Thursday, March 31, 2005

Schiavo, part II

I've been reading articles from various ethics "experts" and I am sickened. An article by Arthur Caplan, Ph.D. found here on MSNBC got me thinking. I've been wondering how someone could justify in their minds starving someone to death. Based on the data presented in that article, as long as they can't be medically proven to "feel" it and death is somehow better than their current state, it must be alright. There is no physical evidence other than the word of a spouse who stands to gain financially that this is truly what she wanted, yet it is still alright . So, it is alright to starve a person to death without their written consent if modern science thinks they can't feel.

With that in mind, might a make a modest proposal? If death is truly better than the life they currently have, why not kill them quickly in the off chance they can feel the slow creeping death of starvation and dehydration. Why not give them high doses of one of any number of drugs that inflict little to no pain and end life in seconds? We are killing them anyway via starvation, why not just get it over with? While we are at it, why not kill all invalids? They can't feed or clothe themselves. Surely they long for death. Why not go even further? Lead costs less than drugs, lets just put a .22 bullet in their heads. It is the choice of assassins for a quick kill because it has enough force to enter the skull and bounce around but not exit making a relatively clean kill. For a more personal approach there is always the garrotte. With either you need only a pan to catch any mess.

Of course guns would be reprehensible to those who support euthanasia so I guess knife to the wrist is the only solution. Remember, down, not across...

For those on whom satire is lost, the above opinion is satire a la Jonathan Swift.

No comments: