Euthanasia

[Katman]

And if in fact it is common practice for doctors to hasten the final moments of a terminally ill person's life, why do they have more right to call time than the person that is doing the dying?

[TheDemonLord]

Now, I'm not saying that's a bad thing but what I am saying is that if a terminally ill person prefers to die while being aware that they're surrounded by the company of loved ones, I believe it is wrong to deny them that right.

What you appear to have there - is one of the many legal minefield questions that need to have solutions before the law can be changed to allow Euthanasia.

Now, since I have been away from this thread (only chipping in with the occassional 2c) I should re-confirm my position - I believe in the principle of Euthanasia - but there are a lot of very difficult questions that need very VERY robust legal answers.

As I stated earlier - I am not sure that it is possible to legislate adequately on such an issue so that all possibilities are defined and accounted for.

Get it right - and we have a society where people who are faced with certain death, can die with dignity, at a time and place of their choosing, sorrounded by loved ones.
Get it wrong - and it goes badly wrong (with expensive law suits, wrongful death charges etc.)

[Katman]

Now, since I have been away from this thread (only chipping in with the occassional 2c) I should re-confirm my position - I believe in the principle of Euthanasia - but there are a lot of very difficult questions that need very VERY robust legal answers.

I don't think anyone has suggested it's as simple as "Well, we've just decided to kill everyone".

It's been stated many times in this thread that there are certain points that need very careful consideration before changing any law.

The basic principle that everyone should have the right to say 'enough's enough' when their time is almost up is not that hard to fathom though.

[TheDemonLord]

I don't think anyone has suggested it's as simple as "Well, we've just decided to kill everyone".

It's been stated many times in this thread that there are certain points that need very careful consideration before changing any law.

Certainly - my position is one that is skeptical that the certain points you mention can be adequately resolved so that a law change can happen.

[Katman]

Get it wrong - and it goes badly wrong (with expensive law suits, wrongful death charges etc.)

Well that begs the obvious question.....

In the places that have liberalised their euthanasia laws, has there been a sudden increase in expensive law suits and wrongful death charges?

And if there has been, surely we could then take a closer look at those instances in order to figure out how to avoid similar pitfalls.

[James Deuce]

In answer to your previous request for documentation, all the documentation talks about is appropriate pain relief. You're not going to find assisted death methods documented in NZ. But you will see the risks of withholding fluids and high dose opiates used in conjunction well documented and likely outcomes documented and when and where to use such treatment regimes.

In regards to your latest question, the biggest problem is family members executing intellectually disabled and dementia-ridden relatives. There are increases in The Netherlands that are an order of magnitude greater than the pre-liberalised assisted suicide regime. So single figures to two figures per year of euthansised patients who arguably are unable to make a conscious choice. That's the biggest sticking point for me. The second biggest point is impact on the individual's wider family. I don't believe that a person should be allowed to go through with it if the immediate family are in any way uncomfortable. Individualism sometimes descends into selfishness with little regard for social impact on the micro and macro scales.

[Katman]

In regards to your latest question, the biggest problem is family members executing intellectually disabled and dementia-ridden relatives.

Nobody is asking that anyone be given carte blanche to 'execute' anyone.

That would clearly be one of the issues that would need strict regulation.

[Katman]

I don't believe that a person should be allowed to go through with it if the immediate family are in any way uncomfortable.

Well that's another thing we disagree on then.

If the person's family were against the idea of an assisted death then it would be up to the patient to try to make the family understand his/her wishes.

If the family are still adamant that they don't support the idea then the patient can either change their own mind or tell their family "sorry, but my mind is made up".

The rights of the family should not, by default, outweigh the right of the individual.

[PrincessBandit]

The rights of the family should not, by default, outweigh the right of the individual.

Ah but once the rights of the individual become the measuring stick by which all judgments and decisions are made, where does the concept of whanau-comunity-society, the consideration of the needs of others' before our own, and other such characteristics of the human population lie?

[Katman]

Ah but once the rights of the individual become the measuring stick by which all judgments and decisions are made, where does the concept of whanau-comunity-society, the consideration of the needs of others' before our own, and other such characteristics of the human population lie?

I'm talking specifically about a terminally ill person choosing to terminate their life.

If I'm ever in that position and I choose that path then it's tough shit if family don't like it.

I have no problem with the concept of 'whanau-community-society' when it comes to living one's life.

But if a terminally ill person is given the opportunity to choose the manner in which they depart life then it is no-one else's business what choice they ultimately make.

[husaberg]

Ah but once the rights of the individual become the measuring stick by which all judgments and decisions are made, where does the concept of whanau-comunity-society, the consideration of the needs of others' before our own, and other such characteristics of the human population lie?

Utilitarian is some peoples utopia granted, however it reminds me of this.
Should the prejudices of the many outweigh the needs of the few?

My take is this

The rights of the individual can outweigh the needs of the many.
When it is humane and serves the greater good.
ie When the need of the individual outweighs the lesser needs (or wants) of the many.
When they can be justified by urgency not just by expediency.

This is where the Ethical protocols need to be robustly stated to protect the individuals.

Because power corrupts, society's demands for moral authority and character increase as the importance of the position increases.
John Adams

[Banditbandit]

Well that's another thing we disagree on then.

If the person's family were against the idea of an assisted death then it would be up to the patient to try to make the family understand his/her wishes.

If the family are still adamant that they don't support the idea then the patient can either change their own mind or tell their family "sorry, but my mind is made up".

The rights of the family should not, by default, outweigh the right of the individual.

I agree. What rights has a family to demand that a terminally ill person die in pain, humiliation and suffering ???

Ah but once the rights of the individual become the measuring stick by which all judgments and decisions are made, where does the concept of whanau-comunity-society, the consideration of the needs of others' before our own, and other such characteristics of the human population lie?

No whanau can demand and force a loved one die in pain humiliation and suffering - that's NOT what whanau do.

Who needs a loved one to die that way ???

[Katman]

Here's a question for anyone who is staunchly anti-euthanasia law reform.

(In answering, disregard the current legal standing of euthanasia).

What 'right' do you believe you have to deny a terminally ill person the opportunity to choose the timing of their death?

[TheDemonLord]

Here's a question for anyone who is staunchly anti-euthanasia law reform.

(In answering, disregard the current legal standing of euthanasia).

What 'right' do you believe you have to deny a terminally ill person the opportunity to choose the timing of their death?

not that I am anti-euthanasia - but the arguments that could be made (without any reference to god or religon) would be something along the lines of:

- The Medical professions primary goal is to preserve life at all costs, Euthanasia violates this
- Euthanasia rules out the possibility of trying a potential new cure
- No one who is terminally ill and in pain can be judged to make a rational decision, any decision made would be in effect made under duress.

Thats the best I got, and there are a few holes that I can poke in those arguments.

[bogan]

What 'right' do you believe you have to deny a terminally ill person the opportunity to choose the timing of their death?

None, but who decides they are terminally ill?