|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dignitas
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
I really don't know where I'd fall on whether I think God is okay with me personally committing suicide. I mean I'm sure he wouldn't want me to do so now, and I don't want to either, but I won't rule out that there are circumstances where God might prefer my living but wouldn't hold suicide against me.
However I am very sure that God does want me to support and show love to other people. If someone is depressed and suicidal, I know that I absolutely am required to help them find a way back to life.* However in the case of someone who is already dying in painful circumstances or in the case of someone who is facing their end of life--as in the woman in the OP--and prefers to do it their way, I'd don't think I can claim to know what God wants for them. So it would be my job to support their choices.
*Stetson in your example of the person who says they are depressed and wants to borrow Final Exit, I would call that a cry for help, I think. Someone who didn't want to be stopped wouldn't put it that way.
--------------------
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
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
From all accounts, it's fear of ending up in a similar position that led the woman in the OP to end her life while she was still able to do so.
So you think fear of death or fear of infirmity, is a justifiable reason to offer an end-of-life service to someone? Is that what you understood the point of Dignitas to be? The point of the euthanasia movement to be? It's barely legal in a handful of places in Europe and already we see people who aren't sick, who aren't infirm, and now children, being considered acceptable candidates.
If someone genuinely thought that killing sick and old and depressed people was morally right, then they would have no problem saying so in court. And as I've already said, prosecutions and convictions on this in the UK are rare anyway. Legalizing it opens the floodgates.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
I too am extremely uncomfortable with the idea of this kind of clinic becoming widespread. It's too easy to fall into the mindset that puts value on life only if it's in full health and able to contribute. It's too easy to say as some have implied above that it's better for people to have themselves 'put down' at some point rather than to use up resources which might improve lives for younger people. The moral imperative to do so should not be introduced imv.
On the other hand, prolonging a life when the patient is ready to die may be cruel, as is refusing palliative care to a patient who is obviously dying but who does not fit into a diagnostic box yet.
We will all die, but I am convinced that it can be pain-free with good palliative care and that this and sufficient provision of dignity in old age are what we should all be calling for rather than assisted suicide.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
But if I'm depressed, suicidal, and not ill or old, I don't get the cocktail of drugs available to the people at Dignitas, do I. Unless you think everyone wanting to commit suicide deserves to be able to do it as comfortably as possible regardless of the reason?
Depression is not a terminal illness.
Deciding to die in peaceful circumstances when one is already terminally ill is not the same as depressive suicide, nothing like it.
When someone with depression commits suicide, that is the depression reaching the terminal stage. Depression can absolutely be as fatal as cancer.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
From all accounts, it's fear of ending up in a similar position that led the woman in the OP to end her life while she was still able to do so.
So you think fear of death or fear of infirmity, is a justifiable reason to offer an end-of-life service to someone? Is that what you understood the point of Dignitas to be? The point of the euthanasia movement to be? It's barely legal in a handful of places in Europe and already we see people who aren't sick, who aren't infirm, and now children, being considered acceptable candidates.
If someone genuinely thought that killing sick and old and depressed people was morally right, then they would have no problem saying so in court. And as I've already said, prosecutions and convictions on this in the UK are rare anyway. Legalizing it opens the floodgates.
I'm not seeing why a child in terrible pain and suffering deserves to endure that more than an adult.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
But if I'm depressed, suicidal, and not ill or old, I don't get the cocktail of drugs available to the people at Dignitas, do I. Unless you think everyone wanting to commit suicide deserves to be able to do it as comfortably as possible regardless of the reason?
Depression is not a terminal illness.
Deciding to die in peaceful circumstances when one is already terminally ill is not the same as depressive suicide, nothing like it.
When someone with depression commits suicide, that is the depression reaching the terminal stage. Depression can absolutely be as fatal as cancer.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Boogie, but I think what Boogie means is that depression should not be a terminal illness. We should give sufferers what they need to improve their lives. Science and medicine have a long way to go in this regard, but I suspect that is because society doesn't tend to take mental illness nearly seriously enough. (Husband felt the need to remind someone on fb just today that yes depression is a real illness. I would have thought that was obvious.)
--------------------
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
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I'm not seeing why a child in terrible pain and suffering deserves to endure that more than an adult.
I'm not sure how to respond to the idea of "deserving to suffer." It's surely part of the human condition. We age, we get sick, we feel pain, we die. It happens to the good and the bad. It seems however irrelevant to this particular topic.
I am concerned for the child whose parents start subtly suggesting or pushing for euthanasia, because they find dealing with the illness too hard, or the medical costs are mounting up, or it's causing stress to the other siblings who aren't getting as much attention, or it's causing strain on the marriage, or many of the other emotional issues that surround such a situation. I also do not accept that a 10 year old cannot choose to stop attending school or to move out of their home, but can choose to end their life. It is preposterous.
The cases of people being unfairly pushed into "choosing" to die, however rare they might be, are serious enough for me to have a problem with euthanasia being legal full stop. It is the same reason I am against the death penalty.
As I've said - if a parent puts a pillow over the face of a sleeping terminally ill child because they think it is right, then that parent can explain themselves to the court. I do not see why we need to legalize this type of behavior when it is so obviously open to potential abuse.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
So you think fear of death or fear of infirmity, is a justifiable reason to offer an end-of-life service to someone? Is that what you understood the point of Dignitas to be? The point of the euthanasia movement to be?
Not fear of death, no. That would be the stupidest reason to kill yourself ever.
But a justified fear of imminent pain, helplessness, infirmity, mental degradation and loss of dignity? Yes, that's what I think it's about. Yes, I think it's a justifiable service to offer, because I can envisage circumstances in which I would want that service to be available to me. And yes, I do think that's what the point of the euthanasia movement is.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian: quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister
So you think fear of death or fear of infirmity, is a justifiable reason to offer an end-of-life service to someone? Is that what you understood the point of Dignitas to be? The point of the euthanasia movement to be?
Not fear of death, no. That would be the stupidest reason to kill yourself ever.
But a justified fear of imminent pain, helplessness, infirmity, mental degradation and loss of dignity? Yes, that's what I think it's about. Yes, I think it's a justifiable service to offer, because I can envisage circumstances in which I would want that service to be available to me. And yes, I do think that's what the point of the euthanasia movement is.
So then every very old person is justified in turning up at Dignitas with €4,000 to get help in suicide. Because they are all close to death, and death rather often comes with pain, and suffering, and loss of dignity. And we know Dignitas will take the money and do it, they did it to this woman who was just frankly suicidal and it seems to have nothing to do with any actual ailment.
What you are saying is exactly why people like me see this as a slippery slope.
[Code fix -Gwai]
[ 08. April 2014, 16:02: Message edited by: Gwai ]
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Tulfes
Shipmate
# 18000
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Well yes, dying in pain is such a great thing, isn't it?
This!
I am far less afraid of being unwillingly euthanized than I am of being forced to endure terrible pain and powerlessness because someone thinks he/she is defending my "right to life."
It sickens me that we are far more merciful to our pets than to our loved ones. Most people would be horrified at forcing a beloved cat or dog to endure what opponents of the right-to-die movement want to make people endure.
If someone believes that suicide is a "sin," fine. Don't commit suicide. But, for God's sake (and I mean that literally!), don't impose your convictions on other people. Their life is not your life to manage and control. They're not accountable to you. They're accountable to God. Let them work it out with Him. For my part, I don't believe in a God who requires people to endure unspeakable agony, and I see the folks at Dignitas as serving God's will, not thwarting it.
[Yes, the situation of the poor lady of the OP is a complex and ambiguous one. But hers is far from the typical situation.]
How do we know that her situation is far from typical? She sought publicity in the UK before her death to explain her actions, presumably to be published only after the deed. We simply don't know the circumstances of those killed daily behind the doors of the Dignatas clinic.
Posts: 175 | Registered: Feb 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
We will all die, but I am convinced that it can be pain-free with good palliative care and that this and sufficient provision of dignity in old age are what we should all be calling for rather than assisted suicide.
Of course it can - see my story about my Mum, above.
But it often isn't - see my story about my Dad, above.
It's all about choice imo.
I also think that people of faith have no need whatever to fear death - and giving the option of good, dignified, painless death to those who are at the end of life would show this lack of fear admirably.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dv:
A push for voluntary euthanasia often ends up in lots of people being involuntarily euthanased as we have seen in the Netherlands and Belgium.
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/07/04/thousands-in-netherlands-die-without-consent-since-euthanasia-ok/
No thanks. It's alright for the articulate and assertive, perhaps. What about others?
Have you got a citation for an article NOT from a explictly biased source?
From the "About Us" link on that source--
quote:
LifeNews.com is an independent news agency devoted to reporting news that affects the pro-life community.
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
So then every very old person is justified in turning up at Dignitas with €4,000 to get help in suicide. Because they are all close to death, and death rather often comes with pain, and suffering, and loss of dignity.
The reason people go to Dignitas is because of a significant prospect of pain, suffering and loss of dignity for an extended period before their death.
Not all pain can be removed by palliative care. The last decade of my grandmother's life was destroyed by Alzheimer's, and she spent it in virtually constant fear and distress even though physically she was as strong as an ox. If I were 80 years old and received the same diagnosis, I would definitely be thinking about plane tickets to Switzerland. What's wrong with that?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The reason people go to Dignitas is because of a significant prospect of pain, suffering and loss of dignity for an extended period before their death.
Who is going to determine this? The organization that is taking money to provide the service? Am I supposed to trust them to make a fair and honest assessment of the situation?
Doctors not only don't want to do it, but actually can't accurately determine it either.
quote:
Penney Lewis, a law professor at King’s College London, said the Belgian provision defines terminal illnesses as those in which death is expected within “days, weeks, months,” or probably less than one year. In the U.S. state of Oregon, adult euthanasia law specifies a time period of six months.
“It’s never perfect, there’s always uncertainty,” said Lewis, who is co-director of the college’s Centre for Medical Law and Ethics. “We know there are patients who received a prescription in Oregon and are still alive six months later.”
Bloomberg News
From the National Institutes of Health in the US:
quote:
The present paper provides evidence that these laws and safeguards are regularly ignored and transgressed in all the jurisdictions and that transgressions are not prosecuted. For example, about 900 people annually are administered lethal substances without having given explicit consent, and in one jurisdiction, almost 50% of cases of euthanasia are not reported. Increased tolerance of transgressions in societies with such laws represents a social “slippery slope,” as do changes to the laws and criteria that followed legalization. Although the initial intent was to limit euthanasia and assisted suicide to a last-resort option for a very small number of terminally ill people, some jurisdictions now extend the practice to newborns, children, and people with dementia. A terminal illness is no longer a prerequisite. In the Netherlands, euthanasia for anyone over the age of 70 who is “tired of living” is now being considered. Legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide therefore places many people at risk, affects the values of society over time, and does not provide controls and safeguards.
NIH
Legalizing this is nothing short of reckless.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
We will all die, but I am convinced that it can be pain-free with good palliative care and that this and sufficient provision of dignity in old age are what we should all be calling for rather than assisted suicide.
Of course it can - see my story about my Mum, above.
But it often isn't - see my story about my Dad, above.
It's all about choice imo.
I don't think it's about choice. I think it's about provision, which means it's about money and education.
We shouldn't lack for either in this situation, and we don't - the hospice movement has shown that no one need die in pain, and that very high doses of morphine do have a double effect (which is fine by me. That is a clinical call, not an moral one).
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I am personally against, and generally hostile, to active euthanasia. No problem with withdrawal of life support. But death has to be obvious and immanent for that. I have been present and watched as two of my best friends died of cancer, and three family members. Palliative sedation was the process for 2 of them. I suspect that most of the posters to this thread are unaware of palliative sedation frm what I have read on the thread, the far more reasonable and preferable option.
There was a lot of discussion on the CBC about this. Here is a link to the debate of a euthanasia bill in Québec.
Dr Van Gurp states my thinking:
quote:
... patients who request help in dying are in psychological turmoil and in physical pain. However, in his 30 years of palliative care practice, he says he's rarely encountered a case where a patient's pain cannot be relieved.
"Once you relieve the pain, once you get a supportive relationship — you have nurses, doctors coming [into their home] they don't want the lethal injection anymore."
He said by some estimates, only 10 or 20 per cent of terminally ill Quebecers have access to that kind of high quality palliative care.
"So there are a lot of people suffering, in pain," Van Gurp said. "But the solution is not to introduce euthanasia, it's to introduce high quality palliative care...."
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I'm not seeing why a child in terrible pain and suffering deserves to endure that more than an adult.
I'm not sure how to respond to the idea of "deserving to suffer." It's surely part of the human condition. We age, we get sick, we feel pain, we die. It happens to the good and the bad. It seems however irrelevant to this particular topic.
I am concerned for the child whose parents start subtly suggesting or pushing for euthanasia, because they find dealing with the illness too hard, or the medical costs are mounting up, or it's causing stress to the other siblings who aren't getting as much attention, or it's causing strain on the marriage, or many of the other emotional issues that surround such a situation. I also do not accept that a 10 year old cannot choose to stop attending school or to move out of their home, but can choose to end their life. It is preposterous.
The cases of people being unfairly pushed into "choosing" to die, however rare they might be, are serious enough for me to have a problem with euthanasia being legal full stop. It is the same reason I am against the death penalty.
As I've said - if a parent puts a pillow over the face of a sleeping terminally ill child because they think it is right, then that parent can explain themselves to the court. I do not see why we need to legalize this type of behavior when it is so obviously open to potential abuse.
I don't know about Belgian laws regarding compulsory school attendance or moving out, but would imagine that under very special circumstances, a 10yo could choose to stop attending school or choose to leave home (in very extreme situations). Being ill enough for euthanasia to be a seriously considered idea is an extreme situation for anyone, let alone a 10yo, so there would be a proportionate amount of hoops to jump through there too. It's not like a young person can decide to die on a whim. The situation is properly considered with medical assessments etc.
Yes, there is the danger of abuse, but that's why checks and balances are put in place. Lots of things can be abused but that doesn't mean they should automatically be banned.
And my comment about 'deserving' to suffer was referring to adults in severe life-limiting pain and/or terminally ill being allowed to choose to end that suffering, and children being stuck with it. That seems extremely cruel and unfair. We put animals out of their suffering, why should humans be denied that mercy?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I am personally against, and generally hostile, to active euthanasia. No problem with withdrawal of life support. But death has to be obvious and immanent for that. I have been present and watched as two of my best friends died of cancer, and three family members. Palliative sedation was the process for 2 of them. I suspect that most of the posters to this thread are unaware of palliative sedation frm what I have read on the thread, the far more reasonable and preferable option.
This certainly would not have been an option for the woman in the OP.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I am personally against, and generally hostile, to active euthanasia. No problem with withdrawal of life support. But death has to be obvious and immanent for that. I have been present and watched as two of my best friends died of cancer, and three family members. Palliative sedation was the process for 2 of them. I suspect that most of the posters to this thread are unaware of palliative sedation frm what I have read on the thread, the far more reasonable and preferable option.
This certainly would not have been an option for the woman in the OP.
It might well have been, later. As it was, she unambiguously committed suicide, and to call it euthanasia is misleading.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
We put animals out of their suffering, why should humans be denied that mercy?
Animals are 'put down' for all kinds of reasons. Their lives are considered to be at our disposal. When a pet is old, it is often killed rather than given medication to reduce costs. Sometimes a pet is killed to remove the suffering of the owner more than that of the pet.
Mercy and compassion and love allow us to care for each other until we die, not to treat each other as disposable belongings.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
We put animals out of their suffering, why should humans be denied that mercy?
Animals are 'put down' for all kinds of reasons. Their lives are considered to be at our disposal. When a pet is old, it is often killed rather than given medication to reduce costs. Sometimes a pet is killed to remove the suffering of the owner more than that of the pet.
Mercy and compassion and love allow us to care for each other until we die, not to treat each other as disposable belongings.
Mercy and compassion and love allow us to end the suffering of animals, it surely should allow us to end the suffering of each other. Sometimes, the only end to suffering is death.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Yes, there is the danger of abuse, but that's why checks and balances are put in place. Lots of things can be abused but that doesn't mean they should automatically be banned.
According to the NIH (see my post above) the checks don't work. People are being euthanized beyond the scope of the laws' original intentions.
[code]
[ 08. April 2014, 19:46: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
dv
Shipmate
# 15714
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
Have you got a citation for an article NOT from a explictly biased source?
From the "About Us" link on that source--
quote:
LifeNews.com is an independent news agency devoted to reporting news that affects the pro-life community.
There are plenty more articles in similar vein. Google is your friend. Of course they tend to be found on pro-life sites; pro-killing sites tend to emphasize how consensual everything is. The mainstream media (as with abortion) usually follows the latter narrative. All roses and apple pie.
Posts: 70 | From: Lancs UK | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I am personally against, and generally hostile, to active euthanasia. No problem with withdrawal of life support. But death has to be obvious and immanent for that. I have been present and watched as two of my best friends died of cancer, and three family members. Palliative sedation was the process for 2 of them. I suspect that most of the posters to this thread are unaware of palliative sedation frm what I have read on the thread, the far more reasonable and preferable option.
This certainly would not have been an option for the woman in the OP.
I understand the poor care and mishandling of specific situations. The key is 'mishandling' and poor palliative care. I would tend to move the discussion from oxymorons like 'death with dignity' to 'proper palliative care' .
The woman in the OP, not sure what her diagnosis psychologically was. This: "she was frustrated at the lack of interaction in modern life, because of our reliance on computers and the Internet." is insufficient reason to die. She probably was depressed and who knows what else. Lonely for certain.
I worry, frankly, about the burden of all the ageing people, which we are told about locally. The hue and cry is that their care is expensive, that the system cannot handle them all. I believe that we will see the burdensome elderly and terminally ill given the economic argument such that they will choose to actively end their lives or to be killed.
The idea that we have the right to end our lives is, in my opinion, wrongly worded. We have the capacity to do so, but right? There are appropriate limits on personal freedom to choose. This is one of them.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Marvin wrote: quote:
But a justified fear of imminent pain, helplessness, infirmity, mental degradation and loss of dignity? Yes, that's what I think it's about. Yes, I think it's a justifiable service to offer, because I can envisage circumstances in which I would want that service to be available to me. And yes, I do think that's what the point of the euthanasia movement is.
One of the problems bedevilling this thread is the issue of what euthanasia actually is. It means "a good death". A majority of the people who present themselves at Dignitas do so - by Dignitas's own report - because of that fear, though not necessarily imminent. The majority (I think the figure is around 70%) go away after their first counselling session and are never seen again. But the euthanasia movement is not about just them - they are the most obvious clients for such a service, but over 20% of all cases taken to completion (i.e. death) are not suffering from any such symptoms but are simply wanting out. They just don't want to live any more. No doubt there are many background stories to be heard there.
Historically, since the late 19th century, the euthanasia movement has been associated with the eugenics movement, though not since WW2 and the activities of the third reich in both areas. Anyway, eugenics is off the agenda for the present. This is not to tar current euthanasia with a criticism it does not deserve, but simply to point out that some people are aware of the history of the movement, and wary about what stages two and three may involve. It has been there in the past, so they are not making things up.
Up till now, though, the argument has been mostly at cross purposes. If you only see euthanasia being restricted to a certain category (e.g. those suffering a high degree of pain, likely to die within 6 months etc. - the choice is yours) I think it would be helpful if you said so, and why.
Because at the moment, the proposal is for euthanasia - for all - but justified on the basis of the needs of the few. It is hardly surprising that you are getting consistent criticism on the fate of the rest of us, or what next. Once you have done that, it ought to be much easier to outline how you could stop the process from encroaching into areas where it does not belong.
I guess in other words, you need to be aware of the weaknesses in your own position, rather than those you are arguing against. If you can then explain how those weaknesses can be guarded against, then you may be more convincing. Until then, it makes little sense.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
An elderly client of mine died a dreadful and extended death several years ago.
She was institutionalized at age 4; her family never saw her again after dropping her off. With an IQ of perhaps 80, she eventually learned to read (just decode, really) at about 2nd-grade level; never worked; suffered assorted kinds of abuse while institutionalized; was transferred to a group home where she was in constant conflict with other residents & staff; lived her final decade alone in a subsidized apartment complex, again with constant conflict with neighbors, management, and maintenance crew; was physically unable to leave the building without assistance due to mobility impairments.
Extraordinary efforts -- above & beyond the call of any conceivable duty -- to offer her some sense of worth, or belonging, or even simple enjoyment -- she regarded both as her right & due and also as deficient, even deliberately so.
In short, she lived a long and, to all outward appearances, pretty miserable life. In the years I worked with her, I never heard her utter a positive statement, crack a smile, laugh, or offer anything but bitter criticism of any human within her view. She required, as she aged, a fair amount of pretty expensive medical intervention, as her self-care was sporadic at best.
She burned out every one of my staff at the time.
When her final illness arrived, heroic measures were used to keep her alive, despite her urgings to leave her alone and let her die.
I often think of her. Most of us like to believe, I suppose, that our lives mean something; that the pains and care we take are for some worthy purpose; that whatever trials we suffer in the present will be somehow worth the better future that we hope and long for.
This woman -- call her Alice -- had any possible brighter future foreclosed on the day she was left at the state school by a family which simply couldn't cope with her. That abandonment and subsequent bereavement, plus the horrors (and they were horrors; I read her case file) she suffered over her decades there, plus the paucity of internal resources she was granted at the get-go for coping with these, plus the misery she spread wherever she went -- it all leaves me breathless, even now.
Here we are, essentially wrestling with the question, "What is the worth of human life and death?" I have no answer. But I do think it's worth asking about the worth of human misery, and maintaining that misery even when the human suffering it pleads to be let go.
Is misery with no prospect of amelioration required of us? I know I have never come so close as I did with Alice to wanting the wherewithal to help her end her life.
I didn't, and I feel I failed Alice, just as I had for the previous 7 years she was my client.
Anne, from the OP, saw no livable future for herself. I have a considerably-older sister who refuses to have anything to do with computers; she feels she's done all the new learning she cares to do, and is just managing to keep going with the assorted aches, pains, and issues of growing older. Surely we can decide for ourselves what purposes to put our energies to?
I'd never question Anne's decision. At 89, she's entitled to determine what she wishes to cope with. I hope to have the wisdom and courage to do the same.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
One bad case does not a rule make. I don't want to be dismissive, but it is not possible to derive a general way from a specific, unique situation. It's just not.
Here's a link to the physician who invented the term "palliative care", Dr. Balfour Mount. The link contains his comments on end of life care, which I think are probably worth considering, for the general principles we can derive. The issue is far, far more nuanced than having a doctor inject lethal drugs.
quote:
I deeply resent the manipulative phrase ‘medically assisted dying’ when referring to legalizing euthanasia,” he said. “Medically assisted dying is what I have been concerned with for 40 years. It has no relationship to intentionally ending my patient’s life. Instead, the goal is quality of life.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge
When her final illness arrived, heroic measures were used to keep her alive, despite her urgings to leave her alone and let her die.
Why were heroic measures used? Wasn't she allowed to sign a 'Do not resuscitate' order, and wasn't she free to refuse treatment?
If she was not because she was considered mentally incompetent, there should have been a court-appointed guardian who had the power to make such decisions for her.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I will be chosing the time and manner of [my death] - in many years to come, hopefully!
How can you be so sure that you will not be killed by a drunk driver next week? ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
My grandmother-in-law is 90 and bedridden. ... And she would not be able to take her own life if she wanted to.
Why not? Do you mean that if she decided to stop eating, she would be force-fed against her will?
On the wider issue, as others have said, I do not see why Anne had to travel to Switzerland when she was surely quite capable of killing herself in the comfort of her own home if she wished to. And the idea of doctors being authorised to kill their patients just strikes me as profoundly wrong, whatever safeguards are in place.
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge
When her final illness arrived, heroic measures were used to keep her alive, despite her urgings to leave her alone and let her die.
Why were heroic measures used? Wasn't she allowed to sign a 'Do not resuscitate' order, and wasn't she free to refuse treatment?
If she was not because she was considered mentally incompetent, there should have been a court-appointed guardian who had the power to make such decisions for her.
Moo
Guardianship is not easy to establish in this state; it would likely not have been granted anyway. As to heroic measure, she had form with the hospital staff. I suspect they were trying to forestall a lawsuit, given her propensity for threatening to file complaints (she might, after all, have pulled through).
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
[One of the downsides of not having such a facility in the UK is that UK residents who wish to take this route must do so whilst they are able to undertake the rigours of international travel. Were it possible to take a simple road journey to the final destination it would not be necessary to seek closure as early in one's decline as the fear of being too ill to reach Switzerland imposes.
The niece could have facilitated her aunt's death in the UK, and faced the appropriate consequences for it, or the woman could have done it herself as she is not even terminally ill or handicapped. The reason they went to Switzerland was to have the illusion that what they were doing was OK because it's legal there.
This is a slippery slope, not in theory but in practice. Already Belgium now allows euthanizing children. So we've gone from "ending the life of the suffering old dear, she's put up with enough" to 10 year olds now as well. How a child is capable of rationally deciding he or she wishes to die is beyond me, let alone that they are not being influenced by parental pressure in the direction of euthanasia. Many doctors in Belgium protested this law, so the health community is not in support of it either.
I heard a radio program about Hungary, which has a high suicide rate, and someone mentioned that older people feel obliged to kill themselves so as not to become a burden to their families. Make assisted suicide legal here and I can assure you many older and ill people will be victimized by family pressure. And that will put doctors who work in such facilities in such a terrible moral position that frankly we should not even consider legalizing it for one second.
Article on "Anne" in OP
I understand your response - it opposes my point without invalidating it. The lack of a facility in the UK means that some UK residents who wish to avail themselves of Dignitas-like facilities do so weeks/months earlier than they would do if they didn't have to travel to Switzerland.
I'm not sure what was illusory - for the aunt it was OK, maybe imperfect but good enough to be OK. As to facilitating matters in the UK - perhaps the aunt did not wish to expose her niece to the "appropriate consequences" - that would seem to be the likely feeling of a caring, grateful aunt wouldn't it?
Your assurance based upon "someone said" is undoubtedly heartfelt but not evidence.
I am content with the actions of the nursing home which assured me that my mother would receive sufficient morphine to avoid pain - the dose needed to avoid pain was such that she died three days later without recovering consciousness after my last visit. I'm at a loss to
a) see how this could possibly have been anything other than the correct way to show respect for her and
b) how, since we both knew that the relief of her pain was going to hasten her death, the action taken was anything other than assisted dying. Assisted dying when someone has no ability to express their wishes in the matter - a.k.a murder?.
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
According to the NIH (see my post above) the checks don't work. People are being euthanized beyond the scope of the laws' original intentions.
seekingsister: You are making statements intended to mislead and to falsely appeal to authority.
What you allege is not "according to the NIH." You have provided a link to one opinion article, published by one author, in a publication provided by one section of the National Institutes of Health. Looking at the same site leads to another paper disputing the conclusions of your linked article: see
here, which refers to your linked article as "smoke and mirrors."
Aren't these issues complicated enough without deliberately misleading people?
These conversations are always about massive amounts of anxiety from:
1. People with disabilities worrying that they will be involuntarily euthanized, and/or have services and assistance withdrawn from them until they will be pressured into assisted suicide.
2. People worried about being pressured into assisted suicide once they are elderly.
3. People who extend their religious convictions about a certain long-dead Horse into this conversation.
Cannot each of these be addressed seriously and productively? Well maybe not number 3.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I will be chosing the time and manner of [my death] - in many years to come, hopefully!
How can you be so sure that you will not be killed by a drunk driver next week?
Assuming I live to do so, obviously.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
I feel disturbed that doctors are now being pressured to euthanase their patients which is contrary to the traditional way doctors care for their patients. My own GP has said that he could not participate and would give up the practice of medicine if push came to shove. Many doctors of my acquaintance have used their skills to ease pain of dying patients, but to ask them to act as executioners is immoral in my opinion.
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I feel disturbed that doctors are now being pressured to euthanase their patients which is contrary to the traditional way doctors care for their patients. My own GP has said that he could not participate and would give up the practice of medicine if push came to shove. Many doctors of my acquaintance have used their skills to ease pain of dying patients, but to ask them to act as executioners is immoral in my opinion.
Having seen these processes from the inside, in the death of my grandmother and my father, the truth is that the dividing line between alleviation of great pain and execution become very fine indeed. Giving morphine to the dying makes the boundary very blurred, such is the nature of the medication and the ability of the dying to build up tolerance of what might otherwise be legal doses. The truth is that nobody really knows when enough for one purpose has become the means of achieving the other.
When you are in the middle of it, with a loved one, calm assessment of moral principle is not exactly the first thing on your mind.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tulfes
Shipmate
# 18000
|
Posted
Barnabas, forgive me if this is not an answer to your point, but isn't it about intention rather than outcome? If the intention in giving the drug is to hasten death, it is illegal. If the intention is to alleviate pain, it is okay, even if another outcome (in addition to alleviating pain) is that death is hastened. A mixed intention (intending to alleviate pain and intending to hasten death) is probably illegal.
t
Posts: 175 | Registered: Feb 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
seekingsister: You are making statements intended to mislead and to falsely appeal to authority.
Apologies as that was not my intention.
However I quoted from a Bloomberg article that cites a Belgian doctor and two medical ethics professors, which I failed to link to and do so here:
Bloomberg
There seems to be on the side of those in favour of euthanasia a desire to focus on emotions. Why do that, when there are facts available? It is a fact that people who are not terminal and not in constant pain are being euthanized. It is a fact that doctors in places where euthanasia is legal are opposing it in many cases. It is also a fact that we have the ability to manage end-of-life pain and discomfort without actively causing death.
The Daily Beast
I haven't had a single response that explains why keeping it illegal and allowing doctors and loved ones who wish to conduct it, to answer for their behavior to within the legal system, is so untenable given the low rate of actual convictions in this area. I don't see why the state has an interest in making it particular easy for the suicidal to kill themselves - regardless of the reason for that suicide. However it has a clear interest in determining whether or not someone has pushed their grandmother into an earlier than normal death through malice or greed - which does happen - and so the laws as they exist can at least protect those people.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
seekingsister: You are making statements intended to mislead and to falsely appeal to authority.
Apologies as that was not my intention.
However I quoted from a Bloomberg article that cites a Belgian doctor and two medical ethics professors, which I failed to link to and do so here:
Bloomberg
There seems to be on the side of those in favour of euthanasia a desire to focus on emotions. Why do that, when there are facts available? It is a fact that people who are not terminal and not in constant pain are being euthanized. It is a fact that doctors in places where euthanasia is legal are opposing it in many cases. It is also a fact that we have the ability to manage end-of-life pain and discomfort without actively causing death.
The Daily Beast
I haven't had a single response that explains why keeping it illegal and allowing doctors and loved ones who wish to conduct it, to answer for their behavior to within the legal system, is so untenable given the low rate of actual convictions in this area. I don't see why the state has an interest in making it particular easy for the suicidal to kill themselves - regardless of the reason for that suicide. However it has a clear interest in determining whether or not someone has pushed their grandmother into an earlier than normal death through malice or greed - which does happen - and so the laws as they exist can at least protect those people.
ISTM that your entire argument is based on the fact that the laws do not work - do you wish to make it illegal for UK citizens to visit Switzerland?
As with "The War on Drugs" there is a real possibility that the right legal framework might work much better* than inevitably ineffective bans - did we not learn from Prohibition in the US that humans will find ways around such restrictions, and some will encourage (and greatly profit from) such simplistic responses.
*better for real, vulnerable people - and by that I mean particularly both the intended deceased and their loved ones.
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
Barnabas, forgive me if this is not an answer to your point, but isn't it about intention rather than outcome? If the intention in giving the drug is to hasten death, it is illegal. If the intention is to alleviate pain, it is okay, even if another outcome (in addition to alleviating pain) is that death is hastened. A mixed intention (intending to alleviate pain and intending to hasten death) is probably illegal.
t
Strictly speaking, yes. I'm not sure that the real intention can always be proved, but I am sure that on many an occasion it is wise not to examine it.
"Mens rea", the usual legal phrase which applies in these circumstances, is short hand for the Latin phrase, "actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea," which means "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty".
There is a point in the alleviation of pain where the test of the guilty mind shifts. The perpetuation of pain in preservation of the strict principle becomes uncomfortably pharisaic. In Hippocratic oath terms, withholding an increase in pain medication because it crosses some kind of perceived "safe" limit is doing a different kind of harm. What is "safe" under these circumstances?
This is not an academic point. I've been right in the middle of it. I've stood by, while a very urgent telephone discussion over "safe and legal" levels of pain medication took place, between a Macmillan nurse and a GP. One of my loved ones was screaming in agony, despite maximum syringe driver relief in accordance with the present prescription and "safe limits" perceptions. I retained just about enough calm enough to understand the need for the call, the necessity to "cover asses" in accordance with current medical guidelines. But inside, I was screaming too.
Such experiences change your understanding about what may be both necessary, kind and good in in these desperate circumstances.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
ISTM that your entire argument is based on the fact that the laws do not work - do you wish to make it illegal for UK citizens to visit Switzerland?
The laws do work, the justice system is set up to take mitigating factors into account. A terminally ill cancer patient of 80 years old being smothered by a loved one is a clear case where those circumstances come into play. That's why people are rarely locked up for it. That is not a failure, it's how things are meant to function.
But many critics in Netherlands and Belgium are saying that some clinics are euthanizing with reporting it, that people who are not seriously ill are being served. In fact in Netherlands (in the Daily Beast link I posted) they have set up mobile clinics because family doctors were routinely refusing euthanasia to patients they did not feel qualified under the law.
In such an environment, how can the police properly determine if people are being coerced or pressured? Whereas in the UK now, if the above 80 year old is smothered, there will be an investigation. If it turns out that there's a nice inheritance involved and the loved one was in financial trouble, then they can start to see if foul play was really the intention rather than mercy.
I do not wish UK citizens who travel to Switzerland to be punished. I just don't want it happening here. I would imagine adamantly pro-life Irish people feel the same way about women travelling to England for abortions.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
The laws do work, the justice system is set up to take mitigating factors into account. A terminally ill cancer patient of 80 years old being smothered by a loved one is a clear case where those circumstances come into play. That's why people are rarely locked up for it. That is not a failure, it's how things are meant to function.
There is no way I could ever ask a loved one to smother me. What an awful thing for them to have to do and for me to have to suffer! An drink to simply go to sleep and not wake up is another story entirely. Firstly, you take it yourself so, although loved ones can be present, they are not killing you. Secondly, it's a kind and painless way to die.
We do it for our pets. A friend had to have her beloved dog put to sleep yesterday. Another friend posted "You made the hardest and most loving decision you could. Your decision to endure pain so that he could be released from it was the most loving thing you could do for him."
I simply ask that my loved ones are able to be as kind to me at the end as I am to my pets.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dv:
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
Have you got a citation for an article NOT from a explictly biased source?
From the "About Us" link on that source--
quote:
LifeNews.com is an independent news agency devoted to reporting news that affects the pro-life community.
There are plenty more articles in similar vein. Google is your friend. Of course they tend to be found on pro-life sites; pro-killing sites tend to emphasize how consensual everything is. The mainstream media (as with abortion) usually follows the latter narrative. All roses and apple pie.
Sorry--you made a claim. You shouldn't expect us to do your research for you. Either pony up something from a neutral source (There must be something out there if your claim is true), or expect your argument to be discounted.
BTW--Pro-killing? Really? Talk about loaded words... Vilification of those with opposing views is rather poor technique and a tacit admission your side isn't able to win on merits.
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
The Latimer case in Canada is one which informed many of us. Also Sue Rodriguez.
It is interesting that the language may be euthanasia, assisted suicide, and I don't think I hear 'mercy killing' as much any more.
Latimer had used carbon monoxide to end the life of his daughter who was in a lot of pain. Rodriguez lost a supreme court case to legalise assisted suicide. She had ALS and did an assisted suicide any way.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
Referring to the Latimer case is IMO extremely unhelpful when discussing assisted suicide. Suicide means "killing oneself intentionally." Tracey Latimer had severe developmental delays and was non-verbal. No one has ever thought or said that she was capable of forming the intent to kill herself.
Sue Rodriguez, on the other hand, was capable of forming the intent to take her own life, and of communicating this desire.
In this context, reference to the Latimer case only serves to jack up the anxieties of disabled people that they will be euthanized. For the record then: euthanasia and assisted suicide ARE NOT THE SAME THING. You might as well refer to the killing of one sniper by another sniper, or drunk driving, or pollution, if you are going to refer to all manner of human-caused death as being somehow in the same category.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Oh, but I think the worries of disabled people are part of this. Thus Latimer is relevant. And those who cannot speak for themselves cannot be excluded. Would someone be persuaded that they should end their life and then not so freely choose to do so? I think it is probable. How far away is the idea of making the most humane decision for someone who cannot make the decision for themselves. Not far in my view.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Kevin
Ship's Gaffer
# 3492
|
Posted
Culling old people is evil, pure and simple: it's homicide!
--------------------
If you board the wrong train, it is no use running along the corridor in the other direction Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Writing is currently my hobby, not yet my profession.
Posts: 30517 | From: White Hart Lane | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Oh, but I think the worries of disabled people are part of this. Thus Latimer is relevant. And those who cannot speak for themselves cannot be excluded. Would someone be persuaded that they should end their life and then not so freely choose to do so? I think it is probable. How far away is the idea of making the most humane decision for someone who cannot make the decision for themselves. Not far in my view.
Latimer is not relevant at all. In this case, a helpless child was murdered. Latimer freely admitted this, but claimed extenuating circumstances. He served time, and the Parole Board granted him parole on the grounds that he was unlikely to reoffend.
Unless he had another disabled child, I'm sure.
The fear of many disabled people is that they might be left in the tender care of people who think like Latimer.
He certainly is no misunderstood father, and has never expressed regret for taking Tracey's life.
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
PeteC: This, exactly. Thank you.
no prophet: There is so little clarity to be had in these discussions, that it profits little to remove such as there may be. Every time someone cries "slippery slope!" someone else cries "moral panic!" and the discussion is left at a stalemate.
Assisted suicide is different from euthanasia in the category of intent and communication. Anyone who is feeling suicidal for any reason ought to receive treatment for it. (It may be useful to discuss the proposed time frame of such treatment.) However, if the person can present compelling reasons after attempted treatment why they may still desire a medically assisted suicide, I think they should receive a hearing, and possibly the help they desire.
I would do everything in my power to persuade that person their life has value. But failing my attempt to persuade, I cannot in good conscience dictate to a competent person the value of their life. To "love my neighbour" is not to insist that my definition of their life supersede their own self-chosen definition. Suffering and death are intensely personal. My insistence on someone else enduring suffering for the sake of the God in which I believe, if they do not share my belief, is horrendously unethical. YMMV.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
