- 15 Oct 2003 12:31
#33056
ok this is an issue very close to my heart, unfortunately I only just noticed this thread.
Basically, I am against euthenasia. I believe in the principle of 'mercy killing', but could it really work in practice? Allow me to explain:
First of all, we need to understand what euthenasia is not. Euthenasia is not switching off a life support machine, nor is it witholding treatment to a patient who is well and trully past any hope of recovering, and is suffering.
CasX says:
But is it possible to have fool proof controls that ensures that it is trully voluntary and carried out correctly? I would argue that it is not. Once a euthenasia law is implemented, we create what I would call a "culture of death" - whereby the medical profession is no longer exclusively the domain of healing and rehabilitating. It is now also the domain of dying, and I think that is a very very dangerous precedent. People will no longer just go to the hospital to get better, they will also be going with the purpose of dying.
I believe this precedent could open a pandoras box of moral issues, where every patient potentially now has the option of dying. Of course, we wouldn't think that most patients would consider euthenasia unless it was absolutely necessary, but my point is, by making suicide legal, the option of dying becomes much less far fetched than it would previously. As I said, it would create a "culture of death". Would people still hold the sanctity of life that we (mostly) do now? I don't know, but its an issue that comes up. Patients suddenly have the option of comitting suicide, and it is all perfectly legal. It is easy to think of the dangers inherent with this scenario. Would patients feel pressured to commit suicide, given that they might be a burden on their family? I believe that in some cases yes. Remember, the option is now on the table, when previously it was not.
I think it is extremely dangerous when suicide is presented to patients as a viable solution to their suffering. How can we implement proper controls to ensure it is carried out correctly? Lets say, you have to be terminally ill. Is that difinitive? You can have the best doctors in the world judging that someone is terminally ill, but it doesn't deter the fact that it is still a judgement. There is no exact science to ensure that this judgement is correct. Is it unrealistic to assume that some people may commit suicide under the mistaken belief that they were terminally ill? Surely its possible. Lets also say that the patient has to be judged mentally fit by a panel of psychologists. Again, this can only be a judgement. What if the panel of 5 votes 4-1 that the patient is in control of his own decision? Is the one doctor overuled? Is his professional opinion discarded? Also, a patient may have control of their faculties, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the decision is a sincere one. The patient may have convinced themselves (for whatever reason, eg family burden) that it was the best decision and put on a show for the psychologists, but ultimately, it was not the right decision.
Finally, I just want to come back to my 'culture of death' argument. I can picture a hospital that has implemented the euthenasia law for 20-30 years, where the culture of death is firmly entrenched. Society is no longer shocked by patient's decisions to end their lives, and euthenasia has become something of a formality. Patients simply fill out a form and make an appointment with a panel of psychologists. After judging umpteen number of patients mentally fit so that they can kill themselves, the panel of psychologists are not as diligent about their testing procedures as they once were. In this hospital, an elderly patient is being visited by his family. His condition has worsened, but he has not given up hope. Then he thinks of his family and wonders what they would prefer. They are much younger than him, and shouldn't be burdened with his suffering. He doesn't want to die yet, but he tells himself that he doesn't have long to live anyway, and thinking more of his family than himself, he decides the euthenasia option would be best.
Basically, I am against euthenasia. I believe in the principle of 'mercy killing', but could it really work in practice? Allow me to explain:
First of all, we need to understand what euthenasia is not. Euthenasia is not switching off a life support machine, nor is it witholding treatment to a patient who is well and trully past any hope of recovering, and is suffering.
CasX says:
As long as there are strict controls to make sure is is voluntary and carried out correctly. If someone is in incredible suffering, it's only a humane thing to allow.
But is it possible to have fool proof controls that ensures that it is trully voluntary and carried out correctly? I would argue that it is not. Once a euthenasia law is implemented, we create what I would call a "culture of death" - whereby the medical profession is no longer exclusively the domain of healing and rehabilitating. It is now also the domain of dying, and I think that is a very very dangerous precedent. People will no longer just go to the hospital to get better, they will also be going with the purpose of dying.
I believe this precedent could open a pandoras box of moral issues, where every patient potentially now has the option of dying. Of course, we wouldn't think that most patients would consider euthenasia unless it was absolutely necessary, but my point is, by making suicide legal, the option of dying becomes much less far fetched than it would previously. As I said, it would create a "culture of death". Would people still hold the sanctity of life that we (mostly) do now? I don't know, but its an issue that comes up. Patients suddenly have the option of comitting suicide, and it is all perfectly legal. It is easy to think of the dangers inherent with this scenario. Would patients feel pressured to commit suicide, given that they might be a burden on their family? I believe that in some cases yes. Remember, the option is now on the table, when previously it was not.
I think it is extremely dangerous when suicide is presented to patients as a viable solution to their suffering. How can we implement proper controls to ensure it is carried out correctly? Lets say, you have to be terminally ill. Is that difinitive? You can have the best doctors in the world judging that someone is terminally ill, but it doesn't deter the fact that it is still a judgement. There is no exact science to ensure that this judgement is correct. Is it unrealistic to assume that some people may commit suicide under the mistaken belief that they were terminally ill? Surely its possible. Lets also say that the patient has to be judged mentally fit by a panel of psychologists. Again, this can only be a judgement. What if the panel of 5 votes 4-1 that the patient is in control of his own decision? Is the one doctor overuled? Is his professional opinion discarded? Also, a patient may have control of their faculties, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the decision is a sincere one. The patient may have convinced themselves (for whatever reason, eg family burden) that it was the best decision and put on a show for the psychologists, but ultimately, it was not the right decision.
Finally, I just want to come back to my 'culture of death' argument. I can picture a hospital that has implemented the euthenasia law for 20-30 years, where the culture of death is firmly entrenched. Society is no longer shocked by patient's decisions to end their lives, and euthenasia has become something of a formality. Patients simply fill out a form and make an appointment with a panel of psychologists. After judging umpteen number of patients mentally fit so that they can kill themselves, the panel of psychologists are not as diligent about their testing procedures as they once were. In this hospital, an elderly patient is being visited by his family. His condition has worsened, but he has not given up hope. Then he thinks of his family and wonders what they would prefer. They are much younger than him, and shouldn't be burdened with his suffering. He doesn't want to die yet, but he tells himself that he doesn't have long to live anyway, and thinking more of his family than himself, he decides the euthenasia option would be best.
)
- By KurtFF8
- By Tainari88
- By wat0n
- By JohnRawls