As usual I find “dogmatic” arguments, this time regarding euthanasia, less than convincing. The way they are being hitched to the claim that life must be considered as totally sacred is actually a reflection of the grossest form of materialism.

If a person’s organism is still organically responding to stimuli, the claim is that life must still be kept going, even if it has lost all functional coherence, or if the meaning of a dignified life-presence has been lost.  And this no matter what the desires of the individual concerned may be.

If we wish to give real value to a person’s life, I fail to understand how we must ignore the changes that have taken place when life has become degraded to the vegetative state, undermining all the dignity that should be attached to living.

An individual in such a state who wishes to live till the end, should be given full possible support. Similarly, those who decide the contrary, should be given the opportunity to have their wish satisfied.

The major problem raised by euthanasia is how to ensure that the wishes of a person one way or the other are being correctly understood.

***

Turkey

It’s really sad that Turkey is experiencing so much turbulence.

The coup that a section of the army tried to organise could not have come at a worse moment. Terrorism had again revived strongly. The instabilities of Syria are threatening to overflow into the country. The rift with the Kurds has sharpened. The economy is stalling, with tourism in decline.

President Erdogan’s authoritarianism has been a contributory factor in this situation. But it does not account for all that has been happening, as some Europeans would seem to believe.

The coup attempt was a violent powerplay. One could consider the reaction of the Turkish authorities as overdone. However I fail to see how a legitimate and legal government could avoid taking drastic measures after the coup collapsed.

Europe needs a strong Turkey that is democratic, secular, Islamic, modern and stable.   

***

Wry

I could only manage a wry smile as I read what PN MP Claudette Buttigieg told Parliament about the private lives of politicians, as well as the reactions to her speech. In her view, the family and everyday private lives of people in politics are being brought to public attention abusively and in a unjustfied manner.

More than twenty years ago, I was among the first, perhaps the first, to be treated in this way (along with my family). Over the years, the methods by which this treatment is applied have intensified, not least because of the development of social media.

Right from the start, the intention behind the procedure was political in scope: build on every day gossip to demean and rubbish the targeted person, in order to undermine the policies he/she is promoting. In this way, viciousness became another political tool.

I cannot recall that the PN protested in those days or since. To the contrary, it used to be said that people have the “right to know”. When matters did go beyond the bounds of all decency, the excuse would be that those responsible were acting on their own initiative. Hardly believable.

Finally, Nationalist spokespersons are protesting against the tactics of viciousness. How come?