Holland set to legalise Euthanasia today.

TwoShedsJackson

Dutch senators vote today, it's very likely to pass: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1269000/1269682.stm

I personally approve of this, having known one person who suffered four years of agony while waiting to die of bowel cancer, people have a right to choose to end their lives if they wish.

C B

I also fully support this, without qualification. I also support the woman's right to choose.

logic1

The thing about being pro or con is that each case is totally unique and as such must be judged on a 1 to 1 basis.
These things prove never to be black and white but various shades of grey and as such I believe that it's not my right to judge whether I deem it socially acceptable or not but basically it is down to the individual and to whatever governing body to decide.

.logic.

C B

logic thats a load of absolute bull****.
Its either down to the individual or not. Once a "governing authority" is allowed to interfer individual choice is gone.

And yes obviously every case is different yet the principles remain the same.

logic1

I don't see how a persons opinion can be categorized as a "load of bull****" but seeing as you've started.. if it is totally down to the individual what's going to stop pregnant teens immediately opting for abortion or depressed clinically insane ppl opting for euthanasia. Use your brain little boy.

And wouldn't the governing bodies in these cases be the establishment carrying out euthanasia or abortion or whatever the situation may be?
So your trying to say that the idea of the people carrying out the operation should have some say in the matter is a load of "bull****"?
Wake up.

.logic.

[This message has been edited by logic1 (edited 10-04-2001).]

Evil Phil

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by logic1:
if it is totally down to the individual what's going to stop pregnant teens immediately opting for abortion or depressed clinically insane ppl opting for euthanasia. Use your brain little boy.

And wouldn't the governing bodies in these cases be the establishment carrying out euthanasia or abortion or whatever the situation may be?

</font>

No. The guidelines clearly state 'the patient must be of sound mind and have given consent'. So the establishment cannot carry out euthanasia whatever the situation may be and depressed people are protected. This legislation stems from kindness, not cruelty. I think any society that will allow euthanasia will be well able to take care of the depressed.
As for abortion, this does not change the current abortion legislation. In fact the only link I can see is that the Pro-Life movement or protesting both.

And as for pregnant teens, well; I'm not touching that with a 10 foot barge pole.



[This message has been edited by Evil Phil (edited 10-04-2001).]

logic1

Yes Phil but whose going to say if they are depressed or not? Are they to decide themselves? Then that's not a sound form of protection.. and if they do not decide themselves than some external governing body does.. get it yet?

.logic.

smoke.me.a.kipper

if someone's going to be in unbearable pain for the rest of their natural life, with no chance for a cure.... then if they give consent, i think it's ok.

---

- Ciaranj - ciaranj.com

This post has been brought to you by the letter C, and the number 7.

darthmise

If a depresed and clinically insane person wanted euthanasia administered who can say whether or not they deserve to live or die.

Unbearable suffering can come under two headings Physical and Mental, I don't think one outweighs the other.

I don't have a problem with euthanasia.
I do have a problem with suicide, but it's a selfish one (those who are left behind) and doesn't allow much for what a person must be going through in order to feel like killing themselves is the only option. I certainly don't think it should be illegal though.

But all in all I feel that each of us should have the right to decide to live or die.

This isn't something I have given much thought to so I would be willing to admit I might change my point of view if an intelligent arguement is put forward.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by logic1:
Yes Phil but whose going to say if they are depressed or not? Are they to decide themselves? Then that's not a sound form of protection.. and if they do not decide themselves than some external governing body does.. get it yet?

.logic.</font>

It wouldn't be an "external governing body" but the presiding physician or consultant in care of the patient who would determine whether they were of sound mind and body (with external referred psychiatric consultancy if required). CB-- logic is right-- there needs to be an external and unbiased opinion that moderates an individual's choice. To ensure that mentally unstable or suicidal patients (or other candidates unsuitable for euthanasia) do not take advantage of the system, the presiding physician should have the final word, *AND* be forced to publish his P/t notes to the coroner's office. Only with those official safeguards will this policy succeed. I am a believer in euthanasia- and having practised medicine for a few years now, have seen more than a few cases in which I wished I could have administered it. In the professional oath, the phrase "not to cause or prolong undue pain or suffering" means a lot more to me than the classic Hippocratic "do no harm" position.

I am also pro-choice- but I don't believe either of these policies should be legal without a strict set of policy guide-lines and effective safe-guards. If the safe-guards prove unsuitable for the particular system- then discontinue the policy. What really annoys me are the folks who dismiss the policy out of hand- no policy is set in stone- even Constitutional amendments can be *repealed*.

Let's face one thing though...both of these practises are going to take place whether it is legal or otherwise. More than one of my consultants has terminated treatment and administered a pro-bono morphine dose; or aborted on "medically acceptable grounds" because of what they believed. Even if neither practise is legal, medical judgement allows it to take place, regardless. That is why P/t and P/r notes *MUST* be published to a hospital administrator and approved by a cert. board- it makes doctors think twice about playing God within the framework of their own political beliefs.

Well, that's my two cents.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Carpe Diem=

Evil Phil

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by logic1:
Yes Phil but whose going to say if they are depressed or not? Are they to decide themselves? Then that's not a sound form of protection.. and if they do not decide themselves than some external governing body does.. get it yet?

.logic.</font>

No you don't get it. You point is irrelevant and ill informed. I think you should read the article in question before making statements like this
Depressed or not if they are NOT suffering from a terminal physical illness it's not going to happen. Depression and mental illness are excluded from euthanasia on the basis that they are not physically terminal illnesses.

If you are terminally ill and mentally ill it's not available to you. As I have stated:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
the patient must be of sound mind and have given consent </font>

They must also be suffering from a physical terminal illness. The mentally ill or the depressed are ruled out by the suggested legislation regardless of their physical well being or lack there of.

It goes like this, not terminal illness no assisted suicide. Terminal illness not of sound mine, no assisted suicide. Terminal illness but the medical team have doubts as to your soundness of mind, no assisted suicide. Terminal illness, plus evidence from a psychiatric team that you are of sound mind. You have then got the right to ask your doctor to help you die. And I'm no doctor but I do think medical science can determine if your (physical) illness is incurable or not.

THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION ONLY REFERS TO PEOPLE SUFFERING FROM A PHYSICAL TERMINAL ILLNESS NOT THE MENTALLY ILL. DO YOU GET IT NOW?


[This message has been edited by Evil Phil (edited 10-04-2001).]

bugler

Calm it lads.I was about to post what Phil just got to,about it being,as the legislation states, only available to those who are of sound mind and with an incurable illness.Depression is not incurable.It also raises other questions though.My grandmother died a very slow and pathetic death,I'm not sure exactly what got her in the end,I don't know if the doctors do,but she was experiencing kidney/liver problems/failure.Would this case have been covered by it? After all how big of a distinction will be drawn between cases where patients are very unlikely to survive and cases where they will not survive?
As could be expected regarding such a thorny issue,there are many "ifs" and "buts".

androphobic

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by C B:
I also fully support this, without qualification. I also support the woman's right to choose.</font>

me too.
i think that a terminally ill person should have the right to choose.. some people suffer for years before they die.. should they have to go through this pain if its unnecessary?

i can see that there would be some problems with it though.. it would be difficult for some people to accept their father/mother/etc 's decision to terminate their life.. i dunno hmm this is an interesting one..

Paladin

I did a question on euthanasia in response to a pro-euthanasia article. I had to oppose euthanasia. Here is what I wrote :

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
"Everyday life is the struggle to survive" - David Attenborough.

This was in reference to the animals of the Serengeti in Africa, but extends to all animals in every habitat in the world. This is what life in the animal kingdom is about. Survival. Whether they are sick, hurt, or under attack from a predator, they fight for survival until the bitter end. They never give up. This is nature's way.

In 1991 Jonathan Browne published a book about his fight to survive cancer when he was 21 years old. In it he tells of the incredible pain he went through. He endured torturous weeks of treatment and heavy bouts of depression. One day when bed-ridden in hospital, a doctor told him that they had done all they could and he was going to die within a month. All the trauma and pain had been for nothing. One day doctors found him unconscious, and bleeding from his wrists. He had slit them with a shaving razor. On this occasion his attempt to commit suicide was thwarted, but the feeling remained. Eight weeks later, he was still alive, and in much the same condition, when his parents entered his ward with his doctor, tears running down their faces, smiling. Somehow, defying all the doctors, the cancer was beginning to recede.
When interviewed about his book, he was asked if he agreed with euthanasia. Jonathan took some time to think about the question before he answered.
"If it had been available to me at the time I was sick, I would have taken it. That thought scares me. I had been to the very brink and jumped off, and if I hadn't been caught....I wouldn’t be here. On hindsight I tried to take the easy way out. If the same thing happened to me today, and I was guaranteed to die at the end, I would stick it out. We are all guaranteed to die, but we have to stick it out till the end"

In every major religion, there is a commandment of sorts, that forbids the taking of another human life. This is the foundation upon which an ideal world is based. That people can live without killing each another. This should be morally instilled in every man, woman and child. To take a persons life is fundamentally wrong. With this in mind, how can someone ask for help to take their own life? How can they have their life on the conscience of another person, whether the person is willing to accept that or not? It would be a gross corruption of social moral values.

In the article, the author says: "there are...old and sick people....whose steadfastness in awaiting the perfect darkness often falls short of what they would wish; for the prolongation of living has been brought about by advances in medical science has also meant the prolongation of dying"
Firstly, the acceptance of medical care is largely voluntary. A person may refuse medical care if they so wish. Secondly, in reference to "the prolongation of living...meant the prolongation of dying". As soon as we are born we start to die. Dying is part of living. In this instance they are the one and the same. Thirdly, "The perfect darkness" I believe is a myth, and almost nobody dies in the way they would like. Dying is an integral part of life. Nobody ever says it will be nice. It wont, but it must be endured. To take the easy way out, to commit suicide by someone else’s hand, is going completely against nature's laws, and against moral laws.

Suicide, or any taking of a human life is wrong. Whether considered religiously, morally, or legally, it is wrong. If a person has the consciousness to think about such a decision, then they already have a reason to live. They can think! They can rationally experience life, and have a reason to live.

"I think, therefore I am" - Rene Descartes, Philosopher.</font>

Apologies for its length. I just thought it fitting to have a counter argument for euthanasia.

As it happens I'm pro euthanasia (for terminally ill and anguished patient).

bugler

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Suicide, or any taking of a human life is wrong. Whether considered religiously, morally, or legally, it is wrong. If a person has the consciousness to think about such a decision, then they already have a reason to live. They can think! They can rationally experience life, and have a reason to live.</font>

I can't agree with that.And I realise that you mightn't either.I don't think we can say "aslong as there is the slightest chance(i.e a miracle) that the person can be cured we should not allow euthanasia".Its a very aloof viewpoint,not taking into account the actual person concerned and their viewpoint.
I don't think I could ever be swayed on this subject,provided that the definition of euthanasia always concerns the person being sane,very very ill with an extremely low likelihood of recovery,and properly carried out.

Paladin

Hehe. I know most of its ****e bugler, and you are right I dont agree with it. Like I said, it was just an answer I wrote. It just serves to get an english grade.

I just thought maybe some semblence of a counter argument to euthanasia might be healthy People who believe in pro-life anti-euthanasia might present a better argument

bugler

Yup I understand.Often I slaughtered religion in essays for LC English,its such a soft target
I think the anti-euthanasia standpoint is very hard to fight though,especially without resorting to the "bible says its wrong" lines.

androphobic

good essay.. it's good to see the other side of an argument

The way i see it is that the debate surrounding euthanasia is based on several questions.. - is euthanasia ethical?
Is suffering a preparation for death, and if it is, should people be spared it?
Do people have a right to die?


While I am pro-euthanasia, I guess that people who oppose it could claim that the emotional health and rationality of the terminally ill could be questionable. [I am saying this with no disrespect whatsoever for the terminally ill].

Throughout their entire lives most people live independently, by their own ideas and beliefs - once put in the situation where they are no longer dominant, they can lose their passion for living.
For such people, a life without the power of motion and self-control is unacceptable; its not worth living - eg Friedrich Nietzsche who said "In a certain state it is indecent to live longer".
To him the meaning of life was lost, if he could not live independently, physical dependency would sicken his spirit.

Many people see euthanasia as a relief from endless pain and suffering, not a destruction of something valuable and priceless.
I don't believe that we can think about whether death is in someone's best interests unless we understand this dimension of the interests people have.

Sometimes people want to live on, even though the pain is unbearable.
On the other hand, people often have strong reasons for not staying alive.
Many people just do not want to be remembered living in those circumstances; others think that it is degrading to be wholly dependent, or to be the subject of
continuing pain.

Imo euthanasia was born out of concern and compassion, not out of anger and hatred.
Therefore it is not a way to create misery, but to end it.
I think that is the attitude that people should have towards euthanasia.
It is up to each and every one of us to decide if we want to live or die.

Whether you believe death is an end or a beginning.. shouldn't it come down to personal choice in the end?




[This message has been edited by androphobic (edited 11-04-2001).]

bugler

I also agree with this. What annoys me is "pro-lifers" who are opposed to this.I'm anti-abortion(quite strongly too),but the equation or parallel that seems to be drawn between those who are anti-abortion and anti-euthanasia is ridiculous.I don't particularly want to get into an argument over abortion though,so all I'll say is that if these guidelines are followed(the official ones):
*the patient must have an incurable illness

*he or she must be experiencing "unbearable suffering"

*the patient must be of sound mind and have given consent

*the termination of life must then be carried out in a medically appropriate manner.
Than who is anyone to oppose it?? If someone is sure they want to end their life and misery/pain/suffering,then they should be allowed to do so.

DadaKopf

those crazy dutch also legalised homosexual marriage last week - well the first marriage was last week.

can anyone tell me what is going on politically in holland at the moment? is there an exceptionally liberal coalition in power at the moment? i remember studying their system last year but i've forgotten everything.

---

"I collect spores, moulds and fungus."

C B

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by logic1:
if it is totally down to the individual what's going to stop pregnant teens immediately opting for abortion or depressed clinically insane ppl opting for euthanasia.

</font>

Once the guidelines have been set then the governing authority should recede from decision making. Would you like every case to be the subject of fresh legislation and case law?

Heh! Why not set up a brand new quango where those seeking euthansia/abortions could apply for a licence and have their application processed with utter indifference in a matter of years?

Once we accept the principle that individuals have the right to make decisions about their own lives and deaths we should then let individuals make these decisions.

bugler

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by DadaKopf:
those crazy dutch also legalised homosexual marriage last week - well the first marriage was last week.

can anyone tell me what is going on politically in holland at the moment? is there an exceptionally liberal coalition in power at the moment? i remember studying their system last year but i've forgotten everything.
</font>

I don't know too much about it,it doesn't interest me very much,but afaik,they have a really dodgy mix of all kinds of parties,from across the political spectrum.
Allied with a traditional Dutch propensity for liberal thoughts and views,and we get this stuff

Elias

Before I get drawn into this conversation, lets just stress that there is a huge difference between someone wanting to end there own life and somebody wanting to end some body elses. Euthanasia and abortion are complete different. While I don't really like the idea of euthanasia I do think it should be allowed.

bugler

I think we have that firmly in mind.

PHB

as u understand it its been happening for years over there , and only a few ppl complained, this bill is only to protect the doctors who perform it

[This message has been edited by PHB (edited 11-04-2001).]

darthmise

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by DadaKopf:
those crazy dutch also legalised homosexual marriage last week - well the first marriage was last week.
</font>

Could you just clarify whether you are saying the Dutch are crazy for allowing gay marriages or just plain crazy, Please.

darthmise

sorry, posted twice...

[This message has been edited by darthmise (edited 11-04-2001).]

DadaKopf

Darthmise: naw, i was just saying those "kerazay Dutch"! nothing against gay marriage at all - it's just another instance of the Dutch being typically proressive and well thought out like they always are.

Bugler: I really should have paid attention to my lectures. Alls I remember is that the political setup in holland is pretty interesting. Up till the 60s, the political parties/electorate was heavily pillarised between Catholic, Protestant and secular parties/groups; each religion voted only for their religious denomination, if they had one - there was little socialist representation I think. I remember studying this seminal text by two fellas, Lipset & Rokkan who figured political systems had pretty much frozen by the 60s. After they published their book, though, everything began to change - i think it had something to do with mobilisation of the middle classes and the rise of Green and socialist politics. Anyway, the traditional parties waned and, like the CDU/CDP in Germany, the Christian parties were forced to go into coalitions with certain parties to survive. Since then, Dutch politics has very much been about strong politicing.

In any case, the Dutch have always been a tolerant and forward thinking culture - whenever heretics like Copernicus or Martin Luther were excommunicated and hounded they could seek refuge in the netherlands.

I'm still calling on anyone who knows anything about Dutch politics today to let me know who is in power and what's going on - the senate seems to have had a pivotal role in the passing of this euthanasia law (but I think they get voted in).

---

"I collect spores, moulds and fungus."