Wesley J. Smith\'s Truth About Assistance\" Wesley

¶ … WESLEY J. SMITH'S

TRUTH ABOUT ASSISTANCE"

Wesley J. Smith's analysis of euthanasia and assisted suicide is logically flawed in several ways. First, rather than discussing the main arguments supporting the idea in principle, Smith attacks the most extreme scenarios imaginable, and presents unethical and completely unconscionable applications of assisted suicide to which even its staunchest proponents object as strongly as do those opposed to it.

Likewise, his concern that the concept of duly appointed surrogates of patients no longer capable of expressing their wishes will send ethicist down the "slippery slope" leading to euthanizing "Alzheimer's patients, mentally retarded people and, perhaps, children" is reminiscent of Tom Swift's "A Modest Proposal." The only difference is that Swift's ridiculous proposal was intentionally satirical, whereas

Smith's hysterical concern that "an HMO doctor [might recommend] suicide as the best 'treatment'... [because] the doctor could be fired or lose bonus income for providing...too much care but would be financially untouched for assisting in his or her suicide" was (presumably) intended by Smith as a genuine argument of principle on the issue rather than satire.

The main argument for the legalization of assisted suicide concerns patients suffering from incurable illnesses for whom continued existence means constant pain and hardship. Smith completely ignores assisted suicide for mentally competent patients who are pre-screened for clinical depression, and issues a completely unsupported characterization that "almost all" candidates for assisted suicide are necessarily clinically depressed. Similarly, he refers to them as "suicidal," in effect, presenting his conclusion in his premise. Naturally, patients suffering from constant pain and disability are "depressed," but their depression is hardly a manifestation of biochemically-induced or clinical depression, nor is it likely to resolve spontaneously, as Smith implies, when he suggests that victims of cancer or multiple sclerosis might regain the desire to live" suddenly, "next week or next month." Then again, it is hardly surprising that Smith inappropriately applies the term "suicidal" to patients suffering debilitating pain, because, in the same breathe, he specifically equates their predicament with "those who want to die because of, say, a lost business or divorce."

To illustrate the obvious difference, a person given the choice by terrorist abductors, let us say, between brutal torture and instant death is hardly "suicidal" for choosing the latter instead of the former in the face of such a horrible choice.

Smith presumes to decide for emotionally competent and intelligent patients that any existence at all -- even one plagued by unbearable pain -- is preferable to death; much easier to proclaim when the speaker has never experienced constant unrelenting pain, himself. According to Smith's analysis of Dr. Kevorkian's patients, the fact that the medical source of his patients' suffering might not necessarily be fatal in and of itself negates any claim on their part that their pain makes death preferable to continued suffering.

The "ultimate abandonment" is hardly represented by exercising compassion and assisting those in constant pain to end their suffering if that be their choice; the ultimate abandonment" is condemning such a person to continued suffering despite their expressed wish to end it -- if no other means of ending their pain is possible -- by death. For this reason, Jack Kevorkian will eventually be recognized as an American hero rather than as a criminal, precisely for his compassion, as well as for his courage to continue his work with full knowledge of certain legal consequences, specifically to publicize the moral issue of allowing patients the autonomy to choose death when life is simply no longer bearable by virtue of their medical misfortune.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE LOS ANGELES TIMES'

VIEWS ON SUCCESSFUL MARRIAGES

According to the Los Angeles Times article entitled "The Secret to a Happy

Marriage? Men Giving In" the solution to all unhappy marriages is for husbands to just "give in" to their wives and "...do what your wife says." The author reached this overly simplistic conclusion primarily by virtue of the illogical connection between the failure of one specific type of marital therapy called "active listening," as reported in the Journal of Marriage and Family.

Active listening consists of teaching unhappily married partners to take turns listening to each other's complaints and then repeating or "mirroring" their partner's expressed concerns and viewpoints. The theory underlying active listening is that communication failure between partners is the precipitating factor underlying most marital disharmony and that improved communication skills based on understanding each other's complaints and male receptivity is the key to healthier relationships.

Theorists in the marital counseling field had predicted that married couples in therapy would be much more likely to salvage their relationships through the use of active listening techniques than would unhappily married couples in employing different therapeutic techniques. According to the article, this prediction was originally formulated in conjunction with the following observation of many married couples in therapy:

The marriages that did work well all had one thing in common -- the husband was willing to give in to the wife...The autocrats who failed to listen to their wives' complaints, greeting them with stonewalling, contempt and belligerence were doomed from the beginning, they found." major flaw underlying the article's conclusion derives from the observation that, amongst unhappy couples, eventual improvement depended on the degree to which husbands became more receptive to meaningful communication and to listening to their wives. Men tend, by nature, to rely less on express communication, especially in relation to their feelings. Furthermore, this gender-based trait applies to male behavior in all types of relationships (such as their same-sex friendships) and not just within marriage. Likewise, many men tend to show their love by providing for their families' financial needs, rather than through more emotionally intimate expressions. Often, marital unhappiness (especially when it is the wife who is more unhappy) is due substantially to her husband's failure to participate sufficiently in communicating with her and responding to her complaints and expressed needs.

Quite naturally, when the main issue in an unhappy marriage already concerns the husband's failure to participate in inter-spousal communication, his degree of improvement in that particular area will improve the relationship. The only logical conclusion would seem to be that marriages that are already failing because of the husband's failure to communicate tend to improve when he is willing to communicate more, and that they tend not to improve when he is not. These observations would not seem to support the conclusion that any specific form of therapy that improves communication within marriage is necessarily predictive of success more than others.