Involuntary Euthansia

Tiarella · Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2004 5:00 pm Post subject: Involuntary Euthansia

Quote:
Dutch hospital reveals mercy killings of infants

By TOBY STERLING
The Associated Press

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands — A hospital in the Netherlands — the first nation to permit euthanasia — recently proposed guidelines for mercy killings of terminally ill newborns and then made a startling revelation: It has begun carrying out such procedures.

The announcement by the Groningen Academic Hospital came amid a growing discussion in Holland on whether to legalize euthanasia on people incapable of deciding for themselves whether they want to end their lives, a prospect viewed with horror by euthanasia opponents and as a natural evolution by advocates.

In August, the main Dutch doctors association, KNMG, urged the Health Ministry to create an independent board to review euthanasia cases for terminally ill people "with no free will," including children, the severely mentally retarded and people left in an irreversible coma after an accident.

The Health Ministry is preparing its response.

Three years ago, the Dutch Parliament made it legal for doctors to inject a sedative and a lethal dose of muscle relaxant at the request of adult patients suffering great pain with no hope of relief.

The Groningen Protocol, as the hospital's guidelines are known, would create a legal framework for permitting doctors to end the life of newborns deemed to be in similar pain from incurable disease or extreme deformities.

The guideline says euthanasia is acceptable when the child's medical team and independent doctors agree the pain cannot be eased and there is no prospect for improvement, and when parents think it's best.

Examples include extremely premature births, where children suffer brain damage from bleeding and convulsions; and diseases where a child could only survive on life support for the rest of its life, such as severe cases of spina bifida.

The hospital revealed it carried out four such mercy killings in 2003 and reported all cases to government prosecutors. There have been no legal proceedings against the hospital or the doctors.

Since the introduction of the Dutch law, Belgium also has legalized euthanasia, while in France, legislation to allow doctor-assisted suicide is being debated. In the United States, Oregon is alone in allowing physician-assisted suicide, but it is under constant legal challenge.

I've been opposed to euthanasia since I learned that there's an increased percentage of involuntary 'mercy killings' by health-care professionals in countries that have legalized euthanasia. This article not only reinforces my opposition, but it makes me once again question our laws regarding abortion.

Comments?

Niall001 · Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2004 6:50 pm Post subject: Re: Involuntary Euthansia

Its a very difficult issue. If tend to believe that if you are in the process of dieing and you want to make it faster, legally, you should have the right to an assisted suicide.

But here, its difficult. I don't know if I like the idea of the child's guardians making the decision. Could we end up in a situation where children who were on life support having been brain damaged etc. are taken off life support because the parent thinks that their life would not be worth living if they recovered?

I'm very uneasy with allowing next of kin/guardians to make life or death decisions for those who are incapable of making the decision.

Let us agree, there is no one single reality. Not upon this stage, not in this world, all is in the mind... imagination is the only truth. Because it cannot be contradicted except by other imaginations - Richard Matheson

There are no conclusive indications by which waking life can be distinguished from sleep - Rene Descartes

ana i need you · Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2004 10:58 pm Post subject: Re: Involuntary Euthansia

It is always a difficult issue when people start talking about euthanasia, voluntary or involuntary. I've always been on the side that if you want to kill yourself, then you should be allowed that right. I mean, might as well offer them a pleasant way to do it right? But yeah, with infants and severely mentally retarded people, I'm not so sure it's right. Personal liberties mean a lot to me, but how is a baby supposed to stand up for themselves?

Tiarella · Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2004 3:14 pm Post subject: Re: Involuntary Euthansia

Quote:
I've always been on the side that if you want to kill yourself, then you should be allowed that right.

I don't agree with you on this, because suicidal impulses come from mental illness. Relieve the mental illness, and the suicidal impulse disappears.

It is a little different when the suicidal person has a fatal illness, but most health-care professionals say that in those cases, relieving the person's pain puts an end to his/her desire for immediate death.

In other words, the source of suicidal impulses is pain, either mental or physical. Get rid of the pain, and the desire for death is gone, too.

I've worked on a hot-line, btw, and have known people who attempted suicide, and one whose attempt did not fail. You ever talk to the family of someone who suicided? One swiftly discovers that the situation is never simple, and the lives of many people are greatly harmed by the suicide of one.

jjacobs43 · Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2004 3:29 pm Post subject: Re: Involuntary Euthansia

Quote:
I don't agree with you on this, because suicidal impulses come from mental illness. Relieve the mental illness, and the suicidal impulse disappears.

I think that most people who support the right to Euthanasia do so for people who are already suffering from a slow and/or painful death. In addition to the suffering of the person, loved ones could be suffering both emotionally and financially in the process. The desire to end it quickly could certainly be a sane and rational response to a situation. I don't see how you could label all situations like this as a "mental illness".

I'm sure good reasons can be made for preventing euthanasia, but I have a hard time accepting it being the governments role to decide on something like this. Just the whole concept of the government telling me that I HAVE to live just seems odd to me.

Tiarella · Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2004 3:37 pm Post subject: Re: Involuntary Euthansia

Quote:
In addition to the suffering of the person, loved ones could be suffering both emotionally and financially in the process

Yes, and there's a problem: when the potential inheritors are not loving children, wanting the best for their aged, slowly dying parent, but instead are concerned that the cost of their parent's care is eating up the inheritance they hope to receive.

I'm not saying most people are like this; but I am saying that there's a problem right there.

Oddly enough, the literature of the Victorian era frequently dealt with this theme.

jjacobs43 · Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:12 pm Post subject: Re: Involuntary Euthansia

Quote:
Yes, and there's a problem: when the potential inheritors are not loving children, wanting the best for their aged, slowly dying parent, but instead are concerned that the cost of their parent's care is eating up the inheritance they hope to receive.

Yes, I guess, sticking with the original topic title of "Involuntary Euthanasia", then you are right. It's quite debatable. If there is no proof that the person would want to be euthanized I don't know how you go about it. That current case in Florida is very, very complicated.

But you seemed to be turning the tables a bit and referring to it as a mental illness when somebody voluntarily agrees to it. That I would disagree with because I think it would be quite rational in many situations.

Tiarella · Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2004 6:38 pm Post subject: Re: Involuntary Euthansia

Ah - did you miss my subsequent paragraph?

Quote:
It is a little different when the suicidal person has a fatal illness, but most health-care professionals say that in those cases, relieving the person's pain puts an end to his/her desire for immediate death.

When the pain is removed, the patient seldom wants euthanasia. What we need in most cases is effective pain relief, not death.

Regarding suicide as distinct from euthanasia - I don't believe I introduced that aspect of the discussion; I was responding to ana's post.

Perhaps I misunderstood him/her. But I do approve of the digression (

not that my approval matters one whit :lol

); suicide, voluntary euthanasia, involuntary euthanasia, and abortion are all linked topics.

I agree with you that it's an area of grays. I've decided it's better to err on the side of life - and that has made me look again at abortion.

jjacobs43 · Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2004 8:56 pm Post subject: Re: Involuntary Euthansia

Quote:
Ah - did you miss my subsequent paragraph?

My bad Tiarella.

Quote:
I agree with you that it's an area of grays. I've decided it's better to err on the side of life - and that has made me look again at abortion.

That's a good point. We definitely want to err on the side of life. But we also want to err on the side of personal liberties. It's when they get crossed up that things become complicated.

irondemon · Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2004 10:17 am Post subject: Re: Involuntary Euthansia

It seems better that we should err on the side of liberty than to err on the side of life, because life w/o liberty is a meaningless venture. When it comes to self-termination, a person must be allowed to choose. Others must limit their efforts to persuasion, not oppression of the will -even if it seems clear that the afflicted individual's outlook is fatally myopic. The difficulty lies in the determining the distinction between persuasion and oppression.

Niall001 · Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2004 12:57 pm Post subject: Re: Involuntary Euthansia

No offense Irondemon, but that is absurd. Life without liberty is what we all have. You can't steal. You can't kill. You can't walk down the street naked. You can't ejaculate on the street corner. You can't piss on your work desk. You can't litter. You can't drive on one side of the road. Those who try to do things are punished. Absolute freedom would be chaotic and dangerous.

Restrictions to liberty are what make a decent quality of life possible. While (in theory) I'd agree that one should be allowed to terminate their own life, I know lots of kids who've tried to kill themselves. Can you imagine if the doctors had been prevented from treating those kids because they had a right to self terminate? When presented with an ambiguous situation, you must assume that the person who chose to terminate their life was not in capable of giving consent at the time. When you are suicidal, normally you are in an altered state of consciousness and you're not capable of giving consent. This would not be the case in regard mercy killings, where a person was in the process of dieing and one simply accelerated the process to prevent suffering.

Let us agree, there is no one single reality. Not upon this stage, not in this world, all is in the mind... imagination is the only truth. Because it cannot be contradicted except by other imaginations - Richard Matheson

There are no conclusive indications by which waking life can be distinguished from sleep - Rene Descartes


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	ADVERTISE	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CHAT	CONTACT