|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Euthananasia for the otherwise well but old?
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Setting aside (as difficult as it may be) and whether mobile teams are needed to carry it out(!),the question of euthanasia for the terminally ill and in unbearable pain, I was really struck by one part of this article in the New York Times ("Push for the Right to Die"). I hasten to say that this position is controversial even in the Netherlands, where reportedly 2% of deaths are due to euthanasia (another striking figure, but maybe I'm out of it on this one).
"We think old people can suffer from life,” Dr. de Jong said. “Medical technology is so advanced that people live longer and longer, and sometimes they say ‘enough is enough.’"
Should a doctor be in the position of euthanizing a perfectly healthy 70 year old? Am I missing something here? Is there a non-depression related reason for wanting to die at 70 if healthy?
[ 03. April 2012, 17:42: Message edited by: Laura ]
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
70 is young these days. You might do better if you suggested 90 as a possible age to consider it.
Then again, I know a lady who has just celebrated her 90th birthday who still dons a wetsuit and goes surfing. I can't see her considering such an end until she is at least 120!
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
There's a difference between accepting the imminence of death and actively welcoming it.
I've seen both, and sadly a state without consciousness of either. And this in people whose ages ran from 68 (reluctant acceptance) to a current, splendid and wonderful 96.
No, chronological age as such, should, I believe, play no part in any consideration of the termination of life.
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eleanor Jane
Shipmate
# 13102
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Should a doctor be in the position of euthanizing a perfectly healthy 70 year old? Am I missing something here? Is there a non-depression related reason for wanting to die at 70 if healthy?
Nope! Setting aside all discussion of the rights and wrongs of ethanasia, if you're perfectly healthy but want to die then you have the option to commit suicide. Granted, it's not actually that easy or comfy but I can't see any way that it's within a doctor's purview to kill physically healthy people!
Posts: 556 | From: Now in the UK! | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eleanor Jane:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Should a doctor be in the position of euthanizing a perfectly healthy 70 year old? Am I missing something here? Is there a non-depression related reason for wanting to die at 70 if healthy?
Nope! Setting aside all discussion of the rights and wrongs of ethanasia, if you're perfectly healthy but want to die then you have the option to commit suicide. Granted, it's not actually that easy or comfy but I can't see any way that it's within a doctor's purview to kill physically healthy people!
I agree. I think it's important to notice the clever bit of doublespeak that habitually gets into the euthanasia debate: it makes no sense to speak of a "right to die". You might as well say an apple has a right to fall off the tree. What's really being asked for is the right to require someone to kill me. Put in those terms, I think some of the moral issues, especially when we're talking about well people, become a tad clearer.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I think it's important to notice the clever bit of doublespeak that habitually gets into the euthanasia debate: it makes no sense to speak of a "right to die". You might as well say an apple has a right to fall off the tree. What's really being asked for is the right to require someone to kill me.
Yes.
Doctors are trained to preserve life, not destroy it. I'm not sure I would like to be treated by a doctor who is willing to kill healthy people.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
NO euthanasia is a fancy name for suicide and I believe suicide is an irrational act and if not then a sin . And any medical person , nurse or doctor participating should turn in their liscense .
And just what is old nowadays ? I am 60 and still feel young and I know people 75+ who are more lively than sone teenagers .So
watch it when saying old.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif) ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif) ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
My experience with doctors and end of life measures is that they do not even begin looking for living wills/final directives until they no longer think they can bring the patient back to health. I cannot imagine anything beyond a tiny minority of doctors consenting to take someone's life because they feel they are too old. It seems far more likely that they would commit them and get some treatment going instead.
Beyond that, who is to make the decision about when someone is old enough to seek euthanasia? I remember when I was a kid thinking how ancient (43) I would be at the turn of the millennium. Given the drooling idiots in politics now, I would hesitate to even give them a chance to think about the subject.
Most importantly, I find that people who have age related conditions like dementia, seem to be as content with life as they were before dementia. That is a person who was happy before dementia seems to be generally happy with dementia, and vice versa. While we look with our eyes at their situation and cringe, they look at life through the lens of their present state and keep moving on with their life.
I think a lot of our thought patterns concerning older people are driven by a fear of becoming a doddering old burden. No one who isn't already there wants to have to have help with eating, toileting, bathing, etc. And yet, some people who need that help wake up in the morning looking forward to the day.
At some stage (say late) we might be beyond knowing about our plight most of the time. They might, if they could, say to themselves that life has gone on too long and it is time to part this veil of tears. There might even be some justification for that thought. If you think about it though, the people who might most want to no longer go through life with too many limitations, are the same people who no longer have the capacity to make important decisions.
Of course, just as with living wills, people who have capacity might draw up documents saying that when they get to stage X, they want to be euthanized. I would hope that they would be given a chance to renounce that choice when the time came. Even so, which one of us would want to be the person to say "Aunt Boudica and Uncle Prasutagus have reached that time. I guess we need to call the euthanasia clinic."?
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
It seems to me that when healthy elderly people express a wish to die, there's some issue in their life that isn't being addressed. "I've had enough" is merely a conclusion, not an identification of the problem.
It would be far better, in my view, to put the effort into helping the person to have a life worth living, rather than just saying "oh okay then, if that's what you want" and blithely accepting that the person's got nothing left to live for.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Most importantly, I find that people who have age related conditions like dementia, seem to be as content with life as they were before dementia. That is a person who was happy before dementia seems to be generally happy with dementia, and vice versa. While we look with our eyes at their situation and cringe, they look at life through the lens of their present state and keep moving on with their life.
I think a lot of our thought patterns concerning older people are driven by a fear of becoming a doddering old burden. No one who isn't already there wants to have to have help with eating, toileting, bathing, etc. And yet, some people who need that help wake up in the morning looking forward to the day.
Well said. It's often the fear of dependency in old age which gives people thoughts of suicide. And yet, with a gracious attitude, dependent people can make the life of a carer a joy. There is a serenity and peace about an elderly lady I know with dementia which was missing in her past life. The most difficult period was in knowing that she had the illness and coming to a place of acceptance both of it and of receiving personal care from other people.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
@Tortuf: in the hospice world, there's a bit of black comedy:
Q: why do they seal a cancer patient's coffin shut?
A: So the oncologist can't administer more chemotherapy.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
I do think otherwise healthy people can reach a stage of just being tired of life. I see this with my aunt now who is 97 and has always been a pleasant, optimistic person. She's lost a lot of mobility and independence just due to sheer old age and physical frailty, but she is healthy enough that she could easily live to 100. I find myself hoping she doesn't, because although she does her best to enjoy or at least tolerate the days she now has to spend in a wheelchair in a nursing home (we did everything possible to support her living independently at home till last summer, when it just wasn't possible any longer), I think she is tired of it, tired of being dependent on others, tired of living on without being able to do many of the things that made living enjoyable.
And yet, while I think she'd be quite OK with a painless death if it occurred naturally, I don't think she'd opt for suicide, and I don't think I would in that situation. Maybe that's hypocritical but I do have a bit of a sense that you take what's given you and deal with it, whether (as for too many) it's an early death when you'd quite like to go on living, or the opposite problem.
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
I do think otherwise healthy people can reach a stage of just being tired of life. I see this with my aunt now who is 97 and has always been a pleasant, optimistic person.
I totally get this. My great aunt was 107 when she died, and her sister (my great grandmother) was 104. Both of them essentially just said "I'm done here", and stopped eating, and slept their ways out. When you're ancient, you can pretty much decide to go, and no help is needed. But I'd really question a 75 year old in otherwise good health doing so.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
Hesitantly, I can see a bit of a move beyond "must be in terminal pain" to "must be in permanent severe pain that cannot be adequately controlled, and asking for relief at any cost including death" or "without permanent unnatural help they would die naturally and either ask the help to stop or are permanently unconscious" (persistent vegetative state needing tube feeding or breathing machines, for example?) -- with second and third opinions and waiting periods etc.
There may be some conditions few of us want to live with. But once you remove the "terminal" requirement, condition, you've got to be even more careful not to open it to abuse. Or to the caretaker wanting relief rather than the hurting one wanting relief.
We do need to increase the ability to actually (instead of theoretically) reject "heroic measures." I've heard too many horror stories of medical people trying to impose life in spite of the written "living will" and relatives saying "stop!" My aunt said the emergency responders were trying to resuscitate her husband and she was trying to stop them and they refused to look at the living will -- what an awful battle she should not have had to go thru!
I worry that once one gets plopped into a nursing home, one loses the freedom to do suicide if the time comes that it seems appropriate. My Grandma kept pulling out the feeding tube, she'd been wanting to die for several years and was mad at the death angel for delaying. They kept putting the feeding tube back in.
I think the Boomers don't want the miserable last year or two of life they saw their parents go thru, but truth is none of us know until we are there.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
Have a living will stating what kind of care
you want. My late mother had 1 and it helped the doctors to know that she did not want extreme measures to preserve her life. Make
your wishes known to your family and/or care givers.
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
I think there is a simple difference between not wanting more than palliative care in certain circumstances and wanting to actively terminate one's life when it's not quite the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palliative_care
To give someone else the power to terminate life in the second case is, I consider, dangerous.
It will often be a hard call when to switch to palliative care only.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
I do think otherwise healthy people can reach a stage of just being tired of life.
Didn't Julian May toy with that idea in the novels of the Pliocene Exile? Of course, it was generally many lifetimes of years before the otherwise healthy people got so tired of life that they chose to forego another regeneration.
And there are the stories in which a vampire who is hundreds of years old decides to stay out until the sun comes up, because he's tired of life.
But it seems unlikely to me that an otherwise healthy person would tire of life in their 70s or 80s or even 90s.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicodemia
WYSIWYG
# 4756
|
Posted
It seems to me that as this very interesting thread has progressed, that there has arisen a false division between "healthy" and "unwell" and physical and mental health.
Depression can be aggravated to an unbearable state by a physical infirmity that may be bearable by another person.
A frail 98 year-old lady who enjoys her Bridge Parties every week, her painting group, has friends who call and do her shopping, can be living a happier and more fulfilled life than a 77 year-old who lives alone, looks after themselves, but cannot walk unaided outside, and sees no-one from one week's end to another.
And how do you define 'healthy' or 'fit'?
Deafness, for example can be totally isolating, however a person might otherwise be fit and well.
Similarly blindness.
Someone saying they have "had enough" should be taken seriously. They have probably been thinking that for some considerable time before being brave enough to vocalise it to another person. And if that person tries to "jolly them along" then the person who has had enough will probably curl up inside and just pray to die.
Its very easy to say "I can see no reason why a fit 70 or 80 year-old should want to die." You probably cannot see why they should want to die, especially from your own fit and healthy point of view.
There will be a lot going on inside that person's mind that you are not, and possibly never can be, party to.
Physical and mental health is inextricably entwined. Don't make the mistake, that so many do, of speaking of 'either/or'.
Posts: 4544 | From: not too far from Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Discussion about this is very strong in Holland right now. The Parliament is still against it, but I'm not sure how long it will last.
Like people have said before on this thread, the discussion is being confused and mixed-up (perhaps deliberatly), and that doesn't help much.
This discussion about 'euthanasia' at old age is being mixed up with discussions about 'normal' euthanasia. I am in favour (with some very strong conditions) of euthanasia for people with strong physical and even mental problems. But this is something else. This isn't euthanasia, and I think this should be stressed in the discussion.
I agree 100% with Adeodatus that the 'right to die' is a bogey argument, and it should be countered right away. Nobody is taking away anyone's right to die. If the want to die, and decide to take a pint of arsenicum, nobody will be able to stop them. They aren't asking for the right to die, they are asking (no, demanding) the right to institutional help from Society if they want to die. That's something completely different.
I am against it, for different reasons, most of which have already been put forward on this thread. The most important ones are:- It would change dramatically the way we look at old age. If the elderly find life unbearable, maybe it would be a good time to look at the way we treat old people first.
- If this is institutionalised, then there are all kinds of ways in which people could pressure their elderly family members to take this step.
- It would require doctors, pharmacists and all kinds of people to actively help with the death of healthy people.
When I put forward these arguments on various Dutch internet forums, I've been called all kinds of things. I've been called a Christian fundamentalist, who only wants to listen to the will of God. I've been called a rationalist who doesn't understand that death is part of life too. All these arguments are bullshit.
I think that in the long run we're going to loose this one in Holland. And I'm quite afraid of it.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
Fairly, or unfairly, I think some people who advocate for the "right to die" are looking with fear at what might happen to them when they get older. Sort of a "yuck, who wants to end up like that" mentality.
It is not as much fun to get up and go to the gym when your knees and hips hurt as it was when you were younger and could jog around the track and lift big weights. It is not fun to look in the mirror and see an old person staring back.
So what?
I remember an angst ridden youth when I had the hots for every female that walked by and felt that none of them knew I was alive.
Every stage of life has its issues. Some just look less yucky than others.
Ask yourselves how many older people vs. younger people are arguing for euthanasia for old age.
This is the problem with the whole issue. There is too much* input from younger people whose only perception of old age is "ewww."
_______________
Too much here meaning - any.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I can understand were this is coming from. My grandfather wasn't very keen on living anymore at the end of his life. He was twice a widower, after 25+ years with his first wife and 20+ with his second (my grandmother). After this, he didn't feel like going on much longer.
He would never consider asking for death in this way because of his religious convictions, but he was often washed-out and depressed.
I can understand that people ask the question: why can't people like this be allowed to die? (Which is a bad formulation of the question, because it really means "Why can't they demand that someone kills them?")
But when someone is depressed, do we always have to do away with the source of depression? Even if this can have bad consequences for Society?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
"Lord, let me know mine end, and the number of my days...."
As horrible as it would be if we were to slouch towards an expectation that people should terminate themselves at a certain age, there is something to be said for such advanced knowledge. Time and time again, we hear or read confessions to the effect that if one had been aware earlier of his mortality, he would have lived more fully.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
What troubles me about this is the possibility that the having right to die for people over 70 will make it harder for them to insist on their right to live, either because they might feel pressure to die so as not to be a "burden" or because it just seems easier when they're going through a rough patch. I have mixed feelings about assisted suicide for those of any age suffering from a terminal illness, but I'm pretty sure that when there is no horrible, inevitable end in sight, people should be encouraged to live, and live well, not to die. I'd rather see resources going toward making elderly people's lives better than toward helping them kill themselves.
I can see people having "had enough" at a certain point in their lives. So let them kill themselves; it's not that hard to do. But I have very strong reservations about providing help, especially help that is built into societal institutions.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
While Ruth has a point, to my mind the more important problem is that we box older people in to a point that they would rather be dead. We need to make sure that people are not worried about being impoverished once they can no longer work; that they are not warehoused in a repulsive nursing home and ignored by one and all; that they are given opportunities to be productively engaged with the rest of society in whatever manner is open to them; etc. My suspicion is that folks who are "tired of living" are more often than not tired of being scared and abandoned.
--Tom Clune
[ 05. April 2012, 19:01: Message edited by: tclune ]
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
What troubles me about this is the possibility that the having right to die for people over 70 will make it harder for them to insist on their right to live, either because they might feel pressure to die so as not to be a "burden"...
This is especially true if the elderly person knows that the money needed to keep him in a nursing home would otherwise be available to give a grandchild a start in life.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
Moo, it shouldn't be an "either/or" situation. That it is says something rather unpleasant about our society imho.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
doubtingthomas
Shipmate
# 14498
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I can see people having "had enough" at a certain point in their lives. So let them kill themselves; it's not that hard to do. But I have very strong reservations about providing help, especially help that is built into societal institutions.
I agree. Two more thoughts:
- if someone does not have the courage to do it themselves, do they genuinely want to die?
- also, to most people (IIRC, and I hope none of the exceptions are in the medical profession) actively taking a life causes at least some degree of psychological stress. It would be unfair to ask anyone to suffer this, unless under extreme circumstances (e.g. terminal incapacitating illness).
Posts: 266 | From: A Small Island | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
While Ruth has a point, to my mind the more important problem is that we box older people in to a point that they would rather be dead. We need to make sure that people are not worried about being impoverished once they can no longer work; that they are not warehoused in a repulsive nursing home and ignored by one and all; that they are given opportunities to be productively engaged with the rest of society in whatever manner is open to them; etc. My suspicion is that folks who are "tired of living" are more often than not tired of being scared and abandoned.
--Tom Clune
Agreed. This is exactly what I was getting at. Addressing the reasons why someone has 'had enough' is quite likely to mean that they'll no longer have 'had enough'. But coming up with those kinds of solutions requires effort.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
Moo, it shouldn't be an "either/or" situation. That it is says something rather unpleasant about our society imho.
Welcome to the way it is.
When one member of a couple needs Medicaid to go into a nursing home, it does not just affect the finances of that person. It significantly affects the finances of the spouse.
Meaning, the spouse who stays home may, or may not, have to eat dog food to make ends meet.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Fairly, or unfairly, I think some people who advocate for the "right to die" are looking with fear at what might happen to them when they get older. Sort of a "yuck, who wants to end up like that" mentality.
...
Every stage of life has its issues. Some just look less yucky than others.
Ask yourselves how many older people vs. younger people are arguing for euthanasia for old age.
This is the problem with the whole issue. There is too much* input from younger people whose only perception of old age is "ewww."
_______________
Too much here meaning - any.
There is, in almost the twinkling of an eye, that subtle substitution, as from out of a Mississippi riverboat gambler's sleeve, of the voluntary 'right to die' to the matter of involuntary euthanasia. It is so quick you could easily miss it.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
1. I was responding to LeRoc, who seems concerned about the potential in the Pays-Bas, while repeating my central theme that younger people tend to misjudge the quality of life of someone who needs help with their ADL's.
2. I genuinely do not believe there will be a push for compulsory euthanasia. Such a thing is beyond what humanity would tolerate. So, arguing against such is not my intention.
My intention is to try to make people understand that their reaction to the vicissitudes of old age is not what their reaction will be when they get there.
3. If the argument also appears to be against compulsory euthanasia it is because it works equally well for that issue.
Why throw in straw dogs like you are?
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
I'm not sure that involuntary euthanasia is that far fetched an idea. It is a subject which has been raised fairly consistently by Peter Singer and is, I believe, fairly regularly discussed in philosophical circles. Please don't tell me no one takes philosophers like Singer seriously. I wish they didn't.
There are rumours coming out of the Netherlands, which Le Roc, as you pointed out was discussing, that there are an increasing number of cases of involuntary euthanasia. As you, as a lawyer, would possibly understand, it is very hard to get people from the fairly hierarchical hospital system, where it happens, to become whistle-blowers.
I'm not sure my post was a red herring.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
People die of too much morphine all the time. You are not in otherwise healthy, but wanting to go meet God territory with that. That happens when the patient is not going to get better and they will "live" out a comatose existence until their body gives out naturally unless they are "given something for the pain." This happens with, and sometimes without, living wills.
Whether or not that is involuntary euthanasia is an interesting question. Where there is a living will and the person has chosen no intubation and the nasal canula is removed a dose or two of morphine to ease the resultant spasmodic breathing becomes enough morphine to slow muscle movement enough to cause a relatively painless death.
Where there is no living will and no family to make the decision? Do you go to a court and seek an order? Maybe. It costs money and might bring on family who couldn't be bothered to be there when daddy was dying to sue the hospital for wrongful death.
Is this scary? It should be. Is it regulated? There are a lot of witnesses. It is hard to kill someone who is not going to die anyway and not have somebody tell somebody. In any event, the overwhelming majority of medical practitioners I know are in it to help people.
Just some thoughts.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
What troubles me about this is the possibility that the having right to die for people over 70 will make it harder for them to insist on their right to live, either because they might feel pressure to die so as not to be a "burden"...
This is especially true if the elderly person knows that the money needed to keep him in a nursing home would otherwise be available to give a grandchild a start in life.
Moo
Interestingly, I heard a speech by Dame Mary Warnock this week at a law conference. She strongly defended her right to decide not to waste her money on care in old age (and as she is 88, this is a real possibility very soon) but to leave it for her children. She questioned why self-sacrifice is regarded as noble in the young but wrong in the very old. She would prefer to die and not waste either NHS money or her own on prolonging a life which she regards as already having satisfied all her desires. At present she is still well, but wants to put an end to her life when she is not.
She also said that doctors should be prepared to end life; at present in the UK it has been made clear that relatives acting out of compassion will not be prosecuted if they assist someone to commit suicide. This means, she says, that only amateurs can help to end a life. This is plain silly, when a professional could do it better!
She said that as an ethicist, she accepts the a priori religious argument that self-destruction is forbidden by God. However, she is scornful of the consequentialist arguments about slippery slopes and pressure to die, thinking them over-exaggerated. Are we really so greedy that we all want to bump off mum?
I didn't necessarily agree with all she said, but she gave me pause for thought.
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
Do most of us want to bump off our mums? Of course not! But we also know that some do and will indeed tell their parents that if they had any decency they would go die. Also there will be the people who would never quite commit suicide on their own, but perhaps think of it now, and would feel that if the choice for assisted suicide were there that they should. In other words, they are happier because there is not such a choice. If there were such a choice, they would either die--no more happiness, but not something they are choosing actively now--or would feel guilty about living--which they aren't currently.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Antisocial Alto
Shipmate
# 13810
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Addressing the reasons why someone has 'had enough' is quite likely to mean that they'll no longer have 'had enough'. But coming up with those kinds of solutions requires effort.
Not everyone's reasons are addressable, though. In my grandfather's case it was the death of my grandmother that made him want to die too. Grandfather was 88 at that time and knew he was bound to start declining pretty soon anyway. He wasn't poor, or isolated, or in a bad nursing home, or anything else that society could have done anything about. Just heartbroken and worn out.
Posts: 601 | From: United States | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
Not everyone's reasons are addressable, though. In my grandfather's case it was the death of my grandmother that made him want to die too. Grandfather was 88 at that time and knew he was bound to start declining pretty soon anyway. He wasn't poor, or isolated, or in a bad nursing home, or anything else that society could have done anything about. Just heartbroken and worn out.
I've spoken to many a heartbroken and worn out young person whose life today is so miserable that he/she wants to die and would do so if someone were willing to do it for them in a clinical, painfree way. It would absolve them of the responsibility, and it would make the act itself acceptable. At what age would it be considered a valid option? At what age would we cease to try to help people to see the alternative options and help them in their bereavement or loneliness?
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
Fair enough Tortuf. I do respect you and your position.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
People die of too much morphine all the time. You are not in otherwise healthy, but wanting to go meet God territory with that. That happens when the patient is not going to get better and they will "live" out a comatose existence until their body gives out naturally unless they are "given something for the pain." This happens with, and sometimes without, living wills.
Whether or not that is involuntary euthanasia is an interesting question. Where there is a living will and the person has chosen no intubation and the nasal canula is removed a dose or two of morphine to ease the resultant spasmodic breathing becomes enough morphine to slow muscle movement enough to cause a relatively painless death.
I think the important point here is why the morphine is given. AIUI it is wrong to give morphine with the goal of shortening life, but if the morphine is given to relieve pain it is acceptable even if it shortens life.
I assume we are talking about someone who is terminally ill.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
I seriously do not want to live to the point I am completely miserable. This trait runs in my family. I think 70 may ultimately be a perfectly good cutoff point, but I guess I will see when I get there.
I recall an article I read that doctors often are the first ones to want to have Do Not Resuscitate orders, because they 1) know how horrible things are when near death and 2) how awful the treatments are, including but not limited to defibrillation. Apparently it is not like TV and it is NOT pleasant during or after.
This incessant desire to save people at all costs is a cultural and religious artifact that I think has gone overboard. Not every life is worth saving, especially if that person doesn't want to live!
I think we should have the right to die, that there should be a clear and well done process like Oregon has, and that it shouldn't be a brawl to do it.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
What a frightening thread.
Some people I know already think I have a sad, sorry life. Poor old Twilight, rarely going anywhere, too much leg damage to walk without a cane, no more aerobic dance classes at the Y, no job, no grandchildren, just sitting in the house all day getting fatter, why not put her out of her misery?
Well excuse me for living! Nobody has any idea how much fun I have. My heart pounds with excitement before every new [i]Survivor{/i] episode and I'm up till midnight afterward arguing about it on the internet. I still haven't read all the large print books in the library and I'm backed up with the reviews I want to post on Amazon. Just recently I discovered all the old movies, free, on You-tube and, once again, there's a delightful space underneath for comments.
Being "shut-in" in the 21st Century doesn't have to be a lonely, stare out the window, existance anymore. The internet is going to keep many baby boomers in touch with other people even after our wrinkles have made us too unsightly for the young to want to look at.
Now I'm afraid I'll be carried out like the "Monty Python's Search for the Holy Grail" character saying, "I'm not really dead. I'll get better."
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
I am, however, too slow to edit my posts in three minutes. Shoot me.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
This premise was the basis of the wonderful movie "Harold and Maude". Ruth Gorden gives a compelling perfromance as a woman who commits suicide on her 80th birthday since she believes 80 is the best age to die and teaches Harold about life before she goes.
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
savedbyhim01
Apprentice
# 17035
|
Posted
Life is a gift from God. It's not up to us to decide when to die. Our time on earth is so short already and our chances to make a long term impact in other's lives are so limited that I can't see why a Christian would choose to end theri life healthy or not.
If the person is an atheist and they believe that there is nothing after death, there is even less reason to consider it.
I too agree with the concern about going to a doctor who helps people die to help you get healthy.
--------------------
Matthew 28:18-20
My Inductive Bible Study Notes
Posts: 31 | From: China | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Do most of us want to bump off our mums? Of course not! But we also know that some do and will indeed tell their parents that if they had any decency they would go die. Also there will be the people who would never quite commit suicide on their own, but perhaps think of it now, and would feel that if the choice for assisted suicide were there that they should. In other words, they are happier because there is not such a choice. If there were such a choice, they would either die--no more happiness, but not something they are choosing actively now--or would feel guilty about living--which they aren't currently.
Actually, I think there are many who would feel happier and less likely to commit suicide if the option were there. I can certainly imagine the situation where I knew I was in decline, but would like to enjoy as much more of life as I could, but wanted to know that when it became too much I could be helped to die. I think that I would be more likely to keep on living, unafraid of what lay ahead, than many elderly people currently are. After all, if the choice is to kill yourself whilst you still have the ability or hang on until the bitter end whatever your state, I might well choose to die much earlier than I otherwise would.
Dame Mary Warnock is an advocate of euthanasia, but she hasn't killed herself yet at 88! She claimed that far more pressure was put on her to sacrifice herself for her children when she was young, in terms of career choice, how they were brought up etc., something most women are very familiar with. As she put it, when it would be a pleasure to do so, then it oddly becomes an immoral choice rather than a praiseworthy one.
Surely the law could put safeguards into place to protect the truly vulnerable? I have been a strong and decisive person all my life so far and I intend to continue to be one in old age. I don't want to be patronised by younger people assuming I don't know my own mind! If I choose not to continue living, it should be my decision, not anyone else's. That will remain true for as long as I have the capacity to kill myself. Once I have a stroke or something and lose the physical capacity, why is it so inherently wrong for someone who is willing to do so to assist me? Or for someone to follow directions left by me whilst capable to kill me once Alzheimer's has become advanced? It would be wrong to force anyone to do it, but why is it wrong, subject to suitable safeguards, to permit it?
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ondergard
Shipmate
# 9324
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
I remember when I was a kid thinking how ancient (43) I would be at the turn of the millennium.
That's weird. I remember thinking exactly the same thing, and remembering it a couple of years ago and thinking I must have been a strange child, but clearly I'm not the only one!
I can distinctly remember, when I was eight years old, making that calculation because of a book I was reading about the future of space travel which said that only young people could withstand the effects of the g-force of blasting off from earth to space.
What's even weirder is that I came up with the same answer as you - so we must have been born in the same year!
Posts: 276 | From: Essex | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
Have just written and erased a very long post on this. However, I disagree wholeheartedly with Dame Mary (as usual), and I have known cases where old people were encouraged to take their own lives rather than be a burden and spend the money their children hoped to inherit. The situations were nasty and the fallout lasted generations.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Addressing the reasons why someone has 'had enough' is quite likely to mean that they'll no longer have 'had enough'. But coming up with those kinds of solutions requires effort.
Not everyone's reasons are addressable, though. In my grandfather's case it was the death of my grandmother that made him want to die too. Grandfather was 88 at that time and knew he was bound to start declining pretty soon anyway. He wasn't poor, or isolated, or in a bad nursing home, or anything else that society could have done anything about. Just heartbroken and worn out.
Heartbreak? Death of the love of your life?
I feel much the same way as Raptor Eye does. I'm not exactly convinced that, as terrible as those things are, there's any reason why they should mean "okay, my life is over" at the age of 88 when they don't mean that at an earlier age. My grandfather died in his mid-50s. Does that mean that my grandmother, also in her mid-50s, would have been entitled to declare "my life is over"? As it is she's now 90 and is pretty close to the point where her time as a widow has been longer than her time as a wife.
I'm not for a second suggesting that your grandfather's situation wasn't very difficult. But I really, really don't like the implications of the idea that a tragic event can mean 'my life is over', simply because too many people have thought that and subsequently been proven wrong. There are a lot of people out there who eventually discovered that only a phase of their life was over, and that a new phase could be built afterwards. It's not clear to me that there should be some kind of age limit on that rebuilding happening.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Have just written and erased a very long post on this. However, I disagree wholeheartedly with Dame Mary (as usual), and I have known cases where old people were encouraged to take their own lives rather than be a burden and spend the money their children hoped to inherit. The situations were nasty and the fallout lasted generations.
If that is the case, we seem to have many of the disadvantages of the consequentialist objections already, without the advantage of those who wish to do so being able to choose when to die.
There are already people who kill off their relatives in order to inherit; monetary gain is a commonplace motive for murder. I can't see how that impacts on a discussion over whether those who wish to die should be able to arrange for that to happen.
On a personal level, I doubt if I will arrange for my own euthanasia, as I presently subscribe to the a priori ethical objection that self destruction is forbidden by God. However, I don't think that a good enough reason to forbid others without such a belief to abide by the same rules.
What persuades you that 'influencing mum to kill herself' would be easier under those conditions? Surely if the matter were out in the open, the invidious influencing that you say goes on today would be more difficult. A doctor approached now by an elderly person asking for help to die may feel obliged to talk around the subject discreetly rather than putting it out there and judging whose real desire it is that she cease to exist. There is much more scope for misunderstanding when everyone is skirting round the edge of legality.
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
Dame Mary Warnock is an advocate of euthanasia, but she hasn't killed herself yet at 88! She claimed that far more pressure was put on her to sacrifice herself for her children when she was young, in terms of career choice, how they were brought up etc., something most women are very familiar with.
Stay-at-home-mom; this century's fate worse than death.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
