Assisted Suicide

Remove all ads!

When I go, I sure hope its as painless as possible. Enjoyable if I'm lucky. Hopefully at my time of death I will be screaming "Oh my god, oh my god I'm c....".

 

That happened to the father of a girl I grew up with. Not as funny as you'd think

 

Well, it sure beats rotting away. Though I'm sure it would be a horrible experience for the partner. Unless of course you were going solo...

 

Think we could get a package deal for the Kardashians?

 

My Swedish friend raises a very valid point -- it is a well documented fact that I don't believe major societal shifts should result in people being forced to act against their religious or moral consciences. You all seem to think that in this case doctors would be able to "pass off" this act to another doctor, yet when it comes to other professionals with a public duty (marriage commissioners) the tune was different.

Some may say apples and oranges, but to me conscience is conscience in matters big or small, and in a pluralistic society we should respect others' rights to not personally be involved in acts which they find morally repugnant, even if we do not agree with how they have arrived at their position. I would hope that would extend not only to doctors but to all citizens.

I have yet to experience this firsthand, but I would like to believe that after careful consideration and consultation, I would have the ability to put someone I love out of their misery. To end someones uncurable pain is a good act, IMHO.

 

The difference therein lies in that if you are in a position where you are meant to represent and enact the law of your country or state then you value that as your occupation, if you then decide as a single person within that unit to go against that word of law you stand to work with - you would do better to elect yourself to a department that does not challenge your morals.

The marriage commissioner, I would also like to point out, is not then responsible if the family decides to make a fuss about the couple or liable for any other distress that the marriage has caused

Doctors are liable for all procedures they perform which is why many are selective about what they do and do not perform and whom they refer a patient to for further treatment.

Neither, however, has a right to completely deny a service or such to a person based soley on their moral objections.

 

LKD, I need to contest that "we should respect others' rights to not personally be involved in acts which they find morally repugnant" part.

Although not really common (yet..), there was a HUGE outrage when a guy was interviewed in Swedish radio because he had come to the conclusion that working was morally wrong and plainly refused to do so. Although he had no compunctions about receiving social welfare benefits. According to law he has the right to the minimum welfare and cannot be denied that after he has suffered the initial 90 day no pay penalty for refusing to take an offered job.

On the sliding scale of things, of course there's a difference between forcing someone to, say, at least tolerate homosexuals and putting someone into the eternal sleep. But if you're in the position to be asked about something like that, I don't think it's too much to ask to at least require a reasoning why you think a prolonged suffering would be the better alternative. Is upholding your moral high ground REALLY all that much more important than relieving someone else from great suffering?

 

It is morally wrong to kill someone. However, it is equally morally wrong to stand by and allow them to suffer when it is in your power to stop it

 

IMO the problem with this debate at its core is that the people doing the debating have never worn the shoes. So while those of us in relative comfort can casually discuss the moral implications of doing or not doing this and that, and then waiting until later to ... still not come to a conclusion and discuss it some more, those on the front lines may have undergone a lifetime's worth of agony.

If you've ever known real suffering of any kind, you know that it's not insignificant, even if it may be inconvenient for others. Tell the guy who's living in daily mortal agony that he needs to suck it up because we're uncertain about his plight, and he will probably say "F*CK THAT KILL ME NOW I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK." And his opinion would be more informed than any of ours, errata be damned.

 

Well said, Gaear. It's easy to trivialise pain, especially chronic pain because of the manner a sufferer simply has to adapt. A fair number of people will see this as a cop out: Quite simply there are a large number of situations where you CANNOT understand it without having prior experience. I'll leave that there though I think, lol, before I get misconstrued.

It's often morally wrong to kill someone, but generally always legally wrong

 

..and the part about it ALWAYS being legally wrong is the thing the pro-euthanasia people are contesting. It's all about setting serious enough limits so that there's no need for the "what if" routine going through all the hoops all the way to divine intervention and stuff like that.

 

All I'm saying is that in a situation as serious -- literally life and death -- as this one, that all participants should be comfortable doing what they do. Forcing someone to do something this serious is immoral in the extreme. Sir rechet, you mentioned

at least require a reasoning

and I'm for that, but when it comes to conscience on such serious matters, I think a mechanism must be in place for those whose reasons others disagree with -- in other words, when it comes to conscience, others may not find a person's "reasons" valid, and they are entitled to their opinion, yet there should be no compulsion in such matters.

 

One of the arguments I've often heard after the ethics of ending a life have been addressed is the mental consequences on the medical person injecting (and therefore killing) the sick person.

If it's agreed that ending the life of someone who is in extreme pain is moral (and I'm not saying it is) you still have to weigh whether or not you're exchanging one type of suffering for another. Could you inject someone with a lethal amount of morphine and then just keep living happily? Maybe, but to my knowledge, there haven't been enough real studies done measuring the psychological effect on the one "pulling the plug" as it were.

That said, I really believe it should be adressed on a case by case basis, if at all.

 

That's the one argument that makes me lean towards not making euthenasia compulsory for doctors upon patient request even if the practice was made legal. The doctor himself would have to be willing to do it, and would be required to be a specialist in that field - like "end of life" medicine or something. (No repeat customers though.) It would not be unlike the situation where some doctors refuse to perform abortions - if you want one, you merely have to go to one who is willing to perform them.

The other thing to consider beyond the doctors (some willing to do it, and some not), is that a particular doctor's position may be different depending on the patient. I think it's one thing for a patient like Terry Schiavo, and another for a patient who is fully sentient, but in great pain.

And how much pain is too much pain? Unless you've experienced a similar condition, you really have no idea how much pain the other perosn is in, and the amount of pain that would be considered "too much" is also variable from one individiual to another.

I presently lean towards the position that ending the life of someone who is in extreme pain is moral - or at least morally justifiable. Heck, when we put a dog to sleep that is considered humane - and the dog cannot tell you its wishes like a person can. I'm just not sure how to manouver all the legal hurdles one would have to overcome to legalize it.

I know some will oppose the legalization of euthenasia for the same reasons people oppose abortion - the sanctity of all life, or some such stance. And of course, there's nothing you can do to make everyone happy. I guess I don't have a problem with it, because I don't believe in the sanctity of all life - just most life. For example, was Hitler or OBL's life sacred? I have a hard time buying that one.

 

I share your general viewpoint Aldeth.

I've heard this a lot with Bin Laden. I was talking to a lady recently about his death and I asked her flat out: "Do you think that Osama Bin Laden's life was sacred?" and she said, short and sweet, yes. We talked for a bit, but couldn't really agree. She brought up a lot of "what ifs", where as I was very judgmental of the actions he's actually taken. Which seems to be the major difference between the two view points and the two view points here as well. "What if they get better? What if it's the wrong choice?" vs "This person is saying they are in immense pain, all of our knowledge indicates that they won't get better: the most ethical choice based on what we know is that of release."

I really don't understand the people who say it's a stain on humanity to be glad/relived at the death of another human. Sometimes I wish Eastern Religion had a bit more of an influence over here in the West. Our selective practice of Zen just doesn't cut it...

 

Not necessarily. "Putting someone to sleep," so to speak, painlessly and fairly quickly, is a relatively simple procedure. All that would be required is the proper certification for it. A specialization isn't necessary, nor would many doctors be likely to build their practices around it (which is kind of the point of specialization).

This could also serve as an easy way out for doctors who are opposed to the procedure - simply claiming "it's not something I'm legally certified for, nor do I plan to be."

 

That's kind of what I meant - I didn't mean a specialist as someone who only does that. I meant more like what you're saying - certified, and thus willing - to do it. That's why I compared to doctors who perform abortions (and frankly, I think abortions would be more complicated than this).

 

I'm with Aldeth about an abortion being a tougher decision. That's also ending someone's life, but you can't possibly ask the fetus about its feelings about the procedure in advance.

About the actual procedure of pulling the plug on someone being tough on the person doing it. Well, of course it is. Yet there are people putting death penalties into action, and as much as it's more politically correct in the strict juridic sense - death penalty is or at least has been legal in a few places, euthanasia hasn't - I'm sure many of us would consider that being tougher still.

About bin Ladin's life: I actually agree with the lady. He might have committed a whole slew of atrocities but his life is (was) still sacred. Although I'm pretty sure my reasoning differs from hers. Bin Ladin got away too easy by a clean headshot. Several years of torture would have been a more fitting end for him.

 

I think morality should be removed from personal decision, if someone wants to die, they should have that right, regardless if they are of sound body or not, after all, they didnt get a choice wether wanted to live in the first place.