Discussion On why there must be screening and safeguards placed for voluntary euthanasia (my opinion/two cents)

[TAW122]

If voluntary euthanasia is more readily available and legalized in more countries around the world, I would be ok with there being a waiting period as well as processes and screening put in place. While I normally don't like to gatekeep and I do believe that everyone who wishes to die should have the choice to decide, I do believe that there must be checks, safeguards, procedures, screenings, and what not in order to minimize legal risk, liability issues, ethical and moral issues, and of course to be practical (what sounds good on paper may be disastrous or have unintended consequences in practice).

With that said, if voluntary euthanasia is legal and people can access it, I believe ultimately, the person will still receive it but it depending on said person's reasons, life circumstances, background, what he/she has tried and yet to try, and of course, a waiting period. While having processes may be gatekeeping and might make me sound hypocritical, I don't consider it such because at the end, the person would still be granted said option if the person is persistent in requesting, goes through the proper procedures, and has exhausted all reasonable options for improvement to no avail. This would eliminate the chance of impulsive suicides, people who are abusing it to get rid of someone, people who use it for financial/selfish gains (even in Switzerland, the doctors providing it and/or patient cannot be using it for selfish gain but to find peace), and also cover legal requirements (to ensure the doctors, hospitals, and other parties involved are not sued for malpractice) as well as moral & ethical requirements. Objectively speaking, once someone has made the decision for death, it is a permanent decision and cannot be reversed so extra caution must be taken. Again, this is not to outright deny patients the right to choose and die; the patients' requests are respected, evaluated, are able to appeal and also petition repeatedly to gain approval for such a service. I do believe all reasons are valid, especially if what trivial reasons later become major reasons (like prolonged sadness and suffering for a long period of time; where time can be something that is longer than what a reasonable person would see fit) and that the person has exhausted what he/she finds to be solutions and no longer wishes to continue trying to improve or get better (e.g. after attempting X amount of solutions and after Y amount of years).

For example, if someone wanted to CTB because of what is perceived as a temporary problem, like losing their boy/girlfriend and that was their only reason. Then initially, the request would be denied, but kept on file for the future. Later, if said person continues to suffer, tries to get better, but to no avail, then the person can be considered for such service and the process can start. After repeated requests both in verbal and writing (to prove that the patient really wishes to die and find peace) as well as claim of constant, chronic emotional and psychological suffering, then the person could build a case where the once 'trivial' (trivial to most people) problem has become a big problem and things aren't getting any better. There is a waiting period and this is to prevent impulsive decisions and also to ensure that the person is not going to change his/her mind and absolutely wishes to proceed. At the end of the process, after passing and clearing all the safeguards, checks, and processes, then the patient is given the greenlight to proceed. Of course, in rare instances and up until their last moment, if the patient refuses then the process is aborted, but if not then it will proceed until the patient has found peace (CTB). Keep in mind other factors that affect whether the person will be accepted would be due to said person's background, what he/she has tried and proof that he/she has put in diligent effort to find a solution but to no avail, the age of the person (if they are under legal age, 18 in US, 16 in many parts of the country), and/or other factors (such as other medical conditions and what not) then it would impact their chances of approval.

Another example, if someone had a physical chronic problem but not life threatening, and it is ongoing, affecting said person's quality of life and also the person is at least middle aged, maybe closer to senior (elderly) age, and of course all other factors considered, then said person would have a shorter process and easier time getting approved as the doctors be able to see that someone has been suffering for a long time, has tried many remedies and solutions but to no avail, and the problems faced are more serious. In this example, said person would gain approval to proceed more easily than the previous example.

With regards to age, I think it is an important factor because someone who is a minor is usually living with parents and/or dependent, but more importantly, it is because they are not fully adults or ready for the world yet, so giving them approval very easily would be setting up a very bad precedent. Of course, if someone who is a minor has a terminal illness, then he/she should be able to request and gain approval easier. Sure, the while parents may keep said person (a minor) alive, once said person who then becomes an legal adult, he/she would enjoy the same rights as an adult. This is also partly done because it can be argued that teenage brains are not fully developed and capable of full rational thought, unlike most young adults.

In conclusion, while it is unlikely that voluntary euthanasia would be a thing in the current day and in many countries around the world as of now, it is an interesting topic to discuss about as I believe there would be people with interesting perspectives. Ultimately, I still believe that the person can still decide whether to CTB or continue living on his/her own as he/she knows best, but if they are going through an official process, especially through a medical system, then there must be processes, procedures, and safeguards put into place in order to minimize and prevent abuse as well as legal issues that may arise. It's not a perfect world but it's the best we can do to keep things balanced and not out of control. Until then, we pro-choicers would still have to hide and secretly plan our exit, but in an more compassionate, ideal world as mentioned in this thread, none of this secret planning and having to hide, acquire methods, and then (hopefully) overcome SI to succeed in one's attempt would be necessary at all..

Let me know what you guys think and I'm sorry if some people are upset with this, but this is just my two cents.

 

[sighingspider]

I do agree with most parts of what you said, but I think the reason why countries doesn't legalise euthanasia is more of a religious thing I guess. Maybe more for Asia I guess. As far as I am concern, and yes, I am not a Muslim so correct me if I am wrong, is that suicide is a sin. And if you were to suicide, you would go straight to hell. So if in the Holy book, it states that suicide is a sin, why would countries with a strong Islamic presents legalise it then? It would be like telling its people it is alright to go against the Holy book. Quran. In East Asia, I think the reason why they don't want to legalise euthanasia is that they know it would result in a huge amount of patients and that would not be good for the work force. East Asia, as it may be a surprise, might be the toughest place to work in. Full of stress. Just look at Japan. They are already trying to ban lots of things that relates to suicide but things still go pass through.
So I really think its more about the tradition the country is in, the culture and for Middle East, the religion.

 

[Deleted member 19654]

As much as I wish it was something that could be easily accessed because I want to ctb, I agree with you that there needs to be a certain process that you have to go through in order to be considered for euthanasia. They need to evaluate the reasons for considering euthanasia because like you said it can't be for trivial reasons like a breakup etc. These are things that get better over time for the most people so they can't allow impulsive decisions in the heat of the moment

 

[TAW122]

I do agree with most parts of what you said, but I think the reason why countries doesn't legalise euthanasia is more of a religious thing I guess. Maybe more for Asia I guess. As far as I am concern, and yes, I am not a Muslim so correct me if I am wrong, is that suicide is a sin. And if you were to suicide, you would go straight to hell. So if in the Holy book, it states that suicide is a sin, why would countries with a strong Islamic presents legalise it then? It would be like telling its people it is alright to go against the Holy book. Quran. In East Asia, I think the reason why they don't want to legalise euthanasia is that they know it would result in a huge amount of patients and that would not be good for the work force. East Asia, as it may be a surprise, might be the toughest place to work in. Full of stress. Just look at Japan. They are already trying to ban lots of things that relates to suicide but things still go pass through.
So I really think its more about the tradition the country is in, the culture and for Middle East, the religion.

You raise some good points and from an economical standpoint, I suppose the situation in Asia might be true though I never really studied it there. With regards to the Middle East, I agree with you since religion is still very prominent and influence government as well as culture there so they would be one of the last places to legalize voluntary euthanasia, if even.

As much as I wish it was something that could be easily accessed because I want to ctb, I agree with you that there needs to be a certain process that you have to go through in order to be considered for euthanasia. They need to evaluate the reasons for considering euthanasia because like you said it can't be for trivial reasons like a breakup etc. These are things that get better over time for the most people so they can't allow impulsive decisions in the heat of the moment

As for trivial reasons, I would slightly differ only for the fact that even 'trivial' reasons to most people may become a big enough reason for said individual(s). Of course, granting euthanasia just for trivial reasons alone would not be sufficient through the process but must be accompanied with additional evidence that suffering is ongoing and continuous.

(In other words, if someone had a breakup and then wanted to CTB soon, that person would not be given approval. But if on the other hand, that person suffered through a long time (be it years or so), tried to fix the problem, and done many things but still felt that way, or gotten worse as a result, then they would (eventually) be granted approval). Of course, in reality, there would always be people out in the world that impulsively CTB, but with legalized voluntary euthanasia it may give rise to incentives to try to fix problems before resorting to the final option. It would also alleviate a lot of people who may otherwise decide to CTB to try treatment and/or help first before going down to the last resort/final option.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

I like that you're thinking of reasonable solutions to the issues of right to die and assisted suicide.

What I would personally take issue with, and based on your own experiences with mental health services perhaps you'll see this too, is the idea of having to explain one's reason and get permission or have to wait, such as the idea of wanting to suicide over a relationship ending. Where is the cutoff for one being able to determine for themselves what is a valid reason to die, or how how much pain they can tolerate and have the inner resources to deal with? I worry about having to get any type of permission or approval. I agree about a waiting period, but not about having to prove the worthiness or validity of the choice, including getting any kind of mental health evaluation. It's just too intrusive.

Respecting your two cents. Those are mine.

 

[Smellanie]

Problem is in America this would never be covered by insurance and it would be like "lol wanna die? Have fun saving up 20k" and even if it somehow was covered it would still cost thousands I'm sure.

 

[Deleted member 17949]

My view on this is unsteady. This is undeniably somewhat pro-life; the reality of this situation would be that people are kept alive for a while on the basis that death should be a final option to be treated differently from other decisions. Deciding to end your life is unlikely to ever be seen as a casual personal decision. With that said, I can't see that way of thinking changing, because the reality is that people's minds often do change with regards to wanting to die, and as far as society is concerned people are more valuable both socially and economically when they are kept alive.

 

[TAW122]

Where is the cutoff for one being able to determine for themselves what is a valid reason to die, or how how much pain they can tolerate and have the inner resources to deal with? I worry about having to get any type of permission or approval. I agree about a waiting period, but not about having to prove the worthiness or validity of the choice, including getting any kind of mental health evaluation. It's just too intrusive.

Respecting your two cents. Those are mine.

Thanks for your inputs and as far as cutoffs, yes it would difficult to standardize an exact one, but maybe starting off with some basic standard like if someone wanted to die due to a relationship ending/breakup, they would first be given some time to see if their mind would change and if they still felt the same way (this would of course be done without the threat of being locked up - which would encourage patients to be more willing to seek help since there are patients that won't open up or get help due to the threat of involuntary hospitalization being a thing), then after a prolonged time at seeking other solutions out including therapy, screening, and other things like medication and techniques, but the person still feels the same, or worse, then proceed to the next step. Keep in mind the person's age, background, and overall situation is also considered in order to ensure that said person is 100% they are going to follow through and also that it isn't done with nefarious purposes nor that the person is being pressured into making the choice (no coercion or personal gain by 3rd parties for instance). So ultimately, it would be decided on a case-by-case basis, and if the patient does not agree with the doctor's decision, the patient is entitled to appeal to another group that is independent from the doctors (independent group/organization as to prevent and minimize collusion). I suppose the criteria would have to start from what most "reasonable" people find to be too much or unbearable, then use that as a baseline and adjust accordingly.

I know that you mentioned it can become too intrusive and taxing, but coming from the clinic's, doctors', medical professionals' points of view, there are legal, moral and ethical, as well as societal issues to keep in mind. Mainly the legal issues which may include being sued by 3rd parties, the patients' family and/or friends, and other legal issues (e.g. such as if the doctor made a mistake and killed off a patient who later changed his/her mind or something like that). This is why if someone were to do it this way, there must be protocols for safety, legality, and moral & ethics involved.

Again, if the patient does not wish to go through with it, the patient could always decide to CTB on his/her own with his/her method(s), but if voluntary euthanasia is an option, and a patient knows about it, they may decide to try to improve their situation before resorting to the last option.

I hope this answers your questions and addresses your points clearly.

Problem is in America this would never be covered by insurance and it would be like "lol wanna die? Have fun saving up 20k" and even if it somehow was covered it would still cost thousands I'm sure.

Yes sadly that is true. Even dignitas and other right to die, assisted suicide organizations cost over 10K USD (not including all the other hidden costs of travel and personal expenses), never mind being approved and given the green light to proceed. I would think that if things get bad enough, like resource shortage and that a critical mass of people are headed towards apocalypse (it would be very extreme of course), then the government may allow people to die in order to save resources and/or sustain the remaining people who wish to stay. Then again, if things ARE that "bad" humans may die from other causes before voluntary euthanasia becomes a thing. But I digress...

My view on this is unsteady. This is undeniably somewhat pro-life; the reality of this situation would be that people are kept alive for a while on the basis that death should be a final option to be treated differently from other decisions. Deciding to end your life is unlikely to ever be seen as a casual personal decision. With that said, I can't see that way of thinking changing, because the reality is that people's minds often do change with regards to wanting to die, and as far as society is concerned people are more valuable both socially and economically when they are kept alive.

You certainly make a good point, especially the last sentence. As far as being "more valuable both socially and economically" when they are kept alive, well I'm not so sure about that. This is because there are quite a few of people who do not contribute much to society and/or are a net negative on society as a whole (for example violent criminals who commit heinous crimes and then end up in prison). Another group of people and I was one of them for a while too, being a NEET (Not in Education Employment or Training) just consuming and not contributing much economically to society. I have nothing against NEETs though as again, I was one of them and I respect their choice of not participating in society.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

@thrw_a_way1221221, yes, you addressed my points clearly. I'm just having a difficult time reconciling your endorsement of submitting to treatment and meds when they didn't help you much and you resented being made to submit to them. Am I wrong about that? Am I confusing you with someone else?

 

[Wisdom3_1-9]

Where is the cutoff for one being able to determine for themselves what is a valid reason to die, or how how much pain they can tolerate and have the inner resources to deal with? I worry about having to get any type of permission or approval.

Bingo! I expect any future of legal euthanasia would be heavily regulated. As such, it will undoubtedly be subject (still) to some moral benchmark determined by external forces.

We all have a subjective position on this. For example, I disagree with young people taking their own life, because I think there are so many opportunities that can still be afforded to them and they haven't yet experienced enough of life (IMO) to arrive at a proper conclusion. But who am I to make that decision for someone else? Perhaps they have a terminal debilitating illness. Perhaps living longer just means more hardship. Sure, I've drawn that line based on what I think, but the line exists in different places for different people.

The majority of society doesn't agree with us now on where we think the line should be (heck, most don't even think there should be a line). Who's to say there will ever be any universal agreement on where lines should exist for any federally-regulated euthanasia process?

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

We all have a subjective position on this. For example, I disagree with young people taking their own life, because I think there are so many opportunities that can still be afforded to them and they haven't yet experienced enough of life (IMO) to arrive at a proper conclusion. But who am I to make that decision for someone else? Perhaps they have a terminal debilitating illness. Perhaps living longer just means more hardship. Sure, I've drawn that line based on what I think, but the line exists in different places for different people.

I feel like I'm in church, you're preaching, and I'm dancing in the aisle.

 

[Wisdom3_1-9]

I feel like I'm in church, you're preaching, and I'm dancing in the aisle.

This was a great image!

 

[TAW122]

@thrw_a_way1221221, yes, you addressed my points clearly. I'm just having a difficult time reconciling your endorsement of submitting to treatment and meds when they didn't help you much and you resented being made to submit to them. Am I wrong about that? Am I confusing you with someone else?

I believe when I say that, I am referring to the current medical and psychiatric system. Of course, in a world where voluntary euthanasia is legalized (with a catch and regulated to prevent and minimize abuse), I am going under the assumption that the medical and psychiatric system would be changed to accommodate it. Treatment and medication (case by case basis) would serve two purposes, one for creating a paper trail and evidence that said patient has tried other solutions first and isn't just impulsively going for the option, and secondly, understanding the consequences of death. Yes, it is a bit bureaucratic, but again, you have to factor in the legal, social, moral & ethical aspects of such an operation, so I'm just painting a 'realistic' picture of how such a system would be implemented if it ever became legalized.

No, you aren't confusing me with someone else and while I objected to treatment and meds, it is mostly in present day, where voluntary euthanasia is not legal and forbidden as well as the current state of the medical and psychiatric industry (for profit, keeping people alive at all costs, and what not). One thing I will make clear is that this kind of counseling would be strictly made to make sure that the person is mentally fit, knows the gravity and permanence of the death (voluntary euthanasia), and that said person has exhausted other options first (at least 3 solutions - which can be more or less, depending on the reason and condition of said person).

Of course, even in a society where voluntary euthanasia is legalized, yes, there are likely still going to be people who will impulsively CTB and while it is their choice, they would still be less likely to just CTB on one's own if voluntary euthanasia is legalized (but regulated to prevent and minimize abuse or harm). In such a society, I would also assume the reform of involuntary commitment procedures and protocols such that it is only exercised for people who are a clear threat to others (not exclusively to self). This way, even if a patient decides not to go through the lengthy, thorough screening for voluntary euthanasia, and decides to take matters into his/her own hands and attempt CTB on his/her own, he/she would not be saved unless it is clear that said person is an imminent danger to others. For example, if said person isn't able to qualify for voluntary euthanasia (gets screened out, rejected, appealed but denied and/or decided not to wait that long to get permission), and said person decides to hang him/herself, then first off, the responding team (first responders) would go there and determine whether there is a imminent threat to others or not, if not, then the first responders will leave him/her be. If said person is unconscious, it does get tricky but that's another topic (implied consent and what not).

Bingo! I expect any future of legal euthanasia would be heavily regulated. As such, it will undoubtedly be subject (still) to some moral benchmark determined by external forces.

We all have a subjective position on this. For example, I disagree with young people taking their own life, because I think there are so many opportunities that can still be afforded to them and they haven't yet experienced enough of life (IMO) to arrive at a proper conclusion. But who am I to make that decision for someone else? Perhaps they have a terminal debilitating illness. Perhaps living longer just means more hardship. Sure, I've drawn that line based on what I think, but the line exists in different places for different people.

The majority of society doesn't agree with us now on where we think the line should be (heck, most don't even think there should be a line). Who's to say there will ever be any universal agreement on where lines should exist for any federally-regulated euthanasia process?

Very true, it will always be very difficult to draw an (objective and universal absolute) line. Perhaps there isn't, but one could start with a standard benchmark as a baseline and adjust accordingly. In such an example of the terminally ill, it would be without a doubt that by default the person would wish to end his/her suffering (unless said person has other wishes like wanting to stick out to the end; and it would be noted). I am leaning more towards a minimal baseline of regulations, meaning not too much, strict oversight that makes it nearly impossible (or practical) to qualify. It should neither be non-regulated where someone could just walk in and die on the spot, but also not too heavily-regulated that only terminally ill patients with 6 months or less to live can qualify and also has to self-administer the method (meaning that patient has to sick enough to qualify yet not too sick to be physically capable to administer it).

Now for young people, yes we both do agree that while they wouldn't be permanently barred, it would be noted that they request to die and that would be kept in a record for future use. So in the young person's example, suppose said person wishes to die (but is other healthy both mentally and physically), he/she would be deferred (not permanently denied) and deliberated further. The reasons, living factors, and background are all considered of course. If said person has made repeated requests to die and has shown that he/she really doesn't want to be around, then said person could be put through a waiting period to ensure that he/she would not change his/her mind, then if all checks out, then the person will be given the green light to proceed (similar to existing death with dignity organizations). Of course, if at the last minute the person changes his/her mind, for whatever reason, then said process would be aborted. Everything would be documented as thoroughly as possible, verbal and written requests (unless they aren't able to verbalize or write their request), including video proof, and also having doctors and medical professionals sign it off (making it official).

The more healthier and younger the person is, the more checks and hoops he/she will jump through as this is to ensure that the person has tried to improve and doesn't wish to, willingly wishes to die, and/or made the decision willingly without pressure or coercion; whereas a patient who is chronically ill and severely disabled (ALS, MS, spinal cord injuries, etc.) would have much less hoops as it's much more obvious that quality of life is poor (objectively speaking) for that person.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

@thrw_a_way1221221, the confusion is because you presented the thread as your opinion, that you were taking a stance, which you did in the first paragraph. But then in the second paragraph, it became a prediction, which may still be an opinion as to what will happen, but is not a stance. The stance, I think, is that you would approve of this prediction, but it's not something you laid out as a recommendation, which was implied by the thread title and what you seemed to be leading up to in the first paragraph, starting with, "I do believe..."

OPINION

If voluntary euthanasia is more readily available and legalized in more countries around the world, I would be ok with there being a waiting period as well as processes and screening put in place. While I normally don't like to gatekeep and I do believe that everyone who wishes to die should have the choice to decide, I do believe that there must be checks, safeguards, procedures, screenings, and what not in order to minimize legal risk, liability issues, ethical and moral issues, and of course to be practical (what sounds good on paper may be disastrous or have unintended consequences in practice).

PREDICTION

With that said, if voluntary euthanasia is legal and people can access it, I believe ultimately, the person will still receive it but...