Arguments needed against voluntary euthanasia

[CHRISTINE77]

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.

Apples and oranges. The courts only agree when there is a physical harm.

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

Because it is voluntary.

Simply not true. I had the opportunity to hold my mother’s hand in her final moments, and there was no distress. I accepted that her life was coming to the end. There is nothing distressing about it.

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.

You play fast and loose with the word “harm”.

If you can’t commit suicide on your own, why implicate a doctor to commit murder?

 

[tonyrey]

I agree with you. Often terminally ill people are given morphine to ease them over to the other side. This happened to my mother and my sister. That is different than euthanasia though. These people are planning their own death and a doctor is the executioner.

There is undoubtedly an element of revolt in their apparent indifference to the sanctity of life just as abortion is carried out without considering the consequences for the unborn child. In a secular society nothing is sacred…

 

[Bradski]

I agree with you. Often terminally ill people are given morphine to ease them over to the other side. This happened to my mother and my sister. That is different than euthanasia though. These people are planning their own death and a doctor is the executioner.

So it’s OK to ‘ease them over to the other side’ (a rather trite euphamism for killing them) if they are terminally ill and in pain but if they were to request the extra morphine to ease their passage from this world to the next, you would deny them.

Bizzare.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

The problem is that palliative care has been abolished and there is too much scope for hijacking and for an institutional will to be rebadged as the patient’s.

Any patient is entitled to wish for palliative care but it has been abolished.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

So it’s OK to ‘ease them over to the other side’ (a rather trite euphamism for killing them) if they are terminally ill and in pain but if they were to request the extra morphine to ease their passage from this world to the next, you would deny them.

Bizzare.

Sorry but that’s not how voluntary euthanasia works. I believe they are given a lethal injection like a criminal or take a toxic pill.

In the case of people who are dying of cancer, the morphine is to ease the pain, but I believe it also eases them into death where they are already heading. There is nothing voluntary or suicidal about it.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

The problem is that palliative care has been abolished and there is too much scope for hijacking and for an institutional will to be rebadged as the patient’s.

Any patient is entitled to wish for palliative care but it has been abolished.

Please explain what you are saying.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

So it’s OK to ‘ease them over to the other side’ (a rather trite euphamism for killing them) if they are terminally ill and in pain but if they were to request the extra morphine to ease their passage from this world to the next, you would deny them.

Bizzare.

Very much so. Especially, since they could assert that the aim is to ease the pain and suffering, and the death due to the intentional overdose of morphine is a “foreseen, but unintended” side effect. Such a wonderful (though hypocritical) cop-out, and they refuse to take advantage of it.

 

[goout]

So it’s OK to ‘ease them over to the other side’ (a rather trite euphamism for killing them) if they are terminally ill and in pain but if they were to request the extra morphine to ease their passage from this world to the next, you would deny them.

Bizzare.

There’s not much difference really.
My father died this way. He was terminally ill with cancer and hospice basically morphined him to death one morning. I think he likely told them how he wanted to go without suffering for another month and they took that into their hands. I didn’t want to see him suffer either. These are tough shades of moral evaluation. Were they intending to ease his pain or kill him?
I feel for anyone suffering with a terminal illness. But I also cringe at a society that endorses killing as the solution to suffering.
That can’t turn out well. You have the slippery slope…which we always seem to slide down.

 

[Bradski]

In the case of people who are dying of cancer, the morphine is to ease the pain, but I believe it also eases them into death where they are already heading. There is nothing voluntary or suicidal about it.

Darn right there is nothing voluntary about it. Which is precisely the problem with your viewpoint.

If someone is incapacitated and in pain and in no position to make a decision whether to continue living or not, you seem to believe it’s acceptable to kill them (let’s dispense with the euphemisms).

But should you have a moment of lucidity and you actively ask for the morphine overdose, then it’s tough luck buddy.

With a bit of luck you’ll pass out again so that they can administer it.

 

[o_mlly]

There’s not much difference really.
My father died this way. He was terminally ill with cancer and hospice basically morphined him to death one morning. I think he likely told them how he wanted to go without suffering for another month and they took that into their hands. I didn’t want to see him suffer either. These are tough shades of moral evaluation. Were they intending to ease his pain or kill him?
I feel for anyone suffering with a terminal illness. But I also cringe at a society that endorses killing as the solution to suffering.
That can’t turn out well. You have the slippery slope…which we always seem to slide down.

Yes, there really is a difference. Intention can change an evil act into a good act.
When the medical journal The Lancet reported on interviews with cancer patients on June 29, 1996, it found that dying patients experiencing significant pain were more opposed to assisted suicide than the general public. “Patients with pain do not seem to view euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide as the appropriate response to poor pain management,” wrote Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a director of the study. "Indeed, oncology patients in pain may be suspicious that if euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide are legalized, the medical care system may not focus sufficient resources on provision of pain relief and palliative care."usccb.org/about/pro-life-activities/respect-life-program/killing-the-pain.cfm

 

[Bradski]

My dog was getting on in years. 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.

Sorry, my mistake. It wasn’t my dog I was thinking of. It was my father-in-law.

 

[o_mlly]

There’s not much difference really.
…]

Yes, there is a difference.
In important ways, assisted suicide and good palliative care are not only distinct—they are radically opposed to each other. Consider the following:

Control of pain and suffering eliminates the demand for assisted suicide. As Dr. Herbert Hendin notes in his 1997 book Seduced by Death, some terminally ill patients have suicidal thoughts, but “these patients usually respond well to treatment for depressive illness and pain medication and are then grateful to be alive.” Such treatment responds to the underlying reasons why patients ask for death, instead of treating the patient himself as the problem to be eliminated. When pain control and other care improves, assisted suicide becomes largely irrelevant.

…]

When the medical journal The Lancet reported on interviews with cancer patients on June 29, 1996, it found that dying patients experiencing significant pain were more opposed to assisted suicide than the general public. “Patients with pain do not seem to view euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide as the appropriate response to poor pain management,” wrote Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a director of the study. “Indeed, oncology patients in pain may be suspicious that if euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide are legalized, the medical care system may not focus sufficient resources on provision of pain relief and palliative care.”

…]

Very rarely it may be necessary to induce sleep to relieve pain and other distress in the final stage of dying. Euthanasia advocates call this “terminal sedation,” but it is the same kind of sedation that is sometimes needed to calm distressed or restless patients with non-terminal conditions. While some terminally ill patients may die under such sedation, this is generally because they were imminently dying already.

In competent medical hands, sedation for imminently dying patients is a humane, appropriate and medically established approach to what is often called “intractable suffering.” It does not kill the patient, but it can make his or her suffering bearable. It may also allow a physician the time to re-assess a patient’s pain needs: The terminally ill sedated patient may later be withdrawn from the sedatives and brought back to consciousness, with his or her pain under control.
usccb.org/about/pro-life-activities/respect-life-program/killing-the-pain.cfm

 

[goout]

Yes, there is a difference.
In important ways, assisted suicide and good palliative care are not only distinct—they are radically opposed to each other. Consider the following:

Control of pain and suffering eliminates the demand for assisted suicide. As Dr. Herbert Hendin notes in his 1997 book Seduced by Death, some terminally ill patients have suicidal thoughts, but “these patients usually respond well to treatment for depressive illness and pain medication and are then grateful to be alive.” Such treatment responds to the underlying reasons why patients ask for death, instead of treating the patient himself as the problem to be eliminated. When pain control and other care improves, assisted suicide becomes largely irrelevant.

…]

When the medical journal The Lancet reported on interviews with cancer patients on June 29, 1996, it found that dying patients experiencing significant pain were more opposed to assisted suicide than the general public. “Patients with pain do not seem to view euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide as the appropriate response to poor pain management,” wrote Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a director of the study. “Indeed, oncology patients in pain may be suspicious that if euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide are legalized, the medical care system may not focus sufficient resources on provision of pain relief and palliative care.”

…]

Very rarely it may be necessary to induce sleep to relieve pain and other distress in the final stage of dying. Euthanasia advocates call this “terminal sedation,” but it is the same kind of sedation that is sometimes needed to calm distressed or restless patients with non-terminal conditions. While some terminally ill patients may die under such sedation, this is generally because they were imminently dying already.

In competent medical hands, sedation for imminently dying patients is a humane, appropriate and medically established approach to what is often called “intractable suffering.” It does not kill the patient, but it can make his or her suffering bearable. It may also allow a physician the time to re-assess a patient’s pain needs: The terminally ill sedated patient may later be withdrawn from the sedatives and brought back to consciousness, with his or her pain under control.
usccb.org/about/pro-life-activities/respect-life-program/killing-the-pain.cfm

Yes.
To be clear, I believe Brad was noticing a nearly non-existent distinction between medicating a person to the other side, and the person choosing to be medicated to the other side. In both cases, the natural course of events is interrupted by over-medication.
The two moral scenarios are not that different.
Maybe I misunderstood.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Yes, there is a difference.
In important ways, assisted suicide and good palliative care are not only distinct—they are radically opposed to each other. Consider the following:

Control of pain and suffering eliminates the demand for assisted suicide. As Dr. Herbert Hendin notes in his 1997 book Seduced by Death, some terminally ill patients have suicidal thoughts, but “these patients usually respond well to treatment for depressive illness and pain medication and are then grateful to be alive.” Such treatment responds to the underlying reasons why patients ask for death, instead of treating the patient himself as the problem to be eliminated. When pain control and other care improves, assisted suicide becomes largely irrelevant.

…]

When the medical journal The Lancet reported on interviews with cancer patients on June 29, 1996, it found that dying patients experiencing significant pain were more opposed to assisted suicide than the general public. “Patients with pain do not seem to view euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide as the appropriate response to poor pain management,” wrote Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a director of the study. “Indeed, oncology patients in pain may be suspicious that if euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide are legalized, the medical care system may not focus sufficient resources on provision of pain relief and palliative care.”

…]

Very rarely it may be necessary to induce sleep to relieve pain and other distress in the final stage of dying. Euthanasia advocates call this “terminal sedation,” but it is the same kind of sedation that is sometimes needed to calm distressed or restless patients with non-terminal conditions. While some terminally ill patients may die under such sedation, this is generally because they were imminently dying already.

In competent medical hands, sedation for imminently dying patients is a humane, appropriate and medically established approach to what is often called “intractable suffering.” It does not kill the patient, but it can make his or her suffering bearable. It may also allow a physician the time to re-assess a patient’s pain needs: The terminally ill sedated patient may later be withdrawn from the sedatives and brought back to consciousness, with his or her pain under control.
usccb.org/about/pro-life-activities/respect-life-program/killing-the-pain.cfm

Thank you! There really is a real difference!!

 

[CHRISTINE77]

My dog was getting on in years. 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.

Sorry, my mistake. It wasn’t my dog I was thinking of. It was my father-in-law.

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.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Yes.
To be clear, I believe Brad was noticing a nearly non-existent distinction between medicating a person to the other side, and the person choosing to be medicated to the other side. In both cases, the natural course of events is interrupted by over-medication.
The two moral scenarios are not that different.
Maybe I misunderstood.

Wrong. A person who chooses to be put to death may not really need to die. They may just be depressed. The person who is dying has already begun the process of dying. The morphine is just a way to alleviate any pain. It may seem wrong, but actually, even though the dying person is in a semi-comatose state with the morphine, they generally wake up at the time of death and are very conscious of their final moments.

 

[tonyrey]

Yes, there is a difference.
In important ways, assisted suicide and good palliative care are not only distinct—they are radically opposed to each other. Consider the following:

Control of pain and suffering eliminates the demand for assisted suicide. As Dr. Herbert Hendin notes in his 1997 book Seduced by Death, some terminally ill patients have suicidal thoughts, but “these patients usually respond well to treatment for depressive illness and pain medication and are then grateful to be alive.” Such treatment responds to the underlying reasons why patients ask for death, instead of treating the patient himself as the problem to be eliminated. When pain control and other care improves, assisted suicide becomes largely irrelevant.

…]

When the medical journal The Lancet reported on interviews with cancer patients on June 29, 1996, it found that dying patients experiencing significant pain were more opposed to assisted suicide than the general public. “Patients with pain do not seem to view euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide as the appropriate response to poor pain management,” wrote Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a director of the study. “Indeed, oncology patients in pain may be suspicious that if euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide are legalized, the medical care system may not focus sufficient resources on provision of pain relief and palliative care.”

…]

Very rarely it may be necessary to induce sleep to relieve pain and other distress in the final stage of dying. Euthanasia advocates call this “terminal sedation,” but it is the same kind of sedation that is sometimes needed to calm distressed or restless patients with non-terminal conditions. While some terminally ill patients may die under such sedation, this is generally because they were imminently dying already.

In competent medical hands, sedation for imminently dying patients is a humane, appropriate and medically established approach to what is often called “intractable suffering.” It does not kill the patient, but it can make his or her suffering bearable. It may also allow a physician the time to re-assess a patient’s pain needs: The terminally ill sedated patient may later be withdrawn from the sedatives and brought back to consciousness, with his or her pain under control.
usccb.org/about/pro-life-activities/respect-life-program/killing-the-pain.cfm

These facts settle the matter for once and for all.

 

[Bradski]

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.

That is a valid argument. Your earlier scenario wasn’t.

 

[josh987654321]

My dog was getting on in years. 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.

Sorry, my mistake. It wasn’t my dog I was thinking of. It was my father-in-law.

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

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

I agree with you. Often terminally ill people are given morphine to ease them over to the other side. This happened to my mother and my sister. That is different than euthanasia though. These people are planning their own death and a doctor is the executioner.

Exactly, one has the intention to kill and death is a direct result, the other has the intention of easing suffering, and death is the natural (Unintended) result due to their terminally ill condition.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh