Should Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Be Legal?

[fightingsioux]

Here's a link to an extensive examination of that question.

It's from the website ProCon.org. They're a nonpartisan, nonprofit website that presents research, studies, and pro and con statements on about 100 controversial issues. Many high school and college teachers use it to stimulate writing and discussion.

Remember, no matter how strongly you feel about this topic (I definitely feel it should be legal!), the whole idea of ProCon is to promote civil, informed debate.

Should Medical Aid in Dying Be Legal?

The pros and cons of the medical aid in dying debate include arguments about a 'good death,' vulnerable people, and religion.

euthanasia.procon.org

 

[4eyebiped]

I think it should be legal. Obviously, there has to be conditions in place but ultimately I think people have the right to choose how they die just as they get to choose how they live. I wouldn't let someone who recently broke up with their significant other off themselves, if that was their only problem. Any situation would have to be long term or at least going to obviously be long term.

 

[SinisterKid]

From Mr Stephen Hawking:

"I think those who have a terminal illness and are in great pain should have the right to choose to end their lives and those that help them should be free from prosecution. We don't let animals suffer, so why humans?"

That is from a guy with the most broken of bodies but brilliance of mind. Who is going to say he is wrong on the subject when he knows and understands the extremes of the human condition?

 

[Jean4]

Of course it should be legal. If one isn't interested, then they don't have to use the service. Why should people worry about what strangers do with their lives?

 

[Carina]

Oh of course it should be legal. Like said, it's not like legal means mandatory. Besides, if a person really wants to, they'll find a way--it's better for all involved if they can do it in a less stressful way.

 

[R_N]

Yes please.

 

[Science Is Scary]

Thanks for the link, fighting. I like to see the many perspectives on a topic.

 

[fightingsioux]

From Mr Stephen Hawking:

"I think those who have a terminal illness and are in great pain should have the right to choose to end their lives and those that help them should be free from prosecution. We don't let animals suffer, so why humans?"

That is from a guy with the most broken of bodies but brilliance of mind. Who is going to say he is wrong on the subject when he knows and understands the extremes of the human condition?

When you get a chance, read some of the sub-topics in the ProCon article.

I agree with you, of course. When asked as a very general question, "Should it be legal?", even in today's polarized America most people say yes. But as you know, it's far from a simple black and white issue.

One of the most interesting dilemmas revolves around a doctor's duty: yes, to do no harm, but is keeping alive a suffering person who clearly says that they wish to die helping or harming? Not to mention, what is a doctor to do who believes that helping the suffering person die is the right thing, but it's against the law?

Many other fine points that make it such a thorny issue.

 

[SinisterKid]

Read most of the Pro/Con now and about the only Con I could identify with was, and I am amazed by this, the Catholic bishop of LA. Yes, its a contentious issue, but if we are as civilised as we like to think we are, the natural progression is towards euthanasia being a legal option for everyone.

But some very interesting reading matter for once that is non fiction, which for me is rare.

 

[Quarky00]

"If insurers delay approval of costly treatment, then money saving and fatal measure become the deadly default."

That's not something to worry about with euthanasia. That describes the current situation... People don't get the care they need and spiral down as it is. Costly treatment aside, even basic (often cheap) MH is lacking.

 

[Ame]

@fightingsioux I hope that it is okay for me to begin by saying how much I enjoy reading your threads. You bring a lot of poignant questions and ethical dilemmas to the table and it is fascinating to see what others have to say. I do hope that you'll stick around to pick our brains for a little while more. Thank you for the link and for giving us the space to share our thoughts on this matter.

I could be wrong - and if I am, I would really like for others to come forward and let themselves be heard - but I think that it goes without saying that the opinion here will probably lean heavily to one side of the debate (and I don't really have to say which). Personally, I fall into the camp of those who are pro-euthanasia and I happen to live in a country where euthanasia and physician assisted death are available to its citizens. While I do believe that choosing to end one's life is a personal decision I also think that safe guards, both substantive and procedural, are necessary in order to prevent abuse and to protect the vulnerable. I acknowledge the biases that colour my stance but at the same time, some of the concerns raised by those who are against euthanasia are not entirely invalid.

We've already touched very briefly on the obligations of the physician and how euthanasia may contradict the Oath of Hippocrates, specifically "primum non nocere" and the line:

"I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment, but never with a view to injury and wrong-doing. Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course."

There are also concerns about how the availability of euthanasia may lead to the degradation of palliative care centres (it cheaper to euthanise a patient than to pursue further treatment or keep them in hospice care) and of course, the specter of the dreaded "slippery slope".

There is a report that I think would compliment this discussion quite nicely and I will be sure to return to this thread to share it with everyone once I've found it. In the meantime, we could break this question down a bit and see where some of us stand with respect to:

1. Access to euthanasia for minors
2. Advanced directives
3. Access to euthanasia for those where mental illness is the sole underlying medical condition

 

[WhyIsLife56]

It should be a human right. No one was asked to be born.

 

[Nnana]

Of course it should. Not only for the terminally ill but for all. How come we are forced into life but unable to leave as we want? What kind of prison is that?

 

[WhyIsLife56]

Of course it should. Not only for the terminally ill but for all. How come we are forced into life but unable to leave as we want? What kind of prison is that?

"People don't realize life is a prison until they try looking for an exit."

 

[chris8000]

I think we can all agree yes it should, but then the question is how should it be regulated?

If it was available for any over 18 at anytime as soon as they feel suicidal, then there is an ethical problem there, because many of these people will get better. I have seen it happen to myself and my brother, and I am happy we made it past the suicidal phase we both went through. Looking back on that, I was not in a good state of mind to make sure an important decision, back then.

If society is to be compassionate and liberal, which I think it should be, it must also support people recovering as well as their decision to end their life. What kind of doctor gives an 18 year old kid cyanide pills because they just broke up with their girlfriend last week and wants to die? Not a very compassionate one, in my opinion.

So I like the idea of, if you have unbearable suffering for the forseeable future, then we can abandon hope for this persons recovery and euthanasia becomes a good option for them.

 

[WhyIsLife56]

This shouldn't even be a question. Humans claim to be intelligent but they don't think at all. Like at all. This should already be legal and it should be a right but the fact that it's not explains how humans and humanity as a whole are actually in fact stupid.
Why do humans have a brain in the first place? Do they think it's some kind of decoration for their head or something?

 

[Wayfaerer]

Yes. I don't even get why it's controversial aside from christian sentimentality.

 

[Nnana]

I think we can all agree yes it should, but then the question is how should it be regulated?

If it was available for any over 18 at anytime as soon as they feel suicidal, then there is an ethical problem there, because many of these people will get better. I have seen it happen to myself and my brother, and I am happy we made it past the suicidal phase we both went through. Looking back on that, I was not in a good state of mind to make sure an important decision, back then.

If society is to be compassionate and liberal, which I think it should be, it must also support people recovering as well as their decision to end their life. What kind of doctor gives an 18 year old kid cyanide pills because they just broke up with their girlfriend last week and wants to die? Not a very compassionate one, in my opinion.

So I like the idea of, if you have unbearable suffering for the forseeable future, then we can abandon hope for this persons recovery.

There should be a waiting time period in order to avoid impulsive decisions and those with serious mental illness should try treatment. However if nothing works, the person should always have the option to leave. I think in the end, it should not be imposed for a person ' X is a reason to die, Y is not'. Only the person whos suffering knows how much is too much, and suicide should be an option.

 

[fightingsioux]

It should be a human right. No one was asked to be born.

Do you mean for a person of any age, a child for example?

Asking this also to Wayfarer & Nnana.

 

[mathieu]

It should be legal, not just for terminal illness but for everyone. Maybe not kids..

 

[fightingsioux]

It should be legal, not just for terminal illness but for everyone. Maybe not kids..

When you say kids, may I ask specifically above what age?

 

[mathieu]

When you say kids, may I ask specifically above what age?

I'm not sure. We have 18 as the age where one is considered an adult so I suppose that would work.

 

[LegaliseIt!]

@fightingsioux, thank you for posting this. I wish that I had time to read it immediately, but I've bookmarked it because I am very passionate about this issue, sometimes at the expense of reason.
Information is a gift.

 

[fightingsioux]

I'm not sure. We have 18 as the age where one is considered an adult so I suppose that would work.

OK, 18.

May I ask another question?

An 18 year-old of any mental competency or with any degree of mental illness?

 

[Farmmaa]

Living in a country where medically assisted suicide is legal but extremely difficult to obtain, my opinion is that legalizing it simply is not enough. When it was brought in here, it was presented to be available for anyone who's health made it impossible to lead a relatively happy existence.
As it turns out, even here it is very difficult to be approved.

Not only should it be legal, but it should be readily available to anyone over the age of 18 who is mentally sound enough to make an informed decision.
It should not be up to government or a panel of medical 'professionals' to be able to decide whether or not a person's illness qualifies them.

 

[fightingsioux]

Living in a country where medically assisted suicide is legal but extremely difficult to obtain, my opinion is that legalizing it simply is not enough. When it was brought in here, it was presented to be available for anyone who's health made it impossible to lead a relatively happy existence.
As it turns out, even here it is very difficult to be approved.

Not only should it be legal, but it should be readily available to anyone over the age of 18 who is mentally sound enough to make an informed decision.
It should not be up to government or a panel of medical 'professionals' to be able to decide whether or not a person's illness qualifies them.

In the U.S., in the 9 states and the District of Columbia where it's legal, there are also many, many hoops to jump through. As you say, the same is true in most countries.

Dr. Philip Nitschke of Exit International refers to all the government requirements as simply a policy of "beg & grovel".

 

[chris8000]

Not only should it be legal, but it should be readily available to anyone over the age of 18 who is mentally sound enough to make an informed decision.
It should not be up to government or a panel of medical 'professionals' to be able to decide whether or not a person's illness qualifies them.

This is an interesting idea, but then the question arises of what 'mentally sound' means, and who exactly defines who is 'mentally sound' or not. I wasn't mentally sound when I thought when I was 21 of killing myself, but would some one of recognised that? I hope so, if such a system existed.

I think it is good @fightingsioux has brought this up, because I have been thinking more about the various ethical arguments for and against euthanasia today. I am not an expert on ethics, but when faced with a module of it back in university, I was surpised to find it is quite interesting.

Utilitarianism and Kantism perspectives on euthanasia can be found here. These ideas are simple to understand, but can be very useful.

http://www.rsrevision.com/Alevel/ethics/euthanasia/ethics.htm

 

[Berlin76]

Euthanasie must be available for everybody who has a illness that makes life difficult in a way that a normal life is not possible anymore.

So also for mental issues this applies ofcourse. Mental disorders can ruin a person life in a menor that its not enjoyable anymore and the person can't go forward anymore. This is loop that can be harmful or dreadful for the person.

For minors only when it is a illness with a lot of pain or when they will die early.
Not for mental issues for minors below 18 because the brain does grow and can get better till the age of 25 years old.

 

[fightingsioux]

This is an interesting idea, but then the question arises of what 'mentally sound' means, and who exactly defines who is 'mentally sound' or not. I wasn't mentally sound when I thought when I was 21 of killing myself, but would some one of recognised that? I hope so, if such a system existed.

I think it is good @fightingsioux has brought this up, because I have been thinking more about the various ethical arguments for and against euthanasia today. I am not an expert on ethics, but when faced with a module of it back in university, I was surpised to find it is quite interesting.

Utilitarianism and Kantism perspectives on euthanasia can be found here. These ideas are simple to understand, but can be very useful.

http://www.rsrevision.com/Alevel/ethics/euthanasia/ethics.htm

The age requirement is fairly straightforward. But when the idea of mentally sound comes into play, that's when thing get difficult.

As you say, who defines the term mentally sound, who decides who is and who isn't, is this criteria even valid? That's where the issue gets very, very thorny!

 

[Final Escape]

Only if it's free market meaning the gov does not control it. The problem when gov controls it is people will die who shouldn't or methods will be used that are not humane like u think. People need to be able to be sure their loved ones are not being killed off unjustly or the judgement was made accurately not because it benefits the government somehow. Governments are known for genociding people they find inconvenient useless. This is why it has to be done by genuinely compassionate people who want to be sure someone is not being killed who should not be. It has to be something done freely in the private sector. Often what starts out as gov controlled euthanasia ends up being corrupted little by little until innocent people are dying. I feel that people are capable of knowing wether this is right for them, and who has the right to judge wether it is or isn't. The main issue is how this service is provided and it must be free of any coercion or political agendas.