Margaret Somerville on why pulling the plug is not the same thing as euthanasia. As an observer of everything bioethics, I can tell you that the distinction is (a) real, and (b) relevant. I believe that a great deal of needless suffering is happening because people are afraid of “euthanizing grandma” by ceasing futile treatment. People die. The human species has a 100% death rate. Yet, we also have the medical means to keep people alive (i.e. breathing with a heartbeat) beyond their natural ability to do so. We need to understand the subtle yet critical difference between letting go and killing if we are to use the medical means at our disposal wisely and effectively.
One post, two topics
Because I’m that busy and one blog post is better than no blog post, right?
Topic numero uno, I really liked this article by Dan Gardner. First because pieces about declining birth rates written by social liberals are few and far between. And second because he is mostly right, at least about the default positions we assume when defending causes that are dear to our hearts. As a social conservative, I have to admit that I probably cry “Abortion!” more early and more often than I have to. Did abortion and contraception cause declining birthrates or did declining birthrates (or the desire for declining birthrates) cause the push for access to abortion and contraception? It doesn’t make abortion right or the fall-out from widespread use of contraceptives less real. It just means that to address the problem we have to approach it with generosity and compassion rather than shooting from the hip with the first arguments available.
Topic secundo, the Canadian Institute for Health Research is again sponsoring its Café Scientifique and a rep from Planned Parenthood Toronto will be among the panelists. Now, you have to understand that this is not a debate about contraception or abortion. Rather, it is about:
“the value of working together to study health issues that affect communities, such as homelessness, HIV/AIDS and poverty.”
Still, when they say that working together leads researchers to:
“a better understanding of the community, better research and, ultimately, better health outcomes. Working together produces lasting solutions that fit with communities”
my alarms bells go off. So I registered.
Some politicians are of course pro-life
With MPs and Ministers tripping all over themselves to “out” themselves as pro-choice Conservatives, I thought I would remind you all that there are pro-life politicians on Parliament Hill. Full disclosure: I work for one of them. And no, I am not paid to blog (unfortunately. Can you make a living pro-life bloggging? Because I’d be interested.) In my office, I have pictures of my boss denouncing the Morgentaler Order of Canada, visiting pro-life organizations, attending the National March for Life and addressing the crowds on Parliament Hill.
If you live in a riding represented by the NDP, the Liberals, the Bloc or any socially-liberal-Conservative, you may feel unrepresented in Parliament. If you have ever written to your MP about pro-life or pro-family issues and received a boiler-plate reply about social consensus and Canadian values blah-blah, you may feel misunderstood and silenced. But you are not. It may not be your MP but some MPs are working hard — and getting flack — making sure that your voice is heard.
The office, sushi–and other assorted points
I am slowly emerging from maternity leave. As February rolled around, my baby turned one and my mat leave expired. I wasn’t planning to return to work until September but my previous employer made me an offer I couldn’t refuse “in these difficult economic times” and four days later, I was back in my old job.
Working means that in exchange for a pay cheque, I get a whole LUNCH BREAK. For you stay-at-home moms, a lunch break is a fabulous invention of the 20th century whereby you get to sit down and eat a meal somewhere between snack and nap-time. I know, it’s that crazy! But you know what? I’ve been home with young children for too long: for me, lunch is still stuffing sustenance in with one hand while doing something useful with the other. Hence the blog post. I hope you won’t mind a couple of goat cheese crumbs. It’s not like I can eat goat cheese anywhere else. If anybody asks why I decided to work outside the home, it all comes down to sushi and goat cheese. Yes, I’m that shallow.
Have you ever heard the tidbit “if a really nice guy is rude to waiters, watch out: he’s not a really nice guy”? I am not exactly a waitress but in my line of work – which I cannot better describe than “miscellaneous nitty gritty and random, er, stuff” – I am often the first point of contact between my boss and the world at large. I have noticed that you can tell a lot about a person by the way they treat the lowest rung in the office hierarchy. Some people are nice and respectful and make me want to find time for them. Others think that throwing weight around in a “do-you-know-who –I-am” kind of way will intimidate me into service. Others treat me like their foot servant: “I’m emailing you a document (from across the office where all the hardware is on a network), can you print it for me?” Because pressing “attach” and “send” is much more impressive than “print.”
What does all this have to do with pro-life? Just like I can tell a lot about a person by the way I am treated at work, I am wondering if future generations will judge us on the basis of our treatment of the most vulnerable members of our society. The frail, the elderly, the handicapped, the helpless, the unborn. And when historians look back on the medical means at our disposition in parallel with our increasing tolerance toward euthanasia and assisted-suicide, what will they think of us?
___________________
Andrea adds: For Facebook followers, this post, automatically imported into my profile, is not mine. Similarities between me and Veronique include that I do like sushi and goat cheese and I harbour disdain for people who think they are very, very important and try to make others feel small. Differences include that I do not have a one-year-old and am not coming out of maternity leave.
“The management” will look into ways to make it clear who is posting what on Facebook but for the time being, be advised that not every post imported into my Facebook profile is me.
Now is a good time to brush up on euthanasia
With MP Francine Lalonde’s euthanasia bill — aka C-384 — just around the corner, it never hurts to brush-up on the reasons why euthanasia is wrong. This latest article from Margaret Somerville doesn’t present any new and improved arguments but reminds us why euthanasia, even when justified by compassion, is never morally defensible.
Could we send a couple of education bureaucrats to hospital please?
In Canadian health care, hospital funding is front-loaded and each patient chips away at the pile. Many have suggested a model whereby hospitals are paid per patient “served.” This way, each patient becomes a source of revenue as opposed to a drain on resources. Makes sense? Well this idea has been met with much weeping and gnashing of teeth. Too complicated they say. Well, apparently it works for the education system. Can you imagine local hospitals engaging in PR battles over patients? Could we send a couple of education bureaucrats to hospitals please?
Astonish me
CBC Radio 1’s arts, culture and entertainment magazine Q is advertising a debate on the upcoming Super Bowl’s pro-life ad. Now, I am not naive enough to believe that the outcome of this debate will somehow support the broadcasting of said ad. Although you could potentially support freedom of expression without supporting the anti-abortion sentiment. I mean, it is theoretically possible. You know, along the lines of Voltaire’s attributed:
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Anyhow. Q is having a debate and a debate suggests debaters. Does this mean that someone on the CBC will support the broadcasting of the pro-life ad, thus challenging everything pro-abortion? It remains to be seen. Come on CBC, astonish me! Looking forward to hear it.
A short story
Amen to that.
_______________________
Andrea gives half an amen: The undue attention we heap on sports figures AND entertainers is part of the problem. In point of fact, making a hero of someone because they worked very hard to become good at a sport (that’s the discipline she speaks of) is appropriate. We all need heroes and people to look up to. Where I agree is that none of these people should become demi-gods: actors or sports figures alike. And those actors and sports figures forget to wield their immense power appropriately by conducting themselves as role models should. We have forgotten as a culture that what we own is not ours. We have forgotten where our talents, abilities and strengths come from. (I’ll leave each person to guess at the answer for themselves.)
Of sex and consequences
In a recent decision, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously agreed that:
Accident insurance is not comprehensive health insurance,” Mr. Justice Ian Binnie said for a 9-0 majority today. “Mr. Gibbens contracted a sexually transmitted disease in the ordinary way through sexual intercourse.”
Replace STD by pregnancy and imagine the same quote in an abortion-related decision. Funny. How warped has our understanding of sex become when we consider STD to be par for the course but pregnancy to be an unintended consequence?
Having fun with numbers
Try as I might, I’m having a very difficult time imagining how one can spend upwards of $54,000 on a child monthly. But I’m sure it’s possible if you put your back into it. My husband and I spend thousands of dollars yearly on our children’s athletic endeavours and we think we are certifiably nuts. Our entire family’s clothing budget, per month, runs around $400 (including months of no clothing and months of snowsuits) so the $3,000 monthly figure for one child is positively entertaining. What do rich people do all day? Shop?
Accuse me of delighting in the misfortune of others, but this piece of courthouse news from this morning’s Ottawa Citizen made me laugh. A nervous laugh. Far from diminishing the great toll that marital breakdown can exact on people, there is a business case to be made for earning 10 million dollars for the dubious achievement of having been shortly married to a wealthy businessman. 10 million PLUS $100,000 PER MONTH! For that kind of money, I’d be willing to put up with a lot of marital strife. Don’t get me wrong: in the amount of time — roughly 8 years — normal marriages get long in the tooth (even loving ones), Mr. Potter had had 2, producing 3 children. The guy cannot be easy to live with. But if I wasn’t already married, and if I didn’t believe that we marry once, especially when children are involved, I’d say “Sign Me Up!” I mean, how many sucky jobs don’t pay that well? Most people don’t have the privilege of getting rich while being unhappy.
I laugh at the adults but the children make me cry. Because while the grown-ups are arguing over the necessities of life such as a pied-a-terre in Paris or a house in Rockliffe Park, and what will the girls wear on their trip to the Galapagos if the court doesn’t uphold the clothing allowance, the children are stuck between adults who need a judge, a third party, a stranger, to decide for them where their own children will go to school. Stuck between two grown-ups who need a third party, a stranger, to tell them what the best interest of their own children is. Money can’t buy happiness. And it sure can’t buy good judgment.
- « Previous Page
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- …
- 13
- Next Page »