Euthanasia

[Ivor the Engineer]

So, let’s say a person has advanced-stage Alzheimer’s disease, a Brain Tumour, or another disease that makes them mentally incompetent, such that they need total care and are unaware of their surroundings.

Perhaps they have expressed a wish to hasten their demise, or to go on to the bitter end, or never mentioned it at all when they were competent. Should their wishes when they were competent be the deciding factor in the decision to kill them or not?

Could the resources being used looking after them be better utilized treating someone who is less ill and/or whose condition is not terminal?

When all hope is gone and the person has little (if any) quality of life, should we kill them for both societies benefit and to relieve them (and their loved ones) of their suffering?

[enjoytheview]

So, let’s say a person has advanced-stage Alzheimer’s disease, a Brain Tumour, or another disease that makes them mentally incompetent, such that they need total care and are unaware of their surroundings.

Perhaps they have expressed a wish to hasten their demise, or to go on to the bitter end, or never mentioned it at all when they were competent. Should their wishes when they were competent be the deciding factor in the decision to kill them or not?

To me, it depends on the final opinion of the critically ill person. If they were originally in support of the idea of being euthanized (is that even a word?) and later changed their mind, then I wouldn't be in support of killing that person, regardless of their mental state. In my opinion if that person is conscious enough to be able to express their own view, then their viewpoint shouldn't take second preference to that of a family member/concerned friend who is considered to be in a more healthy mental state. If they expressed a wish to die earlier on and are now mentally incompetent and can no longer offer an opinion, then again I believe their final wish to die should be honoured rather than the wishes of a family member.


Could the resources being used looking after them be better utilized treating someone who is less ill and/or whose condition is not terminal?

While I believe that the resources could probably be more effective in treating somebody else, I don't consider it a valid reason to kill a dying patient. If the resources are making that patient more comfortable I still think that they are being put to a good use.


When all hope is gone and the person has little (if any) quality of life, should we kill them for both societies benefit and to relieve them (and their loved ones) of their suffering?

We should kill them for their own benefit if that's what they choose. Any other benefits are just a bonus.

[Darat]

Kill them, and I would hope if I was ever in such a state someone would kill me. Pointless me continuing in that state and pointless resources being expended - go and use the money and resources being used to support me-the-vegetable on keeping non-vegetables alive.

[Katana]

Kill them, and I would hope if I was ever in such a state someone would kill me. Pointless me continuing in that state and pointless resources being expended - go and use the money and resources being used to support me-the-vegetable on keeping non-vegetables alive.


Ditto.

Let my family move on, mourn, and remember me as I was in life - not as I was for years during which I wasted away, was not communicative, and drained their emotional and financial resources.

[Ove]

I am so glad to be living in a country where the care of a dying person is NOT left to the relatives. My opinion? Remove the pain, it CAN be done today and let the patient die of natural causes. Stop any treatment that is only prolonging the agony if THAT is what the patient wants but do NOT KILL the patient. No doctor should ever have to play "Kevorkian" that is simply opposite to what a doctor should do.

Pain treatment, even if it shortens the life a bit: Yes. Euthanasia: NO THANKS... It just reminds me too much of the old eskimo tradition where the old folks was expected to go "Out on the ice" when they couldn't support themselves anymore.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I am so glad to be living in a country where the care of a dying person is NOT left to the relatives. My opinion? Remove the pain, it CAN be done today and let the patient die of natural causes. Stop any treatment that is only prolonging the agony if THAT is what the patient wants but do NOT KILL the patient. No doctor should ever have to play "Kevorkian" that is simply opposite to what a doctor should do.

Pain treatment, even if it shortens the life a bit: Yes. Euthanasia: NO THANKS... It just reminds me too much of the old eskimo tradition where the old folks was expected to go "Out on the ice" when they couldn't support themselves anymore.

Known as "the double effect".

[Darat]

I believe in the UK it's no longer either a legal issue nor a profession ethical issue to use drugs and treatments that the medical professional knows will hasten death but will also relieve pain or treat some other symptom in a dying patient.

That to me is a sensible move forward - many years ago I watched two relatives die over a long period from cancer and both times they were unconscious for the last few weeks yet even then they (or just the body anyway) would writhe and moan as if in pain yet the Doctors could not increase the pain relief (officially) because it was known that doing so would hasten death. That was terrible to watch and I'm glad to think I will never have to witness that again.

[plumjam]

I don't buy the "argument from resources", it's one the Nazis were quite happy to use in eugenics.
There never seems any shortage of resources for going to war, so why should there be for looking after the old?

[Darat]

I don't buy the "argument from resources", it's one the Nazis were quite happy to use in eugenics.
There never seems any shortage of resources for going to war, so why should there be for looking after the old?

I suggest you re-read the opening post - this thread is not about euthanizing the old.

[JoeEllison]

I think that we shouldn't go around killing each other. On the other hand, at some point I think it is acceptable to allow people to die, if that is their wish. To an extent, I can even agree with the idea of giving someone enough morphine to kill them, if they ask for it.

[plumjam]

I suggest you re-read the opening post - this thread is not about euthanizing the old.

how pedantic.. my point still stands whether they're old people or young

[Complexity]

I'm all for euthanasia, a good death.

Anyone should be able to choose it for themselves, either directly or through a living will. In the absense of instructions, the family or legal guardian should be able to choose euthanasia for the person.

I'm not concerned about society in this; I care for the individual and his or her family and friends.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I believe in the UK it's no longer either a legal issue nor a profession ethical issue to use drugs and treatments that the medical professional knows will hasten death but will also relieve pain or treat some other symptom in a dying patient.

That to me is a sensible move forward - many years ago I watched two relatives die over a long period from cancer and both times they were unconscious for the last few weeks yet even then they (or just the body anyway) would writhe and moan as if in pain yet the Doctors could not increase the pain relief (officially) because it was known that doing so would hasten death. That was terrible to watch and I'm glad to think I will never have to witness that again.

Having spent 8 weeks visiting my father in a Hospice before his death I know exactly what you mean. Spending days listening to the 'death rattle' as someone is struggling for breath while drowning on their own fluids is not pleasant for anybody. I'm pretty sure that with the help of morphine the time my father spent suffering was considerably reduced.

[Loss Leader]

When all hope is gone and the person has little (if any) quality of life, should we kill them for both societies benefit and to relieve them (and their loved ones) of their suffering?


It may seem like a distinction without a difference to some people, but there are two seperate issues here. The first is whether to withhold medical treatment while the second is to actively euthanize an individual.

In general in the US, it is illegal to actively administer a drug or anything else with the purpose of killing someone, even if that person wants or would want to die.

However, any person is allowed a right to control over his own body including choosing to refuse medical treatment and even food and water. When that person is incapacitated, his medical proxy (spouse, parents or children depending on the case) may exercise that person's right to refuse treatment even if it means death. This decision must be in the patient's best interests or what he would have wanted if he were able to decide.

Without question, the best way for people to know what you would have wanted is to sign an advance medical care directive. This piece of paper could save weeks, months, even years in your family's fight to help you refuse medical treatment.

And, without question, it is absolutely necessary that you have a health care proxy which indicates exactly whom you would like to make your medical decisions. Without it, you may find that doctors whom you have never met and politicians whom you would never vote for make your most important decisions instead of the people who love you.

I recommend everyone read the very short and easy book The Long Goodbye by William Colby about the sad case of Nancy Cruzan. It's a great tale of how politics can turn a private, family tragedy into a public circus for reasons that have nothing to do with the best interests of the patient.

[Miss Anthrope]

An excellent contribution, Loss Leader.

I think we should all carefully think about these decisions and leave some guidance for our families.

I'm not touching the societal issue--I don't want a bureaucrat deciding the value of my life versus resources. While I want choices to be easy and legally protected for the person in question and relatives, I would not want any kind of governmental mandate of killing people for any reason. (I don't even support the death penalty) The slippery slope arguments are compelling to me, but I'll not make them here.

However, I want to leave a guilt free, easy path for those that love me and might one day have to make such a choice.

[petra10]

I have watched my dad and gran die slowly and it was horrific.Dad had cancer and they had stopped all medication except painkillers,morphine it was.For three days he was in a coma like state but sometimes he would look at me and I could see in his eyes he knew we were there with him.It was very sad and degrading and I would never like my childen to see me like that.

[Miss Anthrope]

I have watched my dad and gran die slowly and it was horrific.Dad had cancer and they had stopped all medication except painkillers,morphine it was.For three days he was in a coma like state but sometimes he would look at me and I could see in his eyes he knew we were there with him.It was very sad and degrading and I would never like my childen to see me like that.

*hugs Petra10*

[BlackCat]

So, let’s say a person has advanced-stage Alzheimer’s disease, a Brain Tumour, or another disease that makes them mentally incompetent, such that they need total care and are unaware of their surroundings.

Perhaps they have expressed a wish to hasten their demise, or to go on to the bitter end, or never mentioned it at all when they were competent. Should their wishes when they were competent be the deciding factor in the decision to kill them or not?

Could the resources being used looking after them be better utilized treating someone who is less ill and/or whose condition is not terminal?

When all hope is gone and the person has little (if any) quality of life, should we kill them for both societies benefit and to relieve them (and their loved ones) of their suffering?
I'm probably going to say what most others have said, but I believe that if a person has expressed a desire to be euthanized if in such states as you described, they should be allowed to. If they never expressed any desire, then they should not be euthanized.

LL brought up passive and active euthanasia. I'm aware that active is illegal, yet I support it. In fact, I think in some cases, active is more humane and ethical than passive, especially if the person is suffering. It can be argued which is better, but I think that the intentions are the same for both, and that practicing passive euthanasia doesn't absolve doctors from killing people.

No doctor should ever have to play "Kevorkian" that is simply opposite to what a doctor should do.
It is clear that doctors have access to drugs which can significantly relieve pain, and drugs which can painlessly kill. I think they should use those drugs if the patient requests it. Perhaps if people had access to such things (thought I cannot think of a good reason why), I would not expect doctors to "play god." But then, I also think that if a doctor is uncomfortable performing active or passive euthanasia, they should not be forced to.

[Darat]

It may seem like a distinction without a difference to some people, but there are two seperate issues here. The first is whether to withhold medical treatment while the second is to actively euthanize an individual.

...snip...

What about the third - whether it is legal and ethical to treat a dying person's symptoms even though that treatment will directly either hasten their death or contribute to the cause of their death?

[kellyb]

I think when someone's terminally ill, pain relief should be given liberally even if it shortens the patient's life.

[jmercer]

My father died of pancreatic cancer; toward the end, they did a wonderful job of controlling the pain with morphine.

The could have done a much better job using Heroin, but that's illegal to use - even on a dying patient. Why? Because it's a prohibited substance, and is incredibly addictive... as if a dying person becoming addicted to it would matter.

I think that pain and symptom management is a step in the right direction, but I'm also in favor of euthanasia when the quality of life degrades to the point where their life consists of nothing but suffering, pain and misery.

[Correa Neto]

After seeing recently the end of my granmother's three-years long agony, my position stands the same as of the day it started.

If I ever go through that path, I choose to have my life terminated while I still have some dignity; I don't want to suffer and I also don't want my family to suffer and waste money.

[CFLarsen]

The Danish Council of Ethics (the chairman is also member of the Danish skeptics) has published their recommendations on euthanasia. (http://etiskraad.dk/sw311.asp)

A good read.

[annasta]

So, let’s say a person has advanced-stage Alzheimer’s disease, a Brain Tumour, or another disease that makes them mentally incompetent, such that they need total care and are unaware of their surroundings.

Perhaps they have expressed a wish to hasten their demise, or to go on to the bitter end, or never mentioned it at all when they were competent. Should their wishes when they were competent be the deciding factor in the decision to kill them or not?
Who is making this decision? Family? Loved ones? The institution caring for them? Taxpayers?

Could the resources being used looking after them be better utilized treating someone who is less ill and/or whose condition is not terminal?

When all hope is gone and the person has little (if any) quality of life, should we kill them for both societies benefit and to relieve them (and their loved ones) of their suffering?

Who is making this decision? Family? Loved ones? The institution caring for them? Taxpayers?

If, a mentally competent person has the foresight to draw up advanced directives and a living will outlining what should be done in the case where they are incapacitated, unable to competently make decisions for themselves and their quality of life is poor then those wishes should be heeded. This is not always the situation that occurs. Family members often override patient/loved ones wishes and government entities/officials become involved in these controversies. I do NOT support government involvement in this at all.
When a mentally competent person who is stricken with an incurable, debilitating illness states their wish to be euthanized at a point where the physical and/or mental strain of said illness becomes intolerable then again yes... heed their wishes.
If, a person does not have those tools in place then what should be done becomes very difficult. When a person becomes mentally incompetent and terminally ill but in a prolonged state of illness or in a vegetative state then who gets to make that decision? Who would you want making that decision?

There exists the gray area... that tricky place where you are in an unexpected state: You've had a stroke, you can not communicate, heck you can not even wipe your own behind and likely you'll drool on yourself for the rest of your days which could be very long indeed, your body will deteriorate very slowly eventually your health problems will increase but at the moment you are otherwise pretty healthy and really you are in no great discomfort physically or mentally BUT you've never communicated your wishes to any of your family members. The prognosis of your condition is unlikely that you'll recover any of your former abilities or be functional yet no recourse exists to keep you from this very sad state. Even if you had set down in writing that you would under no circumstance wish to live in that condition, you will because no one wants to go to prison for murder.
The truth is MANY of this type of person goes to a nursing home or other type of care facility because families are ill-equipped to deal with such situations and some simply do not want to. The other truth is you and I as taxpayers finance this type of care in part or all.
Its a forced situation, you are not allowed to be euthanized, the medical community is not allowed to refuse you care and taxpayers and families must financially support your medical care.
There is nothing about the situation I like at all...

Anna

[Panelman]

Not helping your pet to die when there is no other out come can land you in jail for animal crulety. At least in my part of the country. midwest USA. I watched my father-law and my grandmother get shot full drugs for something that was not curable at that time or even today. Both were very old and very proud. I will not let that happen to me or my siblings. After watching them die the way they did I can get pretty wound up about it. b

[Z]

I'm strongly for euthenasia, if the patient is in such a condition that recovery is strongly unlikely and the pain and suffering are significant, as well as if the patient is in a non-recoverable unconscious or comatose state. Likewise, I would never permit a patient who was brain dead to be placed on extended life support - unless we have finally perfected the brain transplant.

Further, every person should have the right to select euthenasia for themselves while still alive and sane. However, in the right circumstances, I think active euthenasia should be a standard practice, especially where the waste of medical resources is concerned.

[The Atheist]

This is a subject fairly close to me - I watched my father die an agonising death over a period of several months. Not that he would have taken that way out, he was far too conservative and a late convert to Catholicism, so euthanasia was never a subject for consideration.

Since then, I have campaigned for euthanasia and have developed an alternative to the "Exit Bag". This page (http://www.charman.co.nz/archive/euthanasia.htm) describes a cheap and freely-available means of disposing of yourself, as long as it's done early enough. Whether or not the bloke who e mailed me took my advice, I'll never know.

I have many times made the comment that voluntary euthanasia's illegality is nothing but a sop to christianity. I see no reason to give up that notion.

[The Atheist]

So, let’s say a person has advanced-stage Alzheimer’s disease, a Brain Tumour, or another disease that makes them mentally incompetent, such that they need total care and are unaware of their surroundings.

Perhaps they have expressed a wish to hasten their demise, or to go on to the bitter end, or never mentioned it at all when they were competent. Should their wishes when they were competent be the deciding factor in the decision to kill them or not?

Could the resources being used looking after them be better utilized treating someone who is less ill and/or whose condition is not terminal?

When all hope is gone and the person has little (if any) quality of life, should we kill them for both societies benefit and to relieve them (and their loved ones) of their suffering?

While I support voluntary euthanasia 100%, I must oppose a lot of the arguments on involuntary euthanasia. While believing that topping oneself will upset some god or other is laughably absurd, I must support the right of people to think that way. Until that problem can be overcome - topping people who don't want to be dead just yet - it looks too much like murder for my liking.

There's a case for involuntary euthanasia for underage people who hadn't had the time/age/maturity to make their desire to be euthanased known, but as far as adults go, it's something any adult should be self-responsible for - ensuring that in the case of certain types of incapacitation occurring, they would be euthanased.