentism” – which blocks out considering both lessons from the past and likely future developments. In other words, the pro-euthanasia stance rests on a failure of people’s individual and collective human memory and imagination.
Those opposing euthanasia look to human memory – history and what the past can teach us – and imagination – what the future might hold – as well as the present. They also look beyond euthanasia’s impact just on individuals to the wide-ranging and multitudinous major issues and consequences it raises for medicine and law, for practitioners of these two professions, and for all of us as families, communities and a society. More.
Reality check: Actually, it’s too late, Somerville. It’s over.
Once the idea that killing people is a doctor’s job got accepted, only the complete failure of the civilization that introduced it would change anything. Fortunately, for demographic reasons, that failure is likely.
And Justin looked slightly troubled …
See also: Netherlands to euthanize healthy people over 75 And soon anyone who might vollect a pension someday of whatever age. There aren’t enough children to pay those pensions.