So said Señor Cornell.
And it's true.
What gives people the right to tell me if I can kill myself, take drugs, marry a bloke, marry a goat, eat poo or anything else which doesn't impinge on their right to have a nice day? (not that I actually want to do any of those things - poo tastes like...poo).
I watched Insight tonight, in case you were wondering. I had been too distracted lately to whinge about anything, but I had clearly forgotten about the inspiration SBS could provide.
It was about voluntary euthanasia. Happily, they had Marshall Perron (which always sounded like a type of bird to me as a kid) and good old Phil Nietschke (yes! I spelt that correctly! first time!) on. Took me back...to a time when a bunch of fat middle class white men overrode the wishes of an elected legislature because of a bunch of outdated, narrow minded Western morals.
And the idea that a mere spark of life somehow has more value than the respect, dignity and choices of a capable, cognizant human being.
Same as the abortion debate, really.
I noticed, though, that the arguments used by the conservatives have morphed into the standard 'for your own good' line they use for most things.
In a way, one of the arguments they carry on with seems at odds with basic neo-liberal garbage in general - the focus on personal responsibility.
Chris Pyne, the Ageing Minister (incidentally, he must be a good friend of Costello's - he came up with a wonderful range of contemptuous smirks this evening) piped up with the 'what if the person would have changed their mind' line. Hypocrite.
Yeah? What if?
What if they didn't?
Isn't that up to them?
Isn't it their mistake to make?
And don't talk to me about seat belts, etc. That's about keeping idiots alive, not providing choice to an adult who has considered their options carefully.
I do have a challenge, or two.
First, come up with an anti-euthanasia argument that does not have, at its heart, a spiritual moralistic basis.
And then (and I ask this not as a rhetorical, but I actually am wondering what there is) come up with a victimless crime which you don't think had its roots in religion.
Now, if what I have said above is really quite stupid, I apologise. I'm tired, and haven't run this past my legal team :)
Really, I felt a bit lazy just putting photos up so I thought I'd try to write something.
And here's a photo!
Of my street.
cheers
3 comments:
ooh, i'm with you big time, mr man. death with dignity and why can't i control it?
just... just when i do it, i hope i get noticed and don't become a today tonight story about being left to mummify in front of the telly. with my luck i'll be found during brand power.
I thought I'd commented but then I remembered that was an email.
So, jokes about the death penalty for suicide in whereever aside, I think in a few more generations euthanasia will be one of the things people look back and say "I can't believe this used to be banned!" as part of the general movement to control of society by religious morality.
I'm not sure if this is a forecast or a hope, though.
And to everything else, I say javezgej.
There is an argument against euthanasia that doesn't have a moralistic/religious basis. For instance, what is to stop the old and infirm being convinced to shuffle off so they stop being a drain on the kids/society? You can take it further and argue that it is a thin line between voluntary and encouraged and then on to compulsory.
Of course there are obvious safeguards against all of this which were included in the NT ROTI Act.
I haven't been able to come up with a victimless crime that meets your criterion but I will continue to ponder. You could be right.
Post a Comment