Ethics of Euthanasia

[Demetrius]

In light of good 'ol Doctor Death's announced parole hearing next June, I thought it might be interesting to discuss the ethics of active euthanasia, passive euthanasia, conscious choice and family choice.

To me the distinction between active and passive euthanasia is a line drawn by politicians to allow for euthanasia to be practiced. By definition the choice to pull the plug, not to take medical action to save someone�s life or an active mercy killing involve a choice and an action that result in death. Therefore there is no real difference in what Jack did and what doctors do every day.

As far as I can see it's been a year and a half since anyone touched on this subject, so I say we go at it!

[Althane]

It's murder. Any time that you kill someone it's murder (well, manslaughter if you do it accidentally. To be PC, personslaughter)

Lately I've been comparing our current culture with the Roman Civilization, just because I've noticed a lot of similarities. We've become obsessed with violence as our main form of entertainment (News focuses on violent stories above all, look at the slasher movies that have performed well, and if the people I'm around are any indication, our civilization breeds itself on blood), and are encountering a moral decline, in that our legal system is a joke, and other such (controversial) things (that I'm not bringing up, they're another set of debates, but it does involve most the current political issues, especially corruption in politics).

Why should we be allowing our doctors to kill patients, just because the patients are afraid? Euthanasia, screw it, call it what it is. Suicide.

And suicide gets you placed under psychiatric evaluation, and sometimes in a hospital. Why shouldn't this?

[Toast]

I see mercy killing as wrong (or murder, if you prefer) because the person that died didn't have any decision making power.

As for Euthanasia, I don't see much wrong with it myself, if the person is mentally functional and capable of making sound decisions. Sometimes you have to do what's best for your Self and not give a damn what anyone else thinks. But all of that aside, there is a difference between someone who wants to commit suicide because they see it as the only option to end their suffering and someone who wants to end their life because there is no cure for their disease or something doesn't sit well with them about being kept alive by machines or pills.

As for family's rights, I don't think the family should have much say, but that's probably just my coloured opinion because I don't particularly like my family and hold many differing views and values from them.

As a student of psychology, I know there's always a chance to get someone with suicidal ideation to not kill themselves if you can get them to define their problem and work with them to form some alternatives. 60,000 people commit suicide every year in the U.S., and up to 600,000 attempt it. If someone really wants to kill themself, they will find a way to do it. Even if that means killing someone else so that the police will kill them (known as copicide).

[Archbio]

It's murder. Any time that you kill someone it's murder

So you start up with this big absolute statement. The intent of writing that sentence seems to be to impress readers with the clarity of the position: how obvious the seeming tautology is.

But then, in the same sentence, there's an exception to an absolute statement:

(well, manslaughter if you do it accidentally.)

...which is kind of odd to begin with. But in a sense, it's not a contradiction. Taking actions which lead to someone's death accidentally takes out an element with a lot of ethical weight out of the equation: the intent to end someone's life*.

Still, one wonders if the author of that statement meant it as absolutely as it sounds: there are types of murder, thus defined, beyond the various types of euthanasia, that are often considered anything but: killing in self-defence, state executions and warfare, mainly.

Someone is killed, and that purposefully. Now, one of three things are true.

1- The term murder as used by Althane doesn't have the automatic negative connotation that their post seems to imply but doesn't make explicit. If murder can be made legitimate in those instances, it could be argued that it can be in others.

2- Althane believes the three examples given are to be denounced as "murder most foul". No contradiction there.

3- Killing someone isn't always murder.

And suicide gets you placed under psychiatric evaluation, and sometimes in a hospital. Why shouldn't this?

I ask the question the other way around: why should suicide continue to be considered like pathologic at best and a crime at worst?

Lately I've been comparing our current culture with the Roman Civilization

Ah yes, the well known Roman taste for euthanasia.

As for my personal thoughts on the subject: assisted suicide is usually fine and dandy but should be monitored. Interrupting the machine assisted life of the brain dead is barely killing at all. Mercy killing is shaky (and slippery) ground but sometimes the lenghts medical science can go to keep someone alive can be termed cruetly (it's a dark, dark grey area nonetheless).

From what I heard, euthanasia hasn't been uncommon since morphine came into widespread use.

[Tydeus]

Originally Posted by Archbio

Ah yes, the well known Roman taste for euthanasia.

Actually, it happened more than you might think. From Tiberus onward a lot of people kind of got forced into comitting suicide (consider it analogous to resigning instead of getting fired), and a lot of people either kind of screwed it up (like when they slit their wrists, they didn't get the arteries/veins quite cleanly enough, and bled too slowly), or couldn't do it themselves, and so they would have a family member or former slave help finish them off, generally. Seneca did this, for example.

But, on to something that isn't totally tangential.

Basically, the way they do it in Oregon (I'm a former Portlander) is that you have to be at least 18, of sound mind, with a terminal illness and a prognosis of six months or fewer until your death. Meet those conditions and you can just go to town with those barbituates.

Seriously, though, it's a pretty rigorous screening process, and the whole set-up in Oregon seems to make a lot of sense to me, and I don't really understand why anyone would object (not to mention that our right to Death with Dignity has been upheld by the voters three times, and I believe twice in court, including in a legal battle with John Ashcroft).

It just generally seems quite humane, and the end result is the same anyway -- the patients are just spared six months of unbearable suffering. Seems pretty darn humane to me.

[notasfatasmike]

Originally Posted by Tydeus

Basically, the way they do it in Oregon (I'm a former Portlander) is that you have to be at least 18, of sound mind, with a terminal illness and a prognosis of six months or fewer until your death. Meet those conditions and you can just go to town with those barbituates.

Seriously, though, it's a pretty rigorous screening process, and the whole set-up in Oregon seems to make a lot of sense to me, and I don't really understand why anyone would object (not to mention that our right to Death with Dignity has been upheld by the voters three times, and I believe twice in court, including in a legal battle with John Ashcroft).

It just generally seems quite humane, and the end result is the same anyway -- the patients are just spared six months of unbearable suffering. Seems pretty darn humane to me.

I have to say, I agree with this. If someone is going to die, I would argue it's more humane to do it as quickly and painlessly as possible. Without getting into "putting forth a personal anecdote as evidence" territory, after watching my grandfather die of cancer, I wish he would have had this option.

I also have no problem with removing life support from a person who is brain dead, provided that is what they truly wanted. That's why I feel like discussing such issues with loved ones, uncomfortable though it may be, is so important. Also, making a living will (I think that's what it's called) is a good idea.

Of course, in the end, a lot of this comes down to what a person personally wants. If I go into a coma that the doctors are reasonably sure I won't come out of, I don't want to be a burden on my family - I'd rather just let them move on. That's really what my views on the issue stem from, and to say otherwise would be disingenuous.

[Fifthfiend]

Mostly this is one of those areas where I say, well, I've never had a degenerative terminal disease, so who am I to tell people about what they're supposed to do when they have a degenerative terminal disease?

The one line of argument contra to that that's ever really given me pause is when it's been pointed out well, if you do make this legal, there's always the chance you'd end up in a situation where you've got some old codger who wants to say fuck it, I'm squeezing out every bit of livin' I can get, but then his family is there pressuring him into taking the dive, out of expense or inconvenience or they just really hate the old guy and want him gone. Or you could have I don't know, Medicaid patients that are costing the state huge gobs of money, so then maybe the doctor fudges some paper work, turns a 'near-terminal' into a 'terminal', and starts talking to the guy about signing some papers.

I mean it's like anyplace else where law and health intersect, there's always gonna be potential for abuse.

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Agreed with fifthfiend (Hey! Whaddaya know? We can share viewpoints on occasion!).

Euthanasia is suicide, no question about that, but if I had some sort of painful debilatating disease that was going to kill me, I'd probably want to go out quickly and quietly as well. So even if I think suicide is wrong, its not my business to tell other people to suffer because of my own belief system.

And then with his opposing viewpoint, I also agree. There's ALSO always the possibility that someone is really sick, someone else needs an organ donor and is willing to pay big money, so that 'near-terminal' again changes into a 'terminal'. So its a slippery slope. But just because thats wrong, which it clearly is, it doesn't really make the standard situation wrong and its difficult to set policy based on the rare exception to the rule.

[Tydeus]

Like I said -- in Oregon at least, the process is very rigorous in order to prevent just the kind of abuses that Fifth and Swordchucks are describing. Some people do get turned down, even though they do end up just dying a slow, painful death anyway. They're very sensitive about that kind of abuse, and as far as I know, there've never been any lawsuits or investigations into that kind of possible miscarriage of ethical responsibility.

[Althane]

Originally Posted by Archbio

So you start up with this big absolute statement. The intent of writing that sentence seems to be to impress readers with the clarity of the position: how obvious the seeming tautology is.

But then, in the same sentence, there's an exception to an absolute statement:

...which is kind of odd to begin with. But in a sense, it's not a contradiction. Taking actions which lead to someone's death accidentally takes out an element with a lot of ethical weight out of the equation: the intent to end someone's life*.

The followup was mostly meant as an afterthought. There's a very clear line between manslaughter and murder.

Still, one wonders if the author of that statement meant it as absolutely as it sounds: there are types of murder, thus defined, beyond the various types of euthanasia, that are often considered anything but: killing in self-defence, state executions and warfare, mainly.

Murder is a fairly absolute term as I define it. The intential causing of another human being's death.

1: Self defense doesn't fall under murder, unless you take it from the point of beating the guy unconcious into death. Shooting someone in the heart or in an artery or such isn't a murder in name.

2: This I would define as murder, except that the person in question has evidentally murdered/done something bad enough that they are no longer to be considered a person.

3: Killing in warfare is not murder unless it's of civillians. As long as they shoot back, they're fair game, much like self-defense.

Someone is killed, and that purposefully. Now, one of three things are true.

1- The term murder as used by Althane doesn't have the automatic negative connotation that their post seems to imply but doesn't make explicit. If murder can be made legitimate in those instances, it could be argued that it can be in others.

2- Althane believes the three examples given are to be denounced as "murder most foul". No contradiction there.

3- Killing someone isn't always murder.

3 is true. (and now, something rare: ) My original statement was an overgeneralization. Kiling someone isn't necessarily murder. Killing someone in that fashion -is-.

I ask the question the other way around: why should suicide continue to be considered like pathologic at best and a crime at worst?

Because no sane person wants to end their life? No problem is so bad that killing yourself is a better solution than working to overcome it. Then again, I do have to admit that that staement is a personal opinon, I don't have any experiences with problems so great that one might even contemplate suicide rather than facing it....

Ah yes, the well known Roman taste for euthanasia.

Nnnn...ot quite the conparison I was going for, but go read about some of the Emperors that would drive people to commiting suicide. My point was how this wasn't a good thing, and is rather morally corrupt. I'm gonna do something I'm probably gonna regret, but...

Slippery slope. Once we think it's fine and dandy to kill people who have terminal diseases, what about the mentally ill who are beyond our help? What about the autistic kid who can't communicate?

As for my personal thoughts on the subject: assisted suicide is usually fine and dandy but should be monitored. Interrupting the machine assisted life of the brain dead is barely killing at all. Mercy killing is shaky (and slippery) ground but sometimes the lenghts medical science can go to keep someone alive can be termed cruetly (it's a dark, dark grey area nonetheless).

From what I heard, euthanasia hasn't been uncommon since morphine came into widespread use.

The dark,dark grey area is one where I hate to tread... but I'm an optimist, and I believe that soon we'll have the technology (soon being a relative term) to repair these people's brains and this will become a moot point. We're at a real crossroads here, we have the technology to sustain life but not to repair it.

*sighs* This is why I've been avoiding the debate forum. I never quite can make myself type my thoughts perfectly... we need to have some sort of mind-meld so I can say things more clearly.=P

V_(o.o)_V
Live long and prosper... or else!