I disagree. Cite: the Terry Schiavo case. All the Republican lunatics who oppose abortion also insisted that Schiavo was just fine and perfectly sentient and that turning off life support would be murder.
As we all know, an autopsy later confirmed the universal medical consensus that she was in a vegetative state, that her brain had atrophied and was basically non-functional. She was not alive in any meaningful definition of the term. But facts never get in the way of religious fanaticism.
I would also point out that anti-abortion and anti-PAS lunatics are also (a) generally against child-assistance and child health care programs, and (b) much in favour of harsh prison terms and the death penalty. This is explained by the fact that they’re generally not very bright.
Yes. It’s their support of the death penalty and lack of social support for the unfortunate that makes me think there’s a potential of support for PAS. Especially if the target (unlike Ms. Schiavo) is not white, poor, not young, and not pretty (at least before years in a vegetative state).
The only pro-life people I have respect for are those that are also anti-death penalty and supportive of help to the poor and disabled. Anything else is hypocrisy.
In the end, both Kevorkian and Schiavo are outliers.
Also, Schiavo was NOT PAS - it was withdrawal of life support. You may not see a distinction there, but I do.
Nothing is perfect, but as it stands we deny a huge majority of people a legal pathway to a painless death at a time of their choosing. I’m more concerned by that.
I acknowledge your concern and its basis in reality. Will you acknowledge mine and its basis in history?
Then we can agree to disagree.
As a note: as individuals we can save our loved ones much distress by clearly expressing our wishes in regard to medical treatments and putting them in writing, as well as telling those who will have to act on our behalf when we are incapacitated. I have done so, and I encourage everyone else reading this to also do so. Such a document might have significantly changed the Terry Schiavo case.
You take it as a given, axiomatic, but how frequent - outside soap operas - is this? Do you have any kind of statistics?
It may have happened (or not) but does it reach level where we should be concerned that legalizing it would open some flood gates?
Don’t want a cite implicating Nazis? OK, here’s another from the US:>
A 1911 Carnegie Institute report explored eighteen methods for removing defective genetic attributes; the eighth method was [euthanasia](Euthanasia - Wikipedia).[13] Though the most commonly suggested method of euthanasia was to set up local [gas chambers](Gas chamber - Wikipedia),[13] many in the eugenics movement did not believe that Americans were ready to implement a large-scale euthanasia program, so many doctors came up with alternative ways of subtly implementing eugenic euthanasia in various medical institutions.[13] For example, a mental institution in Lincoln, Illinois fed its incoming patients milk infected with tuberculosis (reasoning that genetically fit individuals would be resistant), resulting in 30–40% annual death rates.[13] Other doctors practiced euthanasia through various forms of lethal neglect.[13]
In the 1930s, there was a wave of portrayals of eugenic “mercy killings” in American film, newspapers, and magazines. In 1931 the Illinois Homeopathic Medicine Association began lobbying for the right to euthanize “imbeciles” and other defectives.[57] A few years later, in 1938, the Euthanasia Society of America was founded.
Absolutely not. Suicide is almost always the wrong choice, and enabling doctors to be part of it is a slippery slope that inevitably ends in state-mandated euthanasia.
State mandated euthanasia really. You can’t even put a death row inmate to death without 20 years of court battles. I am all for PAS. My sister in law recently passed away with cancer. In the end it was not a nice way to go. PAS could have helped her go quietly with out weeks of strong pain medicine, just to somewhat dull the pain.
Please go back and read my latest post, #26, for examples of state-condoned euthanasia. Note that the first was in a society that eventually “euthanized” millions against their will.
Now, I get that your sister in law’s situation was bad, even horrific. So was what happened to the European branch of my family. Please set up a set of iron-clad safeguards around your proposed PAS that will prevent a repeat of history.
2020: “If you’re terminally ill and you’ve decided to avoid the pain, our doctors can help you”
2030: “Our doctors will recommend euthanasia if it’s right for you”
2040: “Don’t you think you’re being selfish by insisting on staying alive? You’re costing us and your family money every day you go on like this”
2050: “We’re choosing to deny you any further coverage for your treatments”
2060: “It’s the financial board’s opinion that you are no longer a viable revenue source. You’ve been scheduled for termination in 30 minutes. You may use this time to settle your affairs and/or speak to your loved ones. The medical assistant will now be handcuffing you to the guerney. Thank you for choosing Blue Cross!”
I agree that people have valid concerns such as yours.
I simply don’t believe that anyone has the right to dictate how and when I must end my life.
My life and my choice. As long as it is freely chosen and proper safeguards are put in place we can maximise the number of people having a death of their chosing and minimise the number of people feeling under pressure to take that path when they do not want to.
I am all for personal choice, but based on history there needs to be some significant safeguards at times. I want people to choose freely and to make truly informed choices.
2070 Statistics: 578 people have been incarcerated since 2030 for coercing people to commit suicide. Although PAS is legal, coercing someone to commit suicide remains illegal. The patients in these cases did not follow through on their PAS because it is standard protocol during the 6 month waiting period that PAS psychologists routinely ask patients on each visit, “do you feel pressured into committing suicide by anyone?” and are required to report affirmative answers to law enforcement.
Sure this safeguard may not prevent suicide coercion 100%, but I believe it would reduce it to the point that it’s insignificant.
Neither of your two examples started with people wanting to take control of their own lives and deaths, therefore this slippery slope argument you keep trying to point at just doesn’t exist.
Sorry - do you honestly think it’s going to STOP at “people taking control of their lives?”
Do you think there aren’t instances of so-called loved ones already killing relatives without bothering with consent?
I’m leaving aside that I think PAS is straight up murder because I know that argument won’t fly in this thread, denying that involuntary euthanasia has, does, and certainly could happen again is just wearing blinders.
I agree that there are instances of loved ones killing without consent. It is called murder. I personally do not believe PAS is murder. I believe it is one of the most compassionate actions a physician could take. I do believe there should also be strict controls for PAS.
I understand that. Do you understand that you are asking ME to tolerate what I, personally, believe to be murder?
I want to know what safeguards YOU intend to impose to make that I, personally, will NEVER be killed by anyone in the medical establishment, ever. I don’t want anyone in the medical field to even suggest that I might consent to murder.
I have put my wishes and intent in writing, distributed copies to all concerned, and I still fear that someone with a completely misguided sense of “mercy” will come to murder me when I’m helpless.