On Euthanasia

[xlwoo]

Life belongs to the individual self. One has the right to decide how to live it or how to end it. It is the freedom anyone should have. But strangely, for euthanasia, there is supposedly to pass a law to allow it or not allow it. Euthanasia is only a way to end one's life. As one has the right and freedom to do whatever one likes to his own life, why euthanasia should be allowed by a law? Such kind of a law basically interferes with the personal right and freedom against constitution. What if one makes suicide? Should there be a law to be passed to allow or not allow one to make suicide? Euthanasia is the same as the suicide to end one's own life. The only difference is that suicide is by one's own hand while euthanasia is through the help of others at the free will of oneself. Only the style of death is somewhat different. But it does not harm anyone else, nor against the benefits of anyone else. So it does sound ridiculous that there should be a law to govern it.

[MANICHAEAN]

Reminds me of the earlier sections of the Sonnets and the rebukes delivered by Shakespeare regards an absorption in ones self.

Me, me, me. My human rights, my right to die. No mention of giving back, of contribution, however small. Immerse yourself for a moment in the words and the advice being given.


From fairest creatures we desire increase,
That thereby beauty's rose might never die,
But as the riper should by time decease,
His tender heir might bear his memory:
But thou contracted to thine own bright eyes,
Feed'st thy light's flame with self-substantial fuel,
Making a famine where abundance lies,
Thy self thy foe, to thy sweet self too cruel:
Thou that art now the world's fresh ornament,
And only herald to the gaudy spring,
Within thine own bud buriest thy content,
And, tender churl, mak'st waste in niggarding:
Pity the world, or else this glutton be,
To eat the world's due, by the grave and thee.

[Pompey Bum]

I agree with you in principle, Xiwoo, but here, if ever, is a case where the devil is in the details. Insurance providers (in my country in any case) would cut their losses after a certain point and say, okay, we'll cover your suicide but that's it. You can go now in relative comfort and dignity, or you can bankrupt your spouse and children. It would be difficult to prevent the right to die from turning into a social expectation. And those in power, whether corporate or governmental, would have every motive (except an ethical one) to cut costs. I respectfully disagree with my friend, MANICHAEAN, by the way. You are not being selfish at all. Unfortunately euthanasia is a complex issue.

[Ecurb]

My home state of Oregon legalized assisted suicide more than 20 years ago. We were the first polity to do so (although the Netherlands had stopped prosecuting previously).

The problems that Pompey noted are real. In the first 18 years since the law was passed, 1545 patients obtained lethal prescriptions, and 989 committed suicide. Many physicians refuse to write suicide prescriptions, and think that doing so would violate their Hippocratic Oath. 25% of those committing suicide do so to relieve pain - which suggests that better pain medications might alleviate the need for suicide drugs. In addition, the study suggested that financial considerations played a role in 6% of the suicides.

Obviously, killing oneself to be able to leave more money to loved ones (or prevent them from bankrupting themselves caring for you) is not "selfish". Perhaps Universal Health Care would solve this problem.

Only 5% of those choosing suicide saw psychiatrists (which seems strange -- suicidal thoughts are a definer of depression).

IN addition, I see some other moral problems with our law:two physicians must attest that the patient has less than 6 months to live. But why should that matter? Either assisted suicide is a reasonable and legal choice, or it isn't. Doctors are not seers, and we are all dying, more or less quickly. But the law (it was a ballot measure) would never have passed if voters anticipated suicides by depressed 22-year-olds who have been dumped by their boyfriends.

Oregon's (non-assisted) suicide rate is 41% higher than the Nation's, which may or may not have anything to do with our laws making suicide seem acceptable.

Nonetheless, the law has worked reasonably well, and pressure from insurance companies seems limited (from what I've read). As Pompey stated, it's a complex issue.