Euthanasia

[Lothian]

Euthanasia, which according to my dictionary is “the act or practice of putting painlessly to death, esp, in cases of incurable suffering”.

We (in the UK) every couple of years get high profile media cases of people who want to have their life ended when the suffering becomes too acute but they will be in a position where they are unable to commit suicide unaided. To assist someone to take their own life is a criminal offence in the UK. Generally the patients go to Holland where euthanasia is legal.

Some questions.

(1) Should it be legal (with the consent of the person concerned), ?

(2) Should it be allowed with the consent of the next of kin. I am thinking of cases such as severely brain damaged coma victims. ?

Very recently there was the case here of a severely brain damaged baby who nevertheless could be kept alive through medical science, but the child would never have a quality of life.. As in any such case it was a very sad situation and there are not easy answers. In that case the parents couldn’t bring themselves to give their consent for the doctors not to resuscitate after the next time the vital organs failed. The doctor’s thought it would be better not to resuscitate and both sides agreed to let a judge make the decision.

The judge ruled that the child should not be resuscitated following the next attack.

(3) Is withholding medical treatment the same as Euthanasia ?

My quick answers

(1) Yes
(2) Yes (but a weak yes)
(3) Not exactly but it is very close.

 

[Benguin]

The arguments on this tend to be driven very much by those with a moral position based on religious conviction. Basically, as I understand it, death is a decision to be made by their diety and not mere man.

I get a little confused by that as I see it that we've already chosen to over-rule that by maintaining life artificially. I would be interested to learn how that conundrum is resolved.

 

[The Don]

(1) Should it be legal (with the consent of the person concerned)
I'm sure you could find a compelling anecdote for each case. If you're in extreme pain with a terminal illness and no quality of life, a blissfull release from this torment could be merciful. Alternatively, you're not in the best shape to make such a decision.

Even if you insist that the decision is made well in advance, there is possible scope for abuse. A person unable to communicate has already made a decision that they will be euthanased in such a circumstance. A greedy relative, who can't wait to get their hands on the inheritance is saying "that's their last wish" the person is thinking (but unable to say) "NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!". This may of course be an entirely artificial case and there may be thousands in extreme pain, unable to communicate, whose relatives are insisting that they are resuscitated and the patient is thinking "NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!".

On balance, I believe that the balance of risk is such that patient expressed wishes should be taken into account

(2) Should it be allowed with the consent of the next of kin. I am thinking of cases such as severely brain damaged coma victims. ?

Is there a risk that someone could "do in" a relative for gain ? It's impossible to set a cast iron set of objective symptoms which could be used to ensure that apprpriate actions are being taken. Problems really start when there's a difference in opinion between these next of kin (Mum wants to put little Johnny out of his suffering, Dad is dead set against it) and that's when the lawyers get involved. It could be that Dad is making the decision based un unrealistic expectations of the prognosis.

My opinion, all third party requests must be subjected to juducual review

(3) Is withholding medical treatment the same as Euthanasia ?

And how about "accidentally" administering too much morphine ? Anecdotally, this happens quite a lot. At least having a law and a clear set of guidelines will prevent good medical professionals leaving themselves open to manslaughter charges in order to help their patients

So no - but sometimes it has the same effect

 

[Lucky]

From Benguin:
The arguments on this tend to be driven very much by those with a moral position based on religious conviction. Basically, as I understand it, death is a decision to be made by their diety and not mere man.

You might think so from the standard media coverage, but it’s not true (I’m pleased to say) that religious people in general are opposed to voluntary euthanasia under appropriate controls. The opposition comes from religious institutions, primarily (in the UK) the Catholic Church, and their well-organised, well-funded campaigns.

From the Voluntary Euthanasia Society (UK):

On 28th October 2002 an NOP public opinion poll asked:

Do you think that a person who is suffering unbearably from a terminal illness should be allowed by law to receive medical help to die, if this is what they want, or should the law not allow them to receive this medical help to die?

81% replied that Yes, the law should allow them to receive medical help to die.
12% replied that No, the law should not allow them to receive medical help to die.
6% said they Don't know.

The 1996 British Social Attitudes Survey reported that 82% of the British population thought an individual should have the right to ask a doctor to end their life if they are suffering from an incurable and painful disease. This was an increase from the 75% reported in 1984 and the 79% reported in 1989.

Among religious groups there is widespread support for assisted dying. While some religious leaders and official doctrines do not agree people should be allowed to choose to end their lives, most believers think the choice should rest with the individual concerned.

A 1993 NOP poll reported that 83% of Protestants, 73% of Roman Catholics and 60% of Jews surveyed were in favour of medical aid in dying.

 

[Zombified]

Unfortunately in the US it gets mixed in with the whole nasty abortion issue, and of course we have the Catholic church here too...

 

[geni]

1)No

2)No way

3)yes

 

[CBL4]

I watched my father survive for 3 years after a stroke which the doctors told us would kill him that day. I have made it very clear to my wife that I would prefer a large dose of pain killers plus the cessation of live preserving medicines if I am ever in such a state for a prolonged period of time. I hope that she would be able to follow my wishes w/o being prosecuted.

CBL

 

[rebecca]

1)No

2)No way

OK. Why not?


I've never really heard of a good reason why a person shouldn't be able to end his own life if he chooses to, assuming he fully understands the concept of death.

 

[geni]

OK. Why not?


I've never really heard of a good reason why a person shouldn't be able to end his own life if he chooses to, assuming he fully understands the concept of death.

We work to prevent people committing suicide and view them as mentaly unstable.

The system will be abused anyone who thinks it will not be is living in a dream world.

 

[rebecca]

We work to prevent people committing suicide and view them as mentaly unstable.

The system will be abused anyone who thinks it will not be is living in a dream world.

Who do you mean by "we?" I certainly don't view anyone who wants to commit suicide as "mentally unstable."

And how would the system be abused, exactly?

 

[geni]

Who do you mean by "we?" I certainly don't view anyone who wants to commit suicide as "mentally unstable."

Socirety in general.

And how would the system be abused, exactly?

You put pressure on the person to make them opt for being killed.

 

[rebecca]

Socirety in general.

Well, I'm sure you see the fallacy there, so we'll just skip that bit.

You put pressure on the person to make them opt for being killed.

I would most certainly not.

I kid. I get what you mean.

You assume that because one is elderly or physically ill, one is unable to make a rational decision for oneself. Why?


edited to add -- and why would counselors not be able to protect those that may be unable to make an informed decision?

 

[shecky]

We work to prevent people committing suicide and view them as mentaly unstable.

No, "we" don't. There are a variety of reasons one might consider suicide. Some are a sign of mental instability. Some are quite reasonable.

And how would the system be abused, exactly?

You put pressure on the person to make them opt for being killed.

Particularly in terminal cases, pressure by whom? How is this much different from a situation where the patient and his/her loved ones must make any critical decision? Certainly there are pressures of all sorts. Does the burden of pain count as pressure? Medical bills? Not to mention all the sticky family dynamics that sometimes arise. All these things affect medical descisions now in places where euthanasia is against the law. Allowing for a dignified, and sometimes assisted suicide allows for the sufferer to make his/her own decisions with the wider possibility of options.

 

[geni]

I would most certainly not.

I kid. I get what you mean.

You assume that because one is elderly or physically ill, one is unable to make a rational decision for oneself. Why?

I don't. I do know a bit of history. It is quite posible to get young men and women to kill themselves if you apply the right kind of techneiques. Why should this not apply to the elderly?

edited to add -- and why would counselors not be able to protect those that may be unable to make an informed decision?

Define "informed". People frequently make a decissesion that is not consistant with ration though despite being "informed".

 

[geni]

No, "we" don't. There are a variety of reasons one might consider suicide. Some are a sign of mental instability. Some are quite reasonable.

Name one. Both the US and UK militry formaly reject sucide tactis. We put up anti sucide barries. Sucide hotlines are set up people found commiting sucide are rushed to hospital.

Particularly in terminal cases, pressure by whom? How is this much different from a situation where the patient and his/her loved ones must make any critical decision?
Certainly there are pressures of all sorts. Does the burden of pain count as pressure? Medical bills? Not to mention all the sticky family dynamics that sometimes arise. All these things affect medical descisions now in places where euthanasia is against the law. Allowing for a dignified, and sometimes assisted suicide allows for the sufferer to make his/her own decisions with the wider possibility of options.

The magnitude of the descision is the difference.

If you assume that the avaiblity of a wider possibility of options is always a good thing should assisted suicide always be an option regardless of any other cercemstances.

 

[epepke]

Euthanasia, which according to my dictionary is “the act or practice of putting painlessly to death, esp, in cases of incurable suffering”.

We (in the UK) every couple of years get high profile media cases of people who want to have their life ended when the suffering becomes too acute but they will be in a position where they are unable to commit suicide unaided. To assist someone to take their own life is a criminal offence in the UK. Generally the patients go to Holland where euthanasia is legal.

Some questions.

(1) Should it be legal (with the consent of the person concerned), ?

I am generally horrified at Dr. Kevorkian's Circus O'Death.

Personally, I don't think that it should be legal or illegal.

I think it should be personal. I think the authorities should look the other way, and like much else, it should be up to the individual patient and physician.

Assisted suicide happens a fair amount in the US. It's technically either illegal or not dealt with by law. In most cases, however, there's a social agreement that physicians who do this are not prosecuted.

I'm afraid of making it illegal, because that means that genuine cases where this would be good would result in mandatory prosecution.

I'm afraid of making it legal, because what happens when our HMOs or your National Health glom onto the idea that assisted suicide is a valid medical procedure? And then the bean-counters do their cost-benefit analysis? And don't pretend that the National Health has no bean counters.

 

[rebecca]

I don't. I do know a bit of history. It is quite posible to get young men and women to kill themselves if you apply the right kind of techneiques. Why should this not apply to the elderly?

By this logic, why give anyone the freedom to make any choice? After all, some evil person may talk them into an unwise decision. How do you think we end up with so many Amway salesmen?

So let's say some evil ne'er-do-well wishes to do away with grandma to get a hold of her priceless coin collection. Now that euthanasia is legal, he doesn't need to hide her heart pills or let her slip while helping her out of the bath. He's been trying to talk her into suicide for the last few years, but she's refused due to its illegality (no, of course that makes no sense, but that's another point entirely). Now, there's no problem. He tells her she's got another five years, tops, and it's best to end it all now. She agrees. She goes to the doctor, the doctor has her see a specialist who can talk to her, sum up her mental state. If she's found competent, he'll offer counselling to ensure that she understands what she's doing. He can give her a realistic estimate on how long she has to live, what her current health is like. He can show her the options available to her besides dying, such as medication, or more counseling.

Let's say she still chooses to die. Why begrudge her that? She looked at her options and made a decision. Who are you to say she chose wrong on this, the most important decision she'll ever make? Who are you to make that decision for her?

We grant people the freedom to bet it all on double zero. We let them decide whether or not they'd like to inhale dangerous chemicals. We allow them to skydive, we let them eat Big Macs for dinner every day. We let them kill themselves as slowly and painfully as they want. So why don't we give them the ultimate personal choice, that of ending their lives quickly, when they want?

What did a random, unnamed terminal cancer patient ever do to you, that you would take it upon yourself to lock him up in the prison of his own body? Why would you sentence him to even another six months of torturous pain he can't escape? He has talked to a therapist. He's talked to his family. They can set a time and a place, everyone can say goodbye, and he can end his life. Why won't you let him die?

Define "informed". People frequently make a decissesion that is not consistant with ration though despite being "informed".

Informed: Having knowledge of all the facts needed to make a decision. I suggest you study the definition carefully.

 

[geni]

By this logic, why give anyone the freedom to make any choice? After all, some evil person may talk them into an unwise decision. How do you think we end up with so many Amway salesmen?

There are many limits on your freedom of choice.

So let's say some evil ne'er-do-well wishes to do away with grandma to get a hold of her priceless coin collection. Now that euthanasia is legal, he doesn't need to hide her heart pills or let her slip while helping her out of the bath. He's been trying to talk her into suicide for the last few years, but she's refused due to its illegality (no, of course that makes no sense, but that's another point entirely). Now, there's no problem. He tells her she's got another five years, tops, and it's best to end it all now. She agrees. She goes to the doctor, the doctor has her see a specialist who can talk to her, sum up her mental state. If she's found competent, he'll offer counselling to ensure that she understands what she's doing. He can give her a realistic estimate on how long she has to live, what her current health is like. He can show her the options available to her besides dying, such as medication, or more counseling.

Suicide is illegal?

Let's say she still chooses to die. Why begrudge her that? She looked at her options and made a decision. Who are you to say she chose wrong on this, the most important decision she'll ever make? Who are you to make that decision for her?

Here descition affects other people. I'm not the one on the reciving end on a load of emotional blackmale

We grant people the freedom to bet it all on double zero. We let them decide whether or not they'd like to inhale dangerous chemicals. We allow them to skydive, we let them eat Big Macs for dinner every day. We let them kill themselves as slowly and painfully as they want. So why don't we give them the ultimate personal choice, that of ending their lives quickly, when they want?

None of these actions are carried out with the intention of ending life.

What did a random, unnamed terminal cancer patient ever do to you, that you would take it upon yourself to lock him up in the prison of his own body? Why would you sentence him to even another six months of torturous pain he can't escape?

This is an argument for better pain management treatment.

He has talked to a therapist. He's talked to his family. They can set a time and a place, everyone can say goodbye, and he can end his life. Why won't you let him die?

Why do they need help?

Informed: Having knowledge of all the facts needed to make a decision. I suggest you study the definition carefully.

But what is enough information to make that descission? Do we need to include a complete set of interesting ian posts for example?

 

[shecky]

Name one.

Opening sentence of the thread, ...“the act or practice of putting painlessly to death, esp, in cases of incurable suffering”.

The magnitude of the descision is the difference.

If you assume that the avaiblity of a wider possibility of options is always a good thing should assisted suicide always be an option regardless of any other cercemstances.

Well, assisted suicide should probably not be on the table for, say, ingrown toenail.

But for terminal illness, particularly a painful imminent demise, suicide is a reasonable choice. Allow the sufferer to decide when he/she will go out. Denying someone at that stage the choice is cruel.

 

[geni]

Opening sentence of the thread, ...“the act or practice of putting painlessly to death, esp, in cases of incurable suffering”.

But this isn't current seen as reasonable by the legal system (no I don't know any opion polls on this offhand)

Well, assisted suicide should probably not be on the table for, say, ingrown toenail.

Why not?

But for terminal illness, particularly a painful imminent demise, suicide is a reasonable choice. Allow the sufferer to decide when he/she will go out. Denying someone at that stage the choice is cruel. [/B]

So we need to improve pain management treatment.