Originally Posted - March 22, 2007

return home

Yesterday, the Associated Press reported that a measure to introduce Physician Assisted Suicide in the state of Vermont was struck down in that state's House of Representatives. Good. Very well done.

The Legislators in Vermont allegedly felt uneasy with the proposed law in that it left too many 'ifs' unresolved.

Naturally, supporters whipped numbers out of their bums, claiming only "10 Vermonters a year" would take advantage of it. They're pretty good at generating claims, but that's not my beef at the moment.

My beef, as it has long been, is with these idiotic, tired and spent euphemisms used to make people more comfortable with a barbaric and ridiculous thing.

As if to prove my point, the AP's reporter, Ross Sneyd, opened up like this:

"The Vermont House voted down an initiative Wednesday that would have given terminally ill patients the ability to hasten their deaths with the help of a physician"

Oh, knock it off already.

What is the point in using such soft, watered-down, unrealistic language in the first place? Call something by its name for crying out loud. Like this (this is me talkin'):

"The Vermont House voted down an initiative Wednesday that would have relieved doctors of liability for giving terminally ill patients lethal does of narcotics"

There. Was that so hard?

I get truly and absolutely fed up with euphemistic nonsense that is only designed to call something ugly by a pretty name.

As someone who has been in marketing, public relations and advertising for more years than I care to tell you, I know the value of the words you choose. When a client wants me to get the point across that his product is cheap, I will likely use the term 'a good value'. When a client wishes to make the point that he employs good people, I may make the assertion that the customer receives the benefit of 'a highly-trained and seasoned staff'.

But, do you see the difference?

I'm choosing pretty words to deliver the same, pretty message. Not covering up a horrid ugliness by twisting things around.

Perhaps I'm the one missing the point on this, but I cannot see how a doctor (bound by the Hippocratic Oath) giving a sick and desperate person enough poison to shuffle off their mortal coil is a good or dignified thing. It denigrates the art of medicine, the profession of healthcare delivery and - ultimately - the meaning of human kindness.

It absolutely sickens me when the news media in this country plays along with the game. That probably explains why I don't watch FOX or CNN. Too many word games from people who are supposed to be telling me nothing but facts.

Physician Assisted Suicide is this: a doctor prescribing a deadly dose of drugs to a patient who feels they have no other recourse but to end his or her own life.

That ain't doctoring. It's promoting death.

The oddest thing about all this is that we jump to intervene when a young and healthy person threatens suicide. Apparently, they are worth more than the unhealthy or downtrodden. For those people, getting the hell off our planet has been termed 'dignity'.

Shame on us. All of us. 3-22-07

© 2007 North Country Gazette