Should euthanasia be legalized?

Always. That doesn't mean that they always are, it means that they always should be, as should anyone in the federal government, for that matter.



True, though why he did so and whether he was right to do so are questions for another discussion. Within this discussion I believe it's enough to point out that the actions of a single president do not constitute evidence of the platform of a party. Likewise, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats of today stand for exactly the same things for which they stood 100 years ago.

Or stand for much of anything, for that matter.

('Jes being cheeky, tres. While not a hard-line states' rightist myself, it burns me up when an administration that professes such a conviction so frequently acts with a heavy federal hand.)

If legalized, will a new defense be created for use by murderers on trial? "Oh but he asked me to do it", "here is a notarized document giving me instructions to blow his head off!"

Like everything else that is legalized this is another thing that will totally go over and above the better good. The idea is to assist those who are dying a horrible death, right? While I am in agreement with being compassionate to those dying people who are suffering needlessly, I am afraid that the legalization will hurt a lot more people than help. It will be abused, I have no doubt about that. It will make murder trials more difficult.

Look at abortion. It was legalized for a specific reason - women raped, women who would die if pregnancy continued, etc. I know some women now who use it like a form of contraception!! It's an in and out procedure and unregulated for reasons why these women want to get rid of their babies.

Once euthanasia is legalized, all the rules and regulations restricting it will eventually fall out the window and people will be getting offed for any number of reasons, the least of which will be the one real reason it should be used - to stop the extraordinary physical and emotional suffering of a person who has no hope and is in actual fact close to death already, by their express request.

Heeven
Tell me again how you think the legalization of euthanasia can be used as a defense for murder. Have you really thought that through?

I'm inclined to agree with you.

If mercy killing is legalized:

First the dying and sickly will be targets of the mercy killers.

Then when there's a shortage of medicare funds, those over 65 years of age will be targeted with compassion and the nation will be told that it's better this way for the economy and to preserve medicare.

Next, those with IQ's below a certain level will be targeted. The nation will be told that this action will enrich the gene pool with the brightest of the bright.

And so on...

( Is this starting to sound like the Nazi's plan in the 20th century?)


I agree with what Heeven and Walter have said.

Mercy killing will be used as an excuse for murder. But luckily, mercy killing will never be legalized in the USA.

Oops - New Haven. Actually, I didn't say "I am against it".

I'm really not sure about that at all. I DO know, however, that this is closely connected to what I've learnt about OUR history.
And I do see that it seems to work (there have been legally just a very few cases) in The Netherlands.

Walter:

I agree with what you have said about German history.

No au1929 I have not thought it through - it's something that popped into my head immediately upon reading the question.

The issue for me is rather, if euthanasia is legalized, how can it be avoided? Let's say ten years down the road, when the regulating of this practise has become loosey goosey, who is to say how defense attorneys will use this tactic to explain the actions of a death that may not be perceived as euthanasia in the minds of some people. We are saying here there should be a definite guideline for euthanasia - permission of the person to die, a medical professional to administer drugs(?), permission of the family(?), a real and immediate disease/threat of death(?), and whatever other guidelines should be put in place. Remember this is theory, a set of rules. Real life never matches theory or rules. There is always some bending and shifting. With the life of a person in question, there is no room for bending because once they are changed, then there is reason for another to change and another and another until the option is so open that a murder (in the guise of euthanasia) is possible.

Heeven

How do you think that will work? Just writing "I will die" on a piece of paper?

You must have a testification of a notary, your family doctor and at least two more different doctors in The Netherlands (when I remember correctl - could look it up).

Heeven
I think your contention is that it shouldn't be legalizes because whatever procedures and safeguards established over time will be distorted and disregarded. If that were true it should be true for any established law and procedure. If so why bother making any laws?
The truth is that rules and regulations on procedures and necessary approvals must be established and strictly adhered to.

And already are in the form of DNR agreements, though this of course would be a matter of somewhat greater moment.

Anyway, opposition of legal euthanasia is essentially denying people the right of taking their own life. I don't see this as a right that should be denied.

Here's a scenario for you - a man, late 50's, hit by a car and unable to breathe on his own. He is apparently in pain but in a coma and, after six months of no improvement, his wife/children come to the agonizing decision that it would be best for him to die. He has a DNR (which requires no action on the part of another) but not a euthanasia option (whatever it will be called) so what happens? He remains on life support and whatever agony he is currently in? How does the legalization of euthanasia help him? Now I know we all can sign a form stating that if, down the road, I get into XY situation I wish to have the option to be euthanized, but really how many people will ever do that? I can understand a person with their faculties complete being cognizant of the fact that they really do wish to die. For those who can do so themselves, I think the responsibility lies in their own hands. It is such a difficult thing to ask another human being to do for them and although doctors are the closest experts to have in this scenario, I am not sure that they would want this responsibility or even should have to be responsible for enabling a patient to die.

As for establishing laws and rules and procedures - none of these relate directly to the TAKING of a life (with the exception of abortion). I may seem stuck on viewing it from the other side and it might surprise you all to know that I am not sure what I would do if in a situation where someone I love was dying and asked me to assist them in dying sooner. I am just scared it will blow up in our faces and become yet another abuse.

I don't deny people the right to take their own lives, I do question them expecting someone else to take the responsibility for it.

Legalization of euthanasia does not help the victim of the car crash you describe. Laws are drawn in generality, and cannot, given the scale of our society, be reëvaluated for each particular case. Discussions of euthanasia, inlcuding those in the courts, revolve around long-term terminal illnesses, not unforeseeable accidents.



If the claim here that most doctors do in fact support the legalization of euthanasia is true, that's not an issue. Anyway, when you are diagnosed with a terminal illness, you set up a treatment plan with a physician, and physicians are frequently chosen on the basis of what they will and will not (or can and can not) do. I think your qualms about the potential for abuse have some basis, but I don't think that's a reason to shoot the legislation down entirely. Nothing but nothing is failsafe, particularly in a society of 260 million people. I just see it as a reason to proceed prudently and being very careful about how such legislation is drafted. It's already been noted that in a short amount of time that has elapsed, problems have not arisen in Oregon or in the Netherlands.

Australian doctor: Suicide device allows peaceful end
Thursday, January 9, 2003 Posted: 11:18 AM EST (1618 GMT)
Dr. Philip Nitschke
(CNN) -- The man Australians call "Dr. Death" is heading to the United States to demonstrate his new suicide machine.
Dr. Philip Nitschke will present his device, which allows a person to breathe in pure carbon monoxide to hasten death, this weekend in San Diego, California, at the national conference of the Hemlock Society USA, a volunteer euthanasia group.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/01/09/cnna.australia.dr.death/index.html

Heeven

Perhaps I got you wrong, but what you are talking about is not "euthanasia" as leaglized in the above mentioned countries.
When you have a look at the Dutch law
" [...] The due care criteria which must be met in order to obtain exemption from criminal liability require that the attending physician:

be satisfied that the patient has made a voluntary and well considered request
be satisfied that the patient's suffering is unbearable, and that there is no prospect of improvement
has informed the patient about his or her situation and prospects
has come to the conclusion, together with the patient, that there is no reasonable alternative in the light of the patient's situation
has consulted at least one other physician, who must have seen the patient and given a written opinion on the due care criteria referred to above, and
has terminated the patient's life or provided assistance with suicide with due medical care and attention. "http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2000-01/01RN31.htm
you'll notice that no-one else than the patient himself is concerned to this.


The last chapter from the above quoted website seems to be the most important facts to me:
"The enactment of Netherlands legislation represents the culmination of almost thirty years of public debate in that country about legalising voluntary euthanasia. The nature and result of that discussion has been influenced by an arguably unique combination of social and cultural factors:

a willingness to discuss difficult moral issues openly
a profound respect for the autonomy of others
the Royal Dutch Medical Association's approval of doctors participating in termination of life on request or assisting with suicide
respect for the medical profession, and
truly universal and comprehensive medical coverage.

The device presumably is for people who are able to use them, correct? So they are, in essence, committing suicide.

Assisted suicide or euthanasia occurs where the person cannot physically kill themselves and asks someone else to do it for them.

On reading the related article about Holland - there was no mention of the wishes of the family of a person who wanted to die. What if the family does not agree with the wishes of the dying and the doctor assists in the suicide and then the family sues the doctor/hospital/government/whoever? Is there a possibility that we, in our litigious society, could open ourselves up to another issue for people to sue over? Like doctors don't have enough problems barely able to maintain their malpractise insurance as it is!

That is why you create laws that specify that the doctor is responsible only to the rule of law and the wishes of the patient - not the patient's family, friends, associates, etc..

If a patient is fully informed, mentally competent and makes the decision on their own I don't see why the family should have any more right to sue than they have the right now to sue a car dealer for selling a family member of their's a car. It is a right of self-determination and it's none of the family member's business.

How do you determine the mental competency of a terminal patient , who is medicated at doses of analgesia,that comprise mental competency?

I know ... but my mother got all of us girls together and asked us never to sue the tobacco companies after her death (she's not ill but has smoked all her life). It never occurred to me that any of us would even think of doing that, even if her smoking was the cause of her death. Apparently it occured to my mother.

In this same vein, what is the stop family members from suing a doctor for killing, say, the family breadwinner, even if it was legal for them to do so? It is one thing for the breadwinner to commit suicide - the family have no-one but him to blame for their loss (emotional and financial) but when a third party is involved, the doctor, they have an outlet for their grief, need, anger, etc. They may not have a legal leg to stand on but that will not stop them from suing and the doctor from having to pay a lawyer to defend him.