From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Subject: Re: Feminists for Life take a shot at euthanasia
Summary: But they miss.
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 21:52:43 GMT

In article <4SEP199213411208@venus.lerc.nasa.gov> ecaxron@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham) writes:
>From Feminists for Life, 811 E. 47th St., Kansas City MO  64110
>(818) 753-2130
>
>A FEMINIST STATEMENT AGAINST EUTHANASIA
>
>The euphemisms "right to die" and "physician-assisted suicide" are used to
>cover up a practice in which doctors, who are predominantly male, are given
>greater power over patients - who are predominantly female.  This alone 
>should set off alarm bells in the feminist mind.
>
	How, I wonder, does asserting the right of one to control one's own
life give someone else greater power over you?  And do you have any data to
back up the phrases "predominantly male" and "predominantly female"?

>The fact is that the vast majority of the "beneficiaries" of this "right"
>are women. 
	Got any data to back up this "fact"?
>Why are women pressured into "choosing" to die so much more
>often than men?
	Can you prove this?  For that matter, have you got any objective
data at on on how many people have actually been "pressured" into suicide by
doctors?
	I can use quotation marks too, y'know.
>
>Among the possible reasons, FFL suggests:
>
>o  The term used to explain wanting induced death is a desire not to be a
>   "burden"; this is cited more often than pain!  Women have traditionally
>   served as caretakers.  Those who do not regard women as having value
>   in their own right will disdain women who can no longer fill the function
>   of caretaker.  Men are not as likely to be held to this standard.
	Evidence?

>o  Because of the unfair practices whereby women's work is less valued and
>   lower-paid, or where her resources are dependent on her husband, women
>   have access to fewer funds which can be put toward medical care.
>o  A dependent woman who does in fact have access to funds for her care is
>   less likely to have her heirs regard the property as actually being hers.
>   Remarks are made about conserving resources for their heirs and the fear
>   of being a "burden" comes into play again.
	Evidence?  Remarks made by whom?  Do you have any actual figures on
the number of dependent women who have access to funds (defined how?) who
have received this kind of treatment from their heirs?
>o  Disabled women (like pregnant women) are socialized to blame their own
>   bodies for society's failure to accommodate their special needs.
	This is such a vague statement I'm not even sure what it means.

>o  Proper psychological counseling for a suicidal depression takes time and
>   effort.  Women must be seen as worth that effort - especially disabled
>   women.  To say that suicide is ever "rational" is to defend a bigotry
>   against the disabled.
	To say that you have the right to tell another person whether or not
they should choose to die is arrogant.  Depression is a psychiatric illness
with very specific criteria.  A critically ill person in chronic pain may
wish to end his or her life without being psychiatrically depressed.
	To force counseling on those who do not want it on the assumption that
they're irrational and must be made to "see the light" is as vile as it is
pointless.  Ultimately, we own our own lives and bodies.  The final
disposition of them should be up to us, in collaboration with our families
and those we trust.  It should not be enforced by an autocratic State.

>
>Intentional medical neglect is, by definition, a major health threat to 
>women.  Outright lethal injections are even more so.  In a society that
>still has to learn to fully take the rights of women seriously, how quickly
>will the "right to die" become the *duty* to die?
	Again, please provide evidence for your first statement.
	As to your question, the answer is "probably never".  Unless we
assume, as you seem to do, that our lives and bodies are controlled by the
State rather than ourselves.
	Dressing this pro-control stuff up in the trappings of feminism
doesn't make it any less ugly, IMHO.

The_Doge
"Who's life is it, anyway?"


Newsgroups: alt.feminism