As most of you will know by know, last Thursday Prof Len Doyle, a proponent of euthanasia, was to give a lecture at UCC. The lecture was cancelled after protests from outside and inside the lecture hall.
The Thought and Action blog is pleased about this. "Euthanasia like abortion is not a matter for debate," it proclaims. But I can't help looking back on my own undergraduate days, and remember how furious I was whenever the leftists succeeded in getting a debate or lecture cancelled because a speaker was unacceptable to them. A debate involving the historian David Irving was cancelled after a naked threat of violence by the Socialist W**kers Student Society. When Joerg Haider attended a debate, leftists stood outside the window screaming and banging drums for two hours. Justin Barret was practically assaulted during a debate on immigration.
On each of these occasions, I was engraged at the arrogance of the protestors. Not just because of their contempt for Irving's or Haider's right to freedom of speech, but also because of their contempt for my freedom. Who the hell gave them the right to dictate who I could and could not go to hear on campus? And moreover - what were they afraid of? Why couldn't they just meet their opponents in rational and open argument? Could it be, perhaps, that they were afraid their opponents might just have the better arguments?
Imagine the situation: you're a student, on campus one evening. It's spring, exams are near, and you've had a long day. Hoping to unwind, you attend a debate being hosted by one of the societies on a topical issue, and featuring a controversial speaker. Maybe you agree with the speaker, more likely you don't, but you want to hear what he has to say anyway. You go inside the debating chamber. It's crowded, hot and stuffy. You think longingly of the pub, but reckon that since you're here now you might as well stay. Then, just as the debate begins, someone stands up and starts shouting. A few more join in. Pandemonium, scuffling, and then it is announced that the debate is being cancelled because a minority refuse to let it take place peacefully. You get up, trudge out of the hall wearily and go home. My question is: how are you going to feel towards the protestors? Are you going to think "My goodness, what fine fellows they were to prevent the debate from happening and make me waste my evening. They're definitely getting my vote at the next election!" Or will your thoughts be rather less friendly?
That, I am convinced, is one reason why the Socialist W**kers Party has never had any electoral success, despite its energetic campaigns, strong presence on university campuses and popular stances on some issues. People see its totalitarian undercurrent, and so hold back from giving it their support. Why would you vote for a party that doesn't trust you to make up your own mind about what debates to attend at university?
Preventing a debate or lecture by violent means is counter-productive. It turns every person in the room who is not already sold to your cause against you. It makes people wonder what you are afraid of. It makes them look up the censored speaker on the internet. Far more Irish people know the name Len Doyle now than would have known it if Thursday's disruption had not happened. Far more people have surely visited his website, if he has one. Many of these could well end up buying into what he has to say. Protesting against euthanasia is one thing. Trampling on people's rights to freedom of speech and freedom of assembley is quite another.
Also: if we want to win ordinary people over, we will need arguments. If our colleagues, friends, children ask us why we are against euthanasia, it will not do us much good to shout "Euthanasia is not a matter for debate!" and storm off. We will need arguments, and by disrupting Prof Doyle's lecture, the protestors denied many people the opportunity to hear those arguments, or ensured that they will be hostile if they do hear them.
Let me be clear. I am a conservative. I do not believe that there is an unconditional right to say whatever we want. In an ideal world, promoting evil causes like euthanasia should be forbidden. But we do not live in that ideal world. We live in a democracy, where arguments are won and lost by debate and not by intimidation. And this democracy is full of people who would be happy to censor traditional Catholics. So we should be very, very careful about stooping to our enemies' level. If we claim the right to freedom of speech for ourselves, we should offer it to them too.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Well, the matter of euthanasia is not something to be discussed in a debate. Abortion also in not a matter to be discussed in a debate. Many people don't really realize how hard it is to live a painful life when no medication can take the pain away from your body. When a pain is attrocious the way of thinking is also affected by it. Many people become mentaly instable because of the pains. I knew a woman who suffered from breast cancer and she fought for her life until 3 months before her death. She was agonizing because the pains were awful to her and she became insane. She fought with the pains for about 5 years and all she needed was an injection to take away her life. The pain was so big her face was changed, her eyes were looking like the eyes of an haunted animal and all she could think of was she wants to die, she has to die no matter what. She had in her mind she could kill herself but she couldn't move too much to reach the window because in her mind this was the only thing she could do since she didn't have a knife or a rasor. Her story is horrific, I know, but it's a way of showing to the others euthanasia can do much good to a patient than keeping him alive. When there is no hope of recovery this is the only way. Sooner or later they will die, but why should we keep them alive when they suffer so much? I think is the patient's right to decide wether he should live or die when there is no hope of recovery. Not accepting euthanasia make us see the fact that we are more egotistic than we want to believe we are.
"Euthanasia can do much good to a patient than keeping him alive".
How killing someone can be called "doing him good" I do not and will never understand. Mankind, as a whole, has never chosen death over suffering.
"Where there is no hope of recovery this is the only way."
Who says???????????
"Why should we keep them alive when they suffer so much?"
Hang on. Does that mean that the patient doesn't have to want to die? Can we poison him even if he wants to live, because he's "suffering so much"? Is his wanting to die a precondition to killing him? Your words suggest not.
"I think it is the patient's right to decide ....."
Has it occurred to you that this is massively open to abuse from greedy relatives and doctors who worry about needing beds? That old, sick people can be persuaded that they "really" want to die, when in fact they don't? There are many such relatives and doctors about, unfortunately, which is one reason why aiding, abetting or encouraging a suicide is a serious crime carrying a penalty of 15 years imprisonment in this country, even though suicide itself is no longer illegal here.
My dear, you don't have to be angry about this. It's just an opinion. If you could read my latest post in my blog, which I know you can't because you don't know Romanian, you will see that I have many reasons to accept euthanasia. I am looking this strictly from a patient's and ex-nurse's point of view. When I worked in the hospital (as a voluteer for almost an year) I had lots of patients begging to die, to escape from their agonizing pains. If a doctor would have propose to them the euthanasia they would have accepted that instant. They are not affraid to die and what happens next is so very much unimportant to them. All they want to do is to suffer no more and to be free from any pain.
Sorry for my grammer, but now I am a bit drunk and I can't think straight.
Post a Comment