Euthanasia

[kiki1982]

I can't agree with having my relatives decide. I am a person too, I do not cease to be one because I am (severely) ill. Therefore, if I have thought about it, gone to a notary and signed a paper stating that I want to die if such and such circumstances occur, in this way, then I will not ask anyone else's opinion, I should not need to. Are they lying there, waiting to die? I guess the answer is no. Deal with it. Death is going to come so better sooner than later in that case.

So, I guess, if a person gets a disease which will deteriorate so far that he/she will not be able to live a proper life, and the latter is important to him/her, then he/she should be able to make a life testament and be done with it. He/she should be informed about that choice when he heare the diagnosis so he can think about it and go and do it when the time is ripe for him/her.

I don't think relatives should be involved. Enough people have been murdered in the past by 'well-meaning' relatives. It is a bit like a will, isn't it. When the person has died without a will it is pretty useless to start on the 'but he promised it to me'-road. The point is, it was promised to no-one in a documented way, so it was not. In that way, if a person is so unfortunate to nearly die in a road accident and then live like a plant, what can one do? He may have said something in passing about it, but it does not make it legal. Any relative who wants to get the inheritance, or the husband who wants to be free can state those things. Taking them seriously is potentially dangerous as you are dealing with people who cannot tell you what they really said that one time.

Although assisted suicide should not be punished if it is clearly assisted suicide.

However, there seems to be a problem in finding people who want to do it, even if there is a will. I think that should be dealt with.

[The Atheist]

Well, I just think that it could be a topic of a hot debate.

It usually is!

I am sickened that anti-euthanasia laws exist and firmly believe that all arguments against it are spurious or plain wrong.

I am a heavy pro-euthanasia campagner and even have instructions for a DIY Exit Bag currently on my website. I recently interviewed the Chairman of the NZ Medical Council on the subject of euthanasia.

Well, if I am living a painful life, I would rather be dead.
What do you think of it?

Guess?

Also, there's just one thing I would like to ask. What if the person's not in the state of declaring his wish. He may want to die but is unable to communicate his feelings to others.

Once the person has reached a majority, it is his/her own responsibility to make those wishes known. My preference would be for people to specifiy it in "living wills" where a legal document is established that the person would be euthanased in certain conditions.

Kids, obviously it is the parents' decision.

a bit political, isn't it?

Not at all. Abortion, euthanasia and other touchy subjects happen.

I happen to have known three people who were given a helping hand by the end, and I completely agree with it. If you are dying, without peace and dignity, then the kindest thing is to be helped along. In all three cases, the people were in a terrible state, begging for the release of death; when it came, it was sad, but also a relief.

That's what made me get involved in campaigning - society condemning people to the least dignified death possible.

Most people are unanware that a huge percentage of terminal cancer patients actually starve to death.

They write "cancer cachexia" on death certificates, because "our current laws sentenced this person to starve to death while writhing in agony" tends to upset relatives.

If your beliefs mean you want to die "naturally", that's fine by me, but others must have a choice.

[Delta40]

What a bummer if the person with the living will decides but is unable to communicate that they have changed their mind!!!

What critreria must be met by the law first to enable others to euthanize children?

What if the parent has the child euthanized because they can't bear the heartbreak and/or the responsibility of nursing them?

How is it that we want freedom in one respect but rely on the law to help us decide?

[The Atheist]

What a bummer if the person with the living will decides but is unable to communicate that they have changed their mind!!!

Those documents can be changed pretty quickly, so I don't see that as an issue.

What critreria must be met by the law first to enable others to euthanize children?

Dying would be top of the list. Probably confirmed by two independent registered doctors.

What if the parent has the child euthanized because they can't bear the heartbreak and/or the responsibility of nursing them?

If the child is dying, what difference would it make?

How is it that we want freedom in one respect but rely on the law to help us decide?

Not sure what you're after here. Can you expand on what your question actually is? Aside from a framework to protect non-terminal patients and others who may wish to stay alive, I don't see the law having an involvement in the process.

[Delta40]

What I mean is that if euthanasia were to be legal then it could not be a decision arrived at freely with no basis whatsoever attached to it. You just outlined your own preferred criteria, which would be death (an ironic certainty for us all) and have two registered doctors confirm the terminal state of the patient. Then it will be ok and if you euthanize a person who isn't terminal (say early onset of alzheimers) and don't get two confirmations, they you have committed a crime, that is to say, broken the law.

In order for euthanasia to be legal, you do want laws in place to protect those that you don't think qualify for the action. What about others who want death before it digests well with your line of thinking? Must they suffer because the law requires a specific standard - one which pro-death folk can lean on to protect them from the icky sticky questions. Why can't young people be euthanized when they know they don't want to continue? Why must people suicide in inhumane ways when euthanasia could afford them the dignity of a comfortable death process?

[Themis]

Also, there's just one thing I would like to ask. What if the person's not in the state of declaring his wish. He may want to die but is unable to communicate his feelings to others.

In that case, what is responsibility of the relatives. They let the person live that life or you know, take the action?

I believe life should be protected. If a person is unable to express his wish to die, I have to assume that the person wants to live. I don't want anyone to suffer, but I think the people who don't want to die, deserve protection.

[The Atheist]

What I mean is that if euthanasia were to be legal then it could not be a decision arrived at freely with no basis whatsoever attached to it.

There has to be some limit, otherwise I'd be making up a list of perfectly healthy people the world could do without!

You just outlined your own preferred criteria, which would be death (an ironic certainty for us all) and have two registered doctors confirm the terminal state of the patient. Then it will be ok and if you euthanize a person who isn't terminal (say early onset of alzheimers) and don't get two confirmations, they you have committed a crime, that is to say, broken the law.

Can't see a problem there. The crime would be dealt with as it is now, although I'd probably vote for harsher sentences if people went outside an established framework.

In order for euthanasia to be legal, you do want laws in place to protect those that you don't think qualify for the action. What about others who want death before it digests well with your line of thinking? Must they suffer because the law requires a specific standard - one which pro-death folk can lean on to protect them from the icky sticky questions. Why can't young people be euthanized when they know they don't want to continue? Why must people suicide in inhumane ways when euthanasia could afford them the dignity of a comfortable death process?

Because it then becomes not euthanasia.

I'm happy with the statement by the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics:

the precise definition of euthanasia is "a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering."

Someone desiring suicide through depression, say, is actually treatable and therefore their death would not be euthanasia. We can argue the semantics of "intractable" I guess, but as long as we're dealing a terminal disease, then it is euthanasia, otherwise it's suicide and a different subject.

[Delta40]

There has to be some limit, otherwise I'd be making up a list of perfectly healthy people the world could do without!

One would think it is common sense but then suffering is relative.

Can't see a problem there. The crime would be dealt with as it is now, although I'd probably vote for harsher sentences if people went outside an established framework.

Of course this is fraught with problems. Many people who are not diagnosed with a terminal physical disease long to exit the world. Yet you rely on the law to establish a framework that will include some and not others? Thou shall not kill except in the following circumstance....and then punish to the full extent of the law (which has little to do with the process apparently)

Because it then becomes not euthanasia.

By your terms, apparently not. Some will beg to differ and under such narrowly construed conditions, they will just have to suffer.

Someone desiring suicide through depression, say, is actually treatable and therefore their death would not be euthanasia. We can argue the semantics of "intractable" I guess, but as long as we're dealing a terminal disease, then it is euthanasia, otherwise it's suicide and a different subject.

I don't understand Atheist. You want people who are terminally ill to have the freedom to terminate their own existence but people who don't wish to carry on in life, don't wish to be 'treated' or have their lives prolonged thanks to technology should be excluded, forcibly removed and subjected to non-consensual medical procedures and if they take their lives, they are labelled suicides?

“The attempt to combine wisdom and power has only rarely been successful and then only for a short while." (Einstein)

One leading medical ethicist said more than twenty years ago "We shall begin by doing it because the patient is in intolerable pain but we shall end up doing it because it is Friday afternoon and we want to get away for the weekend" Don't forget that golf game...

[The Atheist]

One would think it is common sense but then suffering is relative.

That's why it's important to separate euthanasia from all other situations. Terminal illnesses are neither relative nor subjectively diagnosed.

Of course this is fraught with problems. Many people who are not diagnosed with a terminal physical disease long to exit the world.

This is a repetition of your previous point and I can only give the same answer - it isn't covered by euthanasia. I can't think of any non-terminal people wishing to die who would not be classed as mentally ill - and therefore treatable - under the DSMIV criteria.

Yet you rely on the law to establish a framework that will include some and not others? Thou shall not kill except in the following circumstance....and then punish to the full extent of the law (which has little to do with the process apparently)

No. Mental health services will remain unchanged by euthanasia laws.

By your terms, apparently not. Some will beg to differ and under such narrowly construed conditions, they will just have to suffer.

Who are these people that are suffering? Euthanasia is a narrow subject and I make no apology that non-terminal patients are excluded.

There must be a line, and that's where it's drawn. If depressed, bi-polar and other mental patients want the right to waste themselves, they would need to start a pressure group to lobby for it.

I wish them luck!

I don't understand Atheist. You want people who are terminally ill to have the freedom to terminate their own existence but people who don't wish to carry on in life, don't wish to be 'treated' or have their lives prolonged thanks to technology should be excluded, forcibly removed and subjected to non-consensual medical procedures and if they take their lives, they are labelled suicides?

That sounds about right. We already have laws which will enforce treatment in some case where it is refused and I don't have a problem with that. Again, if others want the same right to die, they can fight for it.

Euthanasia is hard enough to get traction on even though it only deals with terminal illness. If we go adding in other positions, it's just going to make it harder to get anywhere.

If you think you're not understanding, please be assured that I have no clue what your objection is. If you want the right for anyone to top themselves if they feel like it, seek support. I doubt you'll find much. The pro-euthanasia movement wants no part of it, and rightly so, in my opinion.

One leading medical ethicist said more than twenty years ago "We shall begin by doing it because the patient is in intolerable pain but we shall end up doing it because it is Friday afternoon and we want to get away for the weekend" Don't forget that golf game...

Yes, that's exactly why we must make rules and place constraints on who is eligible.

However, places like Holland, which allow euthanasia, haven't had that problem after 10 years of legislated euthanasia and 25 prior to that where it was allowed but technically still illegal.

[Delta40]

I ask these questions to understand better your position. I have no intention of challenging an opinion.

While the rest of humanity must face death in diverse ways, a select few are granted a supreme right above others for no other reason than a use by date is stamped on their forehead.

The human race is more than capable of rationalizing euthanasia so it makes perfect sense. Why else exterminate millions of Jews? Hitler believed it was for the greater good and so many people supported this rationale, they made it happen. What makes you think we have evolved any further?

On the upside, a generation putting their aging relatives under pressure to be noble rather than be a burden to the family and its resources has its appeal. Eventually, they will come to believe it is the ultimate expression of love on their part....

[The Atheist]

I ask these questions to understand better your position. I have no intention of challenging an opinion.

No problem if you do - opinions are there to be challenged.

While the rest of humanity must face death in diverse ways, a select few are granted a supreme right above others for no other reason than a use by date is stamped on their forehead.

Nope, you keep getting it wrong. Euthanasia applies only when someone is both terminally ill and suffering to the extent that they wish it to stop.

It isn't about offering a choice to one group, but about allowing people to die without extreme suffering.

The human race is more than capable of rationalizing euthanasia so it makes perfect sense. Why else exterminate millions of Jews? Hitler believed it was for the greater good and so many people supported this rationale, they made it happen. What makes you think we have evolved any further?

Evolution has nothing to do with it. The human race didn't try to kill all the Jews, nor did the entire German population. It was a small group of fanatics, which is why the euthanasia process must be transparent.

On the upside, a generation putting their aging relatives under pressure to be noble rather than be a burden to the family and its resources has its appeal. Eventually, they will come to believe it is the ultimate expression of love on their part....

That's been thought of already.

[Delta40]

Thanks for bouncing back your views Atheist. I appreciate it.

[BienvenuJDC]

I'm not ready to make it openly legal, but I also don't think that there should be a penalty. There could be abuses by some family members that could cross over into murder. The legal system is so often unjust and without compassion. It's a hard issue...one that doesn't really have a good answer.

[Gladys]

I couldn't agree more, BienvenuJDC. But if euthanasia isn't openly legal, as at present, real choice resides with doctors and the wealthy rather than with dying persons and their caring relatives. And I suspect many of the dying would prefer not to choose, or have the choice available.

A hard issue indeed.

[Propter W.]

I'm definitely pro-euthanasia. I've already informed my loved about my decision. Luckily, they have a similar opinion.