Wheesplat

Considering how horrified The Chron was that people were killing themselves on the Golden Gate Bridge, and how they felt that huge expense was justified to stop these people from making a personal choice with their lives, this editorial, supporting doctor-assisted suicide, seems a bit out of place.

Apparently, a person should not have the right to decide what to do with her own life. However, some person certified by the government to do some stuff that doesn't have anything to do with the patient's life should be able to approve such choices.

The thought of anyone, let alone a physician, helping another end their life seems both outrageous and unethical to many. That view is rooted in religious and professional beliefs that we respect.

But these opponents cannot, and should not, speak for individual patients who are facing impending death.

What do those patients know? They don't have the right to end their life, according to The Chron, at least not by jumping off a bridge. What gives them this right now? They're going to die anyway? They no longer serve a purpose for society? Their usefulness has been spent? Is a person's control over her own life only valid when the government can't use it anymore? First dibs for the government, and all that?

Patients who were experiencing depression or other psychological disorders, or were taking medications that would affect their judgment, would not be eligible.

So, the people who are suffering the most aren't eligible. That's great. Genius, I say.

"We live in a society where we are free to make so many choices about how we live," said [Assemblydude Lloyd Levine]. "But at end of life, we don't have right to decide. It's about choice and respecting that choice."

Now, Levine is a supporter. Let's see if we can fill in the subjects, because I think I see something extremely disturbing here:

"We live in a society where we are free to make so many choices about how we live," said [Assemblydude Lloyd Levine]. "But at end of life, we don't have right to decide. It's about choice [for the dying dude] and [us government dudes] respecting that choice."

Okay, that last sentence seems about right. That's what a supporter of assisted suicide would say. But let's step back a sentence.

"We live in a society where we are free to make so many choices about how we live," said [Assemblydude Lloyd Levine]. "But at end of [the dying dude's] life, [government dudes] don't have right to decide. It's about choice [for the dying dude] and [government dudes] respecting that choice."

Okay, still good. But now we have a problem. The "we" that has choices but doesn't have this particular choice is "government dudes." Now, check out the first sentence. We have three "we"s. The last "we" belongs to the dying dudes, I guess, or Americans in general. The first "we" probably also belongs to Americans in general. But the middle "we," referring to those free to make choices, has to refer to government dudes if the next sentence, which begins with "but," is to make sense in context. That is, we're left with:

"[Americans] live in a society where [government dudes] are free to make so many choices about how [dying dudes] live," said [Assemblydude Lloyd Levine]. "But at end of [the dying dude's] life, [government dudes] don't have right to decide. It's about choice [for the dying dude] and [government dudes] respecting that choice."

It seems as if Levine is saying that the government has the right to decide our lives. I considered alternative pronoun-replacement strategies, but the "but" in the second sentence doesn't leave any way around this.

I don't believe he misspoke, because if these pronouns are done differently, the quote doesn't really make sense. I harp on this because often, by seeing how folks structure their sentences, you can see their dictatorial tendencies showing.

My challenge is for people to properly assign subjects/pronouns such that Levine isn't claiming authoritarian power, and such that he still is making a coherent point in these sentences.

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 6/20/2006 02:38:00 PM #
Comments (4)

. . .

Comments:

We Americans live in a society where each of us Americans is free to make so many choices about we lives.

But at the end of life, an American doesn't have right to decide [as the law is presently].

It [this bill] is about choice for the dying person and all of us respecting that choice.

# posted by  jimf : 10:30 PM, June 20, 2006

 

As for the difference between the bridge editorial and this one, I think there's a key distinction between physician-assisted suicide at the end of life, where one is choosing to die now rather than a few months later, and just plain suicide where one is shortening one's life by possibly decades and there is probably some kind of depression or other mental illness involved.

# posted by  jimf : 10:31 PM, June 20, 2006

 

So, only happy people can kill themselves? (rhetorical question)

Basically, you can only kill yourself if "the establishment" gives you permission? But if the doctor/government/liberal commission doesn't think your pain rises to the level of meriting "death with dignity", you'll have to climb over the extra high walls on the local bridges?

# posted by  Anonymous : 10:47 PM, June 20, 2006

 

Ooh, that works, Jim.

And yeah, what the anonydude said. I really don't see the distinction between a few months and a few decades when it comes to personal control over one's life. For that matter, I don't recognize the distinction between crazy and sane when it comes to that, though I guess that's more controversial, since a large number of people seem to think that crazy people should not be recognized as free individuals.

# posted by  Beetle Aurora Drake : 11:08 PM, June 20, 2006

 

Post a Comment