Death with Dignity?

As I mentioned in my last post, Clara and I are now back home in Colorado Springs.  Our daughter goes to school in Boulder, about a two-hour drive north.  On the recent Independence Day holiday, we drove up to spend the day with her where she lives.

          Boulder is a wonderful city for walking around and people-watching.  It is compact, with a pedestrian mall area, Pearl Street, in the center of town and a beautiful park, Central Park, very close.  We enjoyed strolling around, listening to the various buskers playing music in the public spaces, watching the crowds, striking up conversations. 

Among those abroad, looking to chat others up, were paid canvassers looking for registers voters willing to sign various petitions.  One petition very much in evidence was one calling for a November ballot referendum titled Medical Aid in Dying.  This referendum, if enough signatures are gathered, will follow bills proposing similar new laws failed in both houses of Colorado’s state legislature.

The issue is expected to make it to the ballot in November, and it is expected to pass with sixty-some percent of electorate reportedly favoring it.  This follows the national trend, that while only four states have such laws on the books, a majority of citizens would support such a law.

The essence of the law is that if someone is judged by doctors to be terminally ill and within six months of death, they can petition two physicians to be allowed assistance in committing suicide.  If the two doctors find the patient to be capable of making such a decision, then they can decide to provide the patient with a drug which will kill him.  The patient must self-administer the drug.

These laws, while not yet widespread, are popular for a good reason.  Almost everybody has seen someone close to them, suffer terribly in dying.  Perhaps the patient had a terminal disease, such as cancer, which caused a prolonged and painful death.  Perhaps the patient lost their ability to live independently, either because of encroaching physical limitations or because of the onset of dementia, and they felt that the patient suffered the indignity of continuing to live in their condition.  (This latter condition is not addressed by the proposed law in Colorado.)  The support for Death with Dignity laws, as they’re often called in general, is usually couched in terms of compassion for the dying.  Sometimes, it is asserted, medical science is applied to unreasonably prolong a dying patient’s life where the more merciful course would be to hasten their death in as comfortable, pain-free a manner as possible.

Most traditional forms of monotheistic religion oppose such assisted suicide as they consider life to be sacred, and death to be in the realm of God, not man.  Most liberal sects of those same religions support it, because of the compassion issue and the sense that tradition could not have taken into account the measures that artificially prolong life, and that ‘Quality of Life’ is more important than Life Itself.

I personally come out on the traditionalist’s side of this issue.  It isn’t that compassion for the terminally ill is beyond me, but that my experience in ministering to the dying and their families has taught me that decisions concerning time-of-death often become complicated and weighted down with ancillary issues that a person should not have to face at the end of his life.

It seems so compassionate to offer the terminally ill a relatively easy, painless way out.  But in my experience, and that of so many others who deal with the dying, it is literally within our power to depart from life whenever we choose.  I have seen many elderly who, tired of life, have literally starved themselves to death by simply refusing nourishment.  I’ve also seen elderly refusing treatments, such as medication, that would have prolonged their lives.  I’ve watched the terminally ill fight death with all their strength and then suddenly, having come to peace with the eventuality, let go of life and slip into death.  I am convinced that each one of us has a great deal of control, without being given fatal doses of life-suppressing medications, to determine when we go.  Other members of the clergy, as well as medical professionals, agree with this assessment having witnessed many deaths.  Certainly for many patients, laws allowing them to be given life-ending medications will hasten death but not by much.  The advocacy of these ‘Death with Dignity’ laws often ignores this reality.  While one can certainly point to cases of those whom such laws would allow to die more quickly and less painfully, my sense is that such cases are in the minority.

My other objection to these laws is that they seem to create a mindset – among the terminally ill and their families – that the patient is doing his heirs a favor in opting for an earlier death.  As counselor to the dying and their families, I have seen this mindset come into play time and again.  There seems to be a growing cultural assumption that life itself is a utilitarian reality.  That one must justify their continued life by their continued independence and productivity.  Few are willing to frame the issue in such terms, but I have seen it, over and over, as a subtext in the relationships between the dying or elderly and their families.  And I cannot express in strong enough terms, my revulsion at the notion that people would view their own life, or someone else’s, in such terms.  But I hear such sentiments expressed, directly or indirectly, again and again.

I think this is at the heart of the opposition to such laws among traditional believers in various faith traditions.  Our lives have intrinsic value, completely separate from the question of whether we are, or ever will be, productive.  Because life if a gift from the Creator, it cannot be forfeited by man when it becomes un-useful or inconvenient.

I fear these ‘Death with Dignity’ laws, believing that they in effect create an imperative for the impaired to sacrifice their lives in order to decrease inconveniences, or expenses, to their families.  I would rather see us learn to celebrate our lives as an end in themselves, not as a vehicle to accomplishment.  There is no question that accomplishment affords us an incredible opportunity for accumulating self-worth and meaning, but it is not the purpose of our lives, thereby making our lives expendable when accomplishment ceases.

In the ‘Death with Dignity’ movement there is far too much emphasis on the autonomy to choose the time of one’s death, as the vehicle to dignity.  Far more emphasis should be applied to the issue of supporting, and being present for, the dying…even though it may be uncomfortable.

Guns, Guns, Guns!

I started this blog entry a couple of weeks ago but did not complete it in the crush of activity over our transition from Australia back to the USA.  Clara and I are back in Colorado Springs, housesitting and cat-sitting and tying up various loose ends.  I’ve finally had a chance to sit down and complete the following entry, a follow-up to my last one occasioned by the Orlando Massacre of 15 June.

18 June 2016, foxnews.com:  Orlando Massacre Prompts Some in LGBT Community to Come Out – for Trump

The Orlando terror massacre has members of the LGBT community around the nation coming out – for Donald Trump and the Second Amendment

Some among the reliable Democratic constituency were not persuaded by President Obama’s post-attack call for new gun control measures and renewed warning against painting Islam in a negative light.

Trump’s counter message that Americans – including those in the LGBT community – must protect themselves against the hatred of radical Muslims struck a chord with…

Last week I promised to address the issue of guns in civilian hands, and specifically the view that America being ‘awash’ in privately-held guns.  Anybody who heard President Obama and other Democrats – including presumptive presidential nominee Hillary Clinton – speak after the Orlando Massacre as it has come to be called, has heard the tragedy framed in two major perspectives:  as a symptom of an America inundated with civilian guns; and as a homophobic hate crime.  If you read my post of 15 June, you of course read of an alternative perspective:  that this should rightfully be seen primarily as the latest attack on Western Civilization by the radical Muslim Jihad.  I, of course, do not claim authorship of this last narrative; it is how most on conservatives, and certainly most of those associated with the Republican Party, characterize it.

There is enough solid connection between the perpetrator of this atrocity, Omar Mateen, and various Islamist and radical Islamic figures including his own father – and in the couple of weeks after the Massacre it seemed that more came to light with every passing day – to understand that there was no ambiguity in the young man’s motivations.  At the same time, it became clear that another target having nothing to do with GLBT people specifically – a Disney attraction located in downtown Orlando – was in Mateen’s sights for this attack until he raised suspicions with security there while reconnoitering it with his wife not long before 15 June.  Realizing that he would be hard-pressed to take this attraction by surprise and cause quick and total mayhem, he instead chose a much softer target:  the gay nightclub Pulse where he did carry out his attack to tragic result.  Of course it helped that Mateen harbored extremely negative thoughts about LGBT people, thoughts which unfortunately are quite commonly fanned by orthodox Muslim preachers.  And there may be a subtext of repressed homosexuality in Mateen’s own makeup, but it is a little difficult to effect a mental examination of the deceased.  Finally, while it may well be true that America’s ratio of guns to people is among the world’s highest, no new laws being proposed would have prevented Mateen from purchasing the weapons he used in the massacre since he has a clean record having passed background checks for his job as an armed security guard on several occasions.  While he was in the sights of the FBI twice in the course of three years, the agency found nothing substantive on him and cleared him for travel and for his armed work.

Given all this, the utter silence on the part of much of America’s Left concerning the radical Islamic connection to this massacre is quite astounding.  I too, hope that there will be no violent backlash against American Muslims as a result of this.  This has not materialized to date, although Muslim communities in Central Florida have received a substantial number of threats and recently a congregant at the mosque that Mateen attended was assaulted in front of the facility.  But fear of an unwarranted backlash of hate crimes is no good reason to whitewash the Muslim connection to this.  If we cannot talk about how Islam inspires some of its followers to hate and commit violence and murder against the people of the countries that have given them shelter, then we cannot begin to work together with Muslim communities to find solutions to the problem.  The silence on this issue – from the White House down – is simply not helpful.

But back to the news story I offered above.  I have to admit it; I was surprised to read this!  The insistence on framing the issue as being guns and a lack of gun control, is not fooling at least some in the LGBT community who are migrating to the party and candidate which is not afraid to call this one straight.  And are talking about arming themselves to protect their community in the future.  There’s no hard statistical information on this; it’s purely anecdotal.  But if it was significant enough for the reporters to document, then it is a trend to watch.

Full disclosure if you hadn’t yet figured it out:  I’m personally a Republican, and further I’m the owner of several firearms and held a Colorado Concealed Handgun Permit until it expired while I was living in Australia.  I have no problem with ‘sensible’ controls on who can own and carry guns; I was happy to submit to background checks when I purchased my firearms, and to a much more stringent check and training requirement in order to carry concealed.  But nothing that would not seriously violate the Second Amendment, would have prevented Orlando and other recent mass killings that have garnered so much attention.

Ah, the Second Amendment!  The constitutional protection for a US citizen’s right to bear arms.  Australia has nothing like it.  As a result, 20 years ago in response to a terrible mass killing in Port Arthur, Tasmania, the parliament enacted extremely strict laws eliminating private citizens’ ability to own guns of virtually any type.  Many on the American Left, including President Obama, have stated that they consider Australia’s law to be a Gold Standard for controlling guns and therefore, gun violence.  And while country Australians – especially in the Outback where carrying firearms as protection against dangerous wildlife and banditry was simply a way of life pre-Port Arthur – grouse about the law, I can tell you that among most urban Australians it remains popular.  And why wouldn’t it be?  Since the law went into effect, homicides by guns have decreased 72%.  That’s an incredible change and one to be proud of.  Many Australians with whom I’ve discussed the issue, can’t understand why the USA doesn’t get equally ‘smart’ and do the same thing.  Even if it would not lower the gun homicide rate quite as much as it did Down Under, wouldn’t it be worthwhile in a country where gun homicides are through the roof?  Some Australians are so obsessed with this, finding America’s refusal to take similar drastic action to be so counter-intuitive, that I have had conversations with Aussies begin with the question:  When are you going to get rid of the Second Amendment?  (Of course, I have also had conversations with Aussies who wish their country had had a Second Amendment…)

But here’s the rub on the Australian success in reducing gun homicides by 72%.  In the same period, the USA reduced the same class of crimes by 60%.  Yes, that’s correct.  Contrary to the narrative of the President and the Left generally, over the past two decades or so, killings by private firearms in the USA, despite exponential growth in the number of firearms (legal and illegal) extant, have decreased 60%.  And how has that happened?  Largely through tough sentencing laws, which have imposed mandatory long prison sentences for those convicted of certain crimes, taking the opportunity to show mercy out of the hands of judges.  And let’s also not discount the negative effect on crime, of an armed citizenry.  It is no accident that cities in states that grant the most concealed-carry permits to law-abiding residents, show significantly lower crime rates – including gun homicides – than similar-sized cities in the most gun-restrictive states.

So let’s look at a Tale of Two Countries.  One reduces gun homicides dramatically by, in effect, punishing law-abiding citizens.  The other reduces the same crimes almost as much, statistically, by punishing the offenders.  But there are three additional factors to consider.

First, gun crime in Australia is now rising significantly.  This is due to the rise of crime gangs, the same sector that seems impervious to tougher sentencing laws in the USA.  Crime gangs are so violent, engage in such profitable illegal rackets (mainly the drug trade), and are so unafraid of incarceration, that US law enforcement has found themselves unable to crack them.  Well, they’re now coming to Australia in big numbers, and they have no problem obtaining all the firearms they want, by whatever means.  Remember that Australia is an island nation; its mostly-unguarded coastline is over 22,000 miles!  There are plenty of empty beaches for smuggling in contraband goods, including firearms.

Second, mass shootings which of course, get all the publicity and whose frequency feeds the narrative that gun homicides in the USA are ever-increasing.  As I showed above they are not, but America does seem to experience more than its share of mass killings like Orlando, San Bernadino, Sandy Hook, Ft Hood, et cetera.  Well, guess where virtually all of the mass killings have occurred?  In places that are designated Gun-free Zones, either by law or by the properties’ owners.  Places like government buildings, schools, military facilities, movie theaters, and…nightclubs.  When I was carrying concealed, I always had to plan out my day and decided whether to arm myself based on where I was going to be.  Often I would not carry for days on end, because one of my stops on the days in question would be one of the above.  Would I have been able to stop a mass killer with my small-caliber pocket gun?  Well, the chances would be much better if I had it in my pocket, as opposed to its being in the safe at home.

Mass killers, whatever their motivating ideology of illness, choose to kill in places where law-abiding citizens do not carry guns, on pain of prosecution.  Soft targets.  Whatever else they are, these killers are not stupid as a class.  They exclusively select as their targets, those places where they are most unlikely to encounter armed resistance.  After all, their goal is to kill as many as possible before being taken down themselves.  The lack of armed citizens in the places where they choose to kill, makes it unlikely that their killing sprees will be interrupted until police arrive which can take considerable time.

By the way, this criteria of selection for the site of mass killings, also applies to ‘ordinary’ armed crimes.  Statistics show that criminals overwhelmingly prefer places, and localities where law-abiding citizens do not carry concealed firearms.

It has been noted that, in Israel, terrorists who use guns don’t get the same sort of kill-counts that mass shooters in the USA do.  That’s because there are no places in Israel where lawful carriers of firearms must enter unarmed.  So even when a shooter manages to get into a crowded place, he does not get to take down dozens of innocent victims before being neutralized himself.  While Israel is famously more restrictive of gun ownership than the USA, there are still significant numbers of citizens who walk around armed all the time.  And in the wake of the latest rise in terror, the so-called Knife Intifada, more permits are being requested and granted.

One more point, concerning Islamic jihad-inspired violence.  As with gang violence, it is impervious to all kinds of laws intended to stop it, including sentencing and gun restrictions.  How many jihad-motivated mass killings, with the most sophisticated of military firearms, have taken place in countries that make such firearms impossible to obtain legally?  Countries like France, Belgium, Great Britain…you get the idea.  Even though Omar Mateen obtained his weapons legally, terrorists in other countries have gotten hold of weapons of similar – and higher – grade because their ideologies make them open to the risk of obtaining them illegally.

The whole issue of guns, and who aught to have them and who aught not, can be complicated but in America, given the Second Amendment, it’s largely settled.  The government can fiddle with the details – as it has by requiring background checks for criminal records when one wishes to buy a firearm.  And the government can limit the specific kinds of weapons an individual can own.  But the basic right to own guns is not up for dispute unless someone wants to take a crack at repealing the Second Amendment which would be a long drawn-out process and guaranteed to fail.  President Obama has stated a number of times that his inability to effect change to this basic law has been a constant frustration to him, and I believe him.  But he has none of my sympathy.  Because the US Constitution is there, not to protect the government from frustrations nor to make their job easier.  Rather, it’s there to protect the basic rights of the individual citizen…one of which is to bear arms to defend himself, his family, and his property.