Euthanasia without Consent

[dennisrwood]

except that we know that we sometimes have to step in when the parents are...unable/unwilling. we have to afford protection to those who are not being such. of course that brings up another/different topic. one that we have fundamental (pun intended) differences about.

[Avatar]

If the parents are unable/unwilling to to bear such a burden, then either the choice is obvious, or the state must make that choice on its own behalf, as the entity who will have to bear such burdens.

For minors or the incapacitated, consent always rests in the hands of the guardians.

--Avatar

[dennisrwood]

then it comes back to what our values are. and the need to break the system that holds us down. with our current admin in place, i do forsee a future where the hmo rep leads you by the hand into the gas chamber. telling you that this way you are not a burden on your family. some call me paranoid. i call it healthy scepticism.

[Avatar]

I'd certainly have a problem with the scenario that you suggest there. It's only "good" to me if it's the choice of the individual.

As soon as people feel obligated to do something, it merely becomes a reversal of the situation we already have. I would argue just as hard against compulsory euthanasia as I do against illegal euthanasia.

--Avatar

[Cail]

I think that may be the door we are opening. If euthanasia is put into anyone's hands (other than the individual through a living will), the opportunity for corruption via HMOs is a real possibility. After all, it is far less expensive for the insurance company to terminate life than it is to go through radical treatment.

I can picture an HMO "grief counselor" explaining to a distraught family how much better it is to "end the suffering", than to "prolong the agony".

[Avatar]

On the one hand, I'm not sure that the explanation is necessarily wrong, but I certainly see what you're saying.

It doesn't change the fact though that each person should be able to decide for themselves what end would best suit them.

As long as it is decided by each individual, there is no problem. Perhaps some form of legislation, granting the right, but forbidding hospitals/HMO's/whatever from promoting it?

Choice is always better than no choice.

--Avatar

[dennisrwood]

the hospital idea is bad. federal hospitals don't mention abortion and that doesn't really help things. while against abortion, i'm against suppressing doctors in such a matter. i'm also against Catholic hospitals having to make it available. but the goverment is seperate from church. it's the slippery slope. the way to fight abortion is not some half-assed piecemeal restrictions. if the administration wants to fight abortion, then do it. put their careers against what is right. people said that John Kerry wasn't against abortion so they wouldn't vote for him. what the hell has W.Bush done to tackle the issue. he is a coward and a fraud. the Republican party is run by the same. they have no moral superiority. in fact they are worse for standing by and letting something the profess to hate, happen.

[Rivenrock]

..

[Avatar]

Sorry Avatar…this seems to be my week to disagree with you.

No need to apologise, I wouldn't have it any other way.

I can’t agree that a right like this should be extended to parents or guardians. There is a huge…mammoth…difference between making a decision to let someone who is dying die (eg turning off life support) and making a decision to actively bring forward the time of their death.

But what is that difference? At the very least, if they are deciding, (or have decided), it for themselves, it shouldn't even be an issue. We're not talking about "killing" someone who is healthy, we're talking about people who are dying anyway, albeit more slowly, and in these cases, it must be up to the person concerned to decide whether or not they want those extra days/weeks/months at the cost of comfort/dignity/whatever.

How do you feel about capital punishment? There is a thread in here about it. Isn't capital punishment a form of involunatry euthanasia? An active descision to bring forward the time of someones death, against their will, for the "benefit" of society?

There seems to be an assumption here ... that another person can capably make the decision for another person that they would not want to live any more. I think such an assumption is preposterous. I think there are a lot of old, infirm, terminally ill or severely brain-damaged or otherwise handicapped people who want every minute of life possible, whether or not they can ably express so. The survival instinct is very strong. And I don’t honestly believe that the quality of another person’s life can be determined (with certainty) by someone not living it.

Hmm, while I agree that only the person involved can accurately determine the quality of their own lives, and that where ever possible, in all cases, it should be the choice of that person themselves, this discussion originally began with the premise that the only people who are considered candidates for "involuntary" euthanasia are those with no capacity to make the choice, or any choice, for themselves. With, in fact, no capacity for any choice, understanding, or action.

In the normal course of things, I would vehemently oppose any attempt to "force" euthanasia on any person, regardless of their situation. But in this specific case, not only are these children incapable of choice, they are also unable to ever reach the point where such choice could be made.

They are, in effect, no more than empty vessels. A living shell with less ability to protect themselves than even the least of the animals. Granted, we may not be able to know with certainty that they don't experience emotions/sensations, but if we accept general medical opinion, especially in the case of children whose brain will not, and cannot, develop, then the only resemblance they bear to other people is cosmetic. To all intents and purposes, callous as it may seem, they are not humans as we (I) conceive it, they are merely alive. And if, with that "life" comes the ability to experience pain, do we have the right to force them to endure it, even all unaware?

I’m also a little troubled by the reasoning you’ve used: let the parents decide because they are the ones who will bear the burden of a disabled child. That’s a significant shift from the idea of euthanasia for the sake of the dying or incapacitated person.

Once again, this applies only to these specific cases. In general, the only benefit that should be taken into accout is that of the person concerned. But in these particular instances, the "subjects" will experience no benefit from continuing to live, while the parents may experience significant hardship. No to mention the fact that once the parents are dead, the "child" may very well still be alive, with nothing but the impersonal systems of medical technology and bureaucracy to maintain them.

Does it benefit the "patient" to have life maintained in what is effectively an unmotivated shell of physical matter? Does the patient even know that their lives are being maintained? If not, isn't it a moot point as far as the person involved is concerned?

Protecting and supporting each other is what makes us family. It’s the basis of cooperative society (and cooperative societies are much more successful and productive that competitive ones). I’m not disputing that the parents of a severely disabled child are up for the challenge of their lives, but legalising the option to put a child to sleep like an inconvenient kitten is not the answer. The same goes for adult children who are so ungrateful that they see the care of their aging or ailing parents as an unreasonable burden.

Fair enough, but even co-operative societies must be concerned with the good of the society. Admittedly, caring for such a child, (which, as you say, is no picnic), could improve the instillment of compassion in people, but nobody whose life is not directly touched by such an event is likely to be affected much, not even on the level which you infer.

And if you like the animal comparisons, would you feed, clean and protect a kitten born without a brain? One who would simply lie there for as long as it is protected, and never, ever stand up? Would you nourish and protect it for ten, fifteen, twenty years, so that it dies at a ripe old age which is meaningless in terms of life and experience? Or would you, with compassion and sympathy, put it out of its misery, even if you couldn't honestly call it misery, or prove that it was such?

I think that even voluntary euthanasia teaches us to have a disregard for the value of human life. Involuntary euthanasia is murder.

As I've said, I could never accept or tolerate involuntary euthanasia on any basis, applied to a thinking feeling human being. The value of each persons life is theirs to decide. But it is those qualities of thinking and feeling which are, at heart, what makes us human. Without them, we would be unable to even conceive of ourselves as human.

How valuable is a human life? Immeasurably valuable. But in what does that value lie? Simply the fact of existence? Or in the possibilities inherent in each life? Every life, young or old, that holds possibilities, is valuable in terms of the potential of the realisation of those possibilities. If there is no potential to realise, where does the value lie?

--Avatar

[Cail]

I think you're attaching too much importance to possibilities and potential. There are all sorts of people who shamble through life and never make anything out of themselves, they're a strain on their families and/or on the welfare system. They're no less human than you or I.

What if someone were to suggest that we begin polling the homeless. "Hmmm, let's see, you're 35 years old, you've never had a job, your family's disowned you, you're a drain on the welfare system, you're a public nuisance, and you're probably carrying all sorts of diseases. Since you really have no possibility of improving your situation, I'm going to recommend that you're put to sleep."

Now granted, I realize I'm carrying this to an extreme, but when you start attaching such subjective attributes to what life is, it gets very easy to do so.

[Brinn]

It always comes back to that old slippery slope argument.

[dennisrwood]

the problem with this is that we know that in the usa there will be abuse. the law will be reformed and one day, grandpa will be put down due to his dementia. or do we trust that this will be used only in cases of brain death? i'm not that trusting. there will be death managers to talk aunt prudence into
'doing the right thing'

[Avatar]

It always comes back to that old slippery slope argument.

Agreed. And that says far more about the "human condition" than about the law itself. It is not the permitting of euthanasia without consent in the case of brain-dead children that people seem to have a problem with, its the abuses that people believe will inevitably go with such law.

What does it say about people in general that they will attempt to twist the law to their own advantage, regardless of its intent?

Lets try and look at this from a different perspective.

Should voluntary euthanasia be legal? In other words, do people have the right to determine their own time of death if they so choose?

If yes, then we know that those children in this case are unable to make such a decision . They cannot even know that such a decision could be made. If they have no power, no ability, to make any decision, then who makes their decisions?

If all their power of choice is held by the parents, then surely this choice too should be made by them? Is anybody else qualified to determine whether or not they can live with the hardship of raising such a child?

Cail-- As Brinn suggests you're sliding down that slope. We're not suggesting killing everybody who hasn't realised their potential, we're saying that if there are cases in which no potential can ever be realised, in which, in fact, there is no potential for realisation, it is not wrong to allow the option for euthanasia.

Strict legislation should be able to prevent the abuses which you seem to fear. If it cannot, the problem lies in us, the thinking and feeling, and not in the granting of rights. And remember, we're not saying that the euthanasia must be enforced, only that people are given the right to choose.

To have choices is always better than to not. And we must accept that sometimes, choices will be made which we disagree with. Thats why its called "freedom of choice". Nobody should ever be able to "make" you euthanise your grandfather. But if he wants to be "euthanised", he should have the choice. Saying that the parents of brain-dead children can opt for that, is not the same as saying that they must.

But I would never like to be in the position of saying that they must protect/"raise"/look after such a child, regardless of their feelings in the matter. If their choice is instead to consign the child to the care of the state, then that is up to them as well. Whether I think it should be done or not is not the issue. The issue, for me at least, is that people should have the right to choose.

--Avatar

[dennisrwood]

Avatar: loving life and being a good Catholic, i can't believe that anyone in their right mind would choose death. so i would be suspect of anyone who "chose" to die. pain, fear, guilt and depression could all be strong factors. along with the drugs already given to the patient. so i don't believe that a clear-headed person should choose death and i fear that a drug addled patient can't be trusted to choose death. suicide is a permanent solution...

[Avatar]

As you say, suicide is permanent. That may be the attraction. However, the fact remains that many normal, right-minded people would choose to die, rather than live in pain, indignity, or misery.

I can understand it all too easily. As I said, the very permanence of it makes it attractive to them. The point as always is not whether or not people choose to do it, but that they have the choice.

--Avatar

[dennisrwood]

i'd rather fix whatever made them miserable. and comfort them when they are in pain. maybe it's easier for us to have them choose suicide?

[Avatar]

While I agree that every effort should be made to adress these problems, and that every need should be met in terms of counselling etc. I still feel that after all of these efforts have been made, and if the person still feels the same way, then it must be their right to choose to end their lives.

It is, afterall, their life.

--Avatar

[dennisrwood]

we disgree. we are God's.
but you knew i was going to say that, eh?

[Rivenrock]

..

[Avatar]

Strict legislation should be able to prevent the abuses which you seem to fear. If it cannot, the problem lies in us, the thinking and feeling, and not in the granting of rights.

But if the problem does indeed lie in people's thinking, isn't that enough justification for not legalising involuntary euthanasia?

Legally speaking, it may be no more justifiable than having legal alcohol even though some people may drink themselves to death.

I see your point obviously, and it's a difficult question. But is there a moral difference between withdrawing feeding, and deliberately overdosing somebody on morphine? Only insofar as the person involved's conscience is concerned.

I could, perhaps, accept the alternative of the child being given over to the state in circumstances where the parents are unable to care for them, although whether that is any better or worse than euthanasia for these children, is debateable.

And while we shouldn't count the cost of preserving any life, my question is "Why?". Why are these lives being preserved? What purpose is served? Is there any purpose beyond the salve to our consciences?

Again, the only part of this that bothers me is the "involuntary" nature of it. "Involuntary" is automatically against my entire belief system. But in these cases, there can be no "volunteering". We (parents/state) are making a choice for them, one way or another, and regardless of what that choice is, it is still involuntary as far as the child is concerned.

For all we know, in 15 years, that child could be lying there wishing silently that it didn't have to endure a single day more of its life. We can't know.

And I'm not suggesting that we err on the side of caution, I'm suggesting that we err on whichever side is right for the responsible party. If they would rather allow the child to live, under those conditions, then so be it. I wouldn't presume to tell them otherwise. Likewise though, I wouldn't presume to tell them that they couldn't.

Laws can be abused. But then surely it is up to us to be vigilant? If potential abuse was a reason for denying anything, then we would live in a far more repressive society. The chance for abuse must be balanced by penalties and checks. Just as it always is.

--Avatar