Euthanasia

Euthanasia (from the Greek: εὐθανασία meaning "good death": εὖ, eu (well or good) + θάνατος, thanatos (death)) refers to the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering.

There are different euthanasia laws in each country. The British House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics defines euthanasia as "a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering".[1] In the Netherlands, euthanasia is understood as "termination of life by a doctor at the request of a patient".[2]

Euthanasia is categorized in different ways, which include voluntary, non-voluntary, or involuntary. Voluntary euthanasia is legal in some countries and U.S. states. Non-voluntary euthanasia is illegal in all countries. Involuntary euthanasia is usually considered murder.[3]

As of 2006, euthanasia is the most active area of research in contemporary bioethics


The idea here is that if you have a living will, should you be allowed to elect for euthanasia in certain circumstances which you deem appropriate? An example would be: If you are severely injured and suffer brain damage and can no longer function without max assistance from caregivers. Also, if you are diagnosed with Alzheimers or any other disease which would have a significant impact on your life. If you become paralized, have a severe stroke, etc are also examples.

Thoughts?

I believe a person has a right to die for any reason they like. It is their life.

The push-back people have against this idea is very similar to the "slippery slope" argument people make in gay marriage, abortion, and gun rights. Like everyone will suddenly go out and decide to kill themselves for no reason.

The reality is that in most cases, people fight to live, and our resistance to letting them decide when and how to die is based in our own selfishness -- our unwillingness to let them go. We care about our pain more than we care about the suffering of the person whose life it is. And ultimately, we don't get to tell other people what qualifies to them as a life worth living.

I believe a person should be able to elect to be euthanized, or to be provided a non-traumatic means of self-induced death, after undergoing a brief psych crisis evaluation to rule out sudden, treatable psychosis, or coercion from outside.

The terms under which a person can be euthanized if they are unable to consent should be outlined in a living will. If that isn't available, the family can make those decisions, hopefully with their loved one's wishes in mind.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

The terms under which a person can be euthanized if they are unable to consent should be outlined in a living will. If that isn't available, the family can make those decisions, hopefully with their loved one's wishes in mind.

Click to expand...

I like your perspective and I agree. However, what I've highlighted in bold is where the slope truly gets slippery. There is an issue of who gets to make the final decision, and you will always have people arguing that it is not right for anyone except nature or god to take a life, etc.

Knowledge=power said:

I like your perspective and I agree. However, what I've highlighted in bold is where the slope truly gets slippery. There is an issue of who gets to make the final decision, and you will always have people arguing that it is not right for anyone except nature or god to take a life, etc.

Click to expand...

Yes, and that is why people should have a living will.

There's not really any way to avoid this problem if they don't. There is always going to be disagreement over how to treat a person who is likely to remain non-responsive.

Failing creating a living will, I think people should be able to elect their medical proxy (whomever they like) for these situations. Because once you're there, no one can ask you what you think.

I have an ethical issue with it, as it is placing the responsibility of taking your life on the head of someone else. I have no problem with withdrawal of life support, or withholding any kind of treatment as a passive form of euthanasia, but I do have a problem with actively killing someone, even if it is their wish.

lizzie said:

I have an ethical issue with it, as it is placing the responsibility of taking your life on the head of someone else. I have no problem with withdrawal of life support, or withholding any kind of treatment as a passive form of euthanasia, but I do have a problem with actively killing someone, even if it is their wish.

Click to expand...

I think there will always be doctors willing to assist, or willing to prescribe for patient-accessible means of death. Like gay marriage and abortion, no one is forcing a given professional to do it. They can leave that to professionals who ARE willing. And there are plenty -- doctors are euthanizing patients, at their request, right now. They just have to do it in secret.

So then, the question becomes simply this: are you ok with people having different ethics than you, and acting on them?

Some people see euthanasia as a profoundly merciful act. I certainly do. Almost everyone does with their pets. But for some reason it's different when it comes to humans, and I can never figure out what that reason is.

Yes, yes and yes. When I am confinded to a bed I most certainly will never leave, and suffer uninteruptted pain all day, I will want to die.

I understand the reasons why some people are against it, but it gives them no right to dictate there wishes to me and prevent me from dieing with dignity.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

So then, the question becomes simply this: are you ok with people having different ethics than you, and acting on them?

Click to expand...

Yes, I am okay with it. It's the same reason that I am pro-choice while I personally believe abortion is killing a human, and would never consider doing so myself.

Knowledge=power said:

Euthanasia (from the Greek: εὐθανασία meaning "good death": εὖ, eu (well or good) + θάνατος, thanatos (death)) refers to the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering.

There are different euthanasia laws in each country. The British House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics defines euthanasia as "a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering".[1] In the Netherlands, euthanasia is understood as "termination of life by a doctor at the request of a patient".[2]

Euthanasia is categorized in different ways, which include voluntary, non-voluntary, or involuntary. Voluntary euthanasia is legal in some countries and U.S. states. Non-voluntary euthanasia is illegal in all countries. Involuntary euthanasia is usually considered murder.[3]

As of 2006, euthanasia is the most active area of research in contemporary bioethics


The idea here is that if you have a living will, should you be allowed to elect for euthanasia in certain circumstances which you deem appropriate? An example would be: If you are severely injured and suffer brain damage and can no longer function without max assistance from caregivers. Also, if you are diagnosed with Alzheimers or any other disease which would have a significant impact on your life. If you become paralized, have a severe stroke, etc are also examples.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

the good news is that the government cannot prevent the individual from putting himself out of misery if that is his intent

justabubba said:

the good news is that the government cannot prevent the individual from putting himself out of misery if that is his intent

Click to expand...

True, but I don't think putting people in that situation is ethical.

If someone wants to take their life, they have a few choices.

1. Not horrific, but also not very effective (OD'ing, poisoning, etc)

2. Absolutely horrifying, but effective (shooting oneself)

3. A middle ground -- still kind of horrific, but also kind of effective (bleeding out, hanging)

4. If you're lucky, and terminally ill, you can get a doctor to help you in secret.

There's a few outcomes of this, and none of them are good.

The person fails to kill themselves. This will probably result in all kinds of forced treatment for things they may or may not have (not all people who want to die are mentally ill). This will make them more unhappy, and it may also result in health problems from the failed attempt.

They succeed, but they traumatized everyone who saw the body. They could put their loved ones, or the police who found them, in therapy for the rest of their lives. It shouldn't be a trade-off between certainty of success in dying, and ruining other people's lives.

Or, a doctor helps you. Their career is on the line. They will spend every day walking on eggshells, waiting for someone to ask them why your morphine levels were so high upon your death. You could get them fired. You could end a career they spent 10 years studying for, after they had the kindness to help you. That's also not right.

But let's say you get the best case scenario: you choose a non-horrific means, and you manage to actually succeed.

Even in the best case scenario, things turn out pretty bad.

The loss is a complete shock. You leave people wondering forever if it's their fault. You leave them angry, unprepared for the loss. You never get a chance to really say good-bye. No one gets closure.

Yes, it's supposed to be about the person whose life it is, and it is, but if we can improve the grieving process for those they leave behind, we absolutely should.

And that is why we need to legalize euthanasia. Doing so will stop the horrific blood bathes that cops and families walk in on. It will stop failed attempts that result in illness and undignified treatment. It will stop shock grieving. It will stop good doctors from having their careers destroyed. It improves things for everyone involved.

justabubba said:

the good news is that the government cannot prevent the individual from putting himself out of misery if that is his intent

Click to expand...

This is not the scenario we are talking about. If you are unable to care for yourself and have life altering injuries which damage your ability to even recall that you had a will, if that will stated you would like to be humainly euthanized, you should be able to have that right. The problem lies with people who DO NOT have a will, and yet still suffer years and years of pain and do not live a life. Should a family member be allowed to make the call?

SmokeAndMirrors said:

True, but I don't think putting people in that situation is ethical.

If someone wants to take their life, they have a few choices.

1. Not horrific, but also not very effective (OD'ing, poisoning, etc)

2. Absolutely horrifying, but effective (shooting oneself)

3. A middle ground -- still kind of horrific, but also kind of effective (bleeding out, hanging)

4. If you're lucky, and terminally ill, you can get a doctor to help you in secret.

There's a few outcomes of this, and none of them are good.

The person fails to kill themselves. This will probably result in all kinds of forced treatment for things they may or may not have (not all people who want to die are mentally ill). This will make them more unhappy, and it may also result in health problems from the failed attempt.

They succeed, but they traumatized everyone who saw the body. They could put their loved ones, or the police who found them, in therapy for the rest of their lives. It shouldn't be a trade-off between certainty of success in dying, and ruining other people's lives.

Or, a doctor helps you. Their career is on the line. They will spend every day walking on eggshells, waiting for someone to ask them why your morphine levels were so high upon your death. You could get them fired. You could end a career they spent 10 years studying for, after they had the kindness to help you. That's also not right.

But let's say you get the best case scenario: you choose a non-horrific means, and you manage to actually succeed.

Even in the best case scenario, things turn out pretty bad.

The loss is a complete shock. You leave people wondering forever if it's their fault. You leave them angry, unprepared for the loss. You never get a chance to really say good-bye. No one gets closure.

Yes, it's supposed to be about the person whose life it is, and it is, but if we can improve the grieving process for those they leave behind, we absolutely should.

And that is why we need to legalize euthanasia. Doing so will stop the horrific blood bathes that cops and families walk in on. It will stop failed attempts that result in illness and undignified treatment. It will stop shock grieving. It will stop good doctors from having their careers destroyed. It improves things for everyone involved.

Click to expand...

Excellent post. One of the best I've read on this site.

The right to life is unalienable. If you ask someone to kill you, that does not absolve them of culpability for killing you in aggression... and it is aggression, because I say again, unalienable.

That's what unalienable means. Even if I say I *want* you to kill me, if you kill me, you would still violate my rights if you actually did so. And so you would and should be prosecuted for that action...



Physicians swear certain oaths, and among these is the principle of nonmaleficence. Physicians should never be in the business of killing the patients in their charge.


There is a better way. Palliation, for example, is not euthanasia. A patient that wishes to die can refuse life-sustaining care, can even refuse food and fluids, while they are kept comfortable with the use of medications. It is not possible for anyone to violate their own rights, and of course it would also violate the principle of autonomy to provide care that a patient does not want you to provide.

This solution removes any ethical problems, manages symptoms of the dying patient, and respects the rights and professional obligations of all parties.

JayDubya said:

The right to life is unalienable. If you ask someone to kill you, that does not absolve them of culpability for killing you in aggression... and it is aggression, because I say again, unalienable.

That's what unalienable means. Even if I say I *want* you to kill me, if you kill me, you would still violate my rights if you actually did so. And so you would and should be prosecuted for that action...



Physicians swear certain oaths, and among these is the principle of nonmaleficence. Physicians should never be in the business of killing the patients in their charge.


There is a better way. Palliation, for example, is not euthanasia. A patient that wishes to die can refuse life-sustaining care, can even refuse food and fluids, while they are kept comfortable with the use of medications.

Click to expand...

A right is something you can claim if you want it. It's not something that must be forced on you.

And if someone has a right to life, how do they not have a right to death? They decide to die while living, do they not? It's their last living act.

Given that people now live to very old age -- far longer than nature would ever have us living -- even without further medical treatment, people can spend months dying in slow agony.

At what point does simple mercy trump your obsession with the simple presence of life? At what point does life become so low-quality that it isn't life worth living?

Are you ok with watching someone you love beg to die? Because some people do, in those months of agony. That is why doctors risk their careers to help send them off.

We live unnaturally long lives, and we often suffer unnaturally long deaths.

P.S. Do you feel this way about pets as well?

The state of OR has it right. If you are dying, they can give you a prescription you can use to painlessly end your life.

As for other people making the call, you would have to find someone willing to take responsibility who was not one of your principal beneficiaries.

Certainly, it should be an option that is respected.

JayDubya said:

The right to life is unalienable. If you ask someone to kill you, that does not absolve them of culpability for killing you in aggression... and it is aggression, because I say again, unalienable.

That's what unalienable means. Even if I say I *want* you to kill me, if you kill me, you would still violate my rights if you actually did so. And so you would and should be prosecuted for that action...



Physicians swear certain oaths, and among these is the principle of nonmaleficence. Physicians should never be in the business of killing the patients in their charge.


There is a better way. Palliation, for example, is not euthanasia. A patient that wishes to die can refuse life-sustaining care, can even refuse food and fluids, while they are kept comfortable with the use of medications. It is not possible for anyone to violate their own rights, and of course it would also violate the principle of autonomy to provide care that a patient does not want you to provide.

This solution removes any ethical problems, manages symptoms of the dying patient, and respects the rights and professional obligations of all parties.

Click to expand...

When someone asks to be euthanized, either verbally while dying or by living will, they have GIVEN UP the right to life. The person doing the euthanizing would not be violating anything. They would be ending suffering in most cases, or honoring the wishes of a loved one.

Also, if you are severely brain injured and cannot care for yourself whatsoever, if you had it in your living will that if you ever ended up in this condition you would wish to be euthanized, you should have that right. This is one example of a scenario in which the person isn't dying, but is suffering or not living in a state they wish to live in.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

A right is something you can claim if you want it. It's not something that must be forced on you.

Click to expand...

Rights are natural and unalienable. You can't ask someone else to violate them for you. Only after due process in a court of law can one entity, the justice system, take certain things from you as a legal consequence of convicted wrongdoing.

And if someone has a right to life, how do they not have a right to death? They decide to die while living, do they not? It's their last living act.

Click to expand...

I absolutely think that people have a right to kill themselves or to refuse life-saving treatment. If that is all we are talking about here, then that's fine. But I don't think it is...

Given that people now live to very old age -- far longer than nature would ever have us living -- even without further medical treatment, people can spend months dying in slow agony.

Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be that way with palliation.

At what point does simple mercy trump your obsession with the simple presence of life? At what point does life become so low-quality that it isn't life worth living?

Click to expand...

Preserving quality of life over quantity of life is one of the central tenets of palliative care. You do your best to manage symptoms and keep the patient free of pain and discomfort.

I don't personally think abandoning nonmaleficence to directly and deliberately cause death is very merciful. Helping to alleviate that pain remains so.

P.S. Do you feel this way about pets as well?

Click to expand...

Pets are different. Pets don't have rights to violate. I have never been in the situation where euthanizing a pet has been advised. My dog is young and healthy at the moment. Personally, I do not think I would want to have my dog killed like that. Personally, and this is just personally, I think I would probably feel guilty and terrible if that happened. I don't want to be the one responsible for that sort of thing. I don't know. I've never been in that situation and don't want to be.

This is one area in which I have no strong opinions as it applies to what other people do. It's ultimately each owner's business if they want to do that, and it's not my place to say otherwise.

Knowledge=power said:

When someone asks to be euthanized, either verbally while dying or by living will, they have GIVEN UP the right to life.

Click to expand...

You can't give it up. It's unalienable.

By living will you can, however, ask for things like a DNR. You can refuse treatment. That's basic medical ethics, patient autonomy. You can make your wishes for care quite clear well before any such negative event occurs. And you should. Because medical professionals are obliged to assume you want life-saving care if you don't say otherwise... and there comes a point where some folks can't say otherwise, with some fairly heartwrenching results.

specklebang said:

The state of OR has it right. If you are dying, they can give you a prescription you can use to painlessly end your life.

Click to expand...

That is something that I have no problem with, as it is essentially a suicide, just like a depressive taking an entire bottle of pills. It's the placement of responsibility on another person to kill you that I have problems with.

JayDubya said:

Rights are natural and unalienable. You can't ask someone else to violate them for you. Only after due process in a court of law can one entity, the justice system, take certain things from you as a legal consequence of convicted wrongdoing.

Click to expand...

If you ask someone to do it, how are they violating anything? Again, rights are something you can claim IF YOU WANT. But if you wish to surrender that right, that is within your power.

Explain to me how ASKING to die, and someone obeying, is a violation of the right to life.

If euthanasia were legal under X conditions, then as long as X conditions are followed, there has been no violation of your rights in the eyes of the law.

I absolutely think that people have a right to kill themselves or to refuse life-saving treatment. If that is all we are talking about here, then that's fine. But I don't think it is...

Click to expand...

I'm flexible. I am talking about both assisted suicide, and also patient-directed suicide (prescribing a medication that will induce death with a certain dose). In the latter case, it is the patient's decision whether or not they take it.

A person can also kill themselves if you sell them a gun. Does that mean they should not be sold guns?

The difference with the medication is that it gives the person the ability to kill themselves without causing so much trauma to police and loved ones. And that is highly valuable.

Not only is it less horrific, but they get to actually say good-bye.

It doesn't have to be that way with palliation.

Click to expand...

Depends on the condition. Sometimes it does.

Preserving quality of life over quantity of life is one of the central tenets of palliative care. You do your best to manage symptoms and keep the patient free of pain and discomfort.

I don't personally think abandoning nonmaleficence to directly and deliberately cause death is very merciful. Helping to alleviate that pain remains so.

Click to expand...

But that isn't yours to decide. That is the patient's to decide. If they feel it is merciful, then it is.

Pets are different. Pets don't have rights to violate. I have never been in the situation where euthanize a pet has been advised. My dog is young and healthy at the moment. Personally, I do not think I would want to have my dog killed. But ultimately, I don't think it relates very well to the above.

Click to expand...

How are pets different?

I would argue they do have rights, when they are under human care. They have rights to food, shelter, and medical treatment. The law agrees with me. That is why your animals can be taken from you if you abuse or neglect them.

Animals do have needs and feelings just like people do. Their emotions may not be as complex as ours, but they do have them, and they do deserve respect. And if you don't believe that, I don't know why you have a pet.

I have been in that situation very recently. Fortunately, we were able to find out my cat had a very rare illness which we could treat and improve her life. But I had decided that if this last-ditch diagnostic attempt was unsuccessful, I would euthanize her.

It was an incredibly painful mental process to go through, and she is 15 years old, so I'm sure I'll have to consider it again at some point within the next 6 months to a couple years, depending on how much difference treatment makes.

But I never doubted that it was right, if no improvement on her condition could be made. She has only lived this long -- this unnaturally long -- because I have sheltered her and given her medical care. She would never suffer like this in the wild. Never. She'd be long gone by now.

I owe it to her to end her life if she is suffering and there is no hope for improvement. I made that promise, whether I realized it or not, the very first time I gave her medical treatment. If I choose to unnaturally extend her life, I must accept the responsibility for saving her from an unnaturally agonizing death.

Going through that process did nothing but make my conviction stronger. I hope she passes peacefully in her sleep -- I hope that more than I can even express. But if she does not, I have to care about her enough to help her.

lizzie said:

That is something that I have no problem with, as it is essentially a suicide, just like a depressive taking an entire bottle of pills. It's the placement of responsibility on another person to kill you that I have problems with.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I do and I don't have a problem with their methodology... the problem I have is more with the entire system of prescriptions.

In this case, yeah, someone is buying something they want to buy and consuming it, with consequences for themselves that they accept, with full and informed consent.



Which is why I say we need to be clear in what it is we're talking about. Hell, I've seen some people call not giving a patient treatment they explicitly don't want "euthanasia."

When that's just basic respect for patient autonomy...

JayDubya said:

Yeah, I do and I don't have a problem with their methodology... the problem I have is more with the entire system of prescriptions.

In this case, yeah, someone is buying something they want to buy and consuming it, with consequences for themselves that they accept, with full and informed consent.

Which is why I say we need to be clear in what it is we're talking about. Hell, I've seen some people call not giving a patient treatment they explicitly don't want "euthanasia."

When that's just basic respect for patient autonomy...

Click to expand...

Then this is quite simple. Even people in very advanced stages of disease can swallow a pill or increase their own morphine drip to a given level. And you would be ok with that?

SmokeAndMirrors said:

If you ask someone to do it, how are they violating anything? Again, rights are something you can claim IF YOU WANT. But if you wish to surrender that right, that is within your power.

Click to expand...

No, you cannot surrender an unalienable right.

Here's another example: The human right to liberty. I cannot legally become someone's slave, even through my own voluntary action, nor through their coercion. I can work for them for free if I want, but at any point I can end that association....

Explain to me how ASKING to die, and someone obeying, is a violation of the right to life.

Click to expand...

That is what a right to life explicitly means; someone killing you in aggression has violated it.

If euthanasia were legal under X conditions, then as long as X conditions are followed, there has been no violation of your rights in the eyes of the law.

Click to expand...

As I am sure you are aware, the state is perfectly capable of making laws that violate our rights... even if we plainly don't agree on what those rights are or even how rights work.

I would say that... if it became legal for you to pay a doctor to kill you, the doctor would still be violating your rights, he just wouldn't suffer legal consequences for it.

But he should... because he has violated your rights.

I'm flexible. I am talking about both assisted suicide, and also patient-directed suicide (prescribing a medication that will induce death with a certain dose). In the latter case, it is the patient's decision whether or not they take it.

A person can also kill themselves if you sell them a gun. Does that mean they should not be sold guns?

Click to expand...

Well, see above on that front. If you want to buy something for yourself and use it on yourself knowing full well that it will kill you, sure, I think that's your prerogative.

Sure, I think you have the right to kill yourself. But that is substantively different from having someone else kill you.

Depends on the condition. Sometimes it does.

Click to expand...

Eh... With palliation, you can keep increasing the dose until the symptom is managed, and you can generally do so without regard for side effects because comfort / quality of life is paramount.

If palliation at home is not possible, there are inpatient palliative units, and they have some pretty strong stuff.

But that isn't yours to decide. That is the patient's to decide. If they feel it is merciful, then it is.

Click to expand...

Some patient may well regard being killed to be a mercy... but that doesn't change anything regarding the professional obligation of HCP. That would not hold up in court...

* * *

How are pets different?

Click to expand...

By definition. A pet is owned property, not a sapient lifeform. There's not really the same ethical consequences associated with actions like this when talking about pets. I don't see a basis for having that discussion.

Animals do have needs and feelings just like people do. Their emotions may not be as complex as ours, but they do have them, and they do deserve respect. And if you don't believe that, I don't know why you have a pet.

Click to expand...

Well, I treat my pet well and I enjoy his company. So, I have him... because I like having him? I do not understand what you mean by respecting his emotions, especially in context of the above. So for example, when he's sad - and yes he can be emotional - sure, I'll try to cheer him up, seems like a fair trade since he does the same for me so often.

I have been in that situation very recently. Fortunately, we were able to find out my cat had a very rare illness which we could treat and improve her life. But I had decided that if this last-ditch diagnostic attempt was unsuccessful, I would euthanize her.

It was an incredibly painful mental process to go through, and she is 15 years old, so I'm sure I'll have to consider it again at some point within the next 6 months to a few years, depending on how much difference treatment makes.

But I never doubted that it was right, if no improvement on her condition could be made. She has only lived this long -- this unnaturally long -- because I have sheltered her and given her medical care. She would never suffer like this in the wild. Never. She'd be long gone by now.

I owe it to her to end her life if she is suffering and there is no hope for improvement. I made that promise, whether I realized it or not, the very first time I gave her medical treatment. If I choose to unnaturally extend her life, I must accept the responsibility for saving her from an unnaturally agonizing death.

Going through that process did nothing but make my conviction stronger. I hope she passes peacefully in her sleep -- I hope that more than I can even express. But if she does not, I have to care about her enough to help her.

Click to expand...

Yeah... like I said above - and just so I'm clear this is without irony or scorn or any hidden meaning, just because I know we often passionately disagree, just straight up:

"I don't know. I've never been in that situation and don't want to be. This is one area in which I have no strong opinions as it applies to what other people do."

JayDubya said:

No, you cannot surrender an unalienable right.

Here's another example: The human right to liberty. I cannot legally become someone's slave, even through my own voluntary action, nor through their coercion. I can work for them for free if I want, but at any point I can end that association....

Click to expand...

The reason for that is because slavery is naturally unwilling. So if you choose to do it, it is called volunteering. This implies consent.

Slavery is mutually exclusive with rights, because it is by nature something you don't choose.

However, if you CHOOSE to die, that is consistent with your right to life, regardless of who performs it.

That is what a right to life explicitly means; someone killing you in aggression has violated it.

Click to expand...

Humane euthanasia is hardly what I'd call aggressive. You ask them to do it. You submit to having an injection, or whatever it may be. You die quietly and comfortably. That is not aggressive.

As I am sure you are aware, the state is perfectly capable of making laws that violate our rights. If it became legal for you to pay a doctor to kill you, the doctor would still be violating your rights, he just wouldn't suffer legal consequences for it.

But he should... because he has violated your rights.

Click to expand...

Yes, but you explicitly said that the law can choose under what conditions your rights can be taken from you. but instead of a punishment, this would be an allowance. I was responding to your statement, which I assume was there to make a point.

Well, see above on that front. If you want to buy something for yourself and use it on yourself knowing full well that it will kill you, sure, I think that's your prerogative. Sure, I think you have the right to kill yourself. But that is substantively different from having someone else kill you.

Click to expand...

I don't see it as being very different. In a case where a person is physically unable to do it, the assistant is just an extension of their own hand -- what it would do if it were able.

With palliation, you can keep increasing the dose until the symptom is managed, and you can generally do so without regard for side effects because comfort / quality of life is paramount.

If palliation at home is not possible, there are inpatient palliative units.

Click to expand...

There are some diseases where no amount of help will get rid of the pain, short of a dose that induces death.

Some patient may well regard being killed to be a mercy... but that doesn't change anything regarding the professional obligation of HCP. That would not hold up in court...

Click to expand...

I think it is perfectly legitimate to argue that sometimes continuing to palliate violates "doing no harm," and that death would be the more compassionate option if the patient wishes it.

By definition. A pet is owned property, not a sapient lifeform. There's not really the same ethical consequences associated with actions like this when talking about pets. I don't see a basis for having that discussion.

Click to expand...

I think it's a travesty that they are viewed that way legally, but they DO have rights. Again, your animals can be taken from you, and you can be banned from acquiring more if you violate those rights.

If you want to beat up your car, you can do that. But you cannot do that to an animal.

Explain to me how it is different. Explain to me how there are not the same ethical considerations. Animals can suffer, and they do have feelings. This is provable.

Well, I treat my pet well and I enjoy his company. So, I have him... because I like having him? I do not understand what you mean by respecting his emotions, especially in context of the above. So for example, when he's sad - and yes he can be emotional - sure, I'll try to cheer him up, seems like a fair trade since he does the same for me so often.

Click to expand...

By trying to cheer him up, you are respecting his emotions. You have just explained it to yourself.

You are recognizing them as having meaning to him, and attempting to alleviate them when they are negative.

Yeah... like I said above, and just so I'm clear this is without irony or scorn or any hidden meaning, just because I know we often passionately disagree, just straight up:

"I don't know. I've never been in that situation and don't want to be. This is one area in which I have no strong opinions as it applies to what other people do."

Click to expand...

Fair enough. And I hope you never are. It's very difficult, regardless of what you choose to do. I hope for everyone -- human or not -- peaceful, natural passings.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

The reason for that is because slavery is naturally unwilling. So if you choose to do it, it is called volunteering. This implies consent.

Click to expand...

The point being that you cannot sign a contract that would make you the property of someone else, even if you wanted to.

And while yes, such a contract would be illegal under the 13th Amendment, the legal philosophy I subscribe to, that of natural rights, the philosophy of many of the Founding Fathers, even something like the 13th Amendment, a bit of legal text directly enshrined into the law of the land, is ultimately just the government's way of reinforcing a right you already had... which is why we make governments in the first place.

Humane euthanasia is hardly what I'd call aggressive. You ask them to do it. You submit to having an injection, or whatever it may be. You die quietly and comfortably. That is not aggressive.

Click to expand...

But it is. You're describing initiating force against someone else, in violation of their rights. That is aggression.

Yes, but you explicitly said that the law can choose under what conditions your rights can be taken from you. but instead of a punishment, this would be an allowance. I was responding to your statement, which I assume was there to make a point.

Click to expand...

But it can't work that way. You can't have an allowance to violate the rights of others, or they don't actually have that right... or at least, the state wouldn't really be protecting that right.

I don't see it as being very different. In a case where a person is physically unable to do it, the assistant is just an extension of their own hand -- what it would do if it were able.

Click to expand...

If it were able that hand should be allowed to do what the owner of that hand wanted it to do to the body it was a part of... but since it is not, no, I do not think we should relegate professionals with oaths to avoid harm to being mere prosthetics.

There are some diseases where no amount of help will get rid of the pain, short of a dose that induces death.

Click to expand...

With palliation you do keep giving medicine to control uncomfortable symptoms... and sometimes this can hasten death... but the point is always to manage that symptom.

I don't know, perhaps that seems too fine a point to you, but to me, it makes a very large difference.

I think it is perfectly legitimate to argue that sometimes continuing to palliate violates "doing no harm," and that death would be the more compassionate option if the patient wishes it.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Doing all you can to alleviate uncomfortable symptoms of disease could never constitute "harm."