46
47

Do you support euthanasia? (self.PoliticalDiscussion)

submitted ago by Choppz

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I understand there is a fear that it will be abused, that it will be used as a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Despite this, I think it is sadistic to force a terminally ill person to live through their pain. Why is it illegal when numerous states have the death penalty?

all 40 comments
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–][deleted] 27 points28 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"It depends".

I support euthanasia in the sense of the Dutch legal definition, as supplied by Wikipedia - "termination of life by a doctor at the request of a patient". For me there is also a small but important difference between euthanasia an assisted suicide - i.e. where the patient, through active, conscious intervention, such as the push of a button and activation of a backup mechanism, ends his life. Active suicide should always be the choice of the individual, although I would hope that any medical system which makes allowance for assisted suicide would also make significant amounts of counseling and searches for alternatives available.

Under no circumstances do I find it acceptable to kill a person without their express consent, and without any number of numerous safeguards, including counseling, multiple backing-out options, and at least second and third professional medical opinions independent from each other as to whether there is a possibility for a patient's life to be prolonged without significant, unacceptable loss of quality of life.

Where do DNR / DNI fall into this? Would you define them as "euthanasia"? I.e. removal of life-sustaining measures vs. active infliction of death?

I'm not a medical professional, so I don't know how reliably it is possible to determine whether a patient has slipped into an irreversible coma or loss of ability to communicate their wishes, so that's obviously a huge grey area. I've been in a situation where we had to fight for a relative's living will, clearly specifying a refusal of intubation, to be respected when all the medical experts involved agreed that there was no realistic hope for recovery. It was one of the most difficult thing I've ever done, fighting for someone's clearly stated desire to be removed from life support under a certain condition, against the will of others who did not want to respect that.

I should also note that I find the death penalty to be barbaric and am intensely torn on the topic of assassination of persons who are immediate, proven threats to others, just so there's no inconsistency.

[–]Choppz[S] 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I agree with what you're saying and you bring up a good point with the grey areas but what is the reasoning behind keeping it illegal at present? (My definition would be more like assisted suicide than ceasing medical treatment).

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Death is a very touchy subject for most people.

Also important to realize is that much current legislation is based upon concepts of morality founded in (mostly) Western religion - see my comment here on the topic. This was usually interpreted in the sense of "thou shalt not kill - except as revenge or punishment". The nature of the classic hippocratic oath ("I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect") also would have had some influence on this.

Partially, this is a good thing in a historical context, since we can't apply modern concepts of ethics and right-vs-wrong to historical scenarios (doctors in history were often bloodthirsty fuckers, and our descendants may very well say that about physicians in our time, who knows) - but it certainly made sense to have some sort of rules against suicide, both to avoid the abuse that you mention (technical and ethical safeguards against it not having been as developed as today) and in the sense that, for people in the past, the infallibility of $deity was a very real thing and suicide, in many cultures, was not considered kosher.

Note that none of this is in any way judgmental, just by way of explanation - in the future, people may look back on us in 2020, and say "JESUS H. CHRIST, they let people kill themselves/other people for medical reasons? Why the fuck didn't they just XYZ?!? Barbarians!" We, and our laws, are creatures of our culture and history.

As for the grey areas, I think this is one of those classic arguments where the only people whose opinions you should immediately discount are those who claim to have some sort of absolute universal truth. It should be a head-scratchingly frustrating topic.

[–]Choppz[S] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Despite what your username may suggest, that was a very informative piece. I'm still skeptical of legalisation making any progress though, given the massive opposition to gay marriage which has far fewer implications. There are also far fewer supporters of euthanasia.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Here, have some poo, ook. Thank you.

It depends on which jurisdiction you are talking about. In the US, assisted suicide is already legal, with restrictions, in three states. Many European countries allow it in some form. This is a huge step forward given that many of these countries did not even allow abortions in any form not 30 years ago.

True, as you say gay marriage has "fewer implications" (unless you're gay and want to get married) but it's precisely the fact that dignified dying is such a salient issue for so many people, and will increasingly be so as medical science extends human life spans and "civilized" diseases (arthritis, cancer, dementia) become more prevalent.

[–]bwmcmaste 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I found your comment to be quite well put, but I take issue with one particular point:

and at least second and third professional medical opinions independent from each other as to whether there is a possibility for a patient's life to be prolonged without significant, unacceptable loss of quality of life.

I am uncertain why we would need to have such a demanding process for the elective cessation of someone's life. Quality of life is an innately subjective value judgement that only the individual concerned can make, so why would we allow society to impose such restrictions on it?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Thank you, let me defend that point:

Choppz mentioned the potential for abuse. I'm going to assume that we can agree on the existence of this - greedy relatives, people with a grudge, or even well-meaning idiots, who are a bit over-enthusiastic about sending someone off.

Even if we use the definition of euthanasia that I'm basing my opinion on above (i.e. the patient has to explicitly ask for death).

You want to avoid the possibility that they're doing so under duress, or under a temporary mental incapacity or depression. Speaking as someone who was probably clinically depressed and definitely suicidal for a while - it was stupid of me to not get help, I was lucky - I can tell you that, although I am a normal, functioning person, there was a very dark time in my life when I was broken and incapable of making good decisions. And there are people who are far more broken than I was. You do not want someone in that state making life-or-death decisions. So I dispute the assertion that "Quality of life is an innately subjective value judgement that only the individual concerned can make" because it may very possibly be a temporary state of affairs.

So let's take the scenario under which I would want to see those safeguards you find excessive, the "without their express consent" part - the patient is brain dead, comatose, or otherwise unresponsive. There may or may not be a living will, but the patient is not capable of telling a doctor coherently and under full control of his faculties, "I want to die." Killing someone is irreversible. If there is the possibility that you are doing it to someone who has the slightest realistic chance of recovering, while they're incapable of giving informed consent (I think that's the proper legal term in the US, IANAL), it's something I find ethically indefensible.

The judgments of "are they able to give informed consent? Y/N" and "if N, is there a likelihood of this person making a recovery to a condition under which a reasonable person capable of giving informed consent would say 'no, I don't want to die'? Y/N" are things that need to be treated very, very carefully, with full respect given to the possibility of medical error (either incompetence, poor observation, or bad luck) and malicious mis-interpretation. Hence the redundant process.

To make a blunt cost-benefit analysis, the patient's going to suffer anyway, and cost a lot of money to keep on life support - so the cost and time of making absolutely 99.99999% sure you are doing the right thing is not an argument.

[–]bwmcmaste 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You've actually done a very good job of convincing me of the need for circumspection, at least with regard to those circumstances which you have referred to as temporary.

With regard to the latter part of your reply, I am, at present, less concerned with the issues related to the palliative side of the issue than the concept of a legal form of expedient suicide. Whereas euthanasia, or "a good death", is an interesting ethical debate, I find that we are required to assent to some form of acceptable suicide. To put it succinctly, should we only allow some people to claim that their lives are unlivable, and ignore other claimants, or can we allow of a more liberal approach?

I believe that this is well within what I understand to be the concept of a "right to die", and I would be interested to hear your position on the matter.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

<3

First off I think we should make sure we're on the same level about the semantics surrounding the definitions of "suicide" and "euthanasia". See my bit further up about the assumption I'm arguing under, i.e. "termination of life by a doctor at the request of a patient". Suicide is death inflicted upon onesself through conscious choice and action.

The line between the two is a grey space occupied mainly by assisted suicide in its various forms, but I believe that the act of killing onesself, whether violently through something like a car crash or gunshot, or peacefully by drinking the pentobarbitol, requires a pretty intensive amount of determination on the part of the person killing themselves - and that, with the exception of incapacitated persons, someone who is determined to commit suicide will find a way to do so.

So my concern isn't so much with suicide - I believe that everyone should have the right to die, but I also believe that any form of legal assisted suicide should include the requirement to at least attempt to counsel and dissuade, within reason, just to avoid tragedies brought on by temporary depression or some similar potentially treatable condition.

Does that make some sense?

[–]bwmcmaste 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Indeed.

[–]RAAFStupot 14 points15 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If you mean "Do you believe an individual has the right to choose to end their own life", then yes.

To me it's a no-brainer.

I believe with appropriate regulations, 'abuse' can be minimised to a degree such that it is completely identifiable as murder.

[–]p0ssum 11 points12 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

We can put our animals to sleep, to put them out of their pain, but we cannot do the same with our family. If you have ever had a terminal patient in the family, then you know that the dignity with which they COULD leave our presence is overshadowed by they way they are FORCED to leave our presence. To watch, once powerful and intelligent people be forced to rely on others for basic dignities is just too much, and somehow terribly unfair.

Yes.

[–]goldflakes 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Calling it "euthanasia" avoids the real issue. Why just the elderly? Shouldn't a young cancer patient have the same rights? The real issue is how to deal with self-ownership rights while avoiding state-run suicide assists for people who are just going through a hard time emotionally and would be fine if they could just hang on for a while as well as potential murder-for-inheritance schemes.

I support assisted suicide because the life of an adult belongs only to that particular individual (self-ownership). However, protections for such a program must include confirmation by health officials that the person is cognizant, competent, and acting of his or her own volition without being in any way coerced. Should a doctor be found to be making incorrect assists, he or she could be convicted of murder depending on the severity of the crime. (Failing to keep a license up to date isn't as bad as offing granny so the kids can have the inheritance.)

The only issue that causes me some difficulty is how to determine who can partake of such services. It strikes me that an 18 year old can be extremely immature and, if particularly emotional and stupid, might want to take such services. Setting an age limit defeats the purpose -- if an 18 year old has terminal cancer and is in pain, he or she should have the right to bring it to an end. One possible solution is to require that physical pain be a prerequisite (meaning that if your reason is that your lover broke up with you then you don't qualify), but pain of another is subjective and difficult to prove/disprove. If we just hired a bunch of healthcare/government psychologists throughout the country to determine if a person is eligible it might work, but it would be difficult to provide the same standard of "do you qualify" evenly throughout the country. One possibility would be to set up a central processing center where everyone receives extraordinary attention from an entire staff of doctors to confirm the system isn't being abused, but what about patients who are too sick to travel? Relying on the family to sign off on "yes I agree he or she is in pain and wants to do this" undermines the basic principle at play here: the person's life and death is his or her own.

My best solution is this. If a panel of five doctors agree and sign off (with the understood and constant seriousness that it deserves) that a person is: 1) terminally ill with a 50% life expectancy of less than ten years OR ill with a physically debilitating illness with almost no hope of recovery, 2) currently experiencing a large amount of pain, 3) competent and cognizant, and 4) wishes to be a candidate for assisted suicide, then and only then does the person qualify for the program.

As humans we value human life. It's the bedrock of our morality. So any system that permanently ends even one innocent life is seen as unconscionable even if it saves a million from temporary pain. Stories of death-penalty-gone-wrong have always been the best argument against that policy. Punishing murderers always seems insufficient because the damage is irrevocable. But having a doctor help a murderer seems even worse than committing one with a weapon.

Edit: Apparently "euthanasia" is defined as assisted suicide, not just for the elderly. My bad. I had always heard it used that way and assumed it to mean for the elderly.

[–]Xylarax 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If your doctor panel turns someone down, what do you think is the most likely result? Why is this person less worthy of their desire than another who has doctors that say they are affected by an "acceptable" terminal condition? I understand the goal of such things, to prevent quickly made decisions, but I think there are better solutions than doctor panels.

In the end, this could allow a lot of people who choose to end their own lives a much easier and more dignified way of doing it. They won't have to deal with the pain of the act, their loved ones don't have to discover them, they could prepare for financial impacts of the decision, and in the end, I think it could result in less suicides. By providing this attractive option, but forcing some kind of waiting period, people would be forced to really think about the impact of their decision.

[–]goldflakes 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Any solution not involving several medical professionals by definition either involves only one medical professional or one-several non-medical professionals. Giving a single doctor permission to prescribe assisted suicide greatly increases the chances for abuse of the system by failing to provide oversight. Involving non-medical professionals is ridiculous. Therefore, the only viable option is to have a small team of doctors. The goal is not, as you say, to prevent a quickly made decision. The goal is to protect the full rights of the patient. When my great grandmother was in her last year, she was completely incapable. She could not possibly have made a decision as grave as whether to use an assisted suicide program. The only person who could have made that decision would be one/all of her children including my grandmother. But this I am legally and morally against -- no person has the right to determine that another person's life should end. Therefore, a team of doctors is necessary to ensure that abuse does not occur.

Also, please reread your reply because I'm pretty sure you excluded a sentence or paragraph where you actually outline your plan. There's a paragraph about how wonderful it is,

In the end, this could allow a lot of people who choose to end their own lives a much easier and more dignified way of doing it. They won't have to deal with the pain of the act, their loved ones don't have to discover them, they could prepare for financial impacts of the decision, and in the end, I think it could result in less suicides. By providing this attractive option, but forcing some kind of waiting period, people would be forced to really think about the impact of their decision.

but there isn't actually an outline of what it is that's so wonderful. What are you proposing? Maybe you outlined it elsewhere in the thread?

Lastly, I'll address

If your doctor panel turns someone down, what do you think is the most likely result?

The result is that the person does not qualify for assisted suicide from the hospital. They will continue to receive the best care the hospital has to offer, which is already the current scenario.

Why is this person less worthy of their desire than another who has doctors that say they are affected by an "acceptable" terminal condition?

Because wanting to die does not grant you the right to have an assisted suicide. Self ownership means that you own your life. It means that you are free to commit suicide. It does not mean you are free to ask someone to help you commit suicide. Someone who does not meet my four criteria should be helped in other ways. This person is less worthy of their desire because their physical reality is less worthy. It isn't about their wishes, it's about their physical condition. The distinction between nihilistic existential problems and actual pain should be preserved.

By the way, this is entertaining, interesting, and educational on the issues. I disagree with Mr. Pratchett that he should qualify for assisted suicide.

[–]redwar 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Morally: Not really.

Legally: I do not believe the state has the right to prevent you from ending your life (older person and young person alike)

[–]forefatherrabbi 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

THIS! so many people mix the two and think morally = legally. Thank you sir for having an enlighten view point.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yes.

Not just for terminally ill people though, I think it should be allowed for everyone. In my opinion dying under professional supervision is much more dignified than being forced to hang yourself or trying to OD. If someone wants to die, they should be allowed to do so in a dignified way.

However, this would obviously be an area that has to be treated very seriously, if you are not terminally ill you should have to take a minimum of therapy sessions to ensure that you're not just in a "bad mood", then you should have some official forms that you have to fill out etc., to make abuse as hard as possible.

I also think it will be beneficial to the situation of "murders that have been staged to look like suicide" as it would be very suspicious if someone killed themselves without the use of this fictional service.

The only downside that I see with this is that more people might be willing to commit suicide if they could use a service like this - but if it really is someone's wish, they should be allowed to do it.

[–]forefatherrabbi 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I support it. It is your life, use it as you will.

[–]TopRamen713 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I never gave it much thought before I saw my wife's grandmother die. She spent weeks knowing she would never be able to leave the bed she was in, and as her condition deteriorated, days screaming in pain (despite the drugs) til she literally couldn't, then the last couple days of her life completely unable to communicate, eat, drink or even blink, but with some sort of awareness in her eyes. She slowly died of thirst because they made the choice to remove her IV. I don't see the difference between removing someone's IV, and giving them a shot, but apparently the law does.

[–]OfficerPJStock 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I support it abosolutely, if the terms are this: - The patient has given authorization. If the person wants to die, then you should at least give them the choice to die. Who are you to decide if this person lives or dies? However, in the case of people in vegetative states, then the decision will fall to the family members. Simple as that.

[–]MistakeWordForPhrase 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Sure. I spent much of my youth in Asia, and I think I turned out fine. Just be careful of the water. Depending on where you go, it is sometimes smarter to bring your own.

[–]slith93 12 points13 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'll go ahead and say it, this username has very limited potential

[–]TheRain 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Gilda Radner did the Emily Litella bit on SNL for years, making almost that exact same joke.

[–]DescendingLogic 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I thought you were trying to say that euthanasia is legal in Asia at first. Good luck, you haven't done much in your first 9 hours.

[–]Herr_Rambler 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I c what you did thar.....

[–]Choppz[S] -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Well played

[–]Heiminator 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

i support assisted suicide, not euthanasia

[–]Maslo55 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yes I do.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yes, I think it should require a strict supervision and regulation but I find our lack of compassion towards people in extreme pain to be sick. I'm always reminded of the family in, i think, Manitoba whose son was in constant pain, couldn't move or function and had no chance of ever living any sort of life without extreme pain, the parents killed the child by putting him in the garage with the car running I believe, parents went to jail for it but I saw a documentary on it that was just painful to watch, there is no way anyone could see what that child was going through and think it's better to keep him alive...

[–]theorymeltfool 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I support 'individual suicide.' What that mean's is that I don't think it should be illegal for anyone to commit suicide, and I never want 'the State' to be in charge of any aspect of suicide. I actually wrote a document instructing my caretakers what I would prefer if I were ever put into a persistent vegitative state, was diagnosed with Alzeihemer's, or some other problems that impaired my ability to function without the support of other people.

This way, if I'm ever put into that position, it'll be very easy for my immediate family members to deal with the situation in the way that I am comfortable with so that it can be a less painful experience for everyone involved.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It's not the government's job to protect me from myself. Euthanasia should absolutely be legalized, just as driving without a seat belt on. I don't want to live in a nanny state.

[–]schnuffs 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Ethically I find it no different than DNR's or pulling the plug on life support.

[–]selfabortion 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yes

[–]hobnobbob -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

As much as I support the youth anywhere else...

[–]perrycarter -3 points-2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yes. I think it should be mandatory for all patients without health insurance. Problem solved. You're welcome.

[–]aarong89 -4 points-3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

i think youth in asia deserve a fair shot. I support them.