The challenge of medicine in the New Millennium in America is, as with everything else, how do we reformulate the concept to mirror the Bureaucratic Retail Brand approach that we use as our secular canon.  If it does not fit into the BRB, it is meaningless and must be destroyed.

Into that comes end-of-life planning, a concept once the plenary authority of the life to whom it is attached.  If it is your life, its end should be something in which you have a say.

The courts have weighed in on aid-in-dying or assisted suicide.  Vermont is the only one that seems to have concepts related to the original American republic in this matter, as they long have.  All the rest approach the topic with a bureaucratic and dogmatic pile of bunkum.  You may commit self-euthanasia, but you must file the proper number of forms, signed in the proper place and manner, witnessed and deliberated in meetings, so that a majority can vote on your intent.

This appears to be equally as evil as those who are pushing, as in abortion, to criminalize the professional involved.  Nobody can get an abortion without a doctor – unless, of course, the pregnant woman hangs themselves or leaps from a bridge, a tragedy which we all reassure ourselves is hateful to God.

The dead-to-be are moving in sepulchral pilgrimages to the place where their dying may be licit.  It makes them a travel destination, in the way that Colorado is a dope holiday destination.

The ultimate and punishable hubris is the telling of the Authority to f*ck off and leave me alone, I’m a citizen.  That’s the Second Amendment posture, buttressed by the apparent truculence of the supporters, and that they have, well, guns.

In the counterargument, people on the anti-gun side are modern enough not to oppose firearms, or pistols or long guns and such,but rather to oppose BRANDS.  They are well-trained Americans.  They understand the AR-15, a loathed firearm, and the Kalashnikov Automatic Rifle, far more dependable but less accurate.  Gandhi was killed using a .380 pistol, Bobby Kennedy probably a .38 (Sirhan had a .22).  

We concern ourselves with the brand, comforted that the psychopathic murderer is rendered less lethal by a brand restriction, although Cho in Virginia had a .38 and a 9mm, both handguns, to commit unfathomable atrocities on that campus.  I still do not understand how he did that.

But our populace seems more concerned by how he did this ghastly thing, which is no more or less ghastly than the murder of about 42 other persons in cold blood in other situations.  What regulations did he break?  rather than What made him evil?

In end-of-life, we seem preoccupied with the concept of NO DEATH WITHOUT PERMISSION.  Why?

 

Advertisements