Euthanasia and your people

[jayswin]

We've discussed it before, but I saw this article and thought it was pretty powerful. Gillian Bennett took her own life and used it to send a message to the Canadian government with her website deadatnoon.com

It wasn't bitter, it wasn't angry, it was very matter of fact and to the point, but powerful, non-the-less. It's about time we pass legislation to legalize doctor assisted euthanasia, imo.

Here's the article, and a few quotes.

A B.C. woman who had feared losing herself completely to dementia killed herself Monday after publicly posting a goodbye letter online asking Canada to allow doctor-assisted suicide

http://m.calgarysun.com/2014/08/21/b...illing-herself

http://www.deadatnoon.com/

"I will take my life today around noon. It is time. Dementia is taking its toll and I have nearly lost myself. I have nearly lost me,"

"I can live or vegetate for perhaps 10 years in hospital at Canada's expense, costing anywhere from $50,000 to $75,000 per year. That is only the beginning of the damage. Nurses, who thought they were embarked on a career that had great meaning, find themselves perpetually changing my diapers and reporting on the physical changes of an empty husk. It is ludicrous, wasteful and unfair."

[GGG]

If she was able to take her own life why do we need a doctor to asist?

Didnt read the article though so it might answer it.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by GGG

If she was able to take her own life why do we need a doctor to asist?

Didnt read the article though so it might answer it.

She took her life as dementia was taking over body, she likely wouldn't be able to once it fully set it, she's just be existing and knowing nothing for years. Plus, the point of doctor assisted suicide is to allow people with terminal illness to die with dignity.

So basically a senior citizen doesn't have to toss a rope around a bar or attempt to overdose on medication and have their family find them like that. Instead, this will allow their life to end with dignity at the hospital.

[Oil Stain]

I'm in favour of it.

I'd want some kind of limitations on it though. Patient needs to be 60+ with progressive mental/physical diseases, etc, etc.

I wouldn't really be in favou of allowing an otherwise healthy 30 year old go out because of depression.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

I'm in favour of it.

I'd want some kind of limitations on it though. Patient needs to be 60+ with progressive mental/physical diseases, etc, etc.

I wouldn't really be in favou of allowing an otherwise healthy 30 year old go out because of depression.

That's moot, there's no way that would ever be allowed in any form of legislation in Canada. You seriously think the government would allow a depressed 30 year old to go to a doctor and get him to kill him? C'mon.

[doctajones428]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

I'm in favour of it.

I'd want some kind of limitations on it though. Patient needs to be 60+ with progressive mental/physical diseases, etc, etc.

I wouldn't really be in favou of allowing an otherwise healthy 30 year old go out because of depression.

What if someone under 60 has a progressive mental or physical disease?

[Dion]

Derek Miedema: Be wary of assisted dying

Seeing the slippery slope isn’t terribly hard either. The situation on the ground in Belgium (which legalized euthanasia is 2002) and the Netherlands (which has a long history of access to euthanasia, even before legalization in 2001) points to a different reality than the one Dr. Belchetz describes.

In Belgium, like the Netherlands, euthanasia started with terminally ill people, then it was allowed for the mentally ill. Now, even though the law itself hasn’t changed, anyone with unbearable physical or psychological suffering can be killed this way.

Twin deaf brothers who were going blind found a doctor who would kill them. A depressed mother was killed (her son found out when asked to collect her things from the morgue).

If society agrees that all suffering (physical and psychological) is bad and death is a potential solution, it will be next to impossible to limit euthanasia or assisted suicide to terminally ill patients. If euthanasia is good for them, why not for those who are mentally ill? If mental illness, why not dementia? If adults, why not children?

Unbearable suffering exists in this world. I, for one, will not deny this, having watched my own father die of ALS. But unbearable suffering ought to be met with treatment and care to relieve that suffering, not a needle to kill the patient. The offer of death as treatment would put pressure on vulnerable, sick and elderly people to end their lives.

This is why many seniors and people with disabilities feel that legalized assisted suicide would put them at risk. If doctors decide that such people are better off dead, doctors may interpret their cries for help as a request for death. Legalizing assisted suicide or euthanasia would give them the go-ahead.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...ssisted-dying/

[pylon]

You owe it to yourself, and to Gillian Bennett to take the 10 minutes to read all 5 pages of her little website.

Such a tiny footprint on the internet, with such a immensely important message.

RIP Gillian.

[#-3]

I think Derek Zoolander should build a tiny school for the tiny youth in Asia. That will solve this problem.


But I'm against it for myself, I won't remember the suffering when I am gone, so drag me along forever if you can.

But if both the person and the family agree, there is a point where it is just wrong to stop them. To me it is important that the family be in agreement and heavily involved in the choice. They are the ones the will have to continue on afterwards.

All of that said, I think it should be a highly specialized field of medicine if it happens. To ask over stressed health care works to add a task they are not morally comfortable with is wrong.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by doctajones428

What if someone under 60 has a progressive mental or physical disease?

By all means kill them too. If I became a quadriplegic tomorrow I would be tempted to check out.

I agree with Dion that it could become quite sticky where to draw the line on what is an acceptable reason for assisted suicide.

You'd need a pretty robust vetting system in place to ensure that such an action is not easily undertaken IMO.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

By all means kill them too. If I became a quadriplegic tomorrow I would be tempted to check out.

I agree with Dion that it could become quite sticky where to draw the line on what is an acceptable reason for assisted suicide.

You'd need a pretty robust vetting system in place to ensure that such an action is not easily undertaken IMO.

My worry is public opinion and how it can change over time. It's happening in Belgium and in the Netherlands where public opinion is forcing govt officials to change the laws regarding assisted suicide.

[evman150]

This is an incredibly complex issue that does not admit of easy answers.

I used to be a firm believer in the "autonomy/mercy" viewpoint. Now, not so much. The experience in the Netherlands is pretty scary. Though of course if you ask them it's all fine and dandy. I'm currently finishing up my master's thesis on the Groningen Protocol, which is a set of guidelines in the Netherlands for euthanizing newborns with significant, but not necessarily fatal, disabilities.

The protocol itself is a horrible step down the slippery slope of euthanasia.

I'll try and write more later when I have more time.

[Chill Cosby]

I'm not sure I'd define what is going on in the Netherlands as "scary" but rather "humane" and "independently just." The reason the Dutch would say things are "fine" is because they are.

If you're enduring a debilitating level of suffering without hope for reprieve, you should absolutely be able to exercise the option of assisted suicide. It should not be dependent on age, but rather on health, as determined by a team of individuals. Age is irrelevant.

What evman is alluding to with his studies, is that even toddlers can be saved from a life of suffering if it is medically deemed to be their future and the parents specifically request that. Is it controversial? Absolutely. Can you agree with voluntary Euthanasia and disagree with the Groningen Protocol? Of course.
But neither this, nor the actual laws in the Netherlands regarding assisted suicide, are done in any casual way. It takes teams of professionals, serious paperwork and "box checking" as it were before any request is granted, and is followed by a full report with all necessary evidence provided to ensure the procedures are followed properly.

Honestly, anytime something controversial comes up people seem to use the phrase "slippery slope" when they lack justifiable reasoning for why one ought to disagree with something. It's a fallacious argument, and one that, IMO, hurts the point to which it is attached.

I would like to see some honest, fact supported arguments against Euthanasia that don't involve the slippery slope fallacy, if at all possible. It's going quite well in the Netherlands. These are not depressed people, or people who are just tired of living, these are people (primarily, about 80%) with terminal cancer. These are also people with nervous system disorders, rapidly failing hearts, diseases like ALS that WILL kill them, often slowly and not without incredible suffering.

Perhaps if one got terminal cancer, they'd be comfortable with it taking their life. Would I want to endure that? I'm not so sure. At very least I'd like the legal option not to. That's my two cents.

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by #-3

To me it is important that the family be in agreement and heavily involved in the choice.

Involve family if the individual wishes them to be involved. But it should be each person's choice, not decided by a majority vote of family.

[WilsonFourTwo]

I'm all for it as long as there are some strict guidelines and/or restrictions (which is where I think the big arguement is...)

When my father was dying of pancreatic cancer, I would have loved to see him get to end it all. The first few months were tough on him but he continued living a good life and was involved with the family (etc).

Those last couple months were brutal though. He was spent, couldn't even get out of bed, didn't want to be here, and felt guilty that so many people were put out having to take care of him (which was admittedly a joy and a curse).

My final memory of my father is of him laying in a hospice bed, unable to communicate, dying. I'm incredibly grateful for the 25 years I had with him, but frankly, am not at all grateful for the final 6-10 weeks.

In the end, I would much rather have held my Dad's hand and exchanged a final 'I love you' as he drifted off forever than spend the final few weeks in a hospice starring at him and unable to communicate at all. Tough thing to say, but its the honest truth and something I know my Dad would entirely agree with. And we are talking about a man that LOVED life.

Damn, this stuff is complex though....

[Wastedyouth]

What do ya mean "your people"???

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

I would like to see some honest, fact supported arguments against Euthanasia that don't involve the slippery slope fallacy, if at all possible. It's going quite well in the Netherlands. These are not depressed people, or people who are just tired of living, these are people (primarily, about 80%) with terminal cancer. These are also people with nervous system disorders, rapidly failing hearts, diseases like ALS that WILL kill them, often slowly and not without incredible suffering.

Physicians Who Have Researched Euthanasia Speak Out

Herbert Hendin, MD, Executive Director of the American Suicide Foundation and Professor of Psychiatry at New York Medical College has written the following in his authoritative analysis of euthanasia in the Netherlands: Seduced By Death - Doctors, Patients and the Dutch Cure:

"The doctors who help set Dutch euthanasia policies are aware that euthanasia is basically out of control in the Netherlands. They admitted this to me privately. Yet in their public statements and articles they maintain there are no serious problems...." p. 14

"The experience of the Dutch people makes it clear that legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia is not the answer to the problems of people who are terminally ill. The Netherlands has moved from assisted suicide to euthanasia, from euthanasia for people who are terminally ill to euthanasia for those who are chronically ill, from euthanasia for physical illneses to euthanasai for psychological distress, and from voluntary euthanasia to involuntary euthanasia (called "termination of the patient without explicit request"). The Dutch government's own commissioned research has documented that in more than one thousand cases a year, doctors actively cause or hasten death without the patient's request." p. 23

"Virtually every guideline established by the Dutch to regulate euthanasia has been modified or violated with impunity." [emphasis added] p. 23

"In the selling of assisted suicide and euthanasia, words like "empowerment" and "dignity" are associated only with the choice for dying. But who is being empowered? The more one knows about individual cases, the more apparent it becomes that needs other than those of the patient often prevail. Empowerment flows toward the relatives, the doctor who offers a speedy way out if he cannot offer a cure, or the activists who have found in death a cause the gives meaning to their own lives. The patient, who may have asked to die in the hope of receiving emotional reasusurance that all around her want her to live, may find that like Louise she has set in motion a process whose momentum she cannot control. p. 43-44

"Euthanasia advocates are arguing that if there are ten cases in which euthanasia might be appropriate, we should legalize a practice that may wrongly kill thousands." p. 44

" The alarming statistics in the Remmelink Report indicate that in thousands of cases, decisions that might or were intended to end a fully competent patient's life were made without consulting the patient." p. 77

"The Dutch seem reluctant to acknowledge that the doctor's role in euthanasia is more than that of a neutral observer responding to a patient's needs. This is particularly evident when families pressure patients to request euthanasia .... more requests for euthanasia came from families than from patients themselves." [emphasis added] p. 93

http://www.hospicepatients.org/euth-experts-speak.html

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by Dion

Physicians Who Have Researched Euthanasia Speak Out


http://www.hospicepatients.org/euth-experts-speak.html

A few concerns:
That site is an anti-euthanasia propaganda site, with the express intent of ushering more people into hospice, this increasing the job security of the people it represents. Biased, to be sure, and I'll tell you why that's a problem (because we all have bias, so it's not so much a problem in itself).

Of the "Physicians who spoke out", the studies were published in the following years:
Carlos Gomez, MD, Ph.D / Regulating Death - Euthanasia and the case of the Netherlands Published 1991
Herbert Hendon, MD / Seduced by Death Published 1997

So, if you could, would you be able to tell me how two studies, published 17 and 24 years ago, can accurately comment on the effectiveness and current state of Euthanasia in the Netherlands, which is now under the strict watch of the law and a full set of regulations and guidelines which MUST be adhered to, a law which was put into practice in 2001, a full 4 years after the most recent study you quoted?

A study published in 1997 (let alone the one from 1991), when Euthanasia was not legal and was not under strict regulation, is totally irrelevant to the current state of legal Euthanasia. It should have been obvious based on how bluntly both studies contradicted the actual law or any recent statistics on the matter.

[Dion]

too personal

[Thor]

My Humanist group is bringing in speakers this next year to help us get this conversation going in Iceland, the support for it is quite high and we need to get it on the political landscape to find will and a way to finally tackle this which I believe is inevitable in a modern society.

I'll tell you my story, my father who has Alzheimer's is now at a point where by his often repeated requests he would have wanted to be gone. He feared losing his mind, and by his standards for what he would have considered "time to go" passed about 2 years ago.

I lost my mother to cancer in 96 and it was devastating for the family, but a positive of that is our father became so close to all of us, he was before always the stoic strong father type who rarely shared his feelings, that changed after mom passed away and we all love him desperately. We siblings talked about this not too long ago that we all knew his wishes about not wanting to be wasting away when it reached a certain point, and as painful as it would be to not have him here, its also very tough to see him fading away and losing himself.

At this point it almost feels selfish for us to have him still here, because he's not the father we had all our lives, and every visit to him it eats away at us because we know this is not how he wanted to end his twilight years.

The fact that there is nothing we can do, other than commit a crime to grant his wish is very sad.

But of course, I totally understand the hesitations, scenarios keep popping up about people that should not use euthanasia for a host of minor reasons, I get that, but while people try to stop or slow down this inevitable legislation people who are truly suffering continue to suffer needlessly. That's wrong, we have to be adults about this and tackle this issue head on with safeguards and a process in place that assures we do this right.