Easy, they’re the POA. Power of Attorney. Living wills, DNRs etc. are not cast in stone; they are revocable. Patients do so all the time. And once a POA for healthcare is activated, THEY are the voice of the patient.
Don’t get me started on guardianships. As legally defined, a guardian must act in the best interests of the patient, NOT how the patient wants/wanted them to act. And as best interests is defined by law, that almost always means choosing life over death.
That fucking bites. 
“We’re doing what dad would have wanted, if he’d had all the facts.”
I don’t see why the irrational fear of others should stand in the way of those seeking a more merciful end.
Make it so ONLY those with a diagnosed deteriorating disease can even access such a legal instrument. Make it three chosen, non inheriting people, who must agree the specified criteria have been met; (can’t recognize anyone, can’t handle normal bodily functions alone, can no longer communicate?), a drug specified, (cocaine, Demerol, morphine?), one of the three must be present and the dose administered by a professional death and dying medic.
It would bring so much comfort to those so diagnosed, save families the horrors of the prolonged decline, stop financial ruination to extend a life of suffering, save millions in healthcare costs, open hospital and long term care beds to those who need them, etc.
I’m not seeing any valid objection, to be honest. If Alzheimer’s was coming for me, such a document would give me great comfort I think.
Because it’s not irrational.
Certain groups of people, defined either by ethnicity or religion or both, have within the lifetime of people still living been targeted for extermination and slaughtered by the millions. People who are members of those groups fear being put to death against their will and desires and it’s NOT a baseless fear because it really did happen to their relatives. And in one very famous instance it started with mercy-killing the dying and disabled.
If you are not a member of one of those groups the fear seems irrational because you and yours have not been subjected to being treated in such a manner.
This is an area where the slippery slope really did slide into disaster. That doesn’t mean it would happen again, but dismissing the fears of those opposed to your position as entirely irrational ignores history and the mistreatment of people in the past, including the recent past.
Euthanasia is legal in Belgium, but you have to be of clear mind to receive it. So if you get diagnosed with Alzheimer’s and don’t want to lose your mind, you have to apply for euthanasia while still lucid. That always seemed like a flaw in the euthanasia laws to me, since you have no way of knowing how much more time you could have spent living relatively well.
(Firstly, let’s be clear, you don’t know if I’m part of your at risk group, or not. Furthermore, it’s kinda silly to start from, “If you’re not at risk, you couldn’t possibly know!”, when that’s obviously untrue. A lot of frothy rhetoric to no point, weakening your position from the jump, in my opinion.)
But please tell me how, if only people with diagnosed conditions, they choose to use the document, they choose the three deciders (who CANNOT inherit), they choose the criteria, they choose the drug of demise, how can that be abused to off the disabled?
We already have a lot of advances in society that could be abused. That caused us to put in checks and balances, not to refuse progress. People were opposed to phones too, because they could be put to nefarious use. Remember when people were scared of smart phones and Facebook? Sheesh, let’s not have mercy denied out of fear.
I think this choice should be available to people. Some people will be afraid. Just like every step of forward progress since the beginning of time. I think the suffering it ends, far outweighs the “but what if’s”.
I don’t see how this is remotely comparable, since this is about people choosing how to live/end their own lives.
No. Admittedly I am making a guess.
Do you think there can’t be pressure brought to bear on someone? Have you ever observed entitled children worried more about their parents “wasting” the children’s inheritance than the health and happiness of the parents? Do you think these sorts of documents won’t end up challenged in court? Has it occurred to you that the people who do stand to inherit might be tempted to put pressure on the deciders?
And did you blow past where I stated quite clearly that “doesn’t mean it would happen again.”?
You asked about fear YOU felt was irrational. I answered about how some people might NOT view it as irrational. But rather than try to empathize with those folks you immediately go into how it won’t happen. That’s not reassuring to those with such fears.
Please note that NOWHERE did I say this was my own, personal stance; that I object or think your provisions to guard against abuse are flawed; or that I’m somehow in eternal opposition to you.
While I am opposed to active euthanasia I don’t have a problem with the passive variety with proper safeguards and believe as strongly as you do that people should make provisions for these sorts of circumstances. We are not as far apart as you seem to think we are.
Not everyone views being actively killed by another human being as “mercy”. They view it as murder. If you are discussing this with such a person you are in their minds not only advocating murder but also advocating the murder of helpless, defenseless human beings. Taken in that context, fervent opposition is not at all puzzling, is it? In such an instance it is not fear of the unknown, or fear of abuse, it’s opposition to the act of first degree murder, which position is usually not regarded as irrational or ignorant.
Which is why I say at a minimum there have to be safeguards for people for whom this “mercy” is seen as murder and who want no part of it in any way. And people like the Catholic church are going to oppose it no matter how many safeguards you put in place because it is at complete odds with their ethics no matter what arguments you bring to bear.
As Belgium demonstrates you CAN have legal euthanasia without the world or society falling apart, but that doesn’t mean there is no controversy or opposition.
Yes. Some people will be afraid of being murdered in their sleep by the people who are supposed to care for them. I realize that you don’t see it that way, but until you understand that there really are people who really do see what you propose in that light you stand no chance of getting this accepted on a wide basis.
You seem to think that if you remove fear everyone is going to come around to your viewpoint. They aren’t. There will always be a significant number of people who will find your notion of mercy abhorrent and evil, and they will point to past genocides. Come up with a counter to that beyond simply dismissing those opposed as irrational, fearful, and ignorant.
Your freedom to live, or end, your own life is not unlimited. We are all part of society, which has laws. While we might find laws chafing at times having laws is preferable to not having laws.