Category Archives: euthanasia

Celebrated moral philosopher Peter Singer: It’s okay to rape the mentally disabled

Do you know someone who’s mentally disabled?

If so, you should know that celebrated moral philosopher Peter Singer says it’s okay for them to be raped.

Peter Singer

Peter Singer, 70, is an Australian moral philosopher who is widely celebrated and recognized with:

  • The Order of Australia from the Australian government “for achievement or meritorious service”.
  • An endowed Ira W. DeCamp professorship at Princeton University.
  • A Laureate professorship at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne.

Singer specializes in applied ethics from a secular, utilitarian perspective. He calls his brand of ethics hedonistic utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the Bentham principle of “the greatest good of the greatest number”. Hedonistic utilitarianism is the belief that the best action is the one that maximizes utility, as defined in terms of the happiness and well-being of sentient entities, such as human beings and other animals. Hedonistic utilitarianism considers all interests — those of humans and nonhuman animals — equally.

Singer’s hedonistic utilitarianism led him to espouse:

  • Reduction of world poverty via citizens of rich nations giving some of their disposable income to charities that help the global poor.
  • Reduction of animal suffering via animal liberation and veganism.
  • Women’s absolute right to abort on the grounds that fetuses are not persons: they are neither rational nor self-aware, and can therefore hold no preferences.
  • Voluntary and some cases of involuntary (infanticide) euthanasia.
  • Bestiality that does not “harm” the animal and is “mutually satisfying”.
  • Infanticide of disabled newborn babies because “Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons.” Therefore, “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.” See DCG’s post here.

Singer’s latest contribution to ethics is in a New York Times op/ed he co-authored with Oxford moral philosopher Jeff McMahan, in defense of Anna Stubblefield, 45, a former professor of ethics at Rutgers University, recently convicted of sexually assaulting D.J., a 34-year-old black man with severe cerebral palsy who is non-verbal, wears a diaper, and requires assistance with common everyday tasks like bathing, eating and walking.

Although D.J. is incapable of communication, Stubblefield maintains that her use of a controversial method called “facilitated communication” enabled D.J. to express himself to her.

Note: “Facilitated communication” is a discredited technique whereby a facilitator helps a mentally disabled person to “communicate” by moving (or simply pulling) the disabled’s hand across a board showing the alphabet.

Stubblefield spent the next two years working with D.J. on his communication skills, during which time she claimed he was able to write essays and academic papers, including one which was presented at the 2010 Society for Disabilities Studies conference. She came to “love” D.J. and to believe that he loved her and wanted to have sex with her. (Daily Mail)

In May 2011, D.J. revealed his sexual relationship with Stubblefield to his brother and mother, who are his legal guardians. The family went to the police and sued Stubblefield.

In October 2015, a New Jersey jury convicted Anna Stubblefield on two counts of aggravated sexual assault on D.J., and sentenced her to 12 years in prison. The prosecution claimed that Stubblefield had exploited and raped D.J. because he is sufficiently intellectually disabled to be incapable of consenting to sex. The conviction is being appealed.

In their NYT op/ed, Singer and McMahan accuse the trial’s female judge of having prevented the defense from making a case that D.J. was a cognitively aware adult who is mentally and morally capable of consenting to sex. Singer and McMahan then argue that even if the prosecution is right and D.J. is mentally incapacitated, Stubblefield had done him no real harm in having sexual intercourse with him because D.J. is incapable of undertanding what she did. Furthermore, Stubblefield actually did D.J. “good” because he “experienced pleasure” from the sexual intercourse. The two ethicists write:

“If we assume that he is profoundly cognitively impaired … in that case, he is incapable of giving or withholding informed consent to sexual relations; indeed, he may lack the concept of consent altogether.

On the assumption that he is profoundly cognitively impaired, therefore, it seems that if Stubblefield wronged or harmed him, it must have been in a way that he is incapable of understanding and that affected his experience only pleasurably.”

As reported by Steve Weatherbe for LifeSiteNews, April 7, 2017, writing in Current Affairs, Nathan Robinson calls the ethicists’ argument one of Singer’s “most outrageous arguments yet” and that it’s Singer’s stance on the disabled that “has led some disabled people to get the not unreasonable impression that Peter Singer, perhaps the world’s most prominent ethicist, would prefer it if they died . . . . The continued presence of Peter Singer in national dialogue about disability shows just how far we have to go before people like D.J. will actually be granted their full humanity, by prosecutors and philosophers alike.”

Robinson condemns utilitarianism in general for being “meticulous and Spock-like in their deductions from premises,” which leads them to “constantly end up endorsing the moral necessity of an endless number of inhumane acts. It’s a terrible philosophy that leads to brutal and perverse conclusions and, at its worst, it turns you into Peter Singer.”

The German Nazis, too, had their brand of hedonistic utilitarianism which justified their extermination of whole groups of people, including homosexuals, gypsies, the handicapped, and Jews — whom the Nazis called the bacillus race, responsible for humankind’s moral filth and degeneracy.

From “The Strange Case of Anna Stubblefield,” New York Times Magazine, October 20, 2015:

“Marjorie Anna Stubblefield goes by her middle name, pronounced with an aristocratic a, as in the word ‘‘nirvana.’’ Her last name is her former husband’s. Years ago, she was Margie McClennen, an honors student who grew up Jewish in the nearly all-white town of Plymouth, Mich.”

Peter Singer, too, is Jewish. His parents were Austrian Jews who immigrated from Vienna to Australia, where he was born. Singer’s grandparents were less fortunate: his paternal grandparents were taken by the German Nazis to Łódź, and were never heard from again; his maternal grandfather died in the Theresienstadt concentration camp.

But the irony of what Stubblefield did to D.J. and the similarities of Singer’s brand of ethics with Nazism evidently is lost on the esteemed ethicist.

~Eowyn

Advertisements

Trump prayed after announcing Supreme Court nominee

On January 31, 2017, President Donald John Trump fulfilled another campaign promise when he announced his nomination of federal appeals court judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.

Trump had said he would nominate someone like the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Indeed, Judge Gorsuch, 49, is pro-life like Scalia, and has taken the pro-life side in important cases as well as written a book excoriating assisted suicide. Like Scalia, Gorsuch is a strong originalist, believing that the Constitution should only be interpreted as the Founding Fathers intended.

judge-neil-gorsuch

Justice Gorsuch is currently a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which includes the districts of Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, as well as the Eastern, Northern and Western districts of Oklahoma. He has served as a federal judge since August 2006 and was appointed by President George W. Bush and confirmed unanimously by the Senate. (LifeNews.com)

After announcing Judge Gorsuch as his SCOTUS nominee, this is what President Trump did:

trump-tweet-on-prayer-after-he-announced-scotus-nominee-gorsuch-1-31-2017

Note the presence of Justice Scalia’s wife (Maureen) and son (Fr. Paul Scalia of the Diocese of Arlington, VA) among those who prayed. President Trump has the graciousness and thoughtfulness to invite them to the nomination announcement to show his respect for Justice Scalia.

During the brutal GOP primary campaigns last year, there were expressions of doubt about Donald Trump’s Christian faith.

I, for one, no longer doubt him.

Please continue to pray for President Trump — that he is protected from all evil and harm, and that he continues boldly, fearlessly, and effectively to lead America on the path of right.

jesus-guiding-trump

~Eowyn

Bioethicists: Conscientious objectors to euthanasia and abortion should be banned from medical schools

Two bioethicists — UK professor Julian Savulescu and Canadian professor Udo Schuklenk — are urging that medical schools not admit prospective students who object to abortion and euthanasia.

julian-savulescu-udo-schuklenk

Julian Savulescu is director of the Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford, UK, and editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics; Udo Schuklenk is the Ontario research chair in bioethics at Canada’s Queen’s University, and editor of the journal Bioethics.

In a co-authored article titled, “Doctors Have no Right to Refuse Medical Assistance in Dying, Abortion or Contraception,” published by the journal Bioethics on Sept. 22, 2016, Savulescu and Schuklenk maintain that:

  • Patients’ have an absolute right to abortion and to euthanasia or “assisted dying”.
  • The problem is that there are doctors who conscientiously object.
  • These doctors are respected for their “integrity” and given the prerogative not be involved in providing patients with abortion, artificial contraceptives, and euthanasia.
  • Physicians who refuse to abort and euthanize should be punished or even fired.
  • Conscientious objectors should be barred from admission into medical schools.

Savulescu and Schuklenk write in the “Abstract” of their article:

“[T]here should be better protections for patients from doctors’ personal values and there should be more severe restrictions on the right to conscientious objection, particularly in relation to assisted dying. We argue that eligible patients could be guaranteed access to medical services that are subject to conscientious objections by: (1) removing a right to conscientious objection; (2) selecting candidates into relevant medical specialities or general practice who do not have objections; (3) demonopolizing the provision of these services away from the medical profession.

Some points made in their journal article by these two toxic men who actually pretend they are bioethicists:

(1) Anti-Christian:

Without naming it, Savulescu and Schuklenk blame Christianity — which they refer to only as “organized religion” — for the objection to abortion and euthanasia. As they put it:

“The more religious a society is, the more religious values are imposed on people. Many of the conscientious objection protections we are grappling with today were written into constitutional arrangements in times gone by when the influence of churches was significantly more powerful than it is today. In strongly Christian societies, like Ireland, abortion remains illegal…. [Atheists] Richard Dawkins got it right, when he noted, ‘religion is not simply vicars giving tea parties. There are evil consequences.’”

(2) Doctors should be denied the right to be a conscientious objector to abortion, euthanasia, and artificial contraception:

“Enlightened, progressive secular countries like Sweden, have labour laws in line with our arguments. Sweden provides no legal right of employees to conscientious objection. Employees could be sacked for failing to provide legal services under labour law. The same holds true, for instance, for Finland…. These countries have resolutely prioritised patient access to care over the protection of doctors’ idiosyncratic moral convictions with regard to these services. Other countries ought to follow Sweden and Finland…. Conscientious refusal to provide contraception is common and mistakenly supported by medical boards and medical associations…. For religious GPs, obstetricians and pharmacists to refuse to provide the oral contraceptive pill is simply unprofessional. There is no requirement for a healthcare system to accommodate unprofessional behaviour…. If a professional norm [conscientious objection] is no longer fit for purpose, it should be changed.”

(3) Doctors who are conscientious objectors should be punished or perhaps fired:

“Doctors who did behave like this would be acting with a gross lack of professionalism and would therefore be subject to censure and appropriate remedies by their professional, statutory bodies…. [I]f society thinks contraception, abortion and assistance in dying are important, it should select people prepared to do them, not people whose values preclude them from participating. Equally, people not prepared to participate in such expected courses of action should not join professions tasked by society with the provision of such services.”

(4) Medical schools should deny admission to conscientious objectors:

“Therefore, even if we did not change the system for those already practising medicine, given that there is an oversupply of people capable and willing to become medical professionals, we should select those willing to provide the full scope of professional services, and those who are most capable. Medical schools and training programmes should carefully outline the nature of the job and screen for conscientious objection where it is relevant to job performance. Requirements of the job should be written into the contract.

(5) Abolish medical doctors’ monopoly on medical care by licensing non-physicians to perform abortion and euthanasia:

“Finally, if conscientious objection continues to be tolerated in medicine and results in treatment denial, alternative ways of guaranteeing reasonable and fair access to these goods ought to be provided. One way of doing this is to de-monopolize the provision of the relevant service. If the quality of such a service could match that provided by medical professionals, and sufficient supply could be ensured, then this would be a viable alternative. This would require new training, selection, regulatory and oversight procedures, which would be cumbersome and expensive. But there is no reason why only doctors could competently provide, for example, contraception, abortion or assisted dying services.”

(6) Conscientious objector doctors are like the Nazis:

“Part of the force behind respecting conscientious objection is a common commitment to ethical relativism: if that is what someone believes, then they are right to believe it, and that alone makes it a kind of truth…. But ethical relativism is practically ethical nihilism. If one accepted ethical relativism, the holocaust was, from the Nazi’s perspective, right.”

Lastly, I find it curious that Savulescu and Schuklenk, with degrees in medicine, cannot distinguish between “reign” and “rein”.

To “reign” is to be a sovereign or monarch; to “rein” is to curb. In their article, Savulescu and Schuklenk write that secular doctors who are conscientious objectors “ought to reign in their values too”.

Tsk, tsk.

H/t National Post

To sign a petition to support the Life at Conception Act, click here.

~Eowyn

17-year-old in ‘unbearable physical pain’ becomes first child to die by euthanasia

angel

From Daily Mail: A 17-year-old has become the first child to die by euthanasia in Belgium after the country adopted new rules in 2014. Officials confirmed the death following the announcement to remove age restrictions on euthanasia requests two years ago.

The move has made Belgium the only country where children of any age are able to choose to have the fatal injection. In the neighbouring Netherlands the practice is possible for children aged at least 12.  Those aged under 18 in Belgium must do so with their parents’ consent and they need to be in the final stages of a terminal illness.

The law passed by parliament insisted the minor would have to be in ‘unbearable physical suffering’ before euthanasia could be considered.

Dr. Death

Dr. Death

And today the head of the national committee for euthanasia discussed the first case. Wim Distelmans, who chairs Belgium’s Federal Control and Evaluation Committee on Euthanasia, said in an emailed statement that the first case was reported to his committee by a local doctor last week. He added that doctors used ‘palliative sedation’, which is when patients are placed in an induced coma.

Mr. Distelmans told the Het Nieuwsblad newspaper: ‘Fortunately there are very few children who are considered [for euthanasia] but that does not mean we should refuse them the right to a dignified death.’ 

Between 2003 and 2013, the number of patients being euthanised in Belgium rose nearly eight-fold to a total number of 8,752 cases, according to records of the national euthanasia control committee.

In the UK, euthanasia is illegal under English law and is regarded as either manslaughter or murder, with a maximum penalty of up to life imprisonment.

See also:

DCG

Canadian woman, 81, has “Don’t euthanize me” tattoo on her shoulder

Last December, Quebec became the first jurisdiction in Canada to allow “competent” adults experiencing “intolerable suffering” at the end of life to request “medical aid in dying,” aka physician-assisted suicide, aka euthanasia.

In June of 2016, the Canadian Parliament legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide for all Canadians. Doctors, who had sworn the Hippocratic Oath of “First, do no harm,” now can administer lethal injections to mentally fit patients suffering an incurable illness who are in constant and unbearable physical or psychological pain, or in an advanced state of irreversible decline. 

But Christine Nagel, 81, with no confidence in the medical system, had “Don’t euthanize me” tattooed on her shoulders to let medical practitioners know her wishes.

christine-nagel

Below is her essay in Mercator Net, Sept. 15, 2016:

For years, I warned my children to steer clear of tattoo parlors, and now at 81 years old, I have had to resort to one myself.

Bill C-14 makes it legal for us to play God and to make decisions over life and death ourselves. Assisted suicide is promoted as the most dignified way to treat an aging population–humanely, painlessly and without the need for suffering. Financially, it will become the salvation to our overburdened health care systems.

Our Government and Supreme Court do not of course mention anything about money, but they do warn us that within a few years, seniors will outnumber the rest of the population and will need an army of caregivers to cope with them. That will be costly. Inevitably, euthanasia will become a more “socially acceptable” way to solve this problem, than for example Hitler’s “Final Solution”.

Obviously, none of this is acceptable to us Christians. We look to Christ on the cross, stripped of his garments, writhing in agony, and covered in blood–hardly a dignified image of God’s son.

Yet the meaning of this is central to our faith. Suffering is vital to life and to our growth. What occurs at the end of my life is between God and me. Let no one else dare to interfere.

So to understand this message clearly, read my shoulder!

Christine Nagel
Calgary, Alberta

See also:

~Eowyn

Netherlands joins growing list of countries with presumed consent for organ donation

There’s an increasing drumbeat for us to donate our organs.

Two days ago, the Netherlands took an important step toward increasing the number of organ donors when the lower house of parliament approved a bill for “presumed consent” of organ donation.

Doctors preparing for organ transplant (Photo by Keith Bedford/Reuters)

Doctors preparing for organ transplant (Photo by Keith Bedford/Reuters)

Organ donation is when a person allows healthy transplantable organs and tissues to be removed, either after death or while the donor is alive, and transplanted into another person.

There are two types of organ-donation consent:

  1. Explicit consent, also called “opt in” consent, refers to the donor giving explicit, direct consent through proper registration depending on the country. In the U.S., for example, many states enable you to state you’re an organ donor on your driver’s license.
  2. Presumed consent, also called “opt in,” does not need direct consent from the donor or the next of kin. Instead, it is presumed that anyone who has not explicitly refused is a donor.

In the case of the Netherlands, as reported by RT, on September 13, 2016, a “yes, unless” bill for presumed consent was narrowly approved by a 75-74 vote in the lower house of parliament. If approved by the upper house and passed into law, every single Dutch citizen would be put on the organ donation list, unless they explicitly request otherwise.

Obviously, the presumed consent method harvests more organ donation. As an example, Germany, which uses an opt-in explicit consent system, has an organ donation consent rate of 12%, whereas nearby Austria, a country with a very similar culture, uses an opt-out presumed consent system and thus has a consent rate of 99.98%.

Currently, the United States and the United Kingdom require explicit consent for organ donation, but there’s a movement to change it to presumed consent. Not all of the UK operates on explicit consent: In December 2015, Wales switched to presumed consent — a move that was expected to increase the amount of donors by 25%. Under the new policy, people over the age of 18 who have lived in Wales for more than 12 months and die in Wales are automatically considered organ donors, unless they have specifically opted out.

There is a lucrative international market for transplantable organs. In the case of China, we have compelling evidence and testimonies  that government officials collude with hospitals to provide on-order transplantable organs from executed prisoners. (See Wikipedia)

See also:

~Eowyn

 

Dr. Death opens shop in Berkeley

Last month, California became the 5th and most populous state to adopt a law legalizing physician-assisted suicide after Governor Jerry Brown signed the End of Life Option Act last year. The new law went into effect on June 9.

And in Berkeley, the belly of the liberal beast, the new law drew an emergency-room physician out of retirement to open a one-stop-shop for killing people, at a price of $2,000 per pop.

Dr. Death, Lonny Shavelson

His name is Lonny Shavelson, age mid-60s, and he’s opened California’s first End of Life Options clinic in the Bay Area — apparently a cottage office in his backyard in Berkeley (his clinic’s mailing address is a mailbox in a UPS Store) — where he will consult with and provide lethal prescriptions for patients who request them, refused by other doctors who actually hold true to their professional Hippocratic oath of “First do no harm” and “Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. Above all, I must not play at God.”

Lisa Aliferis of KQED reports that Shavelson’s website, Bay Area End of Life Options, went up in April, and he’s outlined the law at “grand rounds” at several Bay Area hospitals this spring. His practice will be focused on consulting not only with physicians whose patients request aid-in-dying, but also with patients themselves, including offering care to patients who choose him as their “attending end-of-life physician.”

, a reader of the KQED article with a visceral hatred of traditional, i.e., orthodox Christians, is ecstatic over Berkeley hosting Doctor Death:

“This is huge progress in every sense of the word. At a time when basic human rights like abortion are under attack from the WhiteSIS YallQaeda American-Taliban religious subset of our population, it’s truly inspiring to see California steadily marching forward toward real human progress.

We certainly need to fumigate out and eradicate the corrosive, backward and destructive infestation of religion in our government throughout America (we do have this thing called separation of church and state). It is unthinkable and immoral that for so many decades those deranged mentally-ill elements of our population have been directly responsible for extraordinary levels of suffering because of their dark-age and backward religious beliefs.

Things like this are what I love about Berkeley….”

Under the California law, two doctors must agree that a mentally competent patient has six months or fewer to live. The patient then agrees in writing to administer the lethal prescription themselves. Currently, the law does not mandate doctors to provide lethal prescriptions if they choose not to do so.

Dr. Burton PresbergDr. Burton Presberg, an Oakland psychiatrist who works specifically with cancer patients and their families, said he’s concerned that patients suffering from clinical depression at the end of life, sometimes feel they are a burden to family members who could “really push for the end of life to happen a little sooner than the patient themselves.” Expressing concerns that physicians may not be aware of patients’ depression, Presberg nevertheless enthuses that “it’s really good that this [euthanasia] is an option.”

Shavelson, Davidzon, Presberg — all Jewish surnames. It is curious how enthralled some (fake) Jews are with death, given the Holocaust.

“…those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars….” –Revelation 3:9

~Eowyn