I was watching the news tonight and I saw a report of a decision by the Dutch parliament which was to legalise Euthanasia.
There were very strict criteria according to the report which included the patient having to have asked several times, and for the doctor to seek a second opinion. The report said that doctors had carried out “mercy killings” in the past, but now they would not be criminalised for it.
There was said to be widespread support for the move, with some people citing the opinion that it was more moral to help someone die with dignity rather than live a life of pain and misery.
I was wondering what everyone thought about this. Is it right or wrong. Will it open up other countries to challenges on their laws, and should it?
That said I think the issues against it tend to be twofold.
Primary among these is religious conviction. It is wrong to kill someone and it is wrong to commit suicide (asking for euthanasia is still a sort of suicide…you’re just asking someone else to help you). Doctors can make you comfortable (i.e. dope you up) and not do any extraordinary care to save your life but beyond that they should let nature take its course. If God’s plan for you includes suffering then so be it…it’s not your place to second guess God.
Secondary is the ability for abuse. Say you’re poor and dying. Your family might pressure you to ask for euthanasia to save them the money needed to provide for extended health care. You may have a few good months left in you but some people might do this for their family.
The religious one is the hard one to overcome. The scondary reason is addressed to some extent by the laws they just passed (second doctors opinion, review by a board, the patient must be aware and in control of his/her faculties, etc.).
Since not everyone shares the same religion I don’t see why the religions that do proscribe euthanasia/suicide should impact those who don’t share their beliefs. The law allows for doctors to refuse to euthanise if they have religious/moral objections to it.
I guess the final issue on this may be a doctor’s hippocratic oath to ‘do no harm’ (do all doctors in all countries take this oath?). Some could argue that killing a patient breaks that oath. Others could say that killing a pterminal patient to relieve suffering is in keeping with that oath. Both sides can make a good argument on that one.
My wife says I’m not quite right on God’s view on suicide. It’s not exactly that you’re second guessing God. It’s that life is a gift from God. If you commit suicide you are rejecting God’s gift and that’s a mortal sin (you’re destined for hell). God will take back what God gives in God’s own time and place.
I’m not advocating or arguing against that viewpoint here. Just trying to give the short version of what my wife says is the Roman Catholic view on the issue.
Good point. Of course, the Dutch will have no such problems (socialized medicine), but the perspectives are not exactly pleasant where terminal sickness might be an economic problem for your relatives.
Euthanasia can be very dangerous when the level of health care one receives is dependant on ones income, or that of ones family. But when health care is a given for anyone, that specific danger vanishes.
The debate becomes more pure, and is entirely about the morality of it all. Should a person have the right to decide over his life? This law basically says: “Yes, under specific conditions, it is possible to ask a doctor to terminate your life”.
People these days are even incorporating information about euthanasia in their will. Mostly, they refer to situations where they are no longer capable of making a judgement call (e.g. when in a coma). Often, they also specify that the spouse and/or family have a final or partial say in the decision.
It’s cutting edge legislation, and it’s not the first time The Netherlands pioneered a law that later would be adopted elsewhere. We were one of the first countries to legalise gay marriages (granted, Denmark was quicker ), and whilst still very controversial, our drug policies are arguably the most successful in the world.
The pros of being a small and relatively pragmatic (read: not extremely religious or hooked on one specific economic ideology) country, I suppose. This particular piece of legislation is, in my view, a sheer expression of humanity.
Finally, about time. I’m proud to be Dutch again. Time to move back home
I always wondered why everybody sighs in approval when the hero in a movie kills someone out of mercy, but when it comes up in real life it suddenly is a no-no.
Ofcourse, we should be careful that it is not abused, but certainly this is a step forward to a more humane society.
Thanks Spiny and Coldfire…the socialized medicine certainly does reduce the potential for abuse.
Does anyone have a view on how doctors, as a profession, view this? Does the hippocratic oath have room for euthanasia in it? (And again, do doctors worldwide have to take the hippocratic oath or is that just a US/Western convention?)
I think the Hippocratic Oath is pretty much standard in medicine worldwide - I know it is sworn in The Netherlands, by medical students upon finishing their studies.
A question for our Dutch friends: now that this decision has been made, how likely is it that aa Dutch version of Dr. kevorkian will come out of the woodwork, and open a “suicide clinic”-for paying foreigners?
I can see quite a few legal problems with this-could a Dutch physician be prosecuted for murder (if he were to euthanize a French citizen)?
Further-what does Dutch law say about inheritance rights-if the heirs play a role in “helping” the deceased to become deceased?
The medical profession, as a whole, has not and will not come to a consensus on this issue. The profession is simply too diverse and the issue too philosophical. DOctors also tend to be more religious than the average population. But I do think those odctors who deal with this problem more directly, e.g. oncologists, are more sympathetic than those who do not, e.g. ophthalmologists. With very wide variations.
I’m not Dutch but the report on NPR I heard said that the Ducth law specifically denied euthanasia to foreigners. Apparently they saw the same problems you did and they’re not going there.
I can’t speak for the US, but that certainly isn’t the case in The Netherlands. I’d rank doctors among the least religious people over here.
And I’m quite happy that that’s the case. My aunt died 4 years ago from cancer. She had a euthanasia plan ready, but had to switch house doctors because her initial one wouldn’t carry out the procedure “because of personal beliefs”. Granted, this was when euthanasia was still a gray area, and doctors could only get away with it when a second, impartial doctor adviced likewise, the “victim” asked first, and all relatives agreed: nevertheless, euthanasia was already very common.
But still! Can you imagine being terminally ill, and having to revert to a complete stranger a few weeks before your death, to ask them to kill you if and when the need should arise? Someone with whom you have no prior history?
Doctors should be professionals first, and should keep their religious beliefs to their spare time. I’m sure I’m gonna get a lot of responses to that, but IMHO the quality of human life is what is paramount in the doctors profession, NOT his personal convictions.
Regarding the relatives that are heirs and may want to off their granny a bit quicker so they can run to the bank.
This will never happen under the current Dutch laws. Euthanasia requires a firm medical reason, substantiated by a family request or a request by the patient. If a doctor assesses the patients life not to be in danger, and of value, he will most likely NOT perform euthanasia, no matter what the family asks (assuming the patient is incapacitated). Every euthanasia case is subject to a mandatory autopsy, performed by an impartial physician. If a doctor turns out to have killed a healthy (or in any case recuperating) person, he will be out of a job, an into a prison cell.
I’m not sure if you were serious or not, but just in case you were, that quote only prohibits abortions induced with a pessary, used in this case to mean a medicated vaginal suppository.
), and whilst still very controversial, our drug policies are arguably the most successful in the world.