What's new

Ageing Population and the Euthanasia Solution

Gentlemen, this is not a black-and-white decision, and it should not be treated with such capriciousness.

I cannot speak for the religious aspect, but there are very good policy reasons why euthanasia is illegal and should remain illegal. If it is made legal, then the question of free will arises. Was this truly the patient's decision? Did the physicians ("your quality of life will never be good, better to end it now") or family ("the medical bills are driving us to bankruptcy!") pressure the patient into making that decision? Will insurance companies structure their policies in such a way as to encourage suicide to minimize costs?

On the other hand, if euthanasia is illegal, then the red lines are clear for everyone, and only the most motivated will take their own lives. When euthanasia is illegal, there are no grey areas.

It is for that reason that only those countries that have lost their ethical core have legalized euthanasia, because they do not care to agonize over these quaint subtleties. It's a cost-effective policy, to be sure, but devoid of ethical nuance.
 
Gentlemen, this is not a black-and-white decision, and it should not be treated with such capriciousness.

I cannot speak for the religious aspect, but there are very good policy reasons why euthanasia is illegal and should remain illegal. If it is made legal, then the question of free will arises. Was this truly the patient's decision? Did the physicians ("your quality of life will never be good, better to end it now") or family ("the medical bills are driving us to bankruptcy!") pressure the patient into making that decision? Will insurance companies structure their policies in such a way as to encourage suicide to minimize costs?

On the other hand, if euthanasia is illegal, then the red lines are clear for everyone, and only the most motivated will take their own lives. When euthanasia is illegal, there are no grey areas.

It is for that reason that only those countries that have lost their ethical core have legalized euthanasia, because they do not care to agonize over these quaint subtleties. It's a cost-effective policy, to be sure, but devoid of ethical nuance.

Agreed.
 
Gentlemen, this is not a black-and-white decision, and it should not be treated with such capriciousness.

I cannot speak for the religious aspect, but there are very good policy reasons why euthanasia is illegal and should remain illegal. If it is made legal, then the question of free will arises. Was this truly the patient's decision? Did the physicians ("your quality of life will never be good, better to end it now") or family ("the medical bills are driving us to bankruptcy!") pressure the patient into making that decision? Will insurance companies structure their policies in such a way as to encourage suicide to minimize costs?

On the other hand, if euthanasia is illegal, then the red lines are clear for everyone, and only the most motivated will take their own lives. When euthanasia is illegal, there are no grey areas.

It is for that reason that only those countries that have lost their ethical core have legalized euthanasia, because they do not care to agonize over these quaint subtleties. It's a cost-effective policy, to be sure, but devoid of ethical nuance.

I disagree with you on this. Your points are valid but they are just regulatory matters. The freedom to end one's life should not be contingent on whether the insurance market can price it up correctly.
 
I disagree with you on this. Your points are valid but they are just regulatory matters. The freedom to end one's life should not be contingent on whether the insurance market can price it up correctly.

Exactly, so if you're going to kill yourself, the law won't stop you. As soon as the law allows it, third parties can start to influence the decision, so logic dictates that it should stay illegal to ensure that the decision is the patient's alone. If it's legal, the physicians can "help" decide, the family can "help" decide, insurance companies can "help" decide, etc. If it's illegal, all of these third parties will be deterred from intervening, as they have been thus far.
 
I could never support it's legalization and am shocked that some European countries have done so. It's practice is an assault on human dignity and an offence to the Creator who gave us life. Sorry, but I am Catholic and that is how I see it. We have already dramatically lowered the value we place on life with rampant abortion, capital punishment who's administration has been proven to be unjust and unnecessary, and quickness to use military force. Like all cheapening of human life, it is a slippery slope...

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Alex Schadenberg, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition: Depressed woman dies by euthanasia in Belgium.

Disgusting and heartbreaking. This is the trend with Euthanasia; mentally ill and depressed people who are drowning in their despair, but instead of a life-line, we throw them a block of cement to make sure they drown fast and disappear so the rest of us don’t have to deal with them.
 
Exactly, so if you're going to kill yourself, the law won't stop you. As soon as the law allows it, third parties can start to influence the decision, so logic dictates that it should stay illegal to ensure that the decision is the patient's alone. If it's legal, the physicians can "help" decide, the family can "help" decide, insurance companies can "help" decide, etc. If it's illegal, all of these third parties will be deterred from intervening, as they have been thus far.

True, but suicide is not equivalent to euthanasia. Third parties can influence your decision to terminate your life anyway. The question is whether it is sanctioned by law. If it is sanctioned and regulated properly, there can be proper oversight as to who and what gets to advise to what level. Not that I'm suggesting there are scores of people out there trying to encourage people to commit suicide (though I'm sure there is somewhere on the internet).

Suicide is not as easy as one may think. Having witnessed first hand a very close family member succumb to cancer, I realised that not allowing that person to die is both cruel and irrational. If a person no longer wants to live, no longer has hope of recovery, is a drain on resources and is living in constant agony without even the ability to commit suicide, why then should they not be assisted in terminating their existence?

I could never support it's legalization and am shocked that some European countries have done so. It's practice is an assault on human dignity and an offence to the Creator who gave us life. Sorry, but I am Catholic and that is how I see it. We have already dramatically lowered the value we place on life with rampant abortion, capital punishment who's administration has been proven to be unjust and unnecessary, and quickness to use military force. Like all cheapening of human life, it is a slippery slope...

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Alex Schadenberg, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition: Depressed woman dies by euthanasia in Belgium.

Disgusting and heartbreaking. This is the trend with Euthanasia; mentally ill and depressed people who are drowning in their despair, but instead of a life-line, we throw them a block of cement to make sure they drown fast and disappear so the rest of us don’t have to deal with them.

The decision of how much personal liberty to give each individual in society should be independent of creators, sky fairies, deities, wandering ascetics and any other matter of religion and spirituality.
 
True, but suicide is not equivalent to euthanasia. Third parties can influence your decision to terminate your life anyway. The question is whether it is sanctioned by law. If it is sanctioned and regulated properly, there can be proper oversight as to who and what gets to advise to what level. Not that I'm suggesting there are scores of people out there trying to encourage people to commit suicide (though I'm sure there is somewhere on the internet).

Suicide is not as easy as one may think. Having witnessed first hand a very close family member succumb to cancer, I realised that not allowing that person to die is both cruel and irrational. If a person no longer wants to live, no longer has hope of recovery, is a drain on resources and is living in constant agony without even the ability to commit suicide, why then should they not be assisted in terminating their existence?

Suicide is not equivalent to euthanasia, correct. Euthanasia is far worse, because it places the decision over life and death in the hands of another, and thus opens the door to abuse. Perhaps you are referring to "assisted suicide," which is not euthanasia, but that still has too many grey areas to regulate effectively. What if the person is brain damaged, or brain dead? What if the patient isn't communicative, and the will specifying assisted suicide was last updated 20 years ago, can it still be trusted as being representative of the patient's current state of mind? What if the person can write, but not speak, is that to be trusted? What if the person cannot press the button to release the toxins on his own, and someone else must press the button for him? What if the person is in so much pain, that they cannot be trusted to make rational decisions--even if that decision is to end the pain? What if the patient's suicide has financial implications (life insurance, debts owed, inheritance, etc.) that run counter to previously stated priorities? What if something goes wrong, and the patient doesn't die, or dies in an even more agonizing and gruesome manner (as happened with recent chemical executions in the US)?

This is a highly complex matter, and it cannot be reduced to "what's wrong with letting them end the pain?" Opening the door and regulating it so that it's done properly is no simple matter, and many (including me) would argue that it's impossible to prevent abuse.

While I extend my condolences for your loss, please don't bring personal examples into this, because we can all refer to personal experiences (I, too, had an immediate family member die slowly and painfully of cancer, and I had a friend in college who committed suicide for non-health related reasons). Suicide is a highly personal issue, and the circumstances differ from case to case, so anecdotes won't help move the discussion forward. This should be a dispassionate discussion based on analysis.
 
Last edited:
The decision of how much personal liberty to give each individual in society should be independent of creators, sky fairies, deities, wandering ascetics and any other matter of religion and spirituality.
I respectfully disagree. And while I certainly believe in a large amount of individual liberty, I am not a libertarian. Man everywhere, is a creature of community. He is not an island unto himself. One of the reasons we value human life, even for those with no religious beliefs, is because our lives are not owed solely by ourselves. Misguided decisions to commit suicide, effect deeply and forever, the lives of the children they leave behind, their friends, their community. It breaks the bond that neighbour should have with neighbour. It is that bond that causes someone in one country, to send food and medicine to those in need to another, even if they have no religious belief to speak of. Whether they acknowledge it or not, they do so because of the natural and moral law that God has written onto every human heart. The law of love and it's obligations.
 
Suicide is not equivalent to euthanasia, correct. Euthanasia is far worse, because it places the decision over life and death in the hands of another, and thus opens the door to abuse. Perhaps you are referring to "assisted suicide," which is not euthanasia, but that still has too many grey areas to regulate effectively. What if the person is brain damaged, or brain dead? What if the patient isn't communicative, and the will specifying assisted suicide was last updated 20 years ago, can it still be trusted as being representative of the patient's current state of mind? What if the person can write, but not speak, is that to be trusted? What if the person cannot press the button to release the toxins on his own, and someone else must press the button for him? What if the person is in so much pain, that they cannot be trusted to make rational decisions--even if that decision is to end the pain? What if the patient's suicide has financial implications (life insurance, debts owed, inheritance, etc.) that run counter to previously stated priorities? What if something goes wrong, and the patient doesn't die, or dies in an even more agonizing and gruesome manner (as happened with recent chemical executions in the US)?

This is a highly complex matter, and it cannot be reduced to "what's wrong with letting them end the pain?" Opening the door and regulating it so that it's done properly is no simple matter, and many (including me) would argue that it's impossible to prevent abuse.

While I extend my condolences for your loss, please don't bring personal examples into this, because we can all refer to personal experiences (I, too, had an immediate family member die slowly painfully of cancer, and I had a friend in college who committed suicide for non-health related reasons). Suicide is a highly personal issue, and the circumstances differ from case to case, so anecdotes won't help move the discussion forward. This should be a dispassionate discussion based on analysis.

Then ignore the issue of euthanasia for the brain dead and assume that the patient can communicate clearly and concisely their desire to end their life and they do have the ability to simply press a button (assisted suicide). On the question of rationality, surely if there psychiatric experts deemed worthy to judge whether someone was sane or insane during the act of murder and consequently even decide on whether that person should or should be sentenced to execution, then they should be able to judge whether a person is rational enough to choose to end their life.

You are right. It is impossible to be able to prevent abuse. But your rationale is that if a person who wants to die is being assisted, then they can be unfairly influenced by third parties so that their decision is not their own is a mirror to the situation now where the decision is to stay alive is not their own and is being unfairly influenced by third parties who have final say in who wishes to die.

I did not bring up my personal example as a frivolous thing. It was to highlight an insight I got to an issue that I did not think deeply about previously and I did not come to my conclusion purely on my personal experience. Sticking to the issue of assisted suicide, however I came to my conclusion, it does not invalidate the point that not assisting a person who is in pain, who is a drain on resources, who has no hope of recovery etc. to terminate their existence is cruel and irrational. The points you bring about are again related to how well it can be regulated and I agree it is something that is difficult to regulate. I don't want to reductionist but it does come down to 'what's wrong with letting them end their pain'. Everything else can be calculated and worked out.

I also want to extend my condolences for your losses and I understand that this must be quite a personal issue for you, too.

BTW what is your opinion on the death penalty?
 
I respectfully disagree. And while I certainly believe in a large amount of individual liberty, I am not a libertarian. Man everywhere, is a creature of community. He is not an island unto himself. One of the reasons we value human life, even for those with no religious beliefs, is because our lives are not owed solely by ourselves. Misguided decisions to commit suicide, effect deeply and forever, the lives of the children they leave behind, their friends, their community. It breaks the bond that neighbour should have with neighbour. It is that bond that causes someone in one country, to send food and medicine to those in need to another, even if they have no religious belief to speak of. Whether they acknowledge it or not, they do so because of the natural and moral law that God has written onto every human heart. The law of love and it's obligations.

Profound !
 
I respectfully disagree. And while I certainly believe in a large amount of individual liberty, I am not a libertarian. Man everywhere, is a creature of community. He is not an island unto himself. One of the reasons we value human life, even for those with no religious beliefs, is because our lives are not owed solely by ourselves. Misguided decisions to commit suicide, effect deeply and forever, the lives of the children they leave behind, their friends, their community. It breaks the bond that neighbour should have with neighbour. It is that bond that causes someone in one country, to send food and medicine to those in need to another, even if they have no religious belief to speak of. Whether they acknowledge it or not, they do so because of the natural and moral law that God has written onto every human heart. The law of love and it's obligations.

Yes, I agree with your points on social nature of man. We live in a society with declared and tacit social contracts. But that the social contract should be based on the will of "God" and the 'natural and moral law' passed down by God seems so needlessly incendiary. Why should society be run on the basis of a concept that causes more discord that any other?
 
Then ignore the issue of euthanasia for the brain dead and assume that the patient can communicate clearly and concisely their desire to end their life and they do have the ability to simply press a button (assisted suicide). On the question of rationality, surely if there psychiatric experts deemed worthy to judge whether someone was sane or insane during the act of murder and consequently even decide on whether that person should or should be sentenced to execution, then they should be able to judge whether a person is rational enough to choose to end their life.

You are right. It is impossible to be able to prevent abuse. But your rationale is that if a person who wants to die is being assisted, then they can be unfairly influenced by third parties so that their decision is not their own is a mirror to the situation now where the decision is to stay alive is not their own and is being unfairly influenced by third parties who have final say in who wishes to die.

I did not bring up my personal example as a frivolous thing. It was to highlight an insight I got to an issue that I did not think deeply about previously and I did not come to my conclusion purely on my personal experience. Sticking to the issue of assisted suicide, however I came to my conclusion, it does not invalidate the point that not assisting a person who is in pain, who is a drain on resources, who has no hope of recovery etc. to terminate their existence is cruel and irrational. The points you bring about are again related to how well it can be regulated and I agree it is something that is difficult to regulate. I don't want to reductionist but it does come down to 'what's wrong with letting them end their pain'. Everything else can be calculated and worked out.

I also want to extend my condolences for your losses and I understand that this must be quite a personal issue for you, too.

BTW what is your opinion on the death penalty?

Thank you for your kind words. If we could be certain that assisted suicide would not be abused, I would support it wholeheartedly, but unlike you, I am full of doubt that such a scenario is possible. The sick, the dying, the elderly--they are all victims of manipulation and crime in much less weighty situations, so it's difficult for me to see how the decision becomes more clear-cut when the stress, pain, and urgency of end of life decisions come into play.

I struggled most of my life with the issue of the death penalty, long believing that society needs a powerful deterrent against the most depraved crimes, but as I've gotten older (as with many things), my views have moderated. There are really too many questions over whether it's an effective deterrent (probably not), whether we can be certain that all of those who are condemned to die are guilty (probably not), and what is really driving the decision to execute (deterrence, justice, revenge, cost vs. housing a prisoner for life, etc.). There are some crimes so horrific that I have found myself screaming for blood, just like those in the streets, but in this, I have no choice but to let it go.

I would consider entertaining other "permanent solutions," however. I'll leave it at that.
 
Yes, I agree with your points on social nature of man. We live in a society with declared and tacit social contracts. But that the social contract should be based on the will of "God" and the 'natural and moral law' passed down by God seems so needlessly incendiary. Why should society be run on the basis of a concept that causes more discord that any other?
Perhaps it is incendiary but as I have said earlier, I am a Catholic Christian and cannot accept that one has a "right" to suicide. Certainly another has no right to euthanize someone. In my country, it has become incendiary to speak of the right to life of children in the womb, but there also, it has been asserted that a women has the "right" to do what she wants as the child is in her body so if she wills it to be killed, so be it. We now kill almost 1/3 of all the unborn children in my country in any given year. Tragic.
 
Yes, I agree with your points on social nature of man. We live in a society with declared and tacit social contracts. But that the social contract should be based on the will of "God" and the 'natural and moral law' passed down by God seems so needlessly incendiary. Why should society be run on the basis of a concept that causes more discord that any other?

Consider the moral diktats of religion to be a useful heuristic that historically has worked well to bind society together. We can call it something else, but it's done a generally good job in the last couple of centuries.
 
Suicide is not equivalent to euthanasia, correct. Euthanasia is far worse, because it places the decision over life and death in the hands of another, and thus opens the door to abuse. Perhaps you are referring to "assisted suicide," which is not euthanasia, but that still has too many grey areas to regulate effectively. What if the person is brain damaged, or brain dead? What if the patient isn't communicative, and the will specifying assisted suicide was last updated 20 years ago, can it still be trusted as being representative of the patient's current state of mind? What if the person can write, but not speak, is that to be trusted? What if the person cannot press the button to release the toxins on his own, and someone else must press the button for him? What if the person is in so much pain, that they cannot be trusted to make rational decisions--even if that decision is to end the pain? What if the patient's suicide has financial implications (life insurance, debts owed, inheritance, etc.) that run counter to previously stated priorities? What if something goes wrong, and the patient doesn't die, or dies in an even more agonizing and gruesome manner (as happened with recent chemical executions in the US)?

This is a highly complex matter, and it cannot be reduced to "what's wrong with letting them end the pain?" Opening the door and regulating it so that it's done properly is no simple matter, and many (including me) would argue that it's impossible to prevent abuse.

While I extend my condolences for your loss, please don't bring personal examples into this, because we can all refer to personal experiences (I, too, had an immediate family member die slowly and painfully of cancer, and I had a friend in college who committed suicide for non-health related reasons). Suicide is a highly personal issue, and the circumstances differ from case to case, so anecdotes won't help move the discussion forward. This should be a dispassionate discussion based on analysis.

Euthanasia is an emotionally charged word, and definitional confusion has been fermented by characterizations such as passive verses active euthanasia. Some have suggested avoiding using the word altogether. The word’s etymology is straightforward: eu means good and Thanatos means death. Originally, euthanasia meant the condition of a good, gentle, and easy death. Later it took on aspects of performativity ; that is, helping someone die gently. Recently, the noun has morphed into a transitive verb “to euthanize”. The sense in which physicians encounter it today, as a request for the active and intentional hastening of a patient’s demise, is a modern phenomenon. Assisted suicide has the same goal as euthanasia: causing the death of a person. The distinction resides in how that end is achieved. In PAS (Physician assisted suicide), a physician , at the request of a competent patient, prescribes a lethal quantity of medication, intending that the patient will use the chemicals to commit suicide. In short, in assisted suicide, the person takes the death-inducing product; in euthanasia, another individual administers it. Both are self-willed deaths. The former is self-willed and self-inflicted; the latter is self-willed and other-inflicted. Although the means vary, the intention to cause death is present in both cases.
 
Back
Top Bottom