What’s Wrong with the World

Lydia - having followed your second link, and read, for the first time, the comment where you claimed that, because I said I didn't think that Michael Bateman was a moral monster, I apparently approved of what he did - I can only conclude that this post is addressed, at least in part, to me.

Two points:

(1) There is, quite obviously, a *vast gap* between doubting that someone is a "moral monster" and "approving" of his actions. Mind that gap.

(2) George DeLury does, indeed, sound like a moral monster. But not because, like Michael Bateman, he made use of a plastic bag. That parallel between the two cases seems pretty superficial. Why play it up?

"Do defenders of Bateman recognize the evil of the psychological abuse and eventual killing carried out by DeLury?"

Well...ummm...*yeah*.

Was that supposed to be a tough question?

Why play it up?

Well, for one thing, because it calls the "choice" into question. People who take pills at least have to swallow them. People who are doped up, feeble, less strong than their attacker, or disabled can have a plastic bag put over their heads without knowledge or consent. It's the act of a third party. (Note the related post in which suicide assistants literally _hold down the hands_ of their victims during the act in order to prevent them from tearing off the plastic bag.) Also, as one commentator on the other post pointed out, in law murderous intent is sometimes partly determined by doing extra things to make sure the person dies. In the Bateman case this was the gas in addition to the bag. Here it was the bag in addition to the pills.

I realize that "approve" is a stronger term than any you're willing to use yourself, Steve. But you said a lot more than that Bateman was not a moral monster--implying with some passion that he was simply a sympathetic figure to be pitied for all he had suffered and left alone. I presume from your comments here that you would not have said the same of DeLury. I (obviously) think the matter is not simply one of prudence, and therefore in the discussions of Bateman's actions have been granting arguendo that his wife was willing. But even common prudence should dictate that we not take the word of the person who killed as to the willingness of his victim. Vide the Delury/Lebov case and the various sets of facts that came out later.

I would also note that willingness comes in degrees, as does pressure. I find it interesting, in a sad kind of way, to see at what point assisted suicide advocates become uncomfortable with pressure. Wesley J. Smith has another pressure story in the linked article: Man in Holland, had second thoughts about killing himself because of a letter he got from a relative. The doctor narrating the story was _clearly_ impatient with the patient's indecision. Doctor suggests they talk to a local vicar. Vicar convinces the man to kill himself. Here's a quotation:

And now this letter, which to my surprise, he takes seriously. I don’t know what to do with such a wavering death wish. It’s getting on my nerves. Does he want to die or doesn’t he? I hope I don’t have to go over the whole business again. . . . Suddenly, I have an idea: “You know what we’ll do? We’ll ask Hendrik Terborgh, our vicar. Would you agree to that?” He cries and types “yes.” . . . Next day Hendrik tells me that it’s all right. He refers to his meeting with Van de Berg. “Well, he knows what has to be done. He knows what he wants now.” . . . It goes well. He has good veins.

God forbid doctors should be bugged by people with a "wavering death wish." Gotta get a cooperative vicar to make sure he "knows what has to be done."

Does that amount of pressure bother you, Steve?

Sorry, didn't include the link:

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2011/03/24/euthanasia-choice-would-often-not-be/

I have work to do, people to see, places to travel. But no one asks about my needs. I have fallen prey to the tyranny of a victim. You are sucking my life out of my [sic] like a vampire and nobody cares. In fact, it would appear that I am about to be cast in the role of villain because I no longer believe in you.

Sounds like a perfectly legitimate pretext for murder, if we follow the logic of the pro-abort crowd. As our president might say, he didn't want to be "punished, with an invalid".

Yeah, all that "in sickness and in health" stuff. Pshaw. Interestingly, the pro-abort crowd sometimes cites as a further pretext the fact that the mother didn't choose to get pregnant. But presumably no one forced DeLury to marry Myrna.

Lydia: you never seem to link to the original article on the Michael Bateman case. Here it is: Husband films assisted suicide of wife to prove it was not murder.

And here are my contributions to the previous thread, complete and unedited:

* * * * *

As I understand the facts of the case, I feel very, very sorry for Margaret Bateman, possibly even more sorry for her husband Michael, and thoroughly disgusted by the "moronic medical establishment" that would seem to have brought things to this pass through their incompetence.

What I *can't* understand, Lydia, is why you would be so on fire to see Michael Bateman prosecuted that you would consider this, even for a moment, a persuasive test case against the views of some libertarians on euthanasia.

My immediate reaction is: leave the guy alone. Hasn't he suffered enough?
And I don't think that's my crazy libertarian ideology speaking. It's just normal human sympathy.

* * * * *

Lydia: some years ago, my very dear friend S. was summoned to the bedside of his friend A., who was in the final stages of AIDS. He went with some trepidation, because he was afraid that he might be asked to assist in his friend's suicide. Sure enough, he found A. in a state of continual, intense pain, which everybody competent to venture an opinion agreed could only end in death. The only question was whether it would take a day, or a week, or a month.

A. had researched methods of ending his own life, and asked S. to procure for him the necessary tools.

S. found that he just couldn't bring himself to do it. He pleaded cowardice, pointing out that under the law he could be prosecuted for murder.

A. was very bitter about it. Their friendship ended in mutual anger and resentment.

S. flew back home, full of guilt feelings. A. died a few days later.

True story.

I guess you'd think that S. did right, and that A. was wrong to blame him. And I guess that if S. had done what A. asked him to, then you'd be anxious to prosecute him.

I would not be. I think there are cases (many, many cases) where the lawyers ought to take a holiday, and leave the ultimate judgment to their betters.

* * * * *

I think james wilson makes an interesting point: "We don't need to pump gas into a bag to commit suicide. All that is needed is the bag. It is apparent that the lady in question simply wanted her husbands participation, suicide being so lonely an act."

As I understand it, suicide is quite easy. All one needs is a car with a full tank of gas and a closed garage. So why drag ones husband into it?

* * * * *

Lydia, I think that there is something *severely wrong* with a world in which gassing one's wife to death could ever seem seem to any reasonable, well-intentioned person to be the least awful of the available alternatives. But that seems to be precisely the world we're stuck in.

Is Michael Bateman a moral monster? I don't think so. Am I a moral monster for not thinking so? I hope not.

I stand by all that.

Your leap to the conclusion that I "(apparently) approve of what Bateman did," and your invocation of "The German doctors who killed disabled infants" - well, what can I say, except that "this is as uncivil as strange?"

You're referring in your last comment to the other thread, Steve. Readers are welcome read what I actually said in that thread. My point in invoking the German doctors concerned good intentions. Good intentions are no guarantee that one will avoid moral monsterhood in the end.

It's difficult for me to understand why you are so unhappy about my having, there, used the phrase "(apparently) approve" for your attitude toward Bateman. I have no reason to think that you _disapprove_. You obviously view him as a sympathetic character, entirely an object of pity, who did something that, dare I say, was understandable under the circumstances. You imply that what he did could seem to a "reasonable, well-intentioned person to be the least bad of the alternatives." What is this if not at least a qualified approval? You show no willingness to say that what he did was _wrong_; far from it.

The reference to his filming her death is an interesting detail that I, though I had indeed read a story on the subject, hadn't known. As I say, there are two strands going on here, if not three. One concerns the Bateman case under the "best" interpretation--that his wife was completely willing and not in any way pressured, and that the prosecutors can know that beyond all shadow of a doubt. Under those circumstances, their refusal to carry out the law is _merely_ an act of abandonment of the suicidal. Wesley J. Smith has spoken at length and far more eloquently than I can about how legalizing assisted suicide (which, in effect, these systematic refusals to prosecute according to "guidelines" amount to) is abandonment of those in pain and/or suicidal.

The second strand is that I don't acknowledge that even for those who want to cling to "choice," the act of filming the victim's death should lay to rest all concerns about pressure.

Which leads to the third strand, which is what I said in this main post. At what point to advocates of legalized assisted suicide such as yourself start worrying about pressure? After all, if this was the "least bad of the alternatives" in the eyes of a "reasonable, well-intentioned person," what would be _wrong_ with urging that alternative upon the suffering patient? Why does urging _bother_ us in these kinds of circumstances? How much urging is enough to bother the "choice" advocates? How about the Dutch case I cited above? No doubt the doctor there, and the vicar, could be viewed as "reasonable, well-intentioned people" who thought they were inducing the patient to do what was best for himself by agreeing to be killed. Once agreeing to be killed just becomes another option on the table, it's difficult to see why pressure should be a problem. We pressure people to take their medicine, after all, if we think it's in their own best interests...

To clarify, when I say "I had read a story" about the Bateman case, I mean one in the on-line mainstream press, not a column by a blogger.

The second strand is that I don't acknowledge that even for those who want to cling to "choice," the act of filming the victim's death should lay to rest all concerns about pressure

Amen. Acting with the intention of causing an innocent person's death is inherently wrong. We can"tinterview a dead person to know if there was a level of pressure, and no amount of evidence can suffice. Humans are manipulative by nature. We laugh at the absurd idea that a rape victim might have wanted it, but most forcefully because we have living witnesses to testify how wrong that idea is. We do have testimony from suicide survivors that as soon as they let loose of the bridge railing and such they didnt want to die though. To accept that a person there to insure their death isn't morally distorting surely flies in the face of traditional understanding of morality.

At what point to advocates of legalized assisted suicide such as yourself start worrying about pressure? . . . How much urging is enough to bother the "choice" advocates?

I think the victim would need to display active resistance being overcome at the moment of death by the perpetrator. So if the actor is comfortable not burning the film after it happened, then I'd say the usual suspects would think there isn't much to worry about. That's my sense of it. Of course, if this level is all that mattered we wouldn't have crimes such as conspiracy and entrapment, and all matter of other things.

Not using a keyboard so sorry about spelling.

I think you make good points, Mark.

And it all lies on something a continuum, so what would bother one "choice" advocate wouldn't bother another. If you read the related post, you'll find that one advocate of legalized assisted suicide wrote a book that included his witnessing active resistance at the moment of death while the assistant held down the partially paralyzed victim by lying across his body. Not only did the author not say that at this point her act was evil, he deliberately concealed identities so that she could not be prosecuted.

Lydia: yes that doesn't surprise me. There is a point of no return in such actions, and the actors aren't going to accept any guilt since they don't accept that "assisting" in a death is inherently evil. So you have a bureaucratic understanding of the matter. "Well they said they wanted to die, and they must have known or should have known there was a point of no return." The victim might be left in a worse state, or the actor might be guilty of a crime; neither are acceptable to the "assisted death" advocates. It doesn't fit the narrative of the good they think they are doing. This is the routinization of evil where it is assumed that the rules for "assisting" in a death are similar to trying to cancel a service with a large company. If you change your mind you can try to reverse the cancellation later, but don't be surprised even if you get ahold of someone who wants to stop it or thinks they can if the bureaucracy moves on and finishes the job anyway. Likewise, if you say you want to be killed beforehand, don't be surprised if your assistant isn't willing to take the risk of letting you stop the process.

We laugh at the absurd idea that a rape victim might have wanted it, but most forcefully because we have living witnesses to testify how wrong that idea is.

I take it you've never heard of a "rape fetish."

Mike T., we don't want to know.

I take it you've never heard of a "rape fetish."

Of course, but my analogy stands. In context my point was that we laugh that the idea would ever be offered as justification. If someone acts on the belief that a victim has a rape fetish, he'd better hope that prosecution isn't a part of the fetish or that the person doesn't snap out of it. If so, the perpetrator is going to jail because the victim's desires won't matter. People that want to be raped are not emotionally well, and what they want is not a good indication of what we should do to and for them anymore. People that want you to help them end their life are not well in the same way.

Obviously, the same is true of amputation fetishism. A doctor isn't justified in amputating a leg because a person asks for him to do so. Without a concept of what is healthy and normal to do, traditional morality must be abandoned.

BTW, the same bureaucratic logic I described holds for advance directives when it comes to specifying whether or not to accept "feeding tubes." But in many cases at least if you check the box they won't provide water or spoon feed you either once sent to many hospices. Many hospice staff ignore the orders of the registered nurses when they aren't looking at risk of their jobs by providing water and food this way. People think "oh I don't want to live with tubes in me so sure I'll check that box," but in practice it often means buying into a regime where one dehydrates to death painfully if the disease or condition doesn't kill you as soon as the doctor confidently asserts to families and patients that it will. Doctors often claim, and I have even seen this, that a person won't live more than "a few days," when in fact it is only a guess and in combination with the advance directive they may be assigning someone to a very painful death by dehydration.

Couldn't agree more, Mark.

There is something very, very wrong with a world in which people say that they want something wrong done to them and then all the rest of us are just technicians.

Food for the next choice devours itself entry (it's a surprisingly old case, but I think it fits in the category): 700 A.2d 453 (Pa. 1997).

And my apologies for thread-jacking.

@Lydia: "It's difficult for me to understand why you are so unhappy about my having, there, used the phrase '(apparently) approve' for your attitude toward Bateman. I have no reason to think that you _disapprove_. You obviously view him as a sympathetic character, entirely an object of pity, who did something that, dare I say, was understandable under the circumstances. You imply that what he did could seem to a 'reasonable, well-intentioned person to be the least bad of the alternatives.' What is this if not at least a qualified approval? You show no willingness to say that what he did was _wrong_; far from it."

Well, Lydia, it's difficult for me to understand why you are so determined to attribute to me, on such flimsy grounds, a position which I have *explicitly* disavowed.

Do I view Bateman as a sympathetic character? Do I feel pity for him? Do I think that what he did was understandable under the circumstances? Do I think it could seem to a reasonable, well-intentioned person to be the least bad of the available alternatives? Based on my very limited knowledge of the case, yes, yes, yes, & yes.

But do I "approve" of what he did, even in a qualified sense?

No.

If you find that puzzling, I think it's because you're viewing this through ideological/theological spectacles that prevent you from seeing anything but black and white, where I see lots of grey.

I guess we just use the word "approve" or at least the phrase "qualified approval" differently, Steve. Let's put it this way: Suppose that someone said what you have said about Bateman about DeLury instead. We would both, obviously, disagree with that person. I understand that fully. But wouldn't we also both say that someone who said that "what DeLury did was understandable under the circumstances" that "what Delury did could seem to a reasonable, well-intentioned person to be the least bad of the alternatives" was expressing at least "qualified approval" of Delury?

It seems to me perhaps that a person like yourself who thinks the _act_ falls into a gray zone is less willing to characterize these relatively more positive evaluations of the person as "approval" in any sense of the word than a person like me who thinks that Bateman's gassing his wife was _definitely wrong_. When one thinks that the act was _definitely wrong_ and someone comes along saying that it "could seem to a reasonable, well-intentioned person to be the least bad of the alternatives," the person who considers it _definitely wrong_ is likely to call that way of talking "qualified approval."

But on your own most recent showing concerning gray areas, I think you would have to agree that you _do not consider what Bateman did to be wrong_. As far as I can tell, you are claiming some sort of agnosticism.

And I do consider that very concerning for your own sake, Steve. In all solemn and non-snarky seriousness, making excuses for a man who killed his wife by putting a plastic bag over her head and gassing her is just not a good place to be, even if you feel sorry for him.

Moreover, as I pointed out above, once killing one's wife and, for the wife, agreeing to be killed, becomes a real option on the table, it is difficult to see why at least _some_ persuasion should be considered entirely illegitimate.

Thinking about that one, Titus.

Do I view Bateman as a sympathetic character? Do I feel pity for him? Do I think that what he did was understandable under the circumstances? Do I think it could seem to a reasonable, well-intentioned person to be the least bad of the available alternatives?

Is Steve saying, "yeah, I can see how someone would be tempted into this kind of sin, and, recognizing the frailty of the human condition, I feel compassion for this person who has done such a terrible thing"? Or is Steve saying, "yeah, that sounds like it might been an OK thing to do, it's hard to say and so so complicated?"

The former does not seem an unreasonable or dangerous thing to say. Nor does rejecting the latter as unreasonable seem to be a product of an unreasonable vantage point. Of course, I also don't think a theological vantage point that views moral decisions as black and white is unreasonable or obscuring.

Usually mitigating circumstances are taken into account at sentencing. The thing is, we can think of lots of situations where human frailty might be tempted to do a terrible thing. We can imagine situations with a psychologically abusive husband, for example, where eventually the bullied wife takes a gun and shoots the husband. (Notice that I said "psychologically abusive" so the issue of literal self-defense doesn't arise.) But generally the idea isn't that these situations should be routinely and as a matter of course overlooked by the law. Same with women under stress or suffering from depression who kill their children. It's one thing to feel pity for a person in extremely difficult circumstances who has done a terrible thing--such as killing his wife. It's another thing altogether to argue that the law should take no notice of the act. When one goes that far, well, it's hard to believe that one thinks the act is really all that terrible after all.

Of course, but my analogy stands. In context my point was that we laugh that the idea would ever be offered as justification. If someone acts on the belief that a victim has a rape fetish, he'd better hope that prosecution isn't a part of the fetish or that the person doesn't snap out of it. If so, the perpetrator is going to jail because the victim's desires won't matter.

The problem there is that rape ultimately comes down in many cases to how the alleged victim perceived it. It is a particularly hard crime to prove by civilized standards in a society where fornication is not only acceptable, but normal. This issue is further complicated by the fact that most women desire a man who is strong and aggressive and find it natural to be submissive toward such a man without explicitly giving consent (which can cause all manner of interesting legal situations). The victim's desires do, in fact, matter as they are part of the process of establishing criminality.

But that is all beside the point. The larger issue is that no one who is fully mentally competent desires to meet their end. There is no normal human situation in which one person convinces another to desire their own death without coercion, injury or some other bad thing done to them.