"These people are reacting with emotion, not reason," it was opined on this morning’s Jon Faine show on Radio Melbourne/774/3LO/SigmaSixGuthrieSound, whatever it’s called these days. The talk was of those advancing the "no" case against voluntary assisted dying, a bill for which is now coming up for a final vote in the Victorian Parliament. It will probably pass, though more narrowly than its proponents might have hoped. I hope it won’t, at least for the moment, so that the issue can be debated in a more expansive and comprehensive fashion. Those voting on the bill who are wavering, should err on the side of prudence and vote it down, for the moment.
It is commonly suggested that a pro-voluntary assisted dying (VAD hereafter -- hereafter, haha, oh come on ... ) position is on the side of "reason", opposition on that of "emotion". The "emotion" side is then condescended to as a valuable corrective, safeguard, etc, to what is assumed to be the necessary course of history. I would put it in exactly the reverse: the argued case against VAD is the one employing critical reason. It is the unthinking "yes" case that is not rational, but ideological. It simply reproduces the individualist liberalism that surrounds it as if it were the truth, not a particular and partial way to live.