I dunno about that. There was this one time at band camp…
I don’t think we are talking about forcibly doing anything. Euthenasia would have to be consensual (i.e. with prior written authorization). It’s perfectly legal to sterilize people with their consent, so the analogy breaks down.
Although I think the argument Gest mentioned is valid - that some people will feel pressured to consent to euthenasia. This is especially true with high medical costs - asking your family to pay thousands of dollars to gain a few days of life may be a difficult decision. My opinion is that a free health care system is a prerequisite before we can even consider legalizing euthenasia.
Sometimes the choice for suicide or euthanasia is made by someone who is not weak or helpless. Suicide/ethanasia are taboo and that’s a difficult threshhold for some people to cross, I understand. However, as a mentally ill person who reserves the right to end my suffering at any time as long I do so in as responsible a manner as I can, I must say, I’ll do what I can to break this taboo. Along with that, I’m working to change the response to expressed suicidal tendnacies. That people are locked up when they want to discuss their inclination to suicide is not always the best response, yet it is the universal response. I personally think that fact is responsible for a number of suicidal or mentally ill persons to refrain from getting help. I know I will never, ever tell another health care professional that I’ve had or am having suicidal thoughts (which I am not currently, in case anyone is worried). And I will never seek help in a hospital again, because my freedom was taken away from me when all I wanted to do was talk to someone in order to break the isolation I felt. Hospitalization made my case worse, though I understand it helps some, and more power to them. Just my two cents, USD.
Oh, forgot: How dare anyone try to force hope on me. Sometimes life really is hopeless and it’s not going to get better. I think people are too sensitive to the concept of death. Do the math. Every death, and I dare say most deaths, are not tragic. They are necessary.
I’ve been asking myself the same questions since I was about ten. Let’s face it, in many cases, death means suffering and a hell of a lot of it. As a general thing, we accept that ending suffering is a kind thing to do. That’s the whole point of euthanasia, that it’s a kindness. It always boggled my mind that we’re supposed to be kinder to our pets than to other human beings.
For what it’s worth, I don’t want to die unable to tolerate solid foods, incontinent, and either doped out of my gourd or in horrible pain. I don’t want to put my family through seeing me that way, and I sure as hell don’t want to be that way. Hit me in the head with a sledgehammer, overdose me with barbituates, inject 40meq of KCl straight into my heart, strangle me with my own IV tubing, I don’t give a damn. Just don’t put me through something I wouldn’t put my cat through.
Some very good points here. My own personal perspective on the matter is influenced in no small way by watching my mother die slowly of cancer. For the last 5 weeks of her life, after the doctors had determined there was nothing further they could do to stop the spread of the cancer, we all watched helplessly as a steadily increasing morphine drip gradually eroded my mother’s mind. We lost her, and she lost herself, bit by painful bit. At one point, she informed us that she wanted to die right now, in the tone she always used to use when we were young and no argument would be permitted. The laws being what they were, we could not obey. I won’t relate in detail the anguish she went through, but no human should be forced to suffer that.
The only really persuasive argument against euthenasia I have seen is that some people would elect to do so out of a sense of guilt over the expense to their families rather than a genuine desire to end their suffering. IMO, the slippery slope argument holds no water if euthenasia is permitted only with the subject’s explicit consent, given at a time when they can legally make a will or other similar decisions. And as KGS pointed out, it would not be unreasonable to expect an age limit to be placed on assisted suicide, just as there is one placed on a variety of other important decisions.
Would some people choose suicide who might have later changed their minds had they been prevented? Almost certainly. I do not see that as a persuasive enough argument to force people to suffer, and to take away their right to choose. We fear death so much that we often deny people the ability to die in comfort and dignity. For my part, I find prolonged suffering to be more feared than death. I, and other like-minded people, should be free to act on our beliefs and values.
I think we euthanize pets because they cannot express their desires and that we, as their owners, are responsible for making the decisions for them.
A person, however, can express their desires. So I don’t think we have the same justification to say that someone else should be euthanized because they are sick. It could be that even though the person is in a coma, they do want to keep living. We know that a person is capable of having the desire to keep living, so we cannot make the choice for them even if they currently cannot express their desires.
Also, it is much more likely that medical technology can make a person better. So a person might receive $100,000 in medical care and be able to live a productive life. A pet will not have that option. Sometimes the only realistic options for a pet are to be euthanized or to let the disease run its course.
Humans pay taxes. Pets do not. Dead humans no longer pay taxes. Court cases on this issue, as well as the similar issue of abortion, are quite clear that this is the reason. The government “has an interest” in preserving human life. That’s always the rationale. What interest is it? Tax revenue, of course. What other interst is there?
Similar reasoning lies at the foundation of organized religion always being opposed to euthanasia. Religions do not want their paying customers, err… followers… to die. It’s bad for the cash flow.
filmore, that’s a lovely thought, but $100,000 is what, 2 days in ICU? Ten days in the general patient population? People in the sort of shape that $100,000 will save them aren’t the ones most of us think of when we’re talking human euthanasia. We’re not talking about people who are just sick, but people who are terminally ill. We’re talking people like my uncle, who’s got lung cancer that’s spread to his brain. He’s dying a slow, painful death, and there’s not enough money or technology in the world to give him back a productive life. There’s nothing we can offer him but more and more pain meds, and a lot of times those aren’t enough to control the pain at the end.
If money and medical technology could fix him, could give him back a productive life, my family would pay any price and take him anywhere. But it won’t. He’s going to die, and he’s going to die soon. And in the meantime, he’s suffering in a way that it would be cruel to let my dog suffer. You can’t tell me that’s right, or good.
David Simmons, your experience is not unheard of, especially when there has been a long and close relationship between the dying patient, his family and the physician. It can be done any number of ways, all painless, and involving sedatives and painkillers. My father, himself a medical doctor, died abruptly after his lawyer and I talked to the attending physician. The lawyer and the attending physician were both old friend of Dad’s and I had known them from childhood. We had been told that my father would not be expected to live for more than 72 hours with generalized cancer but that his heart was still strong and beating regularly. We both asked that he not be allowed to suffer and the doctor assured us that what could be done would be done.
Another friend, a physician, now deceased, told me that he administered a “terminal cocktail” in two specific cases when there was doing to be a particularly horrific dissolution if nature had been allowed to take its course. In both cases it was done with the express consent of the patient’s spouse and children.
As horrible as it sounds, simple humanity demands that a dying person be given a quiet and peaceful way out. I can only hope that when my time comes my friends will treat me with as much kindness as my father received at the hands of his friends and colleges.
KGS, as you can see, others of us have been through what you are facing. We all know what a tough situation it is. You have my sympathy.
Why do I object? Simple. I will be among the first euthanized, whether I want to or not.
You object even to euthanasia carried out with the expressed wish of the patient? How would this put you at risk without your consent? Even without your consent, euthanasia would only be carried out in the case of your brain death. In that case, you couldn’t want for anything. I don’t know of anywhere in this thread where somebody is advocating euthanasia against the will of the patient.