Euthanasia and your people

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by evman150

I find this parallel offensive. Euthanasia and gay marriage have nothing at all to do with each other, and to lump them together is to diminish heavily the well-reasoned arguments against euthanasia.



There are no reasons to outlaw gay marriage outside of religious hatred and ignorance.



There are a number of reasons to be wary of euthanasia, all of which have nothing to do with religion.



Euthanasia crucially relies on the goodness of people as one of its safeguards. Unfortunately, while most people are good, many are not. One argument against euthanasia, for example, is doctor-caregiver collusion. The family wants the sick person in question's money, and makes a thinly veiled suggestion to the doctor. Don't think this happens? Think again. Also, many people choose euthanasia themselves because they think they are a burden on their family. Is this a good reason? There are zero safeguards against this.



It's wrong to think, just because you are a good person, that everyone else is a good person. It's not the case. Legislation based around the goodness of people's hearts is destined to fail. The worst part is you will likely never know it fails, since the industry is incredibly hush-hush.



And if you think the slippery slope argument is bunk, then what is the Groningen protocol (neonatal euthanasia)? If not three steps down the slippery slope, then what is it? Look at three of the requirements of regular Dutch euthanasia:



1. the patient's request has to be voluntary - whoops!

2. the patient has to understand his/her situation fully - nope!

3. the patient has to be 12+ - not even close!



It took less than 20 years for these "strict" criteria to be obliterated by the Dutch medical authority. What's coming 20 years from now?

Let's not get too carried away with the red herring, shall we? This conversation isn't about gay marriage, but the comparison to the usual supporters and their use of the "slippery slope" fallacy is valid, that's what Thor was stating.

The thing that I'm not sure a lot of people are aware of, is that Euthanasia happens regardless of the law. It existed in the Netherlands, and it even exists in Canada (as shown by a couple of links here, for starters). Legalising Euthanasia allowed the Netherlands to put safeguards and regulations in place that must be followed, in order to ensure that if it was going to be done it was going to be done properly. Much like the legalisation of marijuana, or prostitution, or even abortion, many think that it suddenly leads to everyone doing it, or that it isn't happening in excess already. It is, but the goal of legalisation is to regulate these things, instead of keep them hidden in some back-door procedure.

Your "number of reasons" that Euthanasia is bad (family suggesting Euthanasia to the doctor, someone requesting it simply because they're a burden) doesn't line up with reality, and that seems to be the case with a lot of arguments against Euthanasia. A lot of made-up what-ifs and flourishes of the imagination. It's like saying abortion shouldn't be legal because a doctor might not think the girl is a good person, so he is going to give her an abortion. It's pure fantasy, and even if it were true, would be 1 in a million.

All I'm asking anyone do is look at the reality of the situation. Look at how it ACTUALLY helps people. Look at it's ACTUAL problems. Debating something on the basis of a slippery slope fallacy or fantasy situations is a completely useless exercise when you've got two countries that have had it legalised for over a decade. It's like having two in-depth case studies to make your scientific argument upon. There are REAL problems, so if you're going to focus on Euthanasia then focus on those, not inventions.

As far as your defence of the slippery slope using the Groningen Protocol, a couple things you should know before you use it as a crutch:
1. It's not legal. So much so that Doctors who perform Euthanasia on a newborn have their day in court. Under the Groningen Protocol they are usually found not-guilty due to the safe checks of the procedure itself.
2. It concerns newborns without the ability to live off of life support. In Canada and USA, parents can make the decision to remove their children from life support and allow them to die naturally. This happens often, sadly. The sole difference between this scenario and the Groningen Protocol is that one speeds up the death after life support is removed.
3. This protocol was written 3 years after the legalisation of Euthanasia, not 20. It's not some slippery slope that Euthanasia has led to. The Groningen Protocol has been around for more than a decade itself and is still not legal. Doesn't seem like much of a slippery slope, does it?

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by evman150

When you say someone has a right to die in the absence of something being clinically wrong, you seem to be implying that a doctor should have the ability to kill a patient (with their permission) if that patient is unhappy.



Euthanasia is not just about patients, it's about doctors too. You can't ask a doctor to kill an unhappy, but healthy patient. The doctor then has to live with the fact he killed a healthy person. Having "permission" is nowhere near good enough.



The first realization people have to make in this debate is that it's much more complicated than everyone realizes. This debate is arguably even more complex than abortion, though perhaps less controversial.

As well, everyone knows it's complicated. It makes it more complicated when detractors don't use actual evidence in their attack on Euthanasia.

In the Netherlands, doctors cannot kill someone without a severe medical issue.

As well, doctors can refuse to perform Euthanasia under their own moral grounds, if they choose.

I don't believe Belgium or Netherlands force doctors to Euthanise upon request, so why even bring it up?

[Nyah]

I believe it was in response to my poorly worded opinion that everyone has the right to die via doctor assisted suicide. He thought I meant doctors would be forced to kill healthy patients that wanted to die, which is not what I meant at all. I'm not as good at articulating my point as you, CC

[evman150]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

As far as your defence of the slippery slope using the Groningen Protocol, a couple things you should know before you use it as a crutch:
1. It's not legal. So much so that Doctors who perform Euthanasia on a newborn have their day in court. Under the Groningen Protocol they are usually found not-guilty due to the safe checks of the procedure itself.
2. It concerns newborns without the ability to live off of life support. In Canada and USA, parents can make the decision to remove their children from life support and allow them to die naturally. This happens often, sadly. The sole difference between this scenario and the Groningen Protocol is that one speeds up the death after life support is removed.
3. This protocol was written 3 years after the legalisation of Euthanasia, not 20. It's not some slippery slope that Euthanasia has led to. The Groningen Protocol has been around for more than a decade itself and is still not legal. Doesn't seem like much of a slippery slope, does it?

There's lots to respond to, but I wanted to respond to this first.

1. I'm aware of the legal status of the protocol. It's de facto legal, however they must go through a rubber stamping process. Any example that wouldn't be rubber stamped isn't reported! - less than 20% of cases are reported.

2. This is patently false.

"Finally, there are infants with a hopeless prognosis who experience what parents and medical experts deem to be unbearable suffering. Although it is difficult to define in the abstract, this group includes patients who are not dependent on intensive medical treatment but for whom a very poor quality of life, associated with sustained suffering, is predicted. For example, a child with the most serious form of spina bifida will have an extremely poor quality of life, even after many operations. This group also includes infants who have survived thanks to intensive care but for whom it becomes clear after intensive treatment has been completed that the quality of life will be very poor and for whom there is no hope of improvement" (Verhagen & Sauer, 2005, p959-60).

Indeed, of 22 test cases given in the protocol, 13 were predicted to have a "long life expectancy". Hardly a mitigating factor, a long life is given as a REASON for killing the child!

"The pertinent distinction is not between babies who will die and those who could live, but between babies for whom life-ending decisions should be made and those for whom such decisions cannot be morally justified. In bringing within its compass babies who are in no danger of dying—and, indeed, with proper care could live to adulthood—the protocol is even more radical than its critics supposed" (Lindemann & Verkerk, 2008, p46).

The first quote is from the protocol itself, as outlined in New England Journal of Medicine. The Lindemann paper, by the way, is a pro-Groningen piece.

3. Euthanasia has been around in many forms and many stages of regulation in the Netherlands for many years. Also, the legal status is a total red herring. The GP is de facto legal, and does represent a step down the slope. It is also aimed squarely at the disabled, and affects individuals with the potential to live independently, drive cars, get married, and generally enjoy life. There are systematic biases in play which grossly affect individual decisions, as well as policy decisions. What it comes down to is "we think disabled peoples lives suck, therefore kill them" - it's revolting ableist bias in the extreme.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

As well, everyone knows it's complicated.

No they don't. Not even close. Take the Tracy Latimer case for example. Public opinion was overwhelmingly on the side of her murderer! This is just one example of society's tendency to look at complex topics simplistically. All they see is "he was being merciful" and the conversation is over. Never mind the multitude of other factors which, of course, resulted in him being jailed for a decade.

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by evman150

There's lots to respond to, but I wanted to respond to this first.

I'd actually be more interested in your response to the real problems and benefits of legal Euthanasia, which is the topic, not the illegal Groningen Protocol. My statements were meant as an aside to have you avoid using that as the basis of your argument, not meant to encourage you to continue down that path. I'll admit my understanding wasn't full regarding the life support scenario involved in GP, but my other points remain in full. It is the red herring, not the legality of Euthanasia (that's actually the topic here, which makes it hard to be a red herring).

I'd like to hear your opinion on the following:
1. Current Euthanasia in Canada, and how legalising it would benefit/harm it. It DOES happen. Doctors have admitted to it, so what are the benefits/harms of creating regulations around it?
2. Any opinions regarding the REAL, documented problems with legal Euthanasia in the Netherlands. Not "what if Judy wants an inheritance" or "well it's a slippery slope" but the REAL problems.

Doctors can still be (and are) prosecuted for performing Euthanasia that doesn't adhere to the letter of the law in the Netherlands.

Again, everyone is aware it's a complicated issue. Don't confuse someone having an opinion that rests on one side of an argument as not understanding an argument is complicated. It's a bit silly, no? If anything, your example PROVES that everyone knows it's a complicated issue.

No depending on fallacies like red herrings and slippery slopes to make your case. I want to know what you actually think about legal Euthanasia.