Should the law make it easier for us to help the terminally ill die?

Nodin

I'm sorry, but this is base nonsense.

Dutch palliative care doctor Dr. Ben Zylicz recently told those gathered at the United Kingdom’s House of Lords that euthanasia practice in his country is detrimental to good medical practice. The instances of involuntary or non-voluntary euthanasia, he reported, are becoming widespread, and in violation of formal Dutch guidelines and safeguards.

According to Zylicz, the reason doctors (and patients) often resort to euthanasia is that adequate palliative care is not easy to obtain

"In the Netherlands palliative care is part of regular health care. In other words it is not a specialism. The approach of the Dutch government is that palliative care should be provided as much as possible by generalists (general practitioners +

nurses + care workers)."
http://www.minvws.nl/en/folders/staf/palliative_care_for_terminally_ill_patients_in_the_netherlands.asp

philologos

Rayven199 wrote: »

I'm actually writing my thesis for my MA on this subject; the research I have found that has been conducted in relation to the possibility that 'Vulnerable' groups may be at risk (eg. being pressured into it) seems to consistantly show that this doesnt happen.
These were studies that interviewed patients and their family members whilst the patient was terminally ill and had requested a hastened death, most of whom had actually passed away by the end of the studies (the patients who went through with the assisted suicide that is, not the family members).

How can you show that this doesn't happen or rather cannot happen. We need to have a system that isn't readily breachable. I'd be very interested in hearing, and I'm sure you could get some work explaining it to the House of Lords if you could do so adequately

Nodin: that article is dated to verify the 1995 statistics. Things concerning pallative care may have improved in the Netherlands since than and I hope they have. However, it does raise the curious question that if pallative care is a primary option, would less people seek euthanasia? The reasoning in that article seems to suggest so.

We still have the unhappy issue of dealing with the inaccuracies in Dutch euthanasia figures, and the unhappy issue in finding a way to prove that consent is legitimate and genuine.

Polly74

At the end of the day, it's your life, you chose everything that happens in your life so why should you not be able to choose to end it!!?

me-skywalker

666 = JAKKASS IS A JACKASS!!! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH BAN ME BAN ME BAN ME!!!

'The curse of 666 has struck again, be afraid, be very afraid!'

KnifeWRENCH

Yes, euthanasia should be legal here.
If I'm ever terminally ill with no hope of recovery or end up paralysed unable to do anything for myself, I want the right to end my life. If I could do it myself I would but if I'm unable to, then I would want someone to do it for me.

If euthanasia is never legalised here by the time I find myself in that situation, then I hope someone will take me abroad and let me die in a country progressive and sensible enough to have legalised euthanasia.

bleg

Jackass, provided you could magic away all possible doubts, pressure etc... Would you still grant a terminally ill patient, unable to take their own life, the right to euthanasia?

philologos

bleg wrote: »

Jackass, provided you could magic away all possible doubts, pressure etc... Would you still grant a terminally ill patient, unable to take their own life, the right to euthanasia?

I'd be a mixed bag on it I think. I don't see any possible reason why one would seek euthanasia if there was effective pallative care available to patients. I feel it would be ethically preferrable if we could ensure that patients could remain comfortable for as long as possible before their natural death. The idea of it rubs me personally up the wrong way, but perhaps there is still a case for it on personal autonomy grounds. It's something I'd need to give a bit more time to consider.

The pain argument is pretty much gone with pallative care and the use of medication. I feel overall that it is unnecessary, but maybe others would argue otherwise.

However, while these problems still remain with the concept of euthanasia, I am completely and utterly opposed and I think the House of Lords in 1994 made a very reasonable call. There is no real way that one can stop euthanasia legalisation from being abused.

I feel it is regressive and foolish to legalise something without first being entirely sure that it cannot be abused.

Rabies

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

Yes, euthanasia should be legal here.
If I'm ever terminally ill with no hope of recovery or end up paralysed unable to do anything for myself, I want the right to end my life. If I could do it myself I would but if I'm unable to, then I would want someone to do it for me.

If euthanasia is never legalised here by the time I find myself in that situation, then I hope someone will take me abroad and let me die in a country progressive and sensible enough to have legalised euthanasia.

That is what I told my parents about 15yrs ago. They didn't like the idea, but I still stand by it.

Would rather be dead.

the_syco

Although people should die peacefully, I'm against it. Legalise suicide for those terminally ill, but not euthanasia. After seeing some so called "angels of death" kill people in hospitals, I'm against it.

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd be a mixed bag on it I think. I don't see any possible reason why one would seek euthanasia if there was effective pallative care available to patients.
.

I can't conceive what its like to be raped, yet I don't doubt the suffering of the victim.

Jakkass wrote: »

The pain argument is pretty much gone with pallative care and the use of medication. I feel overall that it is unnecessary, but maybe others would argue otherwise.
.

Apparently so, and as its a personal decision, I would have thought that the nub.

Jakkass wrote: »

However, while these problems still remain with the concept of euthanasia, I am completely and utterly opposed and I think the House of Lords in 1994 made a very reasonable call. There is no real way that one can stop euthanasia legalisation from being abused.
.

As nothing and no-one is 100% foolproof, its actually a ridiculous call.

philologos

Nodin wrote: »

As nothing and no-one is 100% foolproof, its actually a ridiculous call.

I don't think it is a ridiculous call to expect that such things be safe before they are legalised. Infact I think that is the only reasonable approach. If something cannot be guaranteed to be safe, or free from abuse, it shouldn't be legalised. That's where I think the verdict in the House of Lord's from 1994 and ever since then has been a good precedent to set.

starchild

Yes I believe the law should make it easier for us to help the terminally ill die.

All of us have freedom of choice regarding our own life, if i decide to end my life then that is my choice and i dont believe that anybody has a right to stop me.

In the case of people who are terminally ill i would say that in the majority of cases they are so dependent on others that they need the assistance of somebody else to take their own life. I still believe they are entitled to make the choice.

Given the involvement of a 3rd party this certainly needs to be regulated properly, time would be a major factor so as its definitely not a snap decision as a result of a bad day or two.

I would think and this is just my opinion that most terminally ill people who need assistance in ending their own life are completely at peace with their decision, many suicides are snap knee jerk decisions, a terminally ill person will have gone through rigorous medical assessments and they will know exactly what the remainder of life has in store for them.

stateofflux

i think someone who is terminally ill and is proven to be of sound mind when requesting assissted suicide should be given the right....its not about pain alone...i think its more about dignity...to deny it to somebody in hell is wrong...its their life....they should have the right as long as the proper safeguards for abuses are in place....

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think it is a ridiculous call to expect that such things be safe before they are legalised. Infact I think that is the only reasonable approach. If something cannot be guaranteed to be safe, or free from abuse, it shouldn't be legalised. That's where I think the verdict in the House of Lord's from 1994 and ever since then has been a good precedent to set.

It's as safe as can be guaranteed within reason, as far as I can see. Nothing can be guaranteed 100% safe, and indeed nothing is. The guidelines in the netherlands appear to be reasonable and its functioning - I see no reason not to follow that model closely.

Lilyblue

Without a doubt yes

almostnever

Yes,fosho.

Morzadec

Yes

renraw

yes

cruiser178

Im easily led,so yes.

philologos

Nodin wrote: »

It's as safe as can be guaranteed within reason, as far as I can see. Nothing can be guaranteed 100% safe, and indeed nothing is. The guidelines in the netherlands appear to be reasonable and its functioning - I see no reason not to follow that model closely.

If you can only ensure safety in so far, then it is too dangerous a concept to be legalised IMO. Abuses such as the ones that have taken place in the Netherlands are not the ideal. I don't understand if we can alleviate the suffering and the pain through pallative care there is really no need at all for euthanasia.

In All Fairness

Jakkass wrote: »

If you can only ensure safety in so far, then it is too dangerous a concept to be legalised IMO. Abuses such as the ones that have taken place in the Netherlands are not the ideal. I don't understand if we can alleviate the suffering and the pain through pallative care there is really no need at all for euthanasia.

Jaysus mate. Even by your standards you must feel like Canute.

KnifeWRENCH

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't understand if we can alleviate the suffering and the pain through pallative care there is really no need at all for euthanasia.

No matter how much palliative care you get and no matter how much morphine is pumped into you, the end result will be the same.

Palliative care is all well and good but a person should not be forced to receive it. I would much rather be euthanised quickly than have to have my family and friends sitting around, waiting for me to die. If I ever become terminally ill I'll have no desire to be kept alive any longer than necessary, regardless of how little pain I'm in.

There's the whole financial argument aswell; providing palliative care is quite expensive. But it's hard to approach that particular subject without sounding cold and clinical.
It's said "You can't put a price on life" ; honestly, in some cases, I'd disagree. The life of a terminally ill person is really not worth spending a lot of money on saving imo. That's another reason I'd opt for euthanasia: so that I wouldn't become a financial drain on society.

Zillah

Hey Jakkass, has it ever occurred to you that even if we cannot guarantee a perfect system, that I still deserve the right to end my life, and denying me that right is unfair?

I imagine not because your real reason for opposing euthanasia is because ending human life is a sin according to your ridiculous cult and you'll do and say anything to stop it, because what God says is way more important than allowing humans to have dignity or freedom.

Do you oppose putting people in jail because we cannot be 100% sure that they're not innocent? No, because we have safe guards in place and we make a damn good effort to make sure innocent people don't go to jail. Yes, it's not perfect but we need it for a fair society.

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

If you can only ensure safety in so far, then it is too dangerous a concept to be legalised IMO.

Then you'll be for banning the automobile and air-travel then?

Four-Percent

I'd feel much happier if the law made it easier for scumbags to die really...

MagicMarker

Zillah wrote: »

Hey Jakkass, has it ever occurred to you that even if we cannot guarantee a perfect system, that I still deserve the right to end my life, and denying me that right is unfair?

I imagine not because your real reason for opposing euthanasia is because ending human life is a sin according to your ridiculous cult and you'll do and say anything to stop it, because what God says is way more important than allowing humans to have dignity or freedom.

Do you oppose putting people in jail because we cannot be 100% sure that they're not innocent? No, because we have safe guards in place and we make a damn good effort to make sure innocent people don't go to jail. Yes, it's not perfect but we need it for a fair society.

Can I get an Amen!?

philologos

Nodin wrote: »

Then you'll be for banning the automobile and air-travel then?

At least it is far easier to prove if someone consents to a car journey or a flight in comparison to choosing to die.

Zillah wrote: »

I imagine not because your real reason for opposing euthanasia is because ending human life is a sin according to your ridiculous cult and you'll do and say anything to stop it, because what God says is way more important than allowing humans to have dignity or freedom.

I think you should leave my reasoning as it is on the subject. I feel as many others do reasonably that euthanasia is far too risky to legalise. I mean legislators have come to the same viewpoint as I have.

As for my religious beliefs, I value life as a creation and I'm not going to lie that I view life as a gift from God. However, I can argue this subject without resorting to theology. What is the point in talking about it from that POV if many on this thread cannot relate to that POV? Makes very little sense doesn't it?

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

At least it is far easier to prove if someone consents to a car journey or a flight in comparison to choosing to die.

It's the risk of something going wrong. Nothing is guaranteed. 'to be human is to err' and all that. Being the religous type, its a bit hypocritical for you to ask for perfection when all religons stress the imperfection of humanity.

Jakkass wrote: »

I mean legislators have come to the same viewpoint as I have.?

...and others haven't, placing us back at square one.

Jakkass wrote: »

However, I can argue this subject without resorting to theology

.....but not very well.

The Volt

What's all this about youth in asia?

Nodin

Voltwad wrote: »

What's all this about youth in asia?

Under attack by Tentacle beasties. Terrible, really.