Is Euthanasia the Future of End-of-Life Choices?

[JaredJames]

This is directly related to the discussion, though perhaps not intended as such:

I recall reading about several incidences in the Vietnam war, whereas a soldier was caught in a "man-trap".
Being in sever pain and facing certain, agonizing death the soldier screams to his fellow soldiers "kill me, please, kill me"
Or, if unable to speak, yet clearly perceived to be in agonizing pain leading to certain death, he is shot dead by his team mates out of mercy.

This is almost identical to the example in my above link. It is involuntary euthanasia if the person wants to live, voluntary if they ask you to kill them and non-voluntary if you make the decision because they can't.

If it's involuntary, it is considered murder in most cases.

Involuntary euthanasia

The person wants to live but is killed anyway.This is usually murder but not always. Consider the following examples:

* A soldier has their stomach blown open by a shell burst. They are in great pain and screaming in agony. They beg the army doctor to save their life. The doctor knows that they will die in ten minutes whatever happens. As he has no painkilling drugs with him he decides to spare the soldier further pain and shoots them dead.
* A person is seen at a 10th floor window of a burning building. Their clothes are on fire and fire brigade has not yet arrived. The person is screaming for help. A passer by nearby realizes that within seconds the person will suffer an agonising death from burns. He has a rifle with him and shoots the screaming person dead.
* A man and a woman are fleeing from a horde of alien monsters notorious for torturing human beings that they capture. They fall into a pit dug to catch them. As the monsters lower their tentacles into the pit to drag the man out he begs the woman to do something to save him. She shoots him, and then kills herself.

The morality of these and similar cases is left for the reader to think about.

In each of the examples, the decision was to kill despite the person asking for help and not wanting to die.

I would add that in a situation, such as combat where the person is wounded and guaranteed to die in a short period, under those conditions (particularly in battle) it is not prudent to spend time and resources on a case such as that and a 'mercy killing' would be for the best.

 

[pallidin]

I would add that in a situation, such as combat where the person is wounded and guaranteed to die in a short period, under those conditions (particularly in battle) it is not prudent to spend time and resources on a case such as that and a 'mercy killing' would be for the best.

I agree 100%
In furtherance, I feel that is such special cases, a charge of murder would not be appropriate or pursued at all.

 

[Jasongreat]

I'd like to add that voluntary euthanasia is not assisted suicide.

Assisted suicide is to help someone commit suicide in some way, such as providing the means to do so (a lethal dose) but you do not cause the death directly.

Voluntary euthanasia (as I've hammered out on numerous occasions in this thread) is a person terminating another persons life, with their permission.

Both (under the topic of discussion so far as assisted suicide goes, but always for euthanasia) with the specific purpose to relieve the pain and suffering of the person wishing to die.

You have also made the point, that the decision has to be made by one of sound mind. I find it hard to believe that someone in excruciating pain or has just been told they are going to die soon are of sound mind, and are not just looking to end the pain or looking to just die on their own terms, which imo is a perfectly valid thing as long as they are the ones who make it happen, once another persons help is needed is where I start to have problems. One thing one needs to keep in mind, imo, is the concept of precedent, once we as a society allow one to kill another because they are in pain and are suffering and they wish to die, the next step will just be pain and sufferring, then just pain or suffering, then for some other reason altogether, such as over population. I am not saying that it will lead there for sure, only that it could, and is why I think we should not get the snowball rolling downhill, cause no one can be sure of how big, broad and overeaching it could grow into and it might even get too much momentum to be stopped.

With all the medical advancements going on today and in the past, how can one be sure that something that is terminal today will still be terminal tomorrow, next week, next month, next year? Or that the pain one is experiencing today, won't have a fix found down the road? How much pain and suffering can one put up, if it may lead to years of no pain or suffering later? It seems ridiculous, to me, that on a science and technology forum so many have no confidence in science and technology and choose to check out at the first excuse they get.

So to condense my opinion:
You want to kill yourself, go for it.
You want a doctor to kill you, if you can get him/her to do it, go for it.
You want me to kill you, there's a small chance you may convince me to do so, but you better have convincing enough evidence to get me to risk going to jail.
You want me to help make euthanasia legal and ethical in all circumstances, not a chance.

I decided to go to the thread and see what had been going on while I wrote this post, before posting it and what did I find. The discussion is already getting broaden to involuntary mercy killings, " it is not prudent to spend time and resources on a case such as that and a 'mercy killing' would be for the best." Something that starts as a compassionate thing to do will soon morph into something completely removed from compassion, financial expediency.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Perhaps we all need to agree on definitions of terms.

I would propose to define euthanasia and suicide in such a way that suicide means killing yourself, and euthanasia means killing someone else. However, for reasons that elude me, these definitions are not acceptable. Fine, perhaps we need a new word for the act of killing someone else so I don't have to type so much. In the meantime, I have restricted my language to phrases like "killing other people" and have restricted my posts to that topic. It hasn't helped. I don't think definitions are the problem here. People want me to say that it's ok to kill someone else and when I say no, they accuse me of being against suicide. It's not a vocabulary problem.

 

[JaredJames]

Those definitions are fine for me Jimmy, however I would like to see a breakdown in Euthanasia. Specifically targeted at the forms I have outlined previously and in the link I posted. They are important distinctions that can (and in my case do) affect my judgement.

Voluntary - I have no problem with.
Non-voluntary - Difficult territory for me.
Involuntary - Only under very specific circumstances do I see it as acceptable.

I think we can leave out active / passive distinctions under the topic of this thread.

 

[pallidin]

...I find it hard to believe that someone in excruciating pain or has just been told they are going to die soon are of sound mind...

Very true, in my opinion.
Even still, if that person "seems" fully cognizant of their situation and wishes not to die by another hand, I would respect that. That happened with my mother having terminal cancer.
She wanted time to pray regardless of her pain. We did not violate that time for herself and her God.

 

[JaredJames]

Jason, so far as the whole 'mercy killing' point I made goes, it was to clarify that under very specific circumstances do I see it as acceptable to use involuntary euthanasia. I would not extend that to use in other situations such as civilian hospitals.

I would add that one of the OP topics is euthanasia and as such this is covered and open for discussion here.

I'm really getting fed up of posting the definitions of the types of euthanasia now, I urge people to read my link regarding euthanasia to understand the different forms it takes. It really is quite a broad subject and one which needs good definitions before it can be discussed effectively. Using the term 'euthanasia' is too broad to cover all discussion and just doesn't work.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/

 

[Evo]

Ultimately, IMO, it is up to the person. If they say "I will be in pain until I die and I do not wish for this to continue, I wish to die now". I'm not going to tell them to grin and bear it. If they're terminal, I would not force them to suffer. If they were a loved one, I would do anything within my power to follow their wishes, no matter how much I would suffer from losing them sooner than later. I've had to make the decision to put to sleep a terminally ill pet that was in excrutiating pain. I still cry over it, but I know it was the kindest thing I could do. I just hope that my loved ones will be compassionate enough to stop my suffering if I am in that position.

 

[pallidin]

...under very specific circumstances do I see it as acceptable to use involuntary euthanasia.

Agreed.
In special cases it might be called "compassion" to terminate "unbearable" suffering.

Yet, one must be certain that it is unconscionably "unbearable"
In the case of my mother it was not "unbearable" and we respected that.

In some cases it can be clear that such is not the case and euthanasia is warranted.

If possible, I would prefer a medical doctor to make that distinction.

 

[JaredJames]

I've put pets down too, not a happy time at all. It is cruel to force the pet to suffer just because I can't let them go. However, I find myself able to emotionally detach from the situation.

Although in the case of a friend / family member I would never perform the act myself, I would have no problem with helping them with their wishes and accepting it. It's their choice not mine.

 

[JaredJames]

Agreed.
In special cases it might be called "compassion" to terminate "unbearable" suffering.

Yet, one must be certain that it is unconscionably "unbearable"
In the case of my mother it was not "unbearable" and we respected that.

In some cases it can be clear that such is not the case and euthanasia is warranted.

If possible, I would prefer a medical doctor to make that distinction.

By specific circumstances, I mean something like a combat zone where you are under fire or in enemy territory, and other similar circumstances. I'm sure you get the idea.

You have to be careful with the definition because it's a short step to applying it to a terminal patient in a regular hospital.

I would not accept involuntary euthanasia in a hospital (operating under 'normal' conditions).

The key with involuntary is that the person wants to live, and that is why I only accept it under such conditions. Where the use of supplies / time for such a case is futile and potentially endangering others.

 

[dlgoff]

... I just hope that my loved ones will be compassionate enough to stop my suffering if I am in that position.

I haven't been keeping up on this thread and just popped in. I was wondering if you have considered all the good drugs that can stop the suffering. I watched my first wife's father die of cancer at home with his wife who made sure that he had ample morphine. He wasted away but never complained and as far as I could tell, didn't suffer physically.

 

[Jack21222]

When someone tells you they want to kill someone else, make no mistake about it, they want to kill you. Put a knife in my hands and I will solve your problems they say. Don't trust them, you are the problem that is going to be solved. They will cut you down in the prime of life, not when you are sick. They will do it for power, for money, for the apple you are carrying, for the sheer pleasure of watching you die. From where do you prefer to take this lesson? From history, or from current events? Killing is wrong because there is no such thing as killing without killing you and killing you is wrong.

Would you like to answer my question with something other than a tautology like "killing is wrong because killing is wrong?"

How about I just give you my reason. Killing is wrong in general because it violates the civil rights of another person. However, that right to life can be voluntarily forfeited. That's why very few people would consider it wrong to kill somebody trying to kill you. The person attacking you has voluntarily forfeited his own right to life. So if you were to kill him, no crime was committed, neither legally nor morally. That's also why morals don't really come into play when soldiers kill one another on a battlefield. They both signed up for the job to kill one another, so they're voluntarily giving up their right to live. Nobody will be brought up on war crimes for shooting an enemy soldier (unless they're trying to surrender, of course).

The key in both scenarios is a person voluntarily took steps to waive their civil right to life. Killing those people is not wrong, because they're voluntary participants in the process.

I argue the same applies to terminally ill patients. If they take the appropriate steps to waive their rights (as outlined much earlier in the thread, ideas like a waiting period, signed contract witnessed by a notary public, physician's approval, etc), it is no longer wrong for a person to kill them. The law can also specify the manner in which it is to be done, eliminating your weird knife scenarios.

I can waive any right given to me. I have a right to free speech, but I can remain silent. If I have the right to remain silent, I can still talk. I can have the right to bear arms, but never own a gun. I see no reason why this shouldn't apply to my right to not be killed by another person.

 

[JaredJames]

I can have the right to bear arms

Yes, a nice pair of Grizzly limbs would look good on the wall!

(Sorry, I always chuckle when I see that phrase. I think Family Guy originally brought it to my attention. http://www.tooshocking.com/videos/2048/Family_Guy__Right_to_Bear_Arms" )

 

[pallidin]

I haven't been keeping up on this thread and just popped in. I was wondering if you have considered all the good drugs that can stop the suffering. I watched my first wife's father die of cancer at home with his wife who made sure that he had ample morphine. He wasted away but never complained and as far as I could tell, didn't suffer physically.

I can only relate to my own experience, but both my mother and a friend with terminal cancer died in great pain, from what I understand.

 

[pallidin]

I suppose we should be clear about this:

In most cases, cancer effects pain. The tumor(s) grow and physically press against nerves.
Some cancers do NOT produce "significant" pain. In other cases, however, it is quite dramatic and painful.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Would you like to answer my question with something other than a tautology like "killing is wrong because killing is wrong?"

I wrote an entire paragraph and you ignored it all for just the last sentence and that's not even the last sentence. Why did you ask me to write it in the first place? Just to see how you could change it, or ignore the ideas in it?

 

[DaveC426913]

I wrote an entire paragraph and you ignored it all for just the last sentence and that's not even the last sentence. Why did you ask me to write it in the first place? Just to see how you could change it, or ignore the ideas in it?

Jimmy, as a third party I will comment that your entire paragraph makes a lot of implications, but you didn't actually lay out explicitly the logic of your stance. Jack is asking you to actually lay out your case, sans emotional rhetoric.

 

[Evo]

I can only relate to my own experience, but both my mother and a friend with terminal cancer died in great pain, from what I understand.

I've witnessed it first hand also. Horrible to hear them scream with pain, between being knocked out by drugs.

My sister in law died of liver cancer and she died at home in minimal pain.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Jimmy, as a third party I will comment that your entire paragraph makes a lot of implications, but you didn't actually lay out explicitly the logic of your stance. Jack is asking you to actually lay out your case, sans emotional rhetoric.

Of course it is emotional. How could it be otherwise, we are talking about killing people. Of course it is rhetorical, I am advocating a position. There are ideas in that paragraph, respond to them.

 

[Jack21222]

Of course it is emotional. How could it be otherwise, we are talking about killing people. Of course it is rhetorical, I am advocating a position. There are ideas in that paragraph, respond to them.

Please point out those ideas in your paragraph, because I don't see them. The only point I got was "killing is wrong because killing is wrong."

The only other point that I could infer from that was "killing is wrong because if killing isn't wrong, people will kill you." But there are already plenty of circumstances where one person killing another is justified, so that point, if that is indeed the one you were trying to make, falls on its face.

Your post was so wrapped up in emotional buzz words, I feel that if I tried attributing any concrete ideas to it, you'd accuse me of putting words in your mouth or creating straw men.

So, please clarify your post, or I'm going to take that as a license to draw whatever conclusions I can from it and run with that.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I'll boil it down for those who can't cook. If I let you kill anyone, you will kill me. That's bad.

 

[DaveC426913]

Of course it is emotional. How could it be otherwise, we are talking about killing people.

We are simply talking.

You must choose. Do you want to have a rational discussion about the merits of allowing suicide and euthanasia, or do you want to express your personal emotions about it? Your personal feelings do not have to be defended, and in fact, we can't ask you to.

So we move on with things we can discuss as a group. If you wish to continue to participate, you will have to set aside your irrationality, at least in your arguments.

 

[Evo]

We are simply talking.

You must choose. Do you want to have a rational discussion about the merits of allowing suicide and euthanasia, or do you want to express your personal emotions about it? Your personal feelings do not have to be defended, and in fact, we can't ask you to.

So we move on with things we can discuss as a group. If you wish to continue to participate, you will have to set aside your irrationality, at least in your arguments.

Dave, sometimes you post real gems.

 

[DaveC426913]

If I let you kill anyone, you will kill me.

Jimmy, the fact that you are being more cryptic, even while claiming to "boil it down" is a sure sign that you're not discussing, you're simply venting anger and sorrow.

Which is fine, I'm sure we can sympathize, but let's not pretend it's part of a two-way discussion that needs a response.

 

[Jack21222]

I'll boil it down for those who can't cook. If I let you kill anyone, you will kill me. That's bad.

I am allowed to kill people, in limited circumstances. Are you afraid of me yet?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I am allowed to kill people, in limited circumstances. Are you afraid of me yet?

Yes. Because you already have the right to kill when you need to and now you ask for the right to kill when you want to. What will you be asking for next?

 

[nismaratwork]

Yes. Because you already have the right to kill when you need to and now you ask for the right to kill when you want to. What will you be asking for next?

I have the ability, and capacity to kill someone and see that they disappear... something I've never done and won't do, but could. Should you be afraid of me? In fact, a large number of the more thoughtful and world-wise people here probably could manage the same... so what?

On a separate note, the personality you describe in your paragraph about "put a knife in my hands..." is a psychopath with delusions of grandeur. I'm not sure what makes you think that as a RULE people think in such a twisted and impulsively violent manner, but I'm sorry to see the results. I would tend to agree with DaveC, and begin to wonder if you may not be venting more than discussing.

 

[JaredJames]

Yes. Because you already have the right to kill when you need to and now you ask for the right to kill when you want to. What will you be asking for next?

It is when the person wanting to die wants to. Not when you want to. Plus, there are specific conditions under which you may perform the act, so it's really not "when you want to".

I agree with DaveC too.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

This post will not be emotional nor rhetorical. It simply clears up something that might have been unclear about the law in the US. I define suicide as killing yourself and euthanasia as killing someone else. Certain adjectives have been introduced perhaps making things unclear, so I will make the following definitions. I will justify them by citing US law.

assisted suicide. Suicide with the help of another. An example would be a physician provides a lethal dose at your request, hands it to you, and you administer it to yourself.

voluntary euthanasia. Euthanasia according to the wishes of the person who will die. An example would be a physician provides a lethal dose at your request, does not hand it to you, but administers it himself.

With these definitions, and in spite of some hints to the contrary, there is no jurisdiction in the US that allows voluntary euthanasia. There are three states that allow assisted suicide. These are Washington, Oregon, and Montana. The case in Washington is particularly revealing in that there was a law proposed in 1991 that would have allowed voluntary euthanasia but it did not pass. The current law passed when the language was changed to preclude it. In the following, I-1000 refers to the Death with Dignity Act.

In 1991, the similar initiative 119 was rejected by Washington voters by a margin of 54 percent to 46 percent. I-119 would have allowed doctors to prescribe a lethal dosage of medication, and also to administer it if the terminally ill patient could not self-administer. Unlike that initiative, I-1000 requires the patient to ingest the medication unassisted.

Empasis mine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Death_with_Dignity_Act"

Oregon's law requires self administration.

On October 27, 1997 Oregon enacted the Death with Dignity Act (the Act) which allows terminally-ill Oregonians to end their lives through the voluntary self-administration of lethal medications, expressly prescribed by a physician for that purpose.

Emphasis mine
http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/faqs.shtml"

The situation in Montana is less clear. No particular law allows assisted suicide. Rather, a state supreme court ruling stated that there was no law in Montana that forbids it. I haven't found anything worthy of linking to because I can't find the case they were deciding on (was it a case of assisted suicide, or was it voluntary euthanasia), nor can I find the wording of the decision. All the news stories I have found use the language "assisted suicide", and I don't want to link to them for fear you will accuse me of jumping to conclusions.

In future, I will not expect to hear any more attempts to equate these two legally different concepts regardless of support from wiki or any other non-legal source.