The Slippery Slope: Has it gone too far?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Oh no, I understand this and was not meaning to imply that you were referring to other people as burdensome.

My point was rather that I am troubled by the very rationale of using burden, rather than personal suffering, as a yardstick in deciding whether to undergo euthanasia.

On the one hand, I think it's good that the conversation is at this point: arguing ablut edge cases (like how we should deal with situations where it might be unclear if the person has the capacity for informed consent) or details (like whether a given justification for euthanasia is valid) seem to concede the larger point that assisted dying should be legal and rather widely available.

On the other hand, what you're doing here - judging whether particular justifications for seeking euthanasia should or shouldn't be allowed - suggests to me an approach that was thrown out as illegal in my country when it was applied to other issues.

Before Canada's abortion law was struck down, abortion was legal, but anyone seeking an abortion had to bring their case before a review panel that would decide if the person had "proper" grounds for an abortion before the abortion would be allowed. The court ruled, effectively, that having a panel rule on whether people's motivations were "good enough" violated the patient's right to self-determination and the review boards were gotten rid of completely.

I see something similar happening in Canada if euthanasia review boards don't stick to the simple question of "did this person validly consent to euthanasia?" and instead pass judgment on whether people's personal motivations for seeking euthanasia pass muster by the board's criteria instead of the patient's.

 

[Vouthon]

Let me give you a hypothetical. My family have grown and have their own family, home, maybe children, good jobs etc. Given the cutbacks in health spending there us no chance of public financing of adequate long term care. Meaning care must be provided by the family. Assuming i would require round the clock care, 2 or 3 family members would need to provide that care at a cost of their family lifes and possibly their jobs. That is a burden nam not willing to impose on my children who, after all, have their own lives to lead.

That is not a "rather" situation but a combined situation, if i were not suffering the question of burden would not arise.

Again, I recognise that this would be motivated by selfless concern for your family.

It's just that there are other things that could be meaningfully done - such as changing welfare spending and the availability of care professionals - which would not require a person to feel that they are becoming burdensome to others.

I tend to view any feeling that one has become a 'burden' to society a failure on the part of that society.

 

[Spirit of Light]

When my father died, assisted dying was illegal in Canada.

After he lost consciousness for the last time, his doctor brought my mother, my sister, and me into a quiet room. He told us that my father would never wake up again and he gave us the two options that were allowed at the time:

- continue everything as we had been doing until the cancer killed him in a few weeks.
- withdraw life-sustaining measures so that he would die of dehydration within a few days.

Because of Canadian law at the time, we weren't given the option of simply letting him die quickly and peacefully.

Take your "killing is always wrong action" out of the abstract, apply it to this example, and tell me why it was good to prolong my father's suffering while my mother had to watch.

I can answer with my own parents who both died of cancer. Yes we did get the same options as you did. My father had told us to let him go a natural way and so we let him go the way he wanted, with no unplugging of his medication. Did he have pain? Yes i think he had even he never said so.

When my mom died she also had said no to any assistance of unplugging. So my brother and I let her go the way she wanted.

Could we have let them go earlier? yes because both was in a coma when they dies (body functions turn off them self)

But i can not see why we should oay "god" and be the one who deisde when someone dies or not.

And no i can not take the "killing is always wrong" out of the abstract situation

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In Oregon, the law is that one can elect to not have dialysis, Oxygen and other life support measures, deeming them extraordinary. If one has a terminal condition, one can be given a Tea that will bring death quickly.

So you do have assisted dying. Canada does now as well.

 

[Vouthon]

On the other hand, what you're doing here - judging whether particular justifications for seeking euthanasia should or shouldn't be allowed - suggests to me an approach that was thrown out as illegal in my country when it was applied to other issues.

Its not so much that I am judging whether certain justifications should or shouldn't be allowed (although I do personally see grave disparity between the different justifications put forward were euthanasia to be legalised, which it isn't in my country and nor do I desire the law to change), rather its more the case that I am saying we must be clear, as a society, why "we" - as a collective of decision-makers through our elected representatives - are recognising its legality.

If our desire is to end unbearable personal suffering, or our desire is to relieve people as "burdens" (even with their volition, which may or may not be influenced by the pressure of environmental factors) there is a world of difference between the two rationales, and the fear that the former could lead to the later becoming routinised with very real consequences for public morality and the wider culture surrounding death, is perhaps in itself an argument against legalisation.

 

[ChristineM]

Again, I recognise that this would be motivated by selfless concern for your family.

It's just that there are other things that could be meaningfully done - such as changing welfare spending and the availability of care professionals - which would not require a person to feel that they are becoming burdensome to others.

I tend to view any feeling that one has become a 'burden' to society a failure on the part of that society.

The UK has failed long ago. The only focus on welfare spending is to find ways of reducing it without riot and rebellion.

 

[Vouthon]

The UK has failed long ago. The only focus on welfare spending is to find ways of reducing it without riot and rebellion.

That, I do agree with you wholeheartedly on.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I can answer with my own parents who both died of cancer. Yes we did get the same options as you did. My father had told us to let him go a natural way and so we let him go the way he wanted, with no unplugging of his medication. Did he have pain? Yes i think he had even he never said so.

When my mom died she also had said no to any assistance of unplugging. So my brother and I let her go the way she wanted.

Could we have let them go earlier? yes because both was in a coma when they dies (body functions turn off them self)

But i can not see why we should oay "god" and be the one who deisde when someone dies or not.

The whole "playing God" thing is an excuse. And their decision - I hope it was their decision - against assisted dying for themselves is still deciding when someone dies or not.

And no i can not take the "killing is always wrong" out of the abstract situation

Then I think your position is evil.

I don't use the term "evil" lightly.

 

[Spirit of Light]

The whole "playing God" thing is an excuse. And their decision - I hope it was their decision - against assisted dying for themselves is still deciding when someone dies or not.


Then I think your position is evil.

I don't use the term "evil" lightly.

As a buddhist i can not see any good reason to kill an other being, human or animal. As a Buddhist i see the karma law as the right way of why people suffer in life. So if you think i am evil then you condem a whole group of people who are Buddhists, But i do not judge you or blame you for that view. You are allowed to have your view of course, just as i am allowed to have my view of life.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As a buddhist i can not see any good reason to kill an other being, human or animal. As a Buddhist i see the karma law as the right way of why people suffer in life. So if you think i am evil then you condem a whole group of people who are Buddhists, But i do not judge you or blame you for that view. You are allowed to have your view of course, just as i am allowed to have my view of life.

I don't condemn the Buddhists that don't try to impose their religious views on others... i.e. most of them.

If assisted dying doesn't align with your religious beliefs, I fully support your choice to refuse it for yourself.

I stand by what I said. If you want to ban assisted dying across the board, then you're calling for something evil. And the only Buddhist I've seen do that is you.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I don't condemn the Buddhists that don't try to impose their religious views on others... i.e. most of them.

If assisted dying doesn't align with your religious beliefs, I fully support your choice to refuse it for yourself.

I stand by what I said. If you want to ban assisted dying across the board, then you're calling for something evil. And the only Buddhist I've seen do that is you.

The reason i do not suport assisted dying is that the nurse or helper who end the patients life is going against every rule one learn when get education as sure, (i know because i took the education)
And even the law say you should end someones life, it is morally wrong action for a Buddhist to do so, because of the karma that will be directed toward you self by doing it.
I have deep compassion for those who are sick and are near to die. But it is not a natural passing if someone do end it for them. That is what i am against. But what other people do or think is right action, that is up to them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Its not so much that I am judging whether certain justifications should or shouldn't be allowed (although I do personally see grave disparity between the different justifications put forward were euthanasia to be legalised, which it isn't in my country and nor do I desire the law to change), rather its more the case that I am saying we must be clear, as a society, why "we" - as a collective of decision-makers through our elected representatives - are recognising its legality.

I don't see a substantial difference.

If our desire is to end unbearable personal suffering, or our desire is to relieve people as "burdens" (even with their volition, which may or may not be influenced by the pressure of environmental factors) there is a world of difference between the two rationales, and the fear that the former could lead to the later becoming routinised with very real consequences for public morality and the wider culture surrounding death, is perhaps in itself an argument against legalisation.

Let me see if I understand you correctly:

You think that assisted dying has a place in the medical standard of care, but because of potential uses beyond when it's medically warranted, you think this may bs an argument to ban it altogether, including in cases where we acknowledge that it's clearly justified and beneficial?

BTW: on the "burden" thing, I do worry that in the US, assisted dying could be used - as plain old suicide is often used now - by uninsured or underinsured people to avoid creating a burdensome medical bill for their family. I do see this as a problem, but - not just for this reason - I think that universal health care should be provided everywhere.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The reason i do not suport assisted dying is that the nurse or helper who end the patients life is going against every rule one learn when get education as sure, (i know because i took the education)

No, they really aren't.

And even the law say you should end someones life, it is morally wrong action for a Buddhist to do so, because of the karma that will be directed toward you self by doing it.

Do you think that we should ban everything that goes against your religion?

When do the rest of us get to decide which things that are important to you should be banned?

I have deep compassion for those who are sick and are near to die.

Really? I'm unconvinced. How does this "deep" compassion manifest itself? Certainly not in compassionate end-of-life care.

But it is not a natural passing if someone do end it for them. That is what i am against. But what other people do or think is right action, that is up to them.

And you're the arbiter of what's "natural?"

What else do you think isn't natural? Chemotherapy? Laser surgery?

 

[Spirit of Light]

No, they really aren't.


Do you think that we should ban everything that goes against your religion?

When do the rest of us get to decide which things that are important to you should be banned?


Really? I'm unconvinced. How does this "deep" compassion manifest itself? Certainly not in compassionate end-of-life care.


And you're the arbiter of what's "natural?"

What else do you think isn't natural? Chemotherapy? Laser surgery?

I do not say you or others need to follow Buddhis, i only speak for what i belive in and what buddhism teach.
You can you self decide what is important for you, i only say what is important to me.
Ending of someones elses life or suicide is not a right action in Buddhism, that is the reason i do not support killing or socalled helping to end life. But you can do what you want, that is not up to me, again I only say what i stand for.

My parents got Chemotheraphy, that was their choice. What i do my self i decide when i am in that situation, i do not worry about death or sickness toward my self.

 

[Stevicus]

At what point does "the right to die with dignity" become the mark of a culture that has lost respect for the dignity of human life? What does the act of killing a physically healthy young person, or an old person with dementia who no longer wants to die but is deemed unfit to withdraw consent, tell us about our own views of human wellbeing?

What do you think about this issue? Is euthanasia or its cognate assisted dying legal in your country or state? If not, do you think it should be? Why or why not?

I think society sends mixed messages on this. I recall the scene from Soylent Green where Edward G. Robinson's character commits suicide at a place designated for that. There was such extreme overpopulation in that society that the "value of human life" was very little, and people were worth more dead than they were alive.

Looking at it through the cold-hearted lens of economics and the malicious, uncaring, dog-eat-dog, socially-lopsided culture we live in, our society seems to have a split personality on this matter. As a society, we seem to care very little (if at all) about people living on the streets and eating out of garbage cans, yet we also talk it up about the value and dignity of human life. Even doctors seem to have no moral qualms about gouging their patients, forcing them into bankruptcy just to save their lives - but then leaving them with next to nothing to actually "live" on.

How much do people actually care about the quality of an individual life? Is it simply enough to keep them breathing and their heart beating, while deluding ourselves into thinking that we're preserving the dignity and value of human life?

 

[pearl]

What do you think about this issue? Is euthanasia or its cognate assisted dying legal in your country or state? If not, do you think it should be? Why or why not?

A few years ago the issue was on the ballot and was voted down in Massachusetts as it was found to be open to abuse. For those who are terminally ill the hospice programs provide care, comfort, and if one wishes is kept sedated to the end. For those suffering from non terminal issues the quality of life and the lack of hope may determine whether or not one seeks to end it. As a Catholic I do not condone euthanasia nor extraordinary measures just to exist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I do not say you or others need to follow Buddhis, i only speak for what i belive in and what buddhism teach.

You said before that you want to impose your beliefs on others:

It is not allowed in Norway, and i hope it will never be.

 

[Spirit of Light]

You said before that you want to impose your beliefs on others:

I said that for what i personally stand for, What others do say or mean is up to them, I do not impose buddhism, but as a buddhist i live, breath and think Dharma all the time.

If you are not agree with my way of thinking that is no problem to me.

 

[sun rise]

What do you think about this issue? Is euthanasia or its cognate assisted dying legal in your country or state? If not, do you think it should be? Why or why not?

From my perspective as someone who accepts reincarnation and karma, to deliberately choose to die early, suicide, just puts off something that will have to be experienced sooner or later.

But I have zero issue with reducing pain and refusing medicate treatment. There's a big difference in my mind between allowing nature to take its course with pain reduction and deliberately choosing to end one's life prematurely.

As someone who suffers myself from a chronic medical condition that can at times prove debilitating, but has improved significantly with appropriate medical attention and hasn't held me back from having a great career and living a full life, I particularly resent the language of burden and I don't think that anyone should ever feel that they are a burden.

100% agree. I know very disabled people who would whole-heartedly agree with you.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

In Oregon, the law is that one can elect to not have dialysis, Oxygen and other life support measures, deeming them extraordinary. If one has a terminal condition, one can be given a Tea that will bring death quickly.

I was a hospice medical director from 1992-2002 in California and Missouri. When a patient is certified to be terminally ill, that is, is expected to die in six or fewer months with or without medical intervention, then all support can be legally discontinued including IV fluids and tube feedings.

Also, giving a tea that caused death would be considered murder in those two states. One can never give any substance with the intent to end life. One can give a therapy that ends life if it is given for a different reason, as when a terminally ill, end stage, coughing, sputtering esophageal carcinoma sufferer is given a cough suppressant for comfort that inhibits the cough reflex and allows aspiration of the oral secretions into the lungs and death, a phenomenon called second effect. Death is a second effect of cough suppression in that setting, not the intended effect, which is comfort.

For what it's worth, I would like to have the right to assisted suicide.