The media is at it again trying to make news instead of reporting it concerning DC’s Assisted Suicide bill. The media has played cozy with the pro-suicide crowd in framing the argument to their liking, namely that only religious people are opposed to assisted suicide and only because they want to impose their values. They also have taken what has been and should be a bipartisan issue and making it polarizing. The reasons that one should oppose suicide and assisting a suicide are universal in that they harm people of all ideologies equally.
KHW, Kaiser Health News wrote that it was a “Republican moral protest.” While one member mentioned that, many others were opposed on the facts of how this law will harm the people in the community. This slam was designed to belittle the opposition, by trying to disqualify them based on religion and to divide Republicans and Democrats so that they can expand suicide.
The Blue Shield of California Foundation helps fund KHN coverage in California. A publication, who gets funding from a health insurance company, is subtly pushing assisted suicide. That should give us pause. Does this help their benefactor? Would money be saved if sick people died early and cures did not need to be sought?
Reuters also joined the mocking, by saying “other Republican committee members opposed physician-assisted suicide (PAS) for “religious reasons” yet failed to name them. The mysterious unnamed religious bigots, who by the way are almost all Republicans, are not qualified to make a decision on public policy because they may have beliefs.
The examples are endless, but I will stop with The Washington Times, who used a quote from D.C.’s mayor to make their point saying, that legislators were attempting to “impose their personal beliefs” on District residents. Their “personal beliefs” are code words for the dreaded religious beliefs and how they have no other reasons. It couldn’t be that some legislators are concerned that people will be coming to D.C. to commit suicide. The bill states that you must be a “resident”. You can be a “resident” of many places, but you can be domiciled in only one. That means that anyone can check into a D.C. hotel and become a resident for the purposes of this act.
While the media went to great lengths to slam people who oppose PAS, they praise the pro death crowd and talk about all the “safeguards”, that are easy to circumvent, and yet their articles are devoid of serious arguments as to why a rational person would oppose assisted suicide. Reasons like elder abuse. Each year, millions of Americans are victims of elder abuse, many times at the hands of family, caregivers or “new best friends.”
Assisted suicide gives one new deadly way to abuse. Once the prescription is written all oversight ends. Anyone can pick up the lethal dose and give it to the person. Even if they struggled, who would know? There is no witness at the death. The death certificate is falsified. Even if someone suspects a crime the death certificate says they died of natural causes and there is no way to check, as the records are sealed.
Similarly, disabled abuse is also concerning. While advocates of this kind of legislation claim it is not for people who have a disability, that is not really truthful. People who qualify for assisted suicide at that point in their lives have a disability. If you think about it this is a special carve out for the sick, elderly, and disabled. Think of our disabled veterans. They already have a large suicide problem. Now we are validating this desire. They served our country and instead of helping them, we offer them a lethal dose.
The media failed to mention medical predictions are wrong five percent of the time. When assisted suicide is on the table, that mistake becomes deadly and where PAS is legal, care has been denied people and they have been offered lethal drugs. When suicide becomes the treatment for certain diseases, will they continue to look for a cure? They have their cure, it is death.
