Arguments needed against voluntary euthanasia

[Bradski]

Are you saying here you would have preferred your father-in-law be put down as if he were a sick dog?

I’m sure that as you were reading that post, assuming all along that I was talking about my dog, it crossed your mind - or at least it should have crossed your mind, that I was being exceptionally cruel.

In fact, I would put money on the fact that if I had actually done that to my dog I would have been liable for prosecution for cruelty to an animal.

The question is, why would we never consider treating a dog like that but have no problem treating an elderly man* exactly* the same way?

So yes, I would have preferred it if he had been put to rest in the same manner as my dog actually was. With a lethal injection which would have saved him many days of torment. Just as goout’s father was (and my sympathy to you, goout).

 

[goout]

It needs to be noted that sedating someone to death is not palliative care.

And it doesn’t make much moral difference who wills the deed. It’s a matter of who’s culpable.
Same grave matter.

 

[Bradski]

It needs to be noted that sedating someone to death is not palliative care.

And it doesn’t make much moral difference who wills the deed. It’s a matter of who’s culpable.

Again, we are talking voluntary euthanasia, so it’s the person who decides to end it who is responsible (not culpable).

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

It needs to be noted that sedating someone to death is not palliative care.

It all depends on the intent, and the intent is internal. The person who sets up a morphine dripping apparatus is concerned with preventing / alleviating the suffering - while being fully aware that the “death is a foreseen, but unintended consequence” of the act. And lo and behold… the “principle of double effect” takes over, and there is no problem. Just like putting a gun to the head of a terrorist and pulling the trigger. The aim is to prevent the terrorist from detonating a dirty nuke. The death of the terrorist is simply a “foreseen, but unintended outcome of blowing his brains out”. What a useful principle this “double effect” turns out to be. Why don’t the apologists use it?

 

[tonyrey]

The thing is when you are dying, you really are dying. There’s nothing going to stop the dying process. I don’t even think the morphine is all that necessary, because the person who is dying doesn’t really feel that much pain. I don’t know if it’s a good thing or not. People are so afraid of pain. But it really is a different thing than voluntary euthanasia. They are beyond that. They really have made their peace and are ready to die.

What I object to with voluntary euthanasia is that the person may not really be terminal, just depressed. And also making another person be their executioner.

I don’t know whether every dying person feels much pain but when I nearly drowned in the English Channel I seemed detached from the world as if I were looking down on myself and wondering what my mother would say when she heard I was dead. It was that thought which impelled me to overcome my fear and force myself to float on my back even though the waves were still making me swallow water. I didn’t have the courage to turn over and used the backstroke against an outgoing tide until I reached the beach totally exhausted and shocked.

One of the first things I learnt in self-hypnosis is the need to distinguish between the sensation and the fear of pain. Once we overcome the latter it is easier to accept the former because it helps us to relax and become more detached - as I know from personal experience. Deep abdominal inhalations are associated by the nervous system with going to sleep and far more effective than I ever imagined they could be when combined with auto-suggestions such as “I am becoming more and more relaxed as I count from one to ten”. In a matter of weeks I succeeded in inducing a light trance in which I didn’t notice blisters had appeared on my arm pressed against a hot radiator. I was delighted but didn’t repeat the experiment! In our Western materialistic society we tend to underestimate the power of the mind and suffer accordingly - and needlessly. Our scale of values is distorted and to a great extent we live in a spiritual desert… In the words of Camus death is “le suprême abus”.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I don’t know whether every dying person feels much pain but when I nearly drowned in the English Channel I seemed detached from the world as if I were looking down on myself and wondering what my mother would say when she heard I was dead. It was that thought which impelled me to overcome my fear and force myself to float on my back even though the waves were still making me swallow water. I didn’t have the courage to turn over and used the backstroke against an outgoing tide until I reached the beach totally exhausted and shocked.
".

I don’t know either. Death is a bridge. We are going from life on earth into the unknown. As a Christian I hope that unknown is a lovely place where I can see my dead loved ones again and be closer to God.

In your case, you were close to death, but you willed yourself to live. You still had things to do in your life on earth. I am sure you are telling the truth. This is what is so bad about voluntary euthanasia. These people may have a change of heart, a will to live, but it is too late for them.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

It all depends on the intent, and the intent is internal. The person who sets up a morphine dripping apparatus is concerned with preventing / alleviating the suffering - while being fully aware that the “death is a foreseen, but unintended consequence” of the act. And lo and behold… the “principle of double effect” takes over, and there is no problem. Just like putting a gun to the head of a terrorist and pulling the trigger. The aim is to prevent the terrorist from detonating a dirty nuke. The death of the terrorist is simply a “foreseen, but unintended outcome of blowing his brains out”. What a useful principle this “double effect” turns out to be. Why don’t the apologists use it?

No you have twisted it, as usual. The person setting up the morphine knows that person is on the journey toward death. There is no unintended consequence.

 

[spiderweb]

Originally Posted by Vera_Ljuba

Originally Posted by spiderweb

You cannot compare emergency protocols to voluntary euthanasia.Why not? The basic principle is the same: “my life, my decision are primary. Everything else is secondary”. My decision does no actual, physical harm to others, and if they feel that the action caused a distress, it is their job to deal with it.

No the basic principle is the opposite. In the case of loss of cabin pressure in a plane, the reason they tell you to put your own mask on first is so that you do not pass out from lack of oxygen. Even if your small child passes out while you put your mask on, you can then put theirs on before any serious damage takes place. However, if you pass out while you are trying to put your child’s mask on first, the child will not be able to put yours on. You save your life first in order to be able to save another persons life. There is no comparison with that example to euthanasia.

Originally Posted by Vera_Ljuba

Originally Posted by spiderweb

In some incidences, I would agree with you. However, the court systems routinely disagree. Emotional harm often times has physical manifestations similar to PTSD that can last for years or even for the rest of a person’s life.Apples and oranges. The courts only agree when there is a physical harm.

That is incorrect. If you can “prove” the emotional harm, regardless of physical harm, the courts will rule in your favor. But it is very hard to prove, even if is true, so most lawyers don’t try to go that route unless there is physical harm. Classic example is the recent case of the cake bakers who refused to participate in an event by not baking a cake for that event. No physical harm was done by not baking a cake, but they were still held accountable for emotional distress caused to the people who wanted the cake.

Speculative off topic side note: I wonder if a bakery could refuse to make a cake for a Donald Trump victory celebration party because they endorsed and supported Hillary Clinton? Would that be grounds for a lawsuit?

Originally Posted by Vera_Ljuba
What do you suggest as a solution? Revive the euthanized people, and then execute them for the stress they created?

Simple solution. Don’t legalize it in the first place.

Originally Posted by Vera_Ljuba
The distress is not caused by the act, it is caused by the irrational response of the person. The rational response is to accept that the person who chose the euthanasia did it for her own reasons, and no one else is qualified to override it. By the way…for the Christians the rational response would be an overriding joy, that the sufferer is now with God, and all her sufferings are forgotten.

So the emotional distress that a person might experience from receiving hate mail or death threats is not caused by the act of the person who sent the mail, rather it is their own failure to respond rationally to it.

The Christian response to death is irrelevant to my point, so I will leave it at that.

Originally Posted by Vera_Ljuba

Originally Posted by spiderweb

”Why should any government make it legal for a person to harm other people when we have other laws that are based on the opposite premise to protect those same people from harm?”You play fast and loose with the word “harm”.

Unlike physical harm, there is no concrete thing that you can always say causes emotional harm. John punched Jim and broke his nose. That is concrete physical harm. But emotional harm will affect people differently. What may be of no consequence to one person or have very little lasting effect, may be extremely harmful to another person. Voluntary euthanasia may be totally ok for some people, and it may be traumatic for other people. Every person is different, family bonds are different, there is no one situation that you can point to and say “every instance of voluntary euthanasia will be experienced this way and it will never negatively impact any of the people involved.” We also know from the experience of abortion that doctors who performed them for many years, suddenly realize that maybe what they are doing is not a good thing. Then they have the trauma that sets in many years after the fact of being responsible, at least in part, to killing unborn children. For the doctor who performs the euthanasia similar things have happened. Knowing that you are directly responsible for ending another person’s life is different than just saying, “I support your decision”.

So “harm” is a loose term to encompass the wide variety of negative reactions, emotionally or psychologically, that may occur with any and/or all of the people involved either by consent, willfully taking part in the actual death of the person, or the person who was not informed of the decision until after the fact, or any other that may apply.

 

[spiderweb]

For those in favor of voluntary euthanasia:

Incident #1: A person wants to die by voluntary euthanasia with his family and loved ones gathered around during his last moments. They all gather around the bed, say their goodbyes, and the doctor begins the procedure of the lethal injection, and he holds the hands of his family as he falls asleep and then dies.

Incident #2: A person wants to die by voluntary euthanasia with his family and loved ones gathered around during his last moments in his home and in his own bed. They all gather around the bed, say their goodbyes, and then the doctor walks in and asks if he is ready. After reassuring his family that this is what he wants, the doctor puts a gun to his head and pulls the trigger and he dies while lovingly holding his families hands.

Would you support both incidences? If not, why not?

If you support their decision, would you be willing and able to be the “trigger man” in incident #2 if they couldn’t do it themselves and that was their decision for what they wanted?

Assuming in either incident that this is grandpa, would you be willing to have your 8 year old child be there for his last moments and witness either incident? Why or why not?

Would you want your 14 year old teenager “to assist” grandpa since he wants his favorite grandchild to be the one to see him to the end? Would you want them administering the killing method of choice?

It seems to me that a line has already been drawn at a lethal injection. What would be wrong with suffocation, hanging, suicide by cop, jumping off a building, or any other manner of ways that people “choose” to die?

If you draw the line in the manner of “how” it is done, at what point do you draw the line and why do you draw the line there?

If you draw the line with “who” does the assisting, at what point do you draw the line and why do you draw the line there?

If you draw the line with who can legally receive voluntary assisted euthanasia, where do you draw that line and why? Should it be available for anyone that wants it or just for the terminally ill? If it is for terminally ill patients, does it matter if their life expectancy is 6 months, 5 yrs, 10 yrs; Where do you draw that line and why?

 

[o_mlly]

…]
First, killing someone is a violation of their autonomy. But in the case of voluntary euthanasia, a person’s autonomy is not taken away but supported.
…]
Any arguments to refute it?

There is no autonomy without rights.

All who argue that no one has a right to life and everyone has a right to die must be dismissed as irrational.

 

[Bradski]

Would you support both incidences? If not, why not?

‘Grandpa’s not feeling too good. He is going to go to heaven soon. And we don’t want to see Grandpa in any pain, do we…so just stand there while I do the right thing and beat him to death with this cricket bat.’

…would you be willing to have your 8 year old child be there for his last moments…?

If we’re not beating him to death and it was a peaceful end, then yes.

Would you want your 14 year old teenager “to assist” grandpa since he wants his favorite grandchild to be the one to see him to the end? Would you want them administering the killing method of choice?

I’d certainly want them to be there, but I wouldn’t want to place the responsibility on a relatively young child. I’d assume that Gramps would click the button himself. After all, this is voluntary euthanasia, so he’s at least compos mentis enough to request it.

It seems to me that a line has already been drawn at a lethal injection. What would be wrong with suffocation, hanging, suicide by cop, jumping off a building, or any other manner of ways that people “choose” to die?

Yeah, like garrotting gramps or slitting his throat or burning him alive would be such a great way to remember him. Make sure the whole family is there to watch.

If you draw the line in the manner of “how” it is done, at what point do you draw the line and why do you draw the line there? If you draw the line with “who” does the assisting, at what point do you draw the line and why do you draw the line there?

I’m not sure that you could be serious. Do you actually want to suggest, as you are, that you can’t imagine why the manner of death is centrally important to the whole question of euthanasia.

If you draw the line with who can legally receive voluntary assisted euthanasia, where do you draw that line and why? Should it be available for anyone that wants it or just for the terminally ill? If it is for terminally ill patients, does it matter if their life expectancy is 6 months, 5 yrs, 10 yrs; Where do you draw that line and why?

Well, I guess the law of averages would mean that we’d eventually get a sensible question if we hung around long enough. Yes, these are the important questions. And not easy to answer. And if you expect a nice, neat line in the sand or specific rules that will apply in all cases, then you are going to be disappointed. But feel free to develop any ideas on these type of questions that you might have.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

For those in favor of voluntary euthanasia:

Incident #1: A person wants to die by voluntary euthanasia with his family and loved ones gathered around during his last moments. They all gather around the bed, say their goodbyes, and the doctor begins the procedure of the lethal injection, and he holds the hands of his family as he falls asleep and then dies.

Incident #2: A person wants to die by voluntary euthanasia with his family and loved ones gathered around during his last moments in his home and in his own bed. They all gather around the bed, say their goodbyes, and then the doctor walks in and asks if he is ready. After reassuring his family that this is what he wants, the doctor puts a gun to his head and pulls the trigger and he dies while lovingly holding his families hands.

The point is “death with dignity”. Blowing his brains out, or grabbing a machete and chopping gramps to pieces" is not particularly “dignifying”. That is why one argues for a “morphine drip”, which is less obvious, less intrusive. Even better than a lethal injection.

Is this rational? Not really, but we, humans, are quite irrational when it comes to certain issues. We are not comfortable with using a bunch of herbs to season grandpa and bake him for a burial-feast, even though it would save us the cost of catering.

 

[tonyrey]

The point is “death with dignity”. Blowing his brains out, or grabbing a machete and chopping gramps to pieces" is not particularly “dignifying”. That is why one argues for a “morphine drip”, which is less obvious, less intrusive. Even better than a lethal injection.

Is this rational? Not really, but we, humans, are quite irrational when it comes to certain issues. We are not comfortable with using a bunch of herbs to season grandpa and bake him for a burial-feast, even though it would save us the cost of catering.

The fact that we are irrational when it comes to certain issues doesn’t justify being irrational…

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t know either. Death is a bridge. We are going from life on earth into the unknown. As a Christian I hope that unknown is a lovely place where I can see my dead loved ones again and be closer to God.

In your case, you were close to death, but you willed yourself to live. You still had things to do in your life on earth. I am sure you are telling the truth. This is what is so bad about voluntary euthanasia. These people may have a change of heart, a will to live, but it is too late for them.

Too late in what respect, Christine?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Too late in what respect, Christine?

too late in that they are already dead, Tony.

 

[tonyrey]

too late in that they are already dead, Tony.

(A sigh of relief). I thought you might have meant they are damned…

 

[o_mlly]

…] There was a lot wrong with him and he didn’t have long left. So earlier this year he was given some pain killers to make him more comfortable and we just waited. It was only a matter of time. Despite the medication he was still in a lot of pain, so to hasten things along we simply stopped feeding him and didn’t give him any liquids.

A week and a half later and he was still hanging on and it was pitiful to see him suffer. It was quite traumatic for the whole family. A few days later and an increase in the medication eventually killed him. …]

Just to be clear. The first inclination of the natural law is self-preservation.

Hastening death by withholding or refusing hydration and nutrition is contrary to natural law. These actions are ordinary care – in the course of our life we often rely on others to feed us food and liquids. Aspiration, however, would be extraordinary care – in the course of our life we do not ordinarily rely on others to breathe for us.

Increasing medication to reduce pain is acceptable. To do so to hasten death is not. In time, we all die eventually (unless you’re on your feet at the Parousia) therefore any action intended to shorten that time is against the natural law.

No supernatural faith required. All quite logical.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

No you have twisted it, as usual. The person setting up the morphine knows that person is on the journey toward death. There is no unintended consequence.

Just like when you shoot a terrorist to prevent the detonation of a dirty nuke. Or when you cut the fallopian tube which will kill the zygote. The unintended consequence is in regard to the intended result. The intended result is to lessen the pain. It is the same problem as: “is the glass half empty, or half full?”.

Is the intent to lessen the pain or to hasten the death? Of course this kind of analysis proves that the “principle of double effect” is highly hypocritical.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Just to be clear. The first inclination of the natural law is self-preservation.

There is no natural law.

 

[davidv]

There is no natural law.

What is the basis of this dogma?