Zoo Story

Everybody's ganging up on the Copenhagen Zoo!  It's not fair, really.  Just because zoo officials butchered an adorable giraffe named Marius and fed him to the lions--I mean, is that any reason to get all indignant?  Be honest: Who hasn't wanted to kill a giraffe?  Or, for that matter, who hasn't watched Les Miserables and wanted to kill someone named Marius?  And it's not like the zoo had much choice: As they explained, Marius, while perfectly healthy, shared too many genetic attributes with his fellow zoo-mates, so the only way for the zoo to prevent potentially harmful inbreeding was to blow the poor fellow's brains out with a bolt gun!  What else could they do?!?

Well, OK, the COULD have given him to one of the other zoos that offered to take him in. . . . Or, I suppose they could have just neutered him. . . . Or just kept him separated from the other giraffes if it came to that. . . . So, yes, they could have done all kinds of things other than kill him.  But where would be the fun in that?

Because, let's face it, people basically go to zoos for the same reason they go to NASCAR races: the potential for bloodshed.  Who hasn't stood at the railing of, say, the polar bear exhibit, just waiting for an unwary seal to wander into the enclosure?  Who hasn't wished to see the Bengal tiger go to town in the lemur habitat?  Not me, that's for sure.

Indeed, I think Copenhagen might be on to something: The notion of a petting zoo is, let's face it, hopelessly passé.  But a killing zoo? I'm thinking there could be a giant roulette wheel at the front entrance, with all the resident animals on it.  Every morning, I spin of the wheel would determine that day's victim--uh, featured performer.  Today an eland, tomorrow a hippo, and the day after that, a giant sloth!  And why should the zookeepers have all the fun?  Visitors could get in on the action for a small extra charge.  How much would you pay to drop a toaster into the dolphin tank?  Or play Whac-a-Mole with actual moles?!?

So kudos to the Copenhagen Zoo for showing us all the future in zoological entrepreneurship!  And on behalf of the psychoanalytic industry, may I also thank the zoo for the uptick in revenue that will no doubt occur from all those children seeking therapy after watching Marius' demise!

Undignified

I support the whole idea of "death with dignity."  Who wouldn't?  What's the alternative?  "Death Accompanied by Hysterical Freaking Out"?  I am all for allowing people with terminal illness to choose, to a reasonable extent, the time, place, and means of their own demise.

Like-minded supporters of death with dignity, seeking to avoid the stigma associated with the term "assisted suicide," have adopted "aid in dying" as their preferred term of art.  Not completely sure this is an improvement: "Assisted suicide," while blunter than some would like, has the advantage of accuracy; "aid in dying" sounds troublingly euphemistic.  Jeffrey Dahmer provided plenty of "aid in dying."

More troubling, though, are people who push the limits of acceptable "assistance" in dying.  An article in today's Times tells the story of Robert Mitton, a 58-year-old with a terminal heart condition.  Although he would like to enlist assistance in his wish to end his own life before his health deteriorates to a point where he cannot take matters in his own hands, Mitton does not have that option: He lives in Colorado where, as in a majority of states, assisted suicide is illegal.

I am sympathetic to Mitton's plight, and I would not--do not--begrudge him his desire to avoid what by all accounts will be a lengthy and painful death.  Here's the thing, though: Mitton's condition is not, strictly speaking, terminal.  Unlike late-stage cancer patients or those slipping into irreversible dementia, Robert Mitton suffers from a heart condition that could be fixed through surgery: Indeed, he had a similar surgery in 1999 that successfully prolonged his life to this point--that's 15 years!

Now, in fairness, the surgery is extensive and painful.  I can understand this man's desire not to undergo it. If he would rather dies than face that surgery, that is his absolute right.  And, indeed, if he fears that the pain associated with his disease will become intolerable, he has the right to take matters into his own hands.  I do not think, however, he has a reasonable right to expect medical professionals--whose job it is, after all, to extend life whenever possible--to take an active role in helping him end a life that, by all accounts, does not need to end so imminently.

I worry that stories like that of Robert Mitton will provide ammunition for those who passionately oppose the assisted suicide movement.  Because what he seems to be asking for is not help in navigating the end stages of a terminal disease, but rather assistance in avoiding a potentially winnable battle to survive.  His search for "death with dignity" looks uncomfortably like a simple death wish.

Holland-Slays Source

The Solipsist stands behind Rick Santorum!  Which, given the semi-official definition of "Santorum" may not be the best place to be, but still. . . .

Last night, on "The Colbert Report," Stephen played a clip of a Rick Santorum appearance from a few weeks ago, where the former senator commented that, in the Netherlands, elderly people are made to wear bracelets indicating their readiness to be euthanized.  He also stated that 10% of all deaths in the Netherlands are attributable to euthanasia.

Now, of course, the Netherlands is not to be trusted: First of all, it keeps pretending to be Holland.  And how can you trust people who don't even know enough to build their country ABOVE the waterline.  Still, the idea that doctors are running around wantonly killing off unproductive geezers--attractive as the idea sounds--seems somewhat unlikely.  Indeed, the Santorum camp has not provided any documentation supporting the candidate's assertions about this matter--quite possibly because no such documentation exists.  Until now, that is!

See, I figure, if pressed on the matter, Santorum could always say he "read it someplace."  And since the media elite will probably go all "verifiable" on his ass, Santorum will want to name an actual source  where he could have read these outrageous statements about over-enthusiastic Dutch mercy-killers.  Well, Rick, look no further.

(Ahem.)

In the Netherlands, people must wear bracelets indicating their eligibility for euthanasia.  Furthermore, on average, 10% of all Dutch deaths can be attributed to euthanasia.

There you go, Senator.  Feel free to point any and all reporters to the Solipsist: That's http://solipsisticmusings.blogspot.com.  Send your supporters my way, too: I'm sure they'd LOVE to hear what I have to say.

Don't worry, Rick.  The Solipsist has got your back.  You're welcome!