So the letter-writer says,
Last year, Vermont became the fourth state in the nation to affirmatively support end-of-life support in dying, the first to do so through the state legislature. I hope articles like this will be a wake-up call to start the conversation in Illinois about end-of-life choices.
Possibly there may be many who do not want to make a decision in how they die, due to their religious and/or other beliefs — and so be it. But our Constitution guarantees separation of church and state, and I hope our state might be open to explore a compassionate option to alleviate unnecessary pain for the dying.
I could use this article as a springboard to discuss assisted suicide, and Wesley J Smith at his Human Exceptionalism blog, provides copious details on how far assisted suicide and euthanasia have gone in countries such as Belgium, the Netherlands, and Switzerland.
But what startled me was the euphemism: if you didn’t know the context (Vermont legalized assisted suicide in 2013), would you recognize that the letter-writer was referring to assisted suicide when she wrote “support in dying”? Wouldn’t you think otherwise that this was referring to something more like hospice care? And would you really think of describing assisted suicide as “a compassionate option to alleviate unnecessary pain for the dying”? Wouldn’t you think of that as a description around providing painkillers to whatever degree necessary without red tape?
We do this all the time, of course. Or, at least, those with whom I disagree do this all the time: “pro-choice” to describe support for abortion. “Path to citizenship” to describe mass legalization of illegal immigrants, and “undocumented immigrants” or “immigrants without proper papers” to describe the illegal immigrants themselves.
But I also wonder: do I use euphemisms myself, without being aware of it?
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In