ブリタニー・メイナード事件で、BioEdgeのMichael CookがC&Cの戦略に警鐘
【Brittany Maynardさん関連エントリー】
10月14日のメモ
医師の自殺幇助は「社会的行為」……Brittany Maynard事件(2014/10/24)
Not Dead YetとSecond ThoughtsからByock医師への賛同表明(2014/10/25)
2014年10月28日のメモ
Brittany Maynardさん、翻意(2014/10/30)
Brittany Maynardさん、自殺(2014/11/3)
10月14日のメモ
医師の自殺幇助は「社会的行為」……Brittany Maynard事件(2014/10/24)
Not Dead YetとSecond ThoughtsからByock医師への賛同表明(2014/10/25)
2014年10月28日のメモ
Brittany Maynardさん、翻意(2014/10/30)
Brittany Maynardさん、自殺(2014/11/3)
土曜日ごとに届くBioEdgeのニュースレターで
BioEdgeを主催する Michael Cook がブリタニー・メイナードさんをめぐる騒動というか、
それを仕掛けたC&Cの戦略について、以下のように書いている。
BioEdgeを主催する Michael Cook がブリタニー・メイナードさんをめぐる騒動というか、
それを仕掛けたC&Cの戦略について、以下のように書いている。
There can be no more persuasive explanation than an attractive, intelligent young woman with tears trickling down her cheeks. As she dabs at her eyes, the trembling words always sound heart-piercingly right. Perhaps from an evolutionary perspective, we're programmed to agree with her, because young women are meant to transmit life.
It's the tears that sweep us away in the videos which Brittany Maynard has made with assisted suicide activists at Compassion and Choices, not the ideas.With more than 9 million hits on YouTube, it must have been the best-ever advertisement for right-to-die lobby. The ideas are pretty shop-worn. Marcia Angell, a campaigner for assisted suicide and a former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, puts them in a nutshell in a recent Washington Post op-ed: "people are increasingly asking why anyone -- the state, the medical profession, religious leaders -- would presume to tell someone else that they must continue to die by inches, against their will."
(ゴチックはspitzibara）
Laws must be changed, in other words, to support Brittany's absolute autonomy. But if this is the case, isn't it discriminatory to restrict this to the terminally ill? Why not lovelorn teenagers or impecunious grandmothers? It's a blindingly obvious objection which is not refuted in the video.
Ironically, tears were used by the Nazis to persuade Germans to support assisted suicide. Brittany's beautiful wedding photos, her artfully scripted message, the lachrymose piano chords, her family's words of love and support -- they all remind me of a competent 1941 German melodrama called Ich Klage An (I Accuse). The beautiful young wife of a doctor begs for release before she becomes "deaf, blind, idiotic"; the family doctor refuses; her husband obliges. In a final speech to the jury her grieving husband accuses the law of being inhumane.
It seemed like a good argument then; it seems like a good argument now. A big problem though, in both cases, is what comes afterwards...
It's the tears that sweep us away in the videos which Brittany Maynard has made with assisted suicide activists at Compassion and Choices, not the ideas.With more than 9 million hits on YouTube, it must have been the best-ever advertisement for right-to-die lobby. The ideas are pretty shop-worn. Marcia Angell, a campaigner for assisted suicide and a former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, puts them in a nutshell in a recent Washington Post op-ed: "people are increasingly asking why anyone -- the state, the medical profession, religious leaders -- would presume to tell someone else that they must continue to die by inches, against their will."
(ゴチックはspitzibara）
Laws must be changed, in other words, to support Brittany's absolute autonomy. But if this is the case, isn't it discriminatory to restrict this to the terminally ill? Why not lovelorn teenagers or impecunious grandmothers? It's a blindingly obvious objection which is not refuted in the video.
Ironically, tears were used by the Nazis to persuade Germans to support assisted suicide. Brittany's beautiful wedding photos, her artfully scripted message, the lachrymose piano chords, her family's words of love and support -- they all remind me of a competent 1941 German melodrama called Ich Klage An (I Accuse). The beautiful young wife of a doctor begs for release before she becomes "deaf, blind, idiotic"; the family doctor refuses; her husband obliges. In a final speech to the jury her grieving husband accuses the law of being inhumane.
It seemed like a good argument then; it seems like a good argument now. A big problem though, in both cases, is what comes afterwards...
余裕がないので、すみませんが、とりあえず英語のままで。
この後で、「でも幸いなことに、ブリタニーさんは生きることを選択した」などと続きます。
翻意のニュースまでは把握しつつも、結局は1日に自殺された報には接する前に書かれた文章ですが、
翻意のニュースまでは把握しつつも、結局は1日に自殺された報には接する前に書かれた文章ですが、
クックが鳴らしている警鐘は
ブリタニーさんの最終的な選択には関わりなく、十分にリアルなものであり、
ブリタニーさんの最終的な選択には関わりなく、十分にリアルなものであり、
これは情緒に流されることなく、しっかり考えるべき問題と思います。
