VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA. Seeking ideas in support of the concept.

[The Backward OX]

In Australia, and around the world, Dr Philip Nitschke is a strong campaigner for voluntary euthanasia.

Please note the key word “voluntary”.

I support the idea. Although I'm not presently involved, I’ve started thinking I might throw my lot in with Dr Nitschke.

Euthanasia in any form is presently illegal in Australia.

Naturally, the biggest obstacle is the Church. The second-biggest is possibly a combination of general narrow-mindedness and negativism.

At the time of posting I don't know, in detail, what the members of Dr Nitschke's group are doing, to achieve their goals.

Here's a link to their website: Voluntary Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Information by Exit International

My own basic thinking is that supporters need a strong and persuasive representative body whose goal is to win over opponents.

If I join the group, it would be for the purpose of promoting such a goal in every way possible.

I’m open to all in-depth suggestions oriented towards that same goal.

Thank you.

[russianrocket]

Another argument against it, is that a lot of older people aren't in the right mind, and able to decide for themselves. Or, people who are having a bad bout of depression. I've had suicidal thoughts, and then the next day, I'd decide that it was a stupid idea. How do you prevent people from being euthanized, who really shouldn't be?

[Shift]

Both of my grandmothers were euthanized while dying of cancer in The Netherlands. I think it's an excellent service.

When someone is terminally ill (read: dying), three doctors have to sign off on the patient. They all have to agree that there is no chance that this person is going to get better, and that the patient is in the right state of mind for this type of procedure.

My advice is to look at countries who are already successfully doing it and model them. Use them as your example.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Another argument against it, is that a lot of older people aren't in the right mind, and able to decide for themselves. Or, people who are having a bad bout of depression. I've had suicidal thoughts, and then the next day, I'd decide that it was a stupid idea. How do you prevent people from being euthanized, who really shouldn't be?

You could ask the same question of the death penalty. Yet it exists in some states. I suppose, just as with the death penalty, that some mistakes will happen no matter what precautions are taken. It's the price to pay for freedom of choice.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

You could ask the same question of the death penalty. Yet it exists in some states. I suppose, just as with the death penalty, that some mistakes will happen no matter what precautions are taken. It's the price to pay for freedom of choice.

I can't ask those same questions of the death penalty. Turn my questions around for the death penalty. I can't really see a way to do it.

It takes 20 years for someone on death row to be killed. Especially now, with high tech evidence gathering techniques, you pretty much have to have witness', and a smoking gun, to get the death penalty. I have no worries about innocent people getting the death penalty. Pretty much every single one that have been found innocent of the specific crime they are getting the death penalty for, had rap sheets a mile long. Put yourself in situations like that, and you can expect stuff like that to happen.

[MariconesUnited]

Are you saying their deaths were justified because they had done other stuff even though they were innocent of the crime they were convicted for? You've shown that you can develop techniques to minimize the number of mistakes, yet there will always be some. And since euthanasia is a voluntary choice, it makes even more sense to legalize it than the death penalty.

EDIT just to be clear I meant that question at the end. With the question mark.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

Are you saying their deaths were justified because they had done other stuff even though they were innocent of the crime they were convicted for? You've shown that you can develop techniques to minimize the number of mistakes, yet there will always be some. And since euthanasia is a voluntary choice, it makes even more sense to legalize it than the death penalty.

EDIT just to be clear I meant that question at the end. With the question mark.

The thing is, I'm actually for it. But at the same time, I can see the slippery slope. It's a tough one for me. Should people not be allowed to kill themselves? Is it only old people? How about someone who lost all limbs, yet has a family? Or people who are paralyzed from the neck down. Is it the families decision, and or is it the patients alone? Which family member can decide, if the person in question can no longer decide? Or manic depressants. How do you regulate such a thing?

The crimes that the "innocent" people are in jail for, are usually pretty bad. We are talking rape, assualt, pedophilia, etc, and that's just what they've been caught doing, let alone the things they will do. So, yes, the death is justified, even if THAT particular crime, they didn't do. Crime and punishment are tough for me. I haven't decided exactly how I feel. I think the prison system sucks. Doesn't work at all. I also think there are people who are not worthy of rehabilitation. The majority of people in prison, are repeat offenders. But, again, you can blame that on the prison system itself.

[ZephyrusX]

Most people I know actually support euthanasia. They only want a mechanism to prevent misuse of the system. So I don't really understand why it is not legal in most states.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

Most people I know actually support euthanasia. They only want a mechanism to prevent misuse of the system. So I don't really understand why it is not legal in most states.

America? We're 70% religious. You want us to accept "killing" someone? I'm surprised abortion is as legal as it is.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

Most people I know actually support euthanasia. They only want a mechanism to prevent misuse of the system. So I don't really understand why it is not legal in most states.

I support euthanasia, but most people I know in person don't. The reason people that I've heard give, across the board, is religion. In a system where suicide is a sin, because it's playing God, or it's a form of murder--obviously euthanasia is off the table. From there a few people will build sensationalist arguments about "selling death", comparing doctors and countries who offer it to Nazis, and the like.

So, the reason I'd guess it's not legal, it's that it does have a lot of detractors--and it's supporters haven't raised a big issue over it. Or they have, and it's gotten abysmal media coverage.

I'd also be concerned about ways to prevent it's abuse but I think it is possible.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

America? We're 70% religious. You want us to accept "killing" someone? I'm surprised abortion is as legal as it is.

Yeah, I recently went on a road trip. There must have been 50 "Abortion is murder" billboards, at least. Most of them were despicable in their tactics, too (pictures of babies shouting murder, pictures of dead babies, picture of mangled fetuses, even a pregnant woman in jail).

[ZephyrusX]

Meh... Religion. Actually, in Alberta, there is a lot of anti-abortion campaigns out in the open too. Perhaps there are a lot of people in Canada that have the same religious reasons against euthanasia and I just don't know about it.

I sometimes wonder whether our laws will change once the death rate increases due to demographic changes though. I think we are still some years off before the baby boomers start dying off. And I guess it really depends upon how people die. If people are dying of terminal, painful diseases, if their children have to watch them suffer, they may want changes in the laws. I do think there will be a lot of State attention placed upon death and dying in the next 50 some odd years.

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

I support euthanasia, but most people I know in person don't. The reason people that I've heard give, across the board, is religion. In a system where suicide is a sin, because it's playing God, or it's a form of murder--obviously euthanasia is off the table. From there a few people will build sensationalist arguments about "selling death", comparing doctors and countries who offer it to Nazis, and the like.

So, the reason I'd guess it's not legal, it's that it does have a lot of detractors--and it's supporters haven't raised a big issue over it. Or they have, and it's gotten abysmal media coverage.

I'd also be concerned about ways to prevent it's abuse but I think it is possible.

[metamorph]

I thought it was mainly an asian problem:
Ali-G Euthanasia - YouTube

I had to....


Anyway, euthanasia exists in pretty much most developed countries. It just does not exist "officially". I have spoken to friends of mine who are doctors and nurses. It is common practice. If you are terminally ill and suffering and you want to die, most will not keep you alive. It is nurses skipping the check up on you or the scheduled morphine or it is ODing morphine and the like (= "he died peacefully...").

[aelle]

Medical euthanasia does exist de facto today. Medical teams regularly make calls, in agreement with families or not, as to when to pull the plug on a patient whose quality of life is beyond repair. It exists, it's done, it must be done because that's the situation that our medical skills have created, and it makes no sense to pretend that we should go back to a time when we had no control over when someone lives and dies.
What makes sense is to give this practice proper guidelines and regulations to make sure that it is done as ethically as possible, with as much discussion as possible between doctors, families and patient, and giving the most weight to the patient's informed, consistent consent. You want to regulate it to avoid iffy actions of a well-intentioned but rogue doctor, or cases where a patient has inconsistent thoughts, etc.

[JDuff]

There is a difference between active and passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia is where the doctor actually does something to kill the patient, e.g. inject drugs. Passive euthanasia is where the doctor doesn't do something to save the patient, or stops doing something that is saving the patient. People tend to have more qualms with the first.

Also, you could distinguish between voluntary and involuntary euthanasia, as you have implied. The latter would involve no consent from a rational patient.

A good argument against voluntary euthanasia is that merely having the option brings about harm. For example, if it is "off the table" then Person A wouldn't consider it. However, if it is an option that is suggested to them, they may end up choosing that decision even though, giving their interests alone, they wouldn't choose to do so.

For example, they may do it because of being a burden to their family. They may find it hard to justify why they are keeping themselves alive. A person may think they have good reason for living, but their family or doctors may implicitly not think this. In which case, the option might cause them to change their minds.

And the option can harm even if they still don't choose euthanasia.

So the option of euthanasia denies somebody the possibility of staying alive by default. The option of dying may provide new reasons for dying.

--

This is not to say that I am AGAINST it. But it is a secular argument against offering it institutionally.