Props- Then Brickbats - For the Pope!

Pope Francis needs to butt out in commenting on personal end of life decisions like Brittany Maynard's

First, let me give props to Pope Francis - good news before bad: His courageous standing up to the reactionaries at the Vatican who seem to believe they can comment on anything the Pope says or does. (Note: They are under him in the Vatican hierarchy, I can comment since I am not a Catholic but an outside observer, hence not shackled by Church authority.)

Props are especially due for removing the reactionary Cardinal Raymond Burke, former St. Louis archbishop,  from his post as head of the Vatican high court, after the little miscreant said that: "the Church is like a ship without a rudder under Francis."  Burke is lucky, because under the Borgia Pope he'd have been boiled in oil by now. But this sort of constant challenge to papal authority has been ongoing for years now - questioning and commenting on almost everything Francis puts forward, including his statement a year earlier that "even an atheist can get to heaven" (homily delivered at the Chapel of the Domus Santa Marta).

According to John Thavis, former Rome bureau chief for Catholic News Service, quoted in a Denver Post piece ('Bishops Clashing With Francis', Nov. 9, p. 9A):

"Many of the U.S. Bishops have been disoriented by what this new pope is saying and I don't really see them embracing the pope's agenda."

Really? Aren't these miter -headed twits obligated to follow him unquestioningly in matters of faith and morals? Infallibility and all that? Besides, what would their predecessors have done if faced with a REALLY audacious Pope - say like John Paul I (Albino Luciani)  repealing the idiotic opposition to artificial birth control? (See David Yallop's book, 'In God's Name' detailing how the Vatican's fossil reactionaries had it in for him, and assassinated the poor guy in 1978)

Of course, make no mistake that just as the reactionary press and media here in the States have sought to cover up the conspiracy in the murder of JFK, so also the reactionaries in the Catholic Church - e.g. using the 'National Catholic Reporter' have declared "myths" about Luciani's 33-day reign - and sought to do the same. Vermin never ever want the truth to out because it threatens their hegemony - whether in a nation or a church. Meanwhile, dumb conspiracy phobics play right into their hands as useful idiots.

But let me now deliver a 'brickbat' or two to Francis - who is no Pope John Paul I, nor will likely ever be. This is in regard to his weighing in last Saturday on the matter of euthanasia and especially as it pertains to personal use by a terminally ill person. These comments follow earlier ones by Igniacio Carrasco de Paula, "President of the Pontifical Academy for Life",  whatever the hell that means. Carrasco, high on his high horse, actually said:

"Assisted suicide is an absurdity. Dignity is something different to putting an end to your own life. Society does not want to shoulder the cost of disease and this risks becoming the solution,"

To which I responded in an earlier post:

"To the moral provisionalist what is absurd is allowing a sentient being to descend into a totally vegetative state lacking any life quality - with excruciating pain to go with it. Hence, Brittany's choice to end her life is a greater good over merely existing in a debased vegetative condition based on the specious presumption of "sanctity of life" demanded indiscriminately for any and all conditions.

Hence, the greater good here is ending the suffering and degradation of life quality rather than allowing it to progress to the stage one can make no authentic choice. "

And I stand by that, including that it is a choice for dignity as opposed to indignity in descending to an unconscious vegetable. Further, Brittany's decision was a PERSONAL one, not to do with "cost to society" or having it take on her expenses. Even given the latter, Brittany didn't wish to wallow in her poop and urine endlessly while barely conscious and in agonizing pain until drawing her last breath - or being put on some fucking machine. She demanded an END to her suffering, and took it - something this Vatican asshole would certainly do if in the same predicament.

As Brittany herself said in her final interview (with Jan Crawford of CBS), when Crawford asked her  to respond to some critics' assertions that she is ending her own life:

"It is cancer that's ending my life. I am choosing to end it a little sooner and in a lot less pain and suffering."

Reality and reason for once!

 But evidently Francis doesn't. In his Saturday statement he opined:

"Euthanasia is a sin against God, the Creator".

Which is astonishing  given the words issue from the mouth of a former scientist (chemist) who ought to know and grasp what an MRI scan for a terminal brain cancer patient means, and the suffering it portends. So either he doesn't know, or is of the mindless take that humans have no right to take action and perhaps they must  offer propitiation for their "sins" or some such tommyrot..

If the latter, then his words merit dismissal, because the sign of an advanced being is to at least grant what we would to a suffering animal and put it out of its misery (though humans are allocated the choice as to how much they are willing to bear). In the words of Brittany's mom (Deborah Ziegler), as seen this morning on CBS Early Show - from a letter she posted online:

"Such strong public criticism from people we do not know is more than a slap in the face, it's like kicking us as we struggle to draw a breath. The right to die for the terminally ill is a human rights issue. Plain and simple. The imposition of belief on a human rights issue is wrong."

Which is spot on correct and reinforces what she said in an interview last month:

"As an adult you are in charge with how much pain or suffering and plodding forward you want to do."

But the Vatican's reactionary clowns and the Pope would take that away because, well, they don't wish the choice to be a human right - just as centuries earlier they didn't acknowledge that for many humans being free of slavery was not a fundamental right.  Author Julian Pleasants has observed ('Contraception and Holiness'., p. 88) the Vatican has always been hostage to:

"Aristotelian modes of thought which tend to fix behaviors within very limited and fixed definitions and categories."

Thus, the Church once believed it "natural" that some men be enslaved because they were “unable to manage their own affairs”  (ibid.).   

So why be surprised when the same Church now seeks to deny humans facing the "slavery" of agonizing suffering from disease (and literally being 'unable to manage their own affairs'),  the free choice not to endure it?  Clearly neither pope or Vatican has moved from these limiting Aristotelian modes of thought to define a misbegotten ethics.

The rest of us can't afford to be so blasé  given it impacts critical life choices.

Hence, a virtual brickbat at the Pope!

Ezekiel Emanuel and Wanting to Die At 75: What The Media Gets Wrong - And Emanuel!

All kinds of kerfuffle has now blown up over Ezekiel Emanuel's  Atlantic Monthly piece entitled 'Why I Hope To Die At 75?" , e.g.

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/09/why-i-hope-to-die-at-75/379329/

Most of those who oppose his thesis, like David B. Agus two mornings ago on CBS, admit to being "optimists",  which is understandable. They all share the typical, pie-eyed American conviction that we are all on track to live to 100 and will carry a high quality of life with us. All of which is balderdash.

As Dr. Emanuel pointed out in a segment on 'Morning Joe' 2 days ago, all the stats back up his arguments in the Atlantic piece. Alzheimer's will continue to claim more elderly brains, and medical treatments in the last years will create enormous costs while delivering few good results. (Most elderly will die in hospitals, often at the mercy of the medical-industrial complex which only sees life extension or preservation as its goal.)

His central point about bad aging is unarguable:

"But here is a simple truth that many of us seem to resist: living too long is also a loss. It renders many of us, if not disabled, then faltering and declining, a state that may not be worse than death but is nonetheless deprived. It robs us of our creativity and ability to contribute to work, society, the world. It transforms how people experience us, relate to us, and, most important, remember us. We are no longer remembered as vibrant and engaged but as feeble, ineffectual, even pathetic."

So why would you not want to go out before you slide into total physical weakness, forgetfulness, or feeble thinking? Are you really ok with letting others take care of you, change your diapers and clean you for the rest of your days? Obviously no, but most Americans brainwashed by the media can't see themselves as older and infirm -  only re-invented "semi-youthful" types who can hike on the Swiss Alps at 75 and do integral calculus.

But that's largely a myth. The boffo, well-lived quality elder years only happen to the relative few. The few who manage to escape debilitating cancers, or injuries or diabetic collateral damage and Alzheimer's.  The proportion of such lucky ones is maybe 5 percent, if that. Even my hale  and hearty sister -in-law Krimhilde, see below, is now experiencing more and more frequent memory deficits and problems. She was 80 in August and has kept herself as mentally and physically fit - including eating a vegetarian diet-  as anyone could. If SHE can experience problems with what she's done then any of us can.

Dr. Emanuel, who has been misquoted in the media - which portray his piece as suggesting we all need to off ourselves at 75 - is clear this is not what he means:

"Let me be clear about my wish. I’m neither asking for more time than is likely nor foreshortening my life. Today I am, as far as my physician and I know, very healthy, with no chronic illness. I just climbed Kilimanjaro with two of my nephews. So I am not talking about bargaining with God to live to 75 because I have a terminal illness. Nor am I talking about waking up one morning 18 years from now and ending my life through euthanasia or suicide. Since the 1990s, I have actively opposed legalizing euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. People who want to die in one of these ways tend to suffer not from unremitting pain but from depression, hopelessness, and fear of losing their dignity and control. The people they leave behind inevitably feel they have somehow failed. The answer to these symptoms is not ending a life but getting help. I have long argued that we should focus on giving all terminally ill people a good, compassionate death—not euthanasia or assisted suicide for a tiny minority."

This is a fair précis of his position but I have my quibbles, most especially with his opposition to euthanasia. This is especially when the more consistent position would be to embrace it given his willingness to abandon extraordinary measures to prolong life, say be getting special treatments or preventive tests. If you are willing to eschew those measures - say like  getting chemo for an incurable pancreatic cancer (or as he later suggests - doing without colonoscopies after age 65) you should be willing to allow euthanasia under specific conditions. His take that most people seeking it are "depressed" is also flat out wrong. In the case of pancreatic cancer the pain can be devastating. The outlook grim. Most "good, compassionate deaths" are only possible if those suffering are allowed to curb the extreme pain, for example,  by the suitable dispensing of enough morphine - as is done in Barbados. There is NO reluctance there to alleviate patient pain, and the result is a speedier death - though not technically "euthanasia". But this is what most pain paranoid doctors in the U.S. fret over. They shouldn't.

The more controversial case for euthanasia is Alzheimer's disease, and euthanasia ought to be allowed as a rational option if the person desires it. (In Switzerland now, many people  - including those diagnosed with Alzheimer's - are arriving for "tourism euthanasia" to be accommodated by a group called "Dignitas")   The rationale may not necessarily be pain here, or depression, but the realization the person faces a long, degrading  and dependent path toward an inevitable end which s/he desires to terminate. Is it anyone's place to say "No, you can't! You need to tough it out, lose all your identity and perish!"  No, I don't believe so.

Janice's cousin Desmond, when we caught him in one lucid moment, back in 2010,  see e.g.
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/05/an-alzheimers-blood-test-would-you.html

He understood the track he was on and agreed that if he could have foreseen what was going to happen to him he would have elected euthanasia in a country that allowed it. It is not for any of the rest of us to question that or make moral pronouncements.

Where Emanuel is spot on is when he excoriates the American obsession with perpetual youth - "exercising, doing mental puzzles, consuming various juice and protein concoctions, sticking to strict diets, and popping vitamins and supplements, all in a valiant effort to cheat death and prolong life as long as possible."   As he observes, this fetishism has become so pervasive  "that it now defines a cultural type: what I call the American immortal."

The issue then becomes exactly when Americans are prepared to grow up and face their mortality. I suspect, somewhat like Dr. Emanuel, this is when more health problems accumulate than one's financial resources can accommodate or time allows. (It's a notable stat often circulated, e.g. in the AARP Bulletin, that most medical expenses occur in the last two years of life and the mean life extension for all that expense - about 200 grand- and effort- is a measly 6 weeks.)

Thus, if one simultaneously should be diagnosed - say at age 74 - with bowel, pancreatic and metastatic prostate cancer- I'd say it's time to throw in the towel and move thyself into hospice care. Forget about going to the hospital so the medical-industrial complex can turn you into their latest life extension zombie experiment.  (Interestingly, to reinforce this, though most Americans aver they wish to die at home, fewer than 1 in 4 actually do - because of medical interventionism and people being brainwashed to accept it)

So, let's let Emanuel again restate his argument and position:

"By the time I reach 75, I will have lived a complete life. I will have loved and been loved. My children will be grown and in the midst of their own rich lives. I will have seen my grandchildren born and beginning their lives. I will have pursued my life’s projects and made whatever contributions, important or not, I am going to make. And hopefully, I will not have too many mental and physical limitations. Dying at 75 will not be a tragedy. Indeed, I plan to have my memorial service before I die. And I don’t want any crying or wailing, but a warm gathering filled with fun reminiscences, stories of my awkwardness, and celebrations of a good life. "

All well and good, but let's bear in mind the acceptance of each person's mortality should be his alone to make. For some like Emanuel that may be at 75, for others it may be at 80 or 85 Each person's acceptance will largely depend on the quality of life at that point, and how caregivers respond to that life quality. In the end, there is no one size fits all answer, and though "dying at 75" when he has met all his life accomplishments may work for Emanuel  - it may not work for someone else.

As a footnote: wifey will be 75 next week and she has no intention to die! This is irrespective of how much she's already accomplished with her life - because heck, her Ravens still have another Super Bowl to win and she wants to be around cheering when they do!