What's new

Ageing Population and the Euthanasia Solution

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.

Though I have never been particularly religious or spiritual, if there's one issue I've softened on as I get older is the importance of spirituality and religion and role it plays in social cohesion and moral guidance.

But to base the social contract on religion is no better than to have an absolute ruler who is mandated by heaven to rule on earth. Do you not agree with the separation of church and state?

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.

You may be a Catholic but there are many in the US who are not and who are not even Christian. There are those such as Hindus and Buddhists who don't even prescribe to an monotheistic system of beliefs. Do you think it's fair that your beliefs are preeminent and should form the basis of the laws of the land? Do you not believe that your country should be pluralist and no one is disadvantaged by their choice of religion or lack thereof?
 
So even if someone doesn't wants to, he will have to go through 1 to 4 till he gets to 5. Irrelevant that he would die regardless. He just has to go through a long phase of suffering so that his death is more natural.
Not really, those are more guidelines than rules. Sometimes stages are skipped, sometimes people go directly to stage 5, others may get stuck on 4 or another stage. Those who choose euthanasia are probably depressed and nobody realizes it.
 
You may be a Catholic but there are many in the US who are not and who are not even Christian. There are those such as Hindus and Buddhists who don't even prescribe to an monotheistic system of beliefs. Do you think it's fair that your beliefs are preeminent and should form the basis of the laws of the land? Do you not believe that your country should be pluralist and no one is disadvantaged by their choice of religion or lack thereof?
Of course I think my country should be pluralistic but that does not mean that I will not try to stop abortion or euthanasia. Being pluralistic does not mean that you must accept what is morally wrong, simply because your view may not be popular. That is what the democratic process is for. I think you may be assuming for example, that pluralism means that American Catholics should not try to stop abortion because protecting the unborn is not fair to those that wish to terminate their baby's life in the womb. That is not pluralism or democracy. That is an extreme libertarianism that says that individual people should be allowed to follow any moral law that they wish.
 
Of course I think my country should be pluralistic but that does not mean that I will not try to stop abortion or euthanasia. Being pluralistic does not mean that you must accept what is morally wrong, simply because your view may not be popular. That is what the democratic process is for. I think you may be assuming for example, that pluralism means that American Catholics should not try to stop abortion because protecting the unborn is not fair to those that wish to terminate their baby's life in the womb. That is not pluralism or democracy. That is an extreme libertarianism that says that individual people should be allowed to follow any moral law that they wish.

Absolutely. It's your right to challenge abortion and euthanasia to your heart's content. My point is the legal definition of what is 'right' and 'wrong' should be separate from the religious and spiritual definition of 'right' and 'wrong' and this should be protected (and AFAIK it is protected by the constitution). So if (elected) American lawmakers were to decide on whether abortion should be legal, that it contravenes the will of 'God' should be entirely separate from the discussion.

BTW I am far from being a libertarian. Ayn Rand and the Tea Party scare me. :laugh:
 
Is there any reason we should stick to the natural process? If the one suffering wants to end it, what right do we have to keep him in pain?

That is a very good question @Kloitra , and I believe that this question is part of a larger discourse in the field of Medical Ethics as well as Bioethics. I can go into detail later tonight when I'm home. Right now I'm using my mobile app, so I can't reply in detail, yet. Permit me to reply later tonight after I get home.

Thanks.
 
Is there any reason we should stick to the natural process? If the one suffering wants to end it, what right do we have to keep him in pain?

It's a question of setting a precedence. If that is acceptable, then so should someone wanting suicide because of depression, disease or Dig Vijay Singh speeches. The ideal solution would be to find a way in which the older sections of the population can continue contributing to the society in a productive way rather than being a burden.
 

Human death, in the Orthodox Christian tradition, is the rupture of the psychosomatic unity, the untying of the bond between body and soul; it is the separation of the soul from the body. This is directly referred in Holy Scripture when St. James, the apostle of Christ, said, “The body apart from the spirit is dead” (James 2:26).

St. Gregory , an early church father, espoused that life is the tie between body and soul, while death is their separation. In the Christian sense, life is sacred, it is a gift by God. From the moment of human conception to human death.

It is natural to sympathize with a dying person and the effort to delay the moment of his death expresses the struggle of human nature against death. This is expressed in the field of medicine, which, holds on to the sacred obligation to prolong human life and stay the hand of death.

In this regard, through the lens of Christian Orthodoxy, is the theme of the transcendence of life and the transcendence of death. The respect for the human person is shown through love and understanding of the struggle of those whom death is certain , for those whom are afflicted with terminal illness. This love and compassion, is shown not only by allowing him to die or “facilitating” in death. But should be pray for the repose of their soul, for the prolongation of their lives , if it be the Will of God in Heaven. Rather there should be preference to seeing a brother and sister in Christ “being made perfect” than watch him suffer. This is why hospice care and provision of prayers for those whom are suffering helps in this process.

I want to go into detail of Death and its relegation in Orthodox Christian Tradition. Death is seen and viewed within the light and experience of the resurrection. Death is nothing more than the passing to eternal life “where there is no pain, no sorrow, no sigh, but life everlasting” . This goes back to Romans 13:8 which states, ‘If we live, we live to the Lord, if we die, we die to the Lord”.

In understanding this in context to Christian Orthodoxy we can now try to understand how euthanasia’s position. Euthanasia appears as a serious problem for various reasons. First, our society tends to become hedonistic; as a result , people’s resistance to pain is getting weaker. They cannot stand hardships and pain for they lack patience and endurance. Similarly, modern societies are reluctant to support citizens who are not considered “productive”. Second, prolongation of the average life span, on the one hand , and the reduction of births on the other, which are both achievements and consequences of modern civilization, respectively , lead to the aging of our societies; therefore there is a relative increase of chronic and painful or degenerative disease. Third, the intrusion of technology in medicine and, generally, in health, very often results in the unprecedented prolongation of the dying process; hope for survival often turns into agony. Such “therapeutic” interventions may lead to pathological states which medicine is incapable of overcoming and to ethical dilemmas that our society cannot resolve. Consequently, medical and nursing support is in danger of no longer being determined by love and respect for the patient but predominantly by financial considerations.

Sometimes, terminally ill patients ask for help in speeding up their own dying, and very often doctors feel obliged to intervene and assist them in the process. Thus, there is a developing logic , an ethics and perception that renders legal support of euthanasia almost imperative.

Our love towards a terminally ill patient is expressed either as a desire to deliver him from pain, or as a wish to prolong his life so as to be together. The suffering of our fellow man and our compassion for him create an inner conflict of love with our desire for togetherness. In a Christian perspective, this conflict presents an inner crisis, which provides an opportunity for strengthened trust in God’s will, His consolation, the revelation of a “sign”, and His enlightenment of our soul.

Although it is humanly understandable that we wish to postpone death, the broad use of medical technology may go beyond the limits of spiritual ethics. This gives rise to certain questions, which should be answered before legalizing euthanasia. Since we believe that the moment of death belongs entirely to God, are we competent to determine it ? Do we have the right to hinder the departure of the soul, while confessing that the end of our life is in the hands of God , and especially when its prolongation becomes distressful? In case a patient asks for euthanasia, where is the balance between our respect or his will and our respect for the gift of life? Where is the borderline between keeping a patient uninformed of his condition so as not to cause him panic and dilemmas and informing him fully of his illness so as to give him a chance to repent?


Reference:
Hatzinikolaou, F. (2003). Prolonging Life or Hindering Death? An Orthodox Perspective on Death, Dying and Euthanasia. Christian Bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies In Medical Morality, 9(2/3), 187-201.

Thanks for the reply.

But no offence, your post seems really fragmented and not quite coherent. There seems to be bits and pieces pasted together here and there and it's hard to see what your main point is. There are irrelevant pieces like paragraphs about death being the separation of spirit and body, which doesn't really relate to anything else you say in that post. There are also pieces that seems contrary to the anti-euthanasia view. for example, you included these lines:

... the intrusion of technology in medicine and, generally, in health, very often results in the unprecedented prolongation of the dying process; hope for survival often turns into agony. Such “therapeutic” interventions may lead to pathological states which medicine is incapable of overcoming

Doesn't this actually support the pro-euthanasia viewpoint that medicine and medical technology that helps to prolong the life of terminally ill patients can causes agony to them and so they should have the right to "turn off the switch"?

Your post seems incoherent in these places.

However, I take it that the essence of your view is here:

Since we believe that the moment of death belongs entirely to God, are we competent to determine it ?

Here you seem to say that we should not permit euthanasia because only God has the rights to end our life. In other words, we should have no right to dictate when a life of a human, including oneself, will end and we should just let nature takes its cause.

But then you also asked this question:

Do we have the right to hinder the departure of the soul, while confessing that the end of our life is in the hands of God , and especially when its prolongation becomes distressful?

So what exactly is your view?

Are we allowed to take the decision of ending our own life into our own hands?

Are we morally permitted to refuse medical treatments and therefore increases the chances of an early death?
 
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.

Yes, the euthanasia debate is not a simple issue. The solution to this debate should also not be made simple either, i. e. to legalise or not to legalise euthanasia.

My personal view is that, euthanasia should be remain illegal, but the law needs to be amended to make exceptions to specific scenarios like the terminally ill cancer patient mentioned here. This will be much easier and safer than to legalise it and then heavily regulate it in order to prevent people abusing it.

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 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.

Well, everyone has their own ethical beliefs and motives for being anti or pro-euthanasia.

Legalising euthanasia is becoming the trend in developed countries. I'll predict that the countries with strong Christian lobby groups like the US or South Korea will not make euthanasia legal, or at least will make the pro group make some compromise. Those without strong lobby groups will follow the trend of legalising it. Japan is already heading that way:

Japan: Medical association approves euthanasia :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)

The Japanese Association of Acute Medicine issued a statement this week approving the practice of euthanasia for terminally-ill patients under certain circumstances. A person can be euthanized if they ask for it in writing, if a review is done by a panel of doctors when the will of the patient is unknown, or if the family is unable to make a decision.

Euthanasia: the dilemma of choice | The Japan Times

And yet there is still an unwillingness to discuss euthanasia openly, something a group of bipartisan lawmakers wishes to change by submitting a bill on death with dignity, or songenshi, to the Diet this spring. The draft would exempt doctors from criminal and civil responsibility for halting life-prolonging treatment if a patient is over 15 years old and has given consent in writing. Two doctors also need to agree the patient has absolutely no chance of recovering.

Comprising more than 140 lawmakers from across the political spectrum, the bipartisan group has been discussing the issue for almost 10 years. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has even lent the group his support , saying in a budget meeting last year that legislation on dying with dignity deserved consideration.

With support from both sides of the political divide, it would seem unlikely the bill will be defeated in the Diet. What’s more, even opponents of the proposed bill agree that lawmakers should respect a person’s right to die as they wish .

The signs are getting clear, @Nihonjin1051. I don't know why you always want to deny it. Either you're not aware of what's really going on in Japan or you can't accept these facts due to your personal view.
 
Last edited:
Wow, Belgium and the Netherlands has extended their euthanasia law to children as well. They can now perform active euthanasia on children (with conditions).


Belgium Approves Euthanasia For Children
upload_2014-10-13_19-10-9.png
While assisted suicide is permitted under certain conditions in Switzerland, Germany and parts of the United States, only Belgium, Luxembourg and The Netherlands allow doctors to take steps to actively end a patient’s life, usually by administering an overdose of sedatives. In Luxembourg, that patient must be over 18, while in The Netherlands children can request euthanasia from the age of 12.

Belgium’s existing euthanasia law for adults has broad public support, and a recent survey by the RTBF broadcaster found that 75% of people supported extending the same rights to children.

VietNam is thinking about legalising euthanasia as well.

Doctor backs euthanasia proposal - Opinion - VietNam News

The Ministry of Health is proposing including euthanasia in the draft Law on Population Ordinance. What do you think about this?

Euthanasia has always been a controversial issue. On the humanitarian side, no one would ever wish for the death of a family member, even a humane death.

However, in my opinion, it still should be brought into law in Viet Nam, but should only be permitted in cases where both the patient and their family see eye-to-eye on it....

Here's the shocking bit:

According to lawmakers, it needs not only the patient's and their family's agreement, but also a medical committee to make the decision. How do you think this committee will work?

Though I don't know yet what kind of committee it will be, I believe someone has to be responsible for the decision, in this case that person will likely be the head of the committee. That person must determine whether the patient is diagnosed with a terminal illness and ultimately will become a heavy financial burden on his family.

So according to this doctor, the decision to euthanize someone will also take into account the fact that the illness will cause a financial burden to the patients family. It's no longer just about the unbearable pain endured by ill patients, but it's about the money and cost as well.

@Nihonjin1051 you still think it's nonsense?
 

Attachments

  • upload_2014-10-13_19-10-9.png
    upload_2014-10-13_19-10-9.png
    234 bytes · Views: 18
Back
Top Bottom