Should the law make it easier for us to help the terminally ill die?

philologos

Nodin wrote: »

Yet others have.

I don't think any country has legalised for euthanasia in a way that can safeguard against these potential threats thus far. Infact it would be highly disingenuous to say so without providing backup.

Tell me how could this concern from the House of Lord's in 1994 concerning legislating for euthanasia be stopped effectively. One should ensure that there are no dangers or risks concerning legalisation before it goes ahead:

Lord Walton of Detchant Detchant - February 1994 wrote:

We concluded that it was virtually impossible to
ensure that all acts of euthanasia were truly
voluntary and that any liberalisation of the
law in the United Kingdom could not be
abused. We were also concerned that
vulnerable people - the elderly, lonely, sick or
distressed - would feel pressure, whether real
or imagined, to request early death.’

The safer option seems to be pallative care. This group has been lobbying for it in the UK in response to growing attention to euthanasia in the public sphere:
http://www.carenotkilling.org.uk

What people don't inform you about too, is that in practice not all euthanasia is voluntary.

This link explains common objections to good pallative care as opposed to euthanasia.

Maddison

Yes I believe that euthenasia should be legalised in extreme circumstances. My granny was diagnosed with cancer in September 2005, when she was diagnosed It was already too late for chemo, also the doctors said that with her age It would prob do more harm than good....she lived until May 2006 but those few months were horrible for her & the rest of the family. One week she would be bright as a button, the next week we would be thinking ''this is it'', this happened throughout the months that she had left, even in her times were she seemed perky she bore a brave face although she confided in me that the pain was unbearable & she was ready to die. It was a slow horrible death & while there was no way in hell I would have turned the lights out for her I would have rathered she died in the manner that she wanted to, she was a proud lady & from the time that she was diagnosed her body deteriorated badly & she wasnt able to do the things that she would have loved to have done anyway.

bronte

Having watched several family members suffer from cancer for long periods and express a desire to just go to sleep, I do think it should be allowed.
It's a damn tricky one to regulate but as someone else mentioned we grant our pets a dignified death,but my loved ones and many others certainly didn't have that choice.
I know for a fact I would like to have the option if faced with that kind of suffering.

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think any country has legalised for euthanasia in a way that can safeguard against these potential threats thus far.

The countries that have legalised it would disagree. Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands have provided a framework, which seems to function.

We were also concerned that
vulnerable people - the elderly, lonely, sick or
distressed - would feel pressure, whether real
or imagined, to request early death.’

We're not discussing Euthanasia for those reasons. Nor has anyone suggested it. We're talking about suffering a long and painful drawn out death, in the case of an incurable illness.

philologos

Nodin wrote: »

The countries that have legalised it would disagree. Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands have provided a framework, which seems to function.

In the Netherlands, euthanasia is available without the consent of the individual, I don't think it's the prime example to note. The audio of the speaker I gave explains this adequately, and the PDF I provided a few posts ago.

Not all forms of euthanasia need the consent of the deceased to die, and even if they did, we can't know if pressure is not involved in the decision making it extremely dangerous.

Just because it is legal in other countries isn't a good enough reason to legalise it unless you can provide clear evidence that it is safe to do so and that the law is abuse proof.

This is my problem with liberalism concerning laws like these. Matters of life and death aren't something to turn a blind eye to, these must be safe before they can be legalised.

I asked you did you have any evidence the the concerns that were raised in the House of Lords were dealt with in other countries. You have merely retorted to say that it is legal elsewhere so they must be. That isn't dealing with what I asked though.

If good pallative care is a reasonable option to alleviate suffering in hospitals why should there be the need of euthanasia? People often think euthanasia is the best option until they know what the hospitals can actually do for them.

In Oregon only 5% received a psychiatric assessment to check if it was a problem motivated with psychological difficulties before euthanasia was carried out.

In the Netherlands there were 900 cases of non-voluntary euthanasia in 1995. There are also other concerns about the figures from that year if you listen to the audio link I gave a few posts ago.

Nodin wrote: »

We're not discussing Euthanasia for those reasons. Nor has anyone suggested it. We're talking about suffering a long and painful drawn out death, in the case of an incurable illness.

If you are talking about euthanasia these concerns are perfectly on topic and need to be alleviated before it can be legalised at all. You can't say for sure that pressure won't be involved in the decision to have euthanasia carried out, that's the problem with it.

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

In the Netherlands, euthanasia is available without the consent of the individual, I don't think it's the prime example to note. The audio of the speaker I gave explains this adequately, and the PDF I provided a few posts ago. .

Really...Because as far as I know -

the patient's request for euthanasia must be voluntary and persist over time (the request cannot be granted when under the influence of others, psychological illness or drugs)
the patient must be fully aware of his/her condition, prospects and options
there must be consultation with at least one other independent doctor who needs to confirm the conditions mentioned above

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_the_Netherlands

Jakkass wrote: »

Not all forms of euthanasia need the consent of the deceased to die, and even if they did, we can't know if pressure is not involved in the decision making it extremely dangerous. .

....by which logic no-one should cash a cheque signed by a person not present, lest it have been forced from them. A reasonable standard can be set, enforced and met.

Jakkass wrote: »

Just because it is legal in other countries isn't a good enough reason to legalise it unless you can provide clear evidence that it is safe to do so and that the law is abuse proof. .

It has been the de facto position in the Netherlands for over 20 years, and seems to go along smoothly. Thats 'clear evidence'.

Jakkass wrote: »

I asked you did you have any evidence the the concerns that were raised in the House of Lords were dealt with in other countries. .

See above.

Jakkass wrote: »

If good pallative care is a reasonable option to alleviate suffering in hospitals why should there be the need of euthanasia? People often think euthanasia is the best option until they know what the hospitals can actually do for them. .

An informed choice would be made. Because you can't understand why somebody wouldn't wish to linger is no reason to bar them from making a descision on the matter.

Jakkass wrote: »

If you are talking about euthanasia these concerns are perfectly on topic and need to be alleviated before it can be legalised at all. You can't say for sure that pressure won't be involved in the decision to have euthanasia carried out, that's the problem with it.

Nobody has proposed Euthanasia for those problems. We might as well discuss what the fairy godmother would do in a fight with the tooth fairy.

philologos

Nodin wrote: »

Nobody has proposed Euthanasia for those problems. We might as well discuss what the fairy godmother would do in a fight with the tooth fairy.

My simple questions are these, and yes they would have to be answered positively before euthanasia can really be seriously considered.

Is there not a very high possibility that euthanasia can be abused. Yes or no?
Is there any evidence in any of the countries you have listed that there isn't a high risk that the system can be abused due to pressures? Yes or no?

If the first question is No, and the second is Yes, and you have backup to suggest so, you'd have a very good case for it. Otherwise it's plain unsafe and plain lunacy to suggest it's legalisation if it could have tragic knock on effects.

Edit: The figures of euthanasia in the Netherlands are underreported big time:

3,200 cases of VE
400 of PAS
900 of NVE
2,000 of palliation with Explicit intention of
ending life (EIEL)
18,000 of wd/ wh with EIEL
90 neonates, 2 2-5 psych pts
= >24,500 total with EIEL
(1995 figures)

The only reported figures you will have there are voluntary euthanasia (VE). Yet other means are used in the Netherlands. In 1995 according to official figures for Euthanasia you will see 3,600 being reported there which includes PAS, and VE.

Other methods such as withdrawing or withholding which amounts for 18,000 cases in that year are not considered as euthanasia and are not subject to the same standards.

There are also other means for concern:

Dutch palliative care doctor Dr. Ben Zylicz recently told those gathered at the United Kingdom’s House of Lords that euthanasia practice in his country is detrimental to good medical practice. The instances of involuntary or non-voluntary euthanasia, he reported, are becoming widespread, and in violation of formal Dutch guidelines and safeguards.

According to Zylicz, the reason doctors (and patients) often resort to euthanasia is that adequate palliative care is not easy to obtain, with only 70 specialist palliative care beds in the entire country. Moreover, few Dutch physicians have been trained in pain management and symptom control and, consequently, euthanasia is the only solution they know if the patient’s suffering becomes too great.

"If you accept euthanasia as a solution to difficult and unresolved problems in palliative care," he explained, "you will never learn anything." Most disturbing, Zylicz warned, is how often the euthanasia guidelines, established to protect against abuses, are breached by doctors. In 1995, he said, there were 900 cases of non-voluntary euthanasia reported. As many as 25 percent of those patients were killed without requesting death, even though they were fully or partly competent.

Professor Lord McColl, Lords Select Committee on Euthanasia member, added to Zylicz’s testimony by relating his reaction while on an official trip to the Netherlands. "Our visit convinced me that euthanasia is impossible to police and will be abused," he said. [British Medical Journal, 12/12/98]

Are you telling me I shouldn't still be concerned if they have been having these issues in the Netherlands?

Also if people resort to euthanasia solely because of lack of effective pallative care, shouldn't we be trying to effectively provide this care instead of resorting to killing individuals who would have otherwise lived if such services were available?

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

My simple questions are these, and yes they would have to be answered positively before euthanasia can really be seriously considered.

Is there not a very high possibility that euthanasia can be abused. Yes or no? .

Not with the correct checks in place, no.

Jakkass wrote: »

Is there any evidence in any of the countries you have listed that there isn't a high risk that the system can be abused due to pressures? Yes or no?.

No, it hasn't had a knock on effect, and is deemed perfectly normal there. Two thirds of requests in the Netherlands are denied, afaik.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/356/19/1957

Even here in a sample conducted by the lancet, over 50% were turned down.
http://books.google.ie/books?id=b52nyi3NZigC&pg=PA183&lpg=PA183&dq=euthanasia+requests+denied&source=bl&ots=rOfq1YtYef&sig=u08FRPaN4Y2gOuparsOqW9Ggqkw&hl=en&ei=4wRzSqnHIZeSjAfA6d2nBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8#v=onepage&q=euthanasia%20requests%20denied&f=false

Rayven199

Jakkass wrote: »

My simple questions are these, and yes they would have to be answered positively before euthanasia can really be seriously considered.

Is there not a very high possibility that euthanasia can be abused. Yes or no?
Is there any evidence in any of the countries you have listed that there isn't a high risk that the system can be abused due to pressures? Yes or no?

If the first question is No, and the second is Yes, and you have backup to suggest so, you'd have a very good case for it. Otherwise it's plain unsafe and plain lunacy to suggest it's legalisation if it could have tragic knock on effects.

Edit: The figures of euthanasia in the Netherlands are underreported big time:


The only reported figures you will have there are voluntary euthanasia (VE). Yet other means are used in the Netherlands. In 1995 according to official figures for Euthanasia you will see 3,600 being reported there which includes PAS, and VE.

Other methods such as withdrawing or withholding which amounts for 18,000 cases in that year are not considered as euthanasia and are not subject to the same standards.

There are also other means for concern:

I'm actually writing my thesis for my MA on this subject; the research I have found that has been conducted in relation to the possibility that 'Vulnerable' groups may be at risk (eg. being pressured into it) seems to consistantly show that this doesnt happen.
These were studies that interviewed patients and their family members whilst the patient was terminally ill and had requested a hastened death, most of whom had actually passed away by the end of the studies (the patients who went through with the assisted suicide that is, not the family members).

philologos

Nodin wrote: »

Not with the correct checks in place, no.

What are the correct checks? You can be relatively certain they aren't in the Netherlands if the guidelines concerning euthanasia are being breached in hospitals.

If people are going to propose that euthanasia should be legalised they need to guarantee that there aren't any risks first.

Nodin wrote: »

No, it hasn't had a knock on effect, and is deemed perfectly normal there. Two thirds of requests in the Netherlands are denied, afaik.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/356/19/1957

The figures suggest otherwise. Would you agree that there is a huge difference between 3,600 cases of euthanasia and 24,500? Yes or no?

Nodin wrote: »

Even here in a sample conducted by the lancet, over 50% were turned down.
http://books.google.ie/books?id=b52nyi3NZigC&pg=PA183&lpg=PA183&dq=euthanasia+requests+denied&source=bl&ots=rOfq1YtYef&sig=u08FRPaN4Y2gOuparsOqW9Ggqkw&hl=en&ei=4wRzSqnHIZeSjAfA6d2nBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8#v=onepage&q=euthanasia%20requests%20denied&f=false

I'll have to read that in more detail.

Nodin

I'm sorry, but this is base nonsense.

Dutch palliative care doctor Dr. Ben Zylicz recently told those gathered at the United Kingdom’s House of Lords that euthanasia practice in his country is detrimental to good medical practice. The instances of involuntary or non-voluntary euthanasia, he reported, are becoming widespread, and in violation of formal Dutch guidelines and safeguards.

According to Zylicz, the reason doctors (and patients) often resort to euthanasia is that adequate palliative care is not easy to obtain

"In the Netherlands palliative care is part of regular health care. In other words it is not a specialism. The approach of the Dutch government is that palliative care should be provided as much as possible by generalists (general practitioners +

nurses + care workers)."
http://www.minvws.nl/en/folders/staf/palliative_care_for_terminally_ill_patients_in_the_netherlands.asp

philologos

Rayven199 wrote: »

I'm actually writing my thesis for my MA on this subject; the research I have found that has been conducted in relation to the possibility that 'Vulnerable' groups may be at risk (eg. being pressured into it) seems to consistantly show that this doesnt happen.
These were studies that interviewed patients and their family members whilst the patient was terminally ill and had requested a hastened death, most of whom had actually passed away by the end of the studies (the patients who went through with the assisted suicide that is, not the family members).

How can you show that this doesn't happen or rather cannot happen. We need to have a system that isn't readily breachable. I'd be very interested in hearing, and I'm sure you could get some work explaining it to the House of Lords if you could do so adequately

Nodin: that article is dated to verify the 1995 statistics. Things concerning pallative care may have improved in the Netherlands since than and I hope they have. However, it does raise the curious question that if pallative care is a primary option, would less people seek euthanasia? The reasoning in that article seems to suggest so.

We still have the unhappy issue of dealing with the inaccuracies in Dutch euthanasia figures, and the unhappy issue in finding a way to prove that consent is legitimate and genuine.

Polly74

At the end of the day, it's your life, you chose everything that happens in your life so why should you not be able to choose to end it!!?

me-skywalker

666 = JAKKASS IS A JACKASS!!! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH BAN ME BAN ME BAN ME!!!

'The curse of 666 has struck again, be afraid, be very afraid!'

KnifeWRENCH

Yes, euthanasia should be legal here.
If I'm ever terminally ill with no hope of recovery or end up paralysed unable to do anything for myself, I want the right to end my life. If I could do it myself I would but if I'm unable to, then I would want someone to do it for me.

If euthanasia is never legalised here by the time I find myself in that situation, then I hope someone will take me abroad and let me die in a country progressive and sensible enough to have legalised euthanasia.

bleg

Jackass, provided you could magic away all possible doubts, pressure etc... Would you still grant a terminally ill patient, unable to take their own life, the right to euthanasia?

philologos

bleg wrote: »

Jackass, provided you could magic away all possible doubts, pressure etc... Would you still grant a terminally ill patient, unable to take their own life, the right to euthanasia?

I'd be a mixed bag on it I think. I don't see any possible reason why one would seek euthanasia if there was effective pallative care available to patients. I feel it would be ethically preferrable if we could ensure that patients could remain comfortable for as long as possible before their natural death. The idea of it rubs me personally up the wrong way, but perhaps there is still a case for it on personal autonomy grounds. It's something I'd need to give a bit more time to consider.

The pain argument is pretty much gone with pallative care and the use of medication. I feel overall that it is unnecessary, but maybe others would argue otherwise.

However, while these problems still remain with the concept of euthanasia, I am completely and utterly opposed and I think the House of Lords in 1994 made a very reasonable call. There is no real way that one can stop euthanasia legalisation from being abused.

I feel it is regressive and foolish to legalise something without first being entirely sure that it cannot be abused.

Rabies

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

Yes, euthanasia should be legal here.
If I'm ever terminally ill with no hope of recovery or end up paralysed unable to do anything for myself, I want the right to end my life. If I could do it myself I would but if I'm unable to, then I would want someone to do it for me.

If euthanasia is never legalised here by the time I find myself in that situation, then I hope someone will take me abroad and let me die in a country progressive and sensible enough to have legalised euthanasia.

That is what I told my parents about 15yrs ago. They didn't like the idea, but I still stand by it.

Would rather be dead.

the_syco

Although people should die peacefully, I'm against it. Legalise suicide for those terminally ill, but not euthanasia. After seeing some so called "angels of death" kill people in hospitals, I'm against it.

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd be a mixed bag on it I think. I don't see any possible reason why one would seek euthanasia if there was effective pallative care available to patients.
.

I can't conceive what its like to be raped, yet I don't doubt the suffering of the victim.

Jakkass wrote: »

The pain argument is pretty much gone with pallative care and the use of medication. I feel overall that it is unnecessary, but maybe others would argue otherwise.
.

Apparently so, and as its a personal decision, I would have thought that the nub.

Jakkass wrote: »

However, while these problems still remain with the concept of euthanasia, I am completely and utterly opposed and I think the House of Lords in 1994 made a very reasonable call. There is no real way that one can stop euthanasia legalisation from being abused.
.

As nothing and no-one is 100% foolproof, its actually a ridiculous call.

philologos

Nodin wrote: »

As nothing and no-one is 100% foolproof, its actually a ridiculous call.

I don't think it is a ridiculous call to expect that such things be safe before they are legalised. Infact I think that is the only reasonable approach. If something cannot be guaranteed to be safe, or free from abuse, it shouldn't be legalised. That's where I think the verdict in the House of Lord's from 1994 and ever since then has been a good precedent to set.

starchild

Yes I believe the law should make it easier for us to help the terminally ill die.

All of us have freedom of choice regarding our own life, if i decide to end my life then that is my choice and i dont believe that anybody has a right to stop me.

In the case of people who are terminally ill i would say that in the majority of cases they are so dependent on others that they need the assistance of somebody else to take their own life. I still believe they are entitled to make the choice.

Given the involvement of a 3rd party this certainly needs to be regulated properly, time would be a major factor so as its definitely not a snap decision as a result of a bad day or two.

I would think and this is just my opinion that most terminally ill people who need assistance in ending their own life are completely at peace with their decision, many suicides are snap knee jerk decisions, a terminally ill person will have gone through rigorous medical assessments and they will know exactly what the remainder of life has in store for them.

stateofflux

i think someone who is terminally ill and is proven to be of sound mind when requesting assissted suicide should be given the right....its not about pain alone...i think its more about dignity...to deny it to somebody in hell is wrong...its their life....they should have the right as long as the proper safeguards for abuses are in place....

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think it is a ridiculous call to expect that such things be safe before they are legalised. Infact I think that is the only reasonable approach. If something cannot be guaranteed to be safe, or free from abuse, it shouldn't be legalised. That's where I think the verdict in the House of Lord's from 1994 and ever since then has been a good precedent to set.

It's as safe as can be guaranteed within reason, as far as I can see. Nothing can be guaranteed 100% safe, and indeed nothing is. The guidelines in the netherlands appear to be reasonable and its functioning - I see no reason not to follow that model closely.

Lilyblue

Without a doubt yes

almostnever

Yes,fosho.

Morzadec

Yes

renraw

yes

cruiser178

Im easily led,so yes.

philologos

Nodin wrote: »

It's as safe as can be guaranteed within reason, as far as I can see. Nothing can be guaranteed 100% safe, and indeed nothing is. The guidelines in the netherlands appear to be reasonable and its functioning - I see no reason not to follow that model closely.

If you can only ensure safety in so far, then it is too dangerous a concept to be legalised IMO. Abuses such as the ones that have taken place in the Netherlands are not the ideal. I don't understand if we can alleviate the suffering and the pain through pallative care there is really no need at all for euthanasia.

In All Fairness

Jakkass wrote: »

If you can only ensure safety in so far, then it is too dangerous a concept to be legalised IMO. Abuses such as the ones that have taken place in the Netherlands are not the ideal. I don't understand if we can alleviate the suffering and the pain through pallative care there is really no need at all for euthanasia.

Jaysus mate. Even by your standards you must feel like Canute.

KnifeWRENCH

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't understand if we can alleviate the suffering and the pain through pallative care there is really no need at all for euthanasia.

No matter how much palliative care you get and no matter how much morphine is pumped into you, the end result will be the same.

Palliative care is all well and good but a person should not be forced to receive it. I would much rather be euthanised quickly than have to have my family and friends sitting around, waiting for me to die. If I ever become terminally ill I'll have no desire to be kept alive any longer than necessary, regardless of how little pain I'm in.

There's the whole financial argument aswell; providing palliative care is quite expensive. But it's hard to approach that particular subject without sounding cold and clinical.
It's said "You can't put a price on life" ; honestly, in some cases, I'd disagree. The life of a terminally ill person is really not worth spending a lot of money on saving imo. That's another reason I'd opt for euthanasia: so that I wouldn't become a financial drain on society.

Zillah

Hey Jakkass, has it ever occurred to you that even if we cannot guarantee a perfect system, that I still deserve the right to end my life, and denying me that right is unfair?

I imagine not because your real reason for opposing euthanasia is because ending human life is a sin according to your ridiculous cult and you'll do and say anything to stop it, because what God says is way more important than allowing humans to have dignity or freedom.

Do you oppose putting people in jail because we cannot be 100% sure that they're not innocent? No, because we have safe guards in place and we make a damn good effort to make sure innocent people don't go to jail. Yes, it's not perfect but we need it for a fair society.

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

If you can only ensure safety in so far, then it is too dangerous a concept to be legalised IMO.

Then you'll be for banning the automobile and air-travel then?

Four-Percent

I'd feel much happier if the law made it easier for scumbags to die really...

MagicMarker

Zillah wrote: »

Hey Jakkass, has it ever occurred to you that even if we cannot guarantee a perfect system, that I still deserve the right to end my life, and denying me that right is unfair?

I imagine not because your real reason for opposing euthanasia is because ending human life is a sin according to your ridiculous cult and you'll do and say anything to stop it, because what God says is way more important than allowing humans to have dignity or freedom.

Do you oppose putting people in jail because we cannot be 100% sure that they're not innocent? No, because we have safe guards in place and we make a damn good effort to make sure innocent people don't go to jail. Yes, it's not perfect but we need it for a fair society.

Can I get an Amen!?

philologos

Nodin wrote: »

Then you'll be for banning the automobile and air-travel then?

At least it is far easier to prove if someone consents to a car journey or a flight in comparison to choosing to die.

Zillah wrote: »

I imagine not because your real reason for opposing euthanasia is because ending human life is a sin according to your ridiculous cult and you'll do and say anything to stop it, because what God says is way more important than allowing humans to have dignity or freedom.

I think you should leave my reasoning as it is on the subject. I feel as many others do reasonably that euthanasia is far too risky to legalise. I mean legislators have come to the same viewpoint as I have.

As for my religious beliefs, I value life as a creation and I'm not going to lie that I view life as a gift from God. However, I can argue this subject without resorting to theology. What is the point in talking about it from that POV if many on this thread cannot relate to that POV? Makes very little sense doesn't it?

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

At least it is far easier to prove if someone consents to a car journey or a flight in comparison to choosing to die.

It's the risk of something going wrong. Nothing is guaranteed. 'to be human is to err' and all that. Being the religous type, its a bit hypocritical for you to ask for perfection when all religons stress the imperfection of humanity.

Jakkass wrote: »

I mean legislators have come to the same viewpoint as I have.?

...and others haven't, placing us back at square one.

Jakkass wrote: »

However, I can argue this subject without resorting to theology

.....but not very well.

The Volt

What's all this about youth in asia?

Nodin

Voltwad wrote: »

What's all this about youth in asia?

Under attack by Tentacle beasties. Terrible, really.

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

I feel as many others do reasonably that euthanasia is far too risky to legalise.

I don't think you're being honest with us, Jakkass. That's why I brought your religious beliefs into this.

Let me put it this way: If I tomorrow proposed a system for legalising euthanasia that reduced the dangers of euthanasia to almost nothing, would you then still be opposed to it?

If your answer is yes then this entire "It's too risky!" act has been nothing but a duplicitous smoke screen.

If your answer is no then that means you agree with euthanasia in principle and should be helping us work out the best way to implement it, not dismissing it wholesale.

Wurly

Sulmac wrote: »

Yes, that's your choice and your perfectly entitled to it - but what about those who don't share your views and would like to end their life if it became unbearable, surely they have a choice too?

He didn't say no to changing the law, nor to anyone having a choice. As far as I can see, he was just telling his experience and what was going through his mind at the time.

He has come closer than most people his age to the concept of not only being wheelchair bound, but completely paralysed. Having been there with him, I know for sure he wouldn't have committed suicide.

My view is that we should let someone who is suffering take their own life/assist them in doing so. If a dog was suffering, you wouldn't just leave them. Why is it not the same with a human being? And since when is it our business to dictate for someone else whether they should have to suffer or not?

Personally, if I had have been in Cap'n D's shoes, I would have probably taken my own life. Actually - I know I definitely would have. But he definitely wouldn't have. His reasons made sense. But thankfully that's all in the past now.:)

philologos

Zillah wrote: »

I don't think you're being honest with us, Jakkass. That's why I brought your religious beliefs into this.

Let me put it this way: If I tomorrow proposed a system for legalising euthanasia that reduced the dangers of euthanasia to almost nothing, would you then still be opposed to it?

If your answer is yes then this entire "It's too risky!" act has been nothing but a duplicitous smoke screen.

If your answer is no then that means you agree with euthanasia in principle and should be helping us work out the best way to implement it, not dismissing it wholesale.

Read my other post, I was asked this question already. I said I am a mixed bag. It doesn't float well with me to be honest with you, but then there is the argument of personal autonomy over ones life. It's a difficult question if we remove away the risk of abuse. However, as was ruled in the Lord's in 1994 there is just too much of a risk before we even begin to look at the more complicated questions.

I don't advocate a theocracy in respect to Christianity in public. Christianity is something to be accepted, not to be forced. I believe that euthanasia is a pro-life issue in the respect of the risks involved, and I am a general advocate of the pro-life cause so by extension I am also an advocate of pallative care being made as an option instead of getting into unnecessary dilemmas of ethics and risk pretty much as I am pro the use of pluripotent stem cells which can do the exact same thing as embryonic stem cells because it avoids the unnecessary dilemma of ethics when we can find an approach that is suitable for all contexts and pretty much risk free.

It seems a more rational approach to make pallative care more affordable and more accessible for all than to encourage euthanasia legalisation.

Carrying on though. Nodin, as for arguing my point well. Considering that you haven't even managed to raise any means of actually regulating the practice of euthanasia at all apart from saying "they do it in the Netherlands". I don't think one can regard that as a complete argument.

I've provided figures to suggest why I and others have a huge concern with how euthanasia actually operates there. You tell me that in the Netherlands non-voluntary euthanasia is illegal, yet I fail to understand given this that 900 took place in hospitals in 1995. Strange or what?

Zillah

You didn't address my comparison to other laws. No law is perfect, every element of a bureaucracy is subject to abuse, we don't use that as an excuse to not take affirmative action. Innocent people go to jail, some people take advantage of social welfare, some people escape paying taxes...but we do the best we can because for a fair society we need to punish criminals, have social welfare and have a tax system.

I will not concede that a government has the right to tell me I am not allowed to die. If they claim there is a danger to others by making a system for it then it is their responsibility to make a concerted effort to ensure a fair system, not to wholesale deny people their rights.

Rebelheart

Fink Goddie wrote: »

I think it should!
What does everyone else think?

I agree (subject to the obvious mental health and other checks). This would have been a good poll. How do you make a poll in After Hours?

jaffa20

Jakkass, you say you don't argue based around your beliefs but that's what you are doing and as do always on AH. Assume it was your mother bed ridden with cancer in agony and the doctors won't give her any more morphine because it could kill her. Would you rather see her pass away in agony or let her have her wish and allow her to die peacefully when it's inevitable. I don't see how you can allow a "natural" death when it is hardly natural to be pumped with morphine in the first place. Yeah, it can alleviate pain but euthanasia is just a greater form of pain relief and acts on the inevitable and the patients wishes.

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

However, as was ruled in the Lord's in 1994 there is just too much of a risk before we even begin to look at the more complicated questions.

....I wasn't aware the lords was somehow the final word in judgement. Three seperate western states have thought its feasible and right to have such a system, with proper safeguards in place.

Jakkass wrote: »

It seems a more rational approach to make pallative care more affordable and more accessible for all than to encourage euthanasia legalisation. .?

I wasn't aware that anyone was proposing a choice between the two.

Jakkass wrote: »

Carrying on though. Nodin, as for arguing my point well. Considering that you haven't even managed to raise any means of actually regulating the practice of euthanasia at all apart from saying "they do it in the Netherlands"..?

I highlighted the criteria they use there. We could also take a look at Luxembourg and Belgium and see how they handle it.

Jakkass wrote: »

I've provided figures to suggest why I and others have a huge concern with how euthanasia actually operates there.

Yes, the god squad with their "moral" objections. Like the guy who said there was a lack of pallative care in the Netherlands. That was dealt with comprehensively, I believe.

Jakkass wrote: »

You tell me that in the Netherlands non-voluntary euthanasia is illegal, yet I fail to understand given this that 900 took place in hospitals in 1995.

Source?

philologos

jaffa20 wrote: »

Jakkass, you say you don't argue based around your beliefs but that's what you are doing and as do always on AH.

Why would I use a religious argument when I am discussing with people in general about a topic. Sure if I was discussing on a board full of Christians I might try justify it from a Biblical point of view, but I am not so therefore I will use a secular argument. If you cannot relate to Christianity there is no point in arguing from Christianity. Again, I think you're reading far too much into this, I can argue my case rather adequately without resorting to theology.

I think I must try to bring in other peoples atheism to the same extent that they insist on bringing in my Christianity in an argument. Go ahead, I'm proud of my faith, but it'd be nicer if you actually just dealt with the argument on the table.

I've said very clearly at this point, if euthanasia were risk free I'd be a mixed bag, I wouldn't be either very opposed or very supportive, I'd need to think about it more. However, the reality is the risks are still there and I cannot support it until those holes are covered up substantially.

jaffa20 wrote: »

Assume it was your mother bed ridden with cancer in agony and the doctors won't give her any more morphine because it could kill her.

Hypothetical scenario that has very little basis in reality. It assumes that morphine is the only pain reliever one can be given. Pallative care is very successful in alleviating pain in general, and I think the doctors have some kind of clue as to what they are doing, and it doesn't involve a life or death issue which is very difficult to legislate for.

jaffa20 wrote: »

Would you rather see her pass away in agony or let her have her wish and allow her to die peacefully when it's inevitable. I don't see how you can allow a "natural" death when it is hardly natural to be pumped with morphine in the first place. Yeah, it can alleviate pain but euthanasia is just a greater form of pain relief and acts on the inevitable and the patients wishes.

Again, this is very much a hypothetical scenario, and it assumes that I should have the decision whether or not to kill my own mother rather than letting her have that decision for herself.

As for euthanasia being a greater form of pain relief, that's absolute nonsense. It isn't pain relief at all, it's death. If we can deal with pain adequately with pallative care there isn't a need for it in my opinion and it's far safer to do without.

Nodin wrote: »

Source?

I've left you two sources in the course of this argument, please go back and seek them for yourself.

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

I've left you two sources in the course of this argument, please go back and seek them for yourself.

The PDF of the God and Bio-ethics persons little power-point show, I presume you mean.

Those are more than likely lifted from Euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, and other medical practices involving the end of life in the Netherlands, 1990-1995 which concludes "Since the notification procedure was introduced, end-of-life decision making in the Netherlands has changed only slightly, in an anticipated direction. Close monitoring of such decisions is possible, and we found no signs of an unacceptable increase in the number of decisions or of less careful decision making."

Euthanasia without explicit request refers to where the patient has discussed it, but not written it down, as far as I'm aware. If you want to argue that phyisicians are committing murder, admitting it, and being let walk in the netherlands, please feel free.

philologos

Leaving aside the fact that you are assuming sources for now. What journal was that published in so I can look it up for myself and read it?