Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Euthanasia's Double Standard

Frankly, I’m not sure what all the fuss is about.

A Canadian soldier has just been thrown out of the military for actions he took in Afghanistan – demoted and discharged for actions on the battlefield.

After a firefight, Captain Robert Semrau happened upon a severely wounded Taliban fighter. Because of the remoteness of the area and the severity of the man’s wounds, Captain put the fighter out of his misery with two quick rifle rounds to the chest.

Cue uproar in the Canadian press who are astounded that the officer avoided jail time and charges of at least manslaughter (if not murder).

But there is a terrible irony here.

What Captain Semrau did was exactly what the pro-death crowd in Canada are currently trying to make legal.

The pro-death crowd go on and on about how people should be allowed to be euthanized when they (a) have a poor quality of life, (b) when there is no hope of recovery, (c) when the condition is terminal, (d) to end suffering and (e) have someone close by willing to euthanize them.

These are the exact criteria Semrau used to kill.

Oh, there was one difference, you say: The Taliban fighter didn’t ask to be euthanized.

Nice try – there are thousands of people all over the world, but especially in the Netherlands and Belgium, who fulfill all the criteria above and who never asked to be euthanized.

Killing is killing, no matter where it happens, and painting it as compassion is unacceptable.