Your views on ending human life: when is it acceptable? A debate about

[AVDutch]

Hey there,

 

First off, I would like to clarify that I am not trying to incite a flame-war or inviting trolls or anything of the sort. I am making this rather controversial debate because it is very relevant for me at the moment. That is because I am currently writing an essay with the title: "From birth till old age, an essay on when it is acceptable for a doctor to end a human life." I am doing this for my medical ethics class, a required class for medicine which I currently study at a university in Belgium. I am also interested in your opinion.

 

Anyway, my own opinion is that after you reach legal adulthood, a doctor is allowed to end your life upon your own request, (this would qualify as euthanasia) but that a doctor is allowed to refuse your request at his or her discretion, but only in cases where you do not suffer from a terminal disease that is almost certain to cause you a great deal of physical of emotional discomfort - i.e. dreading your unpleasant death that is coming - in the near future. I should note that I am also greatly in favor of peoples right to manage their own lives as freely as possibly, and choosing when (and even how) to die should be a publicly accepted and condoned thing.

 

However, before legal adulthood, a doctor is - under no circumstances - allowed to end a human life. This does not only include euthanizing children, but also after-birth abortion. After-birth abortion is an ongoing debate in the medical world, which is highly controversial and difficult to talk about. (Here is a very interesting article saying that it should be allowed: http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full)

 

Therefore, I would also like your opinion not only on euthanasia as talked about above, but also your views on after-birth abortion. Specifically when/if it should be permissible. My own opinion in the matter is as follows:

 

As soon as a child is born, it is an independent human being. At that point anyone other than him ceases to have the right to decided to end his life. Therefore, under no circumstances is a parent or guardian or anyone else allowed to decide to end that human life, even if it would be deemed better for the child.

 

So yeah, that's my view on this subject, but I have done quite a bit of research into it. If you guys would like I will also post my full essay once it is completed, but right now I am still writing it.

 

Debate away!

[JimboUK]

I am in favour of voluntary euthanasia but there would need to be a lot of safeguards to ensure that the patient is fully aware of what he/she is requesting and that there has been no pressure from family, carers or doctors. I won't comment on abortion because that always ends up in an unpleasant argument, there are very strong feelings on both sides and debating those feelings is very unlikely to change how people feel.

[McclaudEagle]

The only time I would consider abortion to be acceptable is if the abortion is undertaken before the baby is born, and only if pregnancy came from a sex-related crime, such as rape. Life is made an absolute hell for victims of rape, and sadly, every time the woman sees the child, she's likely to see the face of her rapist, and it's going to make her mental health considerably worse.

 

I also believe that voluntary euthanasia should be allowed, so long as the person undertaking it is fully aware of what they're doing, have signed legal documents, and have a valid reason for actually undertaking it in the first place. People who are unaware of what's going on, such as patients suffering from advanced stages of alzheimers, should not be allowed purely for the sake that the only person making the decisions for that person to be euthanized would be one who is fully aware. This could lead to someone wanting to get rid of a so called "burden".

[Tidus44]

I suppose I would ask if you are looking at passive euthanasia, defined as the withholding of life-preserving procedures or active euthanasia which would be simply assisted suicide. I ask because there is a significant difference between the two, at least in my view.

 

I don't actually see much of an issue in a discussion on this provided individuals accept that morals have nothing to do within the discussion, it's a matter of discussing the rules. I have no problem with an individual who believes it is acceptable to lie, steal, cheat, kill, etc. provided they follow the rules that govern these activities. The unfortunate part about this is that most of the rules governing activities are based upon moral beliefs rather than a practical aspect and instead of providing guidance the issue is complicated by someone's idea of what is "right" instead of what is the correct way to do something.

I note the discussion is to assist in a medical ethics class. If one truly wants to discuss ethics, then it should be behind closed doors where the individuals involved are provided deadly weapons and the last person standing wins - this seems to be how we settle moral issues anyway.

However, if a standard of conduct is the focus of discussion, then reasonably intelligent individuals should be able to discuss an acceptable means of doing something.

 

Anyway.....

 

Active euthanasia is actually a difficult concept for me as committing suicide is not a crime where I live and when one thinks about it, there is any number of ways for an individual to kill them self without involving a medical professional. However, that being said, an individual who wants to end their life should have the option to do so under the supervision of a medical professional. While I cannot imagine many medical professionals would want to be involved in this for obvious reasons, I would think there may be some who would see it as an alternative to an individual bent on killing them self driving their car head-on into another vehicle on the highway (it is estimated as many as 50% of head-on collisions in NA are suicides) or by using some other means that places others at risk of injury or death. There are individuals in the world who suffer a great deal and who cannot be cured, but they are not specifically suffering from a terminal illness. I see no reason why they should not have the right or freedom to manage their own life and choose to end it in a clean, safe and dignified place.

 

Passive euthanasia, while it is against the law, is clearly practiced in my country. People just choose to ignore it mostly. It is permitted where an individual has been deemed competent to make such a decision and has made a declaration either by signing off on a DNR or a "living will". Unfortunately, morals come into play again as even if the individual has made such a declaration, their decision can be overturned by a legally identified representative (family, lawyer, etc.). Thankfully, the law here does not require a legal representative to be notified when a declaration is being honored.

Again, I see no problem with an individual making the choice of not receiving treatment to simply sustain life.

 

After-birth abortion is relatively new and I am not clear on the specifics of what conditions where such a procedure would be acceptable or how a decision would be made or even by whom. While I do not have a problem with a woman being in control of her own body, this particular issue is, at least to me, not within that realm. I am also not sufficiently gullible to believe such a decision would always be made in the "best interests" of either the mother or the child.

My initial reaction is "absolutely not", but I would need to do a lot more reading and thinking on this before I could make a decision.

 

So, let's start the countdown to the irony of the morally superior to make death threats in this after-birth abortion issue in 3.... 2.... 1...

 

And definitely YES, I would very much like to read your paper once it is done.

[Beriallord]

For example, if you are terminally ill and its guaranteed that you will die a slow and painful death, and there is nothing the doctors can do except ease your pain a little bit. Personally I don't see anything wrong with requesting they just give you a shot in your IV while you are sleeping and just end it. Also suppose someone gets in a car crash, and are they are permanently paralyzed. Which means they will now become a life long burden on someone else to take care of them. I'd personally rather be dead than be paralyzed, or not able to walk. Someone who is unable to care for themselves physically should be able to request to be euthanized.

 

Of course the person giving the shots would have to have the attitude that they are doing the said people a favor and aren't doing anything wrong.

[mizdarby]

I am in favour of voluntary euthanasia but there would need to be a lot of safeguards to ensure that the patient is fully aware of what he/she is requesting and that there has been no pressure from family, carers or doctors. I won't comment on abortion because that always ends up in an unpleasant argument, there are very strong feelings on both sides and debating those feelings is very unlikely to change how people feel.

I absolutely agree with the points made here, with the extra proviso of in built legal 'safeguards', that fully protect the medical team involved with the euthanasia, from any form of legal actions, once the deed is done. Abortion itself is a subject, which I have views on, but prefer not to state them here, as the subject provokes too much hostility on both sides of the argument.

[JimboUK]

I am in favour of voluntary euthanasia but there would need to be a lot of safeguards to ensure that the patient is fully aware of what he/she is requesting and that there has been no pressure from family, carers or doctors. I won't comment on abortion because that always ends up in an unpleasant argument, there are very strong feelings on both sides and debating those feelings is very unlikely to change how people feel.

I absolutely agree with the points made here, with the extra proviso of in built legal 'safeguards', that fully protect the medical team involved with the euthanasia, from any form of legal actions, once the deed is done. Abortion itself is a subject, which I have views on, but prefer not to state them here, as the subject provokes too much hostility on both sides of the argument.

 

I think any involvement of medical staff would have to be voluntary too, I don't think it would be right to ask anyone to involve themselves in it as part of their job.

[Syco21]

As far as abortion goes, I only support early term abortion. And that support isn't very strong. After that, I only support medically necessary abortions.

[AVDutch]

Well, I'm not entirely talking about abortion. Abortion does not equal the ending of a human life, as life only begins at the moment of birth. (Yes I know that statement is incorrect, but one is not considered 'alive' in the sense that one is an independent human being with the right to life as well as all other fundemental rights while one is still in the womb).

 

I do think, that in situations where euthanasia could be performed (not only passively but actively) to prevent suffering from a terminal illness, it is the doctor's professional obligation to do so if requested, even if he or she has personal reservations about it. That does not mean that a doctor should ever euthanize a patient without that patients express request, but once that request is made, I do see circumstances where a doctor is - in my opinion - not allowed to refuse.

 

However, if a patient is requesting euthanasia simply because he or she wishes to commit suicide in a painless way, I do think doctors should be allowed to help if requested, but also to refuse such help.

 

However, there should be safeguards involved in the entire process, and such a process to request euthanasia should be a private affair between a doctor and the patient, without outside interference, although it is very hard to devise a system in which there is no possible influences from outside (e.g. relatives).

 

One more thing topic I should touch on is the help of doctors in executions. For instance in America it is not illegal for a doctor to help in an execution, but it is against the ethical rules of the AMA (American Medical Association). Doctors have faced challenges to their licenses (but have not lost so far) because they helped in executions.

 

In my opinion, it is not only ethical, but actually necessary for doctors to be present at executions (regardless of how I feel about the death penalty, I will not go into my views on that here), to ensure that the execution happens as swiftly and painlessly as possible.

[ginnyfizz]

I also believe that voluntary euthanasia should be allowed, so long as the person undertaking it is fully aware of what they're doing, have signed legal documents, and have a valid reason for actually undertaking it in the first place. People who are unaware of what's going on, such as patients suffering from advanced stages of alzheimers, should not be allowed purely for the sake that the only person making the decisions for that person to be euthanized would be one who is fully aware. This could lead to someone wanting to get rid of a so called "burden".

 

This. (Although I would be rather more liberal on the Abortion issue than you, which will surprise those of you who know my religious leanings, but we do not discuss religion so enough of that).

I have to declare an interest as my mother has Alzheimers, but due to her beliefs would absolutely not wish to be euthanised. She is still aware enough that we have to hide the papers and switch over the TV whenever they are talking about the latest "involuntary euthanasia" scandals to hit Britain, as she then becomes convinced that if she has to go to the hospital she will be emerging feet first. And the tragedy is, she might be right if she did not have a gobby daughter (see below.)

 

For those not from Britain, I am talking about the fact that old people in particular are at risk of being marked as Do Not Rescuscitate without any prior consultation either with the patient or their family, or of being placed on the Liverpool (lack of) Care Pathway, where if the doctor decides that they are dying, artificial feeding and hydration is withdrawn, and they are heavily sedated. The problem is that cases are now emerging where this is being applied to people who are not likely to die within the next couple of days, but to people who have months to live and are compos mentis enough to still want to get their affairs in order and say goodbye to their families.

 

It has also emerged that GP's, family doctors, have been asked to draw up a list of a percentage of their patients who should be labelled as Do Not Resuscitate and not worth saving.

 

And it's all to do with freeing up beds and saving money. I have to see my GP tomorrow on my own account but shall, whilst I am there, serve notice on him in no uncertain terms that should I find that either of my parents or any of mine are either on the Death List or placed on the DNR or lack of care pathway without consultation , then I will have no hesitation in calling the police.