Can someone give me a secular argument against euthanasia?

[Thing]

Does that mean we have a right to not be drafted as well?

In an ideal world nobody should be drafted. There should be no war. Killing should not be necessary. Killing is not a good people should aspire to.

 

[wanner47]

The architect of Holland’s euthanasia law, Dr. Els Borst, regrets the law now because it has led to a severe decline in the quality of care for the terminally ill. After all, why provide pain relief or palliative care if the terminally ill can just kill themselves?

Some excerpts from this article:

The former hospital doctor made her remarks in an interview with researcher Dr Anne-Marie The, for a book on the history of euthanasia called Redeemer Under God.

Dr The, who has studied euthanasia for 15 years, said that palliative care was so inadequate in Holland that patients ‘often ask for euthanasia out of fear’ of dying in agony because care and pain relief is so poor.

Cases of euthanasia in the country have increased from 1,626 in 2003 to 2,331 in 2008. It is also alleged that there have been thousands of cases of involuntary euthanasia and dozens of killings of disabled newborns.

 

[ThomasToo]

In an ideal world nobody should be drafted. There should be no war. Killing should not be necessary. Killing is not a good people should aspire to.

And in an ideal no one would be in so much pain they’d prefer to die. Unfortunately we live in a (much) less than perfect world. So I resubmit my question…

 

[Thing]

And in an ideal no one would be in so much pain they’d prefer to die. Unfortunately we live in a (much) less than perfect world. So I resubmit my question…

Palliative care.
Killing patients is bad, Thomas Too, just as killing because of war is bad.

 

[Leela]

I don’t think there is any difference between killing someone at their request and making sure they are are able to kill themselves. If there is any difference at all it is only that in the second instance you try to fool yourself when you argue that you are doing nothing wrong by helping them kill themselves; you are admitting that you know killing is wrong - and that you will help them to kill.

My sense of human dignity is such where refusing to offer the bedridden patient the means to end his or her life if desired is to treat that person as an incompetent. It is not treating that person as an dignified adult responsible for his or her own actions. What meaning could it have to choose life if we have decided in advance to deny people the option? It seems to me that it is quite different to believe that people ought not to do a thing and another to make it impossible to for a person to make her own choice.

In general, where is the virtue in doing right if we decide to never allow the option of doing wrong? Likewise, what virtue would there be in doing right if we were forced to do it? For example, we all think it is nice to help old ladies across the street, but we don’t make a law that says that you must.

It is a bedrock principle of liberalism (not the kind that Glen Beck sneers at but the kind that all people who love democracy are supposed to cheer for) that our right to do a thing is only limited by the possible infringement on the right that someone else has to do some other thing. It seems to me then that someone has a right to take his or her own life in a way that does not endanger anyone else whether or not we think that a person ought to do so.

In short, I think we need to sort out two issues here:

(1) should people ever take their own lives regardless of what pain they may be going through?

(2) should we prevent people from taking their own lives in all possible cases?

On my understanding, a Catholic ought to be able to say yes to (1) and “not necessarily” to (2), but obviously I’m not the expert here on Catholicism.

Best,
Leela

 

[ThomasToo]

Palliative care.
Killing patients is bad, Thomas Too, just as killing because of war is bad.

But that doesn’t answer my question. If there is a right not to kill is there also a right not to be drafted? Not in the ideal world but in the actual (fallen) one?

 

[Thing]

But that doesn’t answer my question. If there is a right not to kill is there also a right not to be drafted? Not in the ideal world but in the actual (fallen) one?

Is’nt that one f my points Thomas Too, that if you draft medicine into euthanasia doctors will not have the right to refuse to kill. You will make them killers, by force. And is that a good thing?

 

[Thing]

My sense of human dignity is such where refusing to offer the bedridden patient the means to end his or her life if desired is to treat that person as an incompetent. It is not treating that person as an dignified adult responsible for his or her own actions. What meaning could it have to choose life if we have decided in advance to deny people the option? It seems to me that it is quite different to believe that people ought not to do a thing and another to make it impossible to for a person to make her own choice.

That is not the question. You cannot make it impossible for someone to kill themselves. Your question is, is it right to help them kill themselves. And you answered that when you admit to yourself that killing is wrong bcause you do not want to be implicated in killing only in facilitating a choice.

In general, where is the virtue in doing right if we decide to never allow the option of doing wrong? Likewise, what virtue would there be in doing right if we were forced to do it? For example, we all think it is nice to help old ladies across the street, but we don’t make a law that says that you must.

But euthanasia is making a law of doing what you feel is wrong, killing.

It is a bedrock principle of liberalism (not the kind that Glen Beck sneers at but the kind that all people who love democracy are supposed to cheer for) that our right to do a thing is only limited by the possible infringement on the right that someone else has to do some other thing. It seems to me then that someone has a right to take his or her own life in a way that does not endanger anyone else whether or not we think that a person ought to do so.

You endanger someone else by making them become a killer. Its always difficult, on the face of it, when the rights of two individuals collide. You have the right to die but you do not have the right to make me a killer. Humans do not kill other humans without suffering damage. Soldiers with eternal regret and nightmares of the men, or women, they killed. Or Nazi mass executioners who became so brutalised that their commanding officers who ordered and organized the killing recomended these soldiers be removed. Or child soldier in Africa, so inured to death they would kill without a thought.
Even without the Christian fear of hell for killers there is the proven damage caused to the human mind and soul when forced to become a killer. No-one has the right to order that damage onto another.

In short, I think we need to sort out two issues here:

(1) should people ever take their own lives regardless of what pain they may be going through?

(2) should we prevent people from taking their own lives in all possible cases?

On my understanding, a Catholic ought to be able to say yes to (1) and “not necessarily” to (2), but obviously I’m not the expert here on Catholicism.

Best,
Leela

(1) No.

(2) It is impossible to prevent someone taking their own life if they want to; our part is not only to not help them kill, but its also to help them to find a way to live in the circumstance they are in.

 

[ThomasToo]

Isn’t that one f my points Thomas Too, that if you draft medicine into euthanasia doctors will not have the right to refuse to kill. You will make them killers, by force. And is that a good thing?

You really don’t want to just answer my question do you?

That’s actually not true, at least not in any of the legislation that has been passed at present in the United States to my knowledge. Allowing doctors to prescribe lethal doses of medication by no means obliges them to do so any more than (again without getting into the issue) allowing doctors to legally perform abortions obliges any of them to do so either.

 

[Thing]

You really don’t want to just answer my question do you?

That’s actually not true, at least not in any of the legislation that has been passed at present in the United States to my knowledge. Allowing doctors to prescribe lethal doses of medication by no means obliges them to do so any more than (again without getting into the issue) allowing doctors to legally perform abortions obliges any of them to do so either.

Doctors are legally obliged to help provide abortion.

 

[ThomasToo]

Doctors are legally obliged to help provide abortion.

You mean refer someone to a doctor who provides them? I don’t think that this is the same as forcing them to kill someone or have formal cooperation in procuring a completed abortion. Similarly I don’t think referring someone to the psychologist who assesses if a person is of sound mind in wanting to end his or her life is formal cooperation with euthanasia.

 

[Thing]

You mean refer someone to a doctor who provides them? I don’t think that this is the same as forcing them to kill someone or have formal cooperation in procuring a completed abortion. Similarly I don’t think referring someone to the psychologist who assesses if a person is of sound mind in wanting to end his or her life is formal cooperation with euthanasia.

That is not what these conscientious doctors think.

In the UK; Can my doctor refuse to refer me for an abortion?

No. A doctor or nurse has the right to refuse to take part in abortion if they do not believe in abortion. However, they should always refer you on to another doctor or nurse who will help. The General Medical Council guidance for doctors makes it clear that a doctor’s personal beliefs should not affect patient care. There is similar guidance provided by the Nursing and Midwifery Council for nurses, and by The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain for pharmacists.

In the US; New ACOG position on abortion refusal drawing fire
Anti-abortion doctors say it obliges them to become morally complicit, but the position’s supporters say personal views should not trump patients’ access to care.

In Australia: Tuesday, 27 October 2009
Victorian abortion law: overriding the conscience of doctors.

 

[ThomasToo]

That is not what these conscientious doctors think.

In the UK; Can my doctor refuse to refer me for an abortion?

No. A doctor or nurse has the right to refuse to take part in abortion if they do not believe in abortion. However, they should always refer you on to another doctor or nurse who will help. The General Medical Council guidance for doctors makes it clear that a doctor’s personal beliefs should not affect patient care. There is similar guidance provided by the Nursing and Midwifery Council for nurses, and by The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain for pharmacists.

In the US; New ACOG position on abortion refusal drawing fire
Anti-abortion doctors say it obliges them to become morally complicit, but the position’s supporters say personal views should not trump patients’ access to care.

In Australia: Tuesday, 27 October 2009
Victorian abortion law: overriding the conscience of doctors.

What if your doctor opposes prescribing birth control? What if your doctor thinks AIDS can be managed by diet and doesn’t want to prescribe anti-retrovirals (liferesearchuniversal.com/aids3.html)? At what point does a physician have an obligation to his or her patient, if not to provide, then to refer someone to somewhere he or she can find the medical treatment he or she is seeking?

‘The General Medical Council guidance for doctors makes it clear that a doctor’s personal beliefs should not affect patient care.’ I see this a a fundamental good; if a doctor doesn’t want to do his or her job (i.e. refer someone to a physician who will provide a legal medical procedure) then I think they should find a different job. This allows them to honor their conscience and their oath.

 

[cecilia97]

The Canadian House of Commons defeated a euthanasia bill the other day and many people are shouting “NOOOOOOOOOO!!!” Some people have said “my life, my choice”. I have to admit, that’s a compelling argument. I often say unnatural deaths are against human nature, but can any of you give me secular reasons to oppose euthanasia?

It can rob the family of the time they need to make peace with the loss, and it can rob the dying of the clarity that can be reached in the course of an illness. It leaves family with doubts and possible guilt over whether they did the right thing.

Ever put a dog down? Mine lhasa apso had a huge lung tumor which I saw on her x-rays. When she started coughing uncontrollably, I wanted to end her suffering immediately. I KNOW it was the right thing to do, but I still wonder if she may have recovered or lived longer. And she was JUST a dog!

 

[ThomasToo]

It can rob the family of the time they need to make peace with the loss, and it can rob the dying of the clarity that can be reached in the course of an illness. It leaves family with doubts and possible guilt over whether they did the right thing.

Ever put a dog down? Mine lhasa apso had a huge lung tumor which I saw on her x-rays. When she started coughing uncontrollably, I wanted to end her suffering immediately. I KNOW it was the right thing to do, but I still wonder if she may have recovered or lived longer. And she was JUST a dog!

I’m sorry for your loss but she couldn’t tell you that she wanted to die. Grandma can.

 

[cecilia97]

One doctor killed his newborn son because he was had Downs. No punishment because the court said he felt he was doing what was best for the child.

God in heaven, help us!..certainly some of Hitler’s henchmen had the same thoughts that they were being merciful to the Jews, the disabled, and the disturbed by this same sick logic.

 

[Thing]

What if your doctor opposes prescribing birth control? What if your doctor thinks AIDS can be managed by diet and doesn’t want to prescribe anti-retrovirals (liferesearchuniversal.com/aids3.html)? At what point does a physician have an obligation to his or her patient, if not to provide, then to refer someone to somewhere he or she can find the medical treatment he or she is seeking?

‘The General Medical Council guidance for doctors makes it clear that a doctor’s personal beliefs should not affect patient care.’ I see this a a fundamental good; if a doctor doesn’t want to do his or her job (i.e. refer someone to a physician who will provide a legal medical procedure) then I think they should find a different job. This allows them to honor their conscience and their oath.

You just said, here, that forcing a doctor to kill or help to kill her patient is against their conscience and their oath as doctors. And your solution is to get rid of doctors who follow their conscience or who keep their oath. And you say thats a good thing?

 

[ThomasToo]

You just said, here, that forcing a doctor to kill or help to kill her patient is against their conscience and their oath as doctors. And your solution is to get rid of doctors who follow their conscience or who keep their oath. And you say thats a good thing?

I can’t say anything about their conscience, if they says it says they can’t do their job then so be it. Their oath, however, means that they should either perform a legal procedure or provide a referral to a doctor who will (as the citations you gave attest). Part of that oath is that ‘a doctor’s personal beliefs should not affect patient care.’

I say it’s a good thing for doctors who think their moral values mean they shouldn’t have to do their job to get out of the medical profession.

 

[Thing]

I can’t say anything about their conscience, if they says it says they can’t do their job then so be it. Their oath, however, means that they should either perform a legal procedure or provide a referral to a doctor who will (as the citations you gave attest). Part of that oath is that ‘a doctor’s personal beliefs should not affect patient care.’

I say it’s a good thing for doctors who think their moral values mean they shouldn’t have to do their job to get out of the medical profession.

Killing their patients is not patient care, its killing people. And you did say that killing people was against their conscience as well as against the whole idea of Medicine - to heal people.

 

[ThomasToo]

Killing their patients is not patient care, its killing people. And you did say that killing people was against their conscience as well as against the whole idea of Medicine - to heal people.

I’d disagree. A patient who is on the palliative ward and despite the most aggressive pain management programs is in constant agony and is counting the moments until they starve to death ought to have their wish to be terminated honored. Further saying ‘X is not patient care, it’s X,’ is not really a valid argument; cutting off someone’s hand can be patient care even though it’s still cutting off someone’s hand.

I did not say that, I said it was against their conscience (since I cannot presume to speak for them) but I never said it was against the idea of medicine. You’re welcome to try to read that into my words but it was not my intention in that (or any other) statement.