There's been a lot of recent coverage in the UK on the issue of euthanasia, right to die, assisted suicide etc. The current position in the UK is that assisted suicide (where someone helps you to end it) could lead to prosecution for the surviving participant. Although we have a bit of a fudge from the Crown Prosecution service who have indicated they'd be unlikely to actually use the law. So I wondered what views were on whether someone should be able to help a loved one top themselves? And should it be legal to provide euthanising services eg like the Dignitas lot in Switzerland? I'd be particularly interested in anyone who doesn't think you should be able to do it and how that fits with the notion that it is the ultimate freedom to be able to choose to kill yourself (and by extension to be able to help someone you love to do it if they are unable to themselves).
I fully support the right to die. If someone wants to kill themselves, they should have the right to do it. In my personal opinion, it is never the right choice (though refusing what is called "heroic measures" to keep yourself "alive" when you are, for all practical purposes, dead, can be the right choice in some cases), but I have always maintained that my personal convictions should never be allowed to determine the behaviour or beliefs of others. And that works both ways: other people have the right to disagree with my opinions, but not the right to expect me to change my beliefs to fit theirs or to expect me to do things a certain way because they believe otherwise. (The only valid exceptions to this principle involve major risk of serious harm to a non-consenting person.) Nevertheless, I fully oppose the attempt to amalgamate the "right to die" with "the right to implicate others in your decision." Once a person is dead, it is extremely difficult to establish clearly that they really, really, really wanted to die. Which means that the whole system is open to a lot of abuse. "Grandma wanted us to put her out of her misery. She had changed her mind about any modifications to her will, and just wanted to get it all over with. That‘s why we brought her the poison and helped her drink it. She wanted to. Now stop bothering us; we've got to be off to the bank." Which means that even if I do want to die, my implicating other people in helping me do it could bring a lot of suspicion and even legal troubles on them. Trying to draw up legal guidelines that will clearly distinguish between the cases where the dead person really did want the others to help them die and those where there was abuse, taking advantage of the fact that the deceased is no longer around to give an alternate version of events, is pretty much impossible. Bottom line: If you want to off yourself, do it. I won't stand in your way, and I don't believe the law should, either. But you don't love your "loved ones" very much if you want them to help you with it. You'll be gone where you don't have to worry about it, leaving them to deal with any potential challenges on how honest the whole business was.
And if my relative is quadrapelgic and can't do anything for themselves and they ask me to help them end it and I want to respect their wishes? I can do so but have to be prepared for jail time?
Basically, yeah. It's your risk to do so, not something they have a right to expect. And that way, if you get in trouble with the law for it, you are getting in trouble for your own actions, not someone else's.
But we're sacrificing a little freedom there, no? I want to help. They want me to help. No-one else is being hurt. But I can't do it legally.
Okay, first off allow me to describe the differing types of euthanasia as I understand them. Active Passive Active: Taking an action that directly causes death. Injecting an overdose of morphine for example. Passive: Not acting when action could prevent death. Like not using the Difib paddles when a heart stops beating. Okay, now add in two more factors. Voluntary Involuntary Voluntary: The patient requests active/passive euthanasia. Involuntary: The patient does not, or cannot request euthanasia I've no problem with voluntary, passive euthanasia. If you're dying and don't want to suffer every possible medical treatment in hopes of temporarily extending your life more power to you. In the US you can request that no extraordinary measures be taken to save your life. Voluntary, active euthanasia is commonly referred to as assisted suicide, it's the practice that sent [GOOGLE]Dr. Jack Kevorkian[/GOOGLE] to prison. While there is potential for abuse by and large it is as termed, assisted suicide. Giving folks a mechanism to painlessly end their life. Not everyone wants to eat a gun, hang from a noose or jump off a bridge. No reason they should be forced to. Involuntary, passive euthanasia places the decision on someone else as to when the limits of treatment have been reached. This is a tougher choice because there is no definitive point when doctors should stop trying. Involuntary, active euthanasia is the toughest to justify. Yet the [GOOGLE]Terri Schiavo[/GOOGLE] case is a perfect example of justification. Her feeding tube was removed on March 18, 2005, she lingered until March 31, 2005. To me the compassionate choice would have been to actively end her life instead of letting her starve to death over nearly two weeks. In my opinion folks should make it clear what their wishes are, that would eliminate the entire category of involuntary euthanasia. Tell your folks, friends, significant others, everybody what you'd want to be done if you were ever in such a situation. For the record, I don't want to live on life support. I don't want my heart forced to keep beating or my lungs forced to keep breathing by artificial means if I've little chance for recovery. So that leaves only voluntary euthanasia, passive is morally acceptable, active is somewhat conditional but making it illegal is akin to making abortion illegal. It will still happen, a back alley and a coat hanger, a forearm and a razor blade.
I think you're doing it exactly right: Keep it illegal, but prosecute rarely. You're not trying to stop it from happening -- you're trying to stop it from becoming socially acceptable. People deserve a way to end their own suffering. But the moment it becomes politically correct for heirs to urge the terminally ill to end their own lives, we introduce how much better it would be for the rest of us into the equation. It needs to remain politically incorrect. The practice needs to revolve around the suffering of the afflicted -- not around the convenience of the living. Euthanasia
That, unfortunately, is the way a lot of things work in the world. When you have to have laws, and law enforcement, you can't take into account all the particular situations. You just have to have rules that are enforceable. For example, if I were to visit the President of France, I could do so while carrying a loaded gun, without there being any risk to him at all. No one would be hurt. Do you think they would let me? Do you think they would be right to let me? Even if I signed a paper promising I wouldn't shoot him? You can't always know people's intentions, so sometimes rules just have to be made. Especially when life and death are involved. In a perfect world, where no one ever tried to hurt someone else, there are a lot of laws that wouldn't be necessary, and you could have a lot more freedom. But we aren't in a perfect world, and laws have to take into account the very real risk of some people abusing some freedoms. Which, unfortunately, means a little less freedom for us all. Personally, I would rather do without the potential participation of third parties helping me die when I want to, in order to avoid the risk of third parties "helping" me die when I don't want to, and wouldn't be around afterwards to tell the authorities they were lying.
I'm not sure the gun and president of France is really a valid analogy but naturally i take the point that sometimes things aren't perfect. I just wondered how some of our more extreme libertarians view the issue. Also, if I was suddenly unable to end it myself but suddenly wanted to (I get hit by a bus and am paralysed from ther neck down, say) then I'd be pretty pissed off that no one would be allowed to assist me just in case someone else was going to off someone under cover of assisted suicide.
I wouldn't, but that's a personal thing. I have never bought into the idea that life isn't worth living just because you suffer. (And in case anyone asks, I had both a brother and a father die of cancer, a few years apart, and suffer quite a bit in the process. Neither of them wanted any of us to "end it all for them," either.) I do, however, think it is unfortunate that there are a lot of things I can't do simply because some other people would abuse the right to do so. Nevertheless, I know that's part of living in an imperfect world.
You'd have to prove that the person who dies has not only definitively requested it, but that they're of sound mind and competent to make this decision. Then of course, you have to deal with the implications of those around the deceased; burial obligations, debt, inheritance, etc.
I think you are getting into very murky water with this one. If legalised, how long before some potential murderers start using it as a defence during their trials if they kill family members? Very dangerous. Also, I do not agree in any way with Sir Terry Pratchett's proposed "death panels". Who are we to set up a tribunal passing judgment on who lives and who dies? Hell, if we are going to take such decisions into our own hands we may as well bring back the death penalty. No human has the right to take another's life. That is the be all and end all of it. I accept that when the ability to take one's life ceases it is an unfortunate state of affairs for the person in pain, but it is not the responsibility of another, even upon request, to take away that pain for them. Once you start doing that, where do you draw the line between assisted suicide and murder?
It is a perfect analogy. What he's saying is that wehave laws in place for a reason. Can you imagine what a mess society would be if such laws didn't exist and the courts were left to take an objective view, from scratch, of the intentions of individuals whenever a crime was tried?
I think PGT's debate is standing on the presumtion of such individuals being is of sound mind. Well, chances are you'd have to deal with that am some point or another anyway.
It is good analogy in a reductivist sense, in that, yes, laws exist for a reason. But in the sense that I am talking about one person helping someone else upon request, the analogy of entering another person's presence with an unrequested weapon is... wide of the mark.
An individual's life belongs to him alone. There is no authority high enough to tell him he has no right to end it, and he does not "owe" his continued survival to society. If there were no misguided laws interfering with this right, it would be more practical to be open about it, to establish and document that the choice is made freely by a person of sound mind and body.
What it should be is an agreement between two individuals that is witnessed by someone else or has a written request attached. Unfortunately, we live in lawyertopia, so it would also have to include legal interpretations, massive paperwork, and no doubt a psychiatrist evaluation to help determine the requestor is in his right mind, then it would have to be signed off on by a judge. Which is why people want to kill themselves in the first place.
I'd even accept the independent psychiatric examination, as long as it didn't begin with the presumption that the desire to die is itself a sign of mental illness.
If you paid attention to context, you would see that it was not offered as an analogy of assisted suicide. It was offered as an illustration of why your complaint that something "takes away some of your liberty" when you are not hurting anyone, and maybe even wanting to help (after all, if a real terrorist got in there, maybe I could help protect the president...), is not a valid complaint in and of itself. And for that, it is a perfectly valid illustration. You appear to be grasping at straws here.
While personally I am against it, there can be a way to set this up without all the morass. I would think that allowing someone to help a person of sound mind commit suicide should not be a crime under certain circumstances. With qualified witnesses and independent interviews it should be possible to determine if a person is sane and really wants to end it all for a good reason ( terminal illness, major disability, etc ). If so allowing a doctor to set up a device whereby the person can activate it killing themselves should be allowed.
Sheer balls. As you say the context is everything. And in no way is the context of wanting to help someone die on request the same as wanting to guard the president uninvited. Even if the point you are trying to make is that sometimes you are just not allowed to help. And I'm not particularly complaining, I think the current situtation in the UK works okay in 95% of circumstances and that might be the best we can hope for. And as you might have worked out by now I'm not a gungho - let me do whatever I want - liberty junkie anyway.
Horrible analogy. It isn't that you signed a paper saying that you wouldn't shoot him, it is saying you still can't do it if he signed a paper saying it was OK with him if you brought a weapon into his presence. That's a completely different ball of wax, and yes, that's definitely a restriction on individual liberty.
Their reasons are nobody's business. They shouldn't even have to disclose them to anyone. All that needs to be established is whether they make the choice freely and are of sound mind to do so.
^If someone has no valid reason they can still off themselves, they just can't get legal assistance in doing so. If we allow completely healthy people to have assisted suicide we're on a wrong path. Assisted suicide should only be allowed for specific circumstances and reasons.
Give me one good reason for this. Why is it the wrong path? A person's life belongs to them. If they want to end it, for any reason, that is their right.
^They can end their lives. Allowing medical personnel to end healthy lives for no good reason is not within the bounds of ethical medicine.
