The Slippery Slope: Has it gone too far?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

You said that you want assisted dying to stay illegal for everyone in your country. This is imposing your views on others.

If you weren't trying to impose your views on others, you would support - or at least not oppose - assisted dying being legal.

 

[Spirit of Light]

You said that you want assisted dying to stay illegal for everyone in your country. This is imposing your views on others.

If you weren't trying to impose your views on others, you would support - or at least not oppose - assisted dying being legal.

I said it "HOPE" it stay they way it is today,
I can not support something that is morally wrong to me as a buddhist. But what others do their choice.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I said it "HOPE" it stay they way it is today,
I can not support something that is morally wrong to me as a buddhist. But what others do their choice.

So then you don't support people following their own consciences on this issue.

 

[Spirit of Light]

So then you don't support people following their own consciences on this issue.

I just said what others want to do is their choice, how can that be not letting them do as they want?
I only speak about what i stand of, if others have an other opinion that is fine for me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I just said what others want to do is their choice, how can that be not letting them do as they want?

If you want the law to prohibit assisted dying, then you want to deny them their choice.

 

[Spirit of Light]

If you want the law to prohibit assisted dying, then you want to deny them their choice.

What they norwegian law or law of other countries say is their way of seeing it, As a Buddhist i put the moral guidelines before the law of a country for my self as a person (not for other people)
If Norwegian law say it is ok to kill people, i will not follow that law since it is not compatible with the guidelines in buddhism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What they norwegian law or law of other countries say is their way of seeing it, As a Buddhist i put the moral guidelines before the law of a country for my self as a person (not for other people)

Do you understand that the law affects other people, not just you?

If Norwegian law say it is ok to kill people, i will not follow that law since it is not compatible with the guidelines in buddhism.

If the law allows assisted dying, then you're following the law whether you choose assisted dying for yourself or not.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Do you understand that the law affects other people, not just you?


If the law allows assisted dying, then you're following the law whether you choose assisted dying for yourself or not.

I can only say that i always ONLY talk for what i my self stand for. I do not take part in the mundane life anymore, so i keep following the guidelines of Buddhism, If a country allow killing in hospital that is their own law they can follow.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

To return to the original case, this was obviously not in accord with the law, since it was false to say that there was "no prospect of improvement" in her case. But there's an old legal saying that hard cases make bad law.

If I get cancer or dementia, then I'll want to end my life, and I resent being forced to go abroad to get assistance to do so. I'm just profoundly grateful that Belgium, the Netherlands, and Switzerland will provide me with the necessary facilities.

In fact, overdosing cancer patients with opiate has a long tradition in England, although illegal. The 1925 bestseller(filmed three times) Sorrell and Son, by Warwick Deeping, ends with the son giving his dying father a lethal injection, as he had promised. No-one denounced the novel as immoral, or if they did no-one has remembered.

 

[columbus]

I see "death with dignity" as a new, morally thorny, problem created by modern medical miracles. It simply doesn't fit into any of the moral categories addressed by ancient societies or Scriptures. Like many modern problems, from drug abuse to environmental disaster to information technology like internet porn, it just doesn't fit.
For all of previous history, when a person was too ill to live they usually just died. Putting someone out of their suffering was rare, so we could generally assume that everybody wants to stay alive as long as possible. With modern drugs and intravenous and machines and such, that simply isn't true any more. People can be kept alive and in pain for years, without any real hope. But with enough statistical hope to keep grieving family members clinging.

Or, more darkly, inheritors hoping to speed up the "transition". Mentally ill people trying to avoid treatment for whatever reason. Etc.

The religious ethics of old just aren't up to the task of dealing with the reality of the modern world.
In a multitude of ways.

It's time to get over the idea that Scriptures are ethical guides for the reality we live in now.
Tom

 

[Augustus]

2 members of my extended family have chosen to be euthanised in the past couple of years. Both had terminal cancer.

They got to say their goodbyes and go out on their own terms surrounded by loved ones, rather than wasting away in excruciating pain resulting in great suffering for themselves and their family/friends.

Forcing them to go through something like this is cruel when there is a clear way to avoid it and they are able to make such a decision with a clear mind.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It is a very difficult topic, and therefore probably open to abuse if not implemented properly. And even then, there's room for error -- but that is true in every area of human activity.

In Canada, where I live, we have assisted dying law which includes legal safeguards aimed at preventing abuse and ensuring informed consent. Neither the legal witnesses, nor the physicians involved, can have any legal or financial interest in the outcomes of the patient. Consent must be repeatedly expressed, not implied, including in the moment right before death. Consent can be revoked at any time, in any manner. There are no consequences for backing out and there are no limits to how often it can be requested.

It is sad when someone, especially one we love, feels that they can no longer bear the agony of living. But how does that make it right for us to insist that they put up with that agony, just so that we don't have to feel sad?

 

[SomeRandom]

Of course not, but those people are suffering from deep-seated psychological problems - hence the reason why they seek to kill themselves.

The question here, is whether the medical community should be honouring their wish to be euthanized - even in the absence of any physical debilitation - or treating them, in accordance with the Hippocratic Oath, to try and cure their underlying mental health issues that may compel them to do something which, had they lived a few years longer, they may have regretted in a better state of mind? Clinical depression can seriously impair one's perceptions and self-worth. But it can be cured or at least severely mitigated, with time and proper medicine and counselling.

Equally, we have the reverse issue of people suffering from dementia who have prior (in a sound state of mind) requested that they be euthanized when their brain disease has reached a certain point, but who later on claim that they no longer wish to die but are euthanized anyway because they are no longer deemed to be 'competent', even though their subjective understanding of their own 'suffering' cannot be empirically gauged.

And how these two extremes now appear to be happening side-by-side in the one country and legal jurisdiction, suggests to me that something has gone very wrong indeed at least in the Dutch approach to this topic.

Umm all the examples I listed happen in a country with universal health care. The medical community already tried everything it can to mitigate or otherwise treat the mental illnesses suicidal people have. As I'm sure the Dutch already treat mental illness as best they can.

We have mental health professionals trying their best with the latest techniques in medical science. Most of it bulk billed if I'm not mistaken.
And despite their valiant efforts, people still kill themselves in horrifying ways anyway.

I'm sorry, but when you have a mother who strongly (and religiously) believes that a person's soul must have last rites and the body burned in order to have a peaceful afterlife, not have enough body to even perform these rites because they jumped in front of the train. Don't try to tell me that it wouldn't have been better for everyone involved that the option was open to have a peaceful death instead. She was 21 by the way. The distress is beyond description.
I was there.

Mental illness may incapacitate mental capabilities. However, like physical illnesses, there are times when it's just far gone and there's no other option.
Who are you to say that they should just continue suffering? Because it freaks you out? It's not your decision, to be frank.

Perhaps more safeguards in place, with doctors working closer with Psycharitrists is in order.
But I have seen too much suffering to do anything but applaud the Dutch model as humane.

 

[Ellen Brown]

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.

Not surprisingly, I have COPD, Gird, IBS, and Autoimmune Disorder, and here, "they" seem pretty confused and non-informative about all that. Most confusing to me, they say I am XXY, but rather than being rather short and trim, things seem to be OK. I led a very successful life until 2004 when things went to hell. My advice would be to run as fast as you can if approached by Mental Health people.

I don't take most of the medicines they prescribe because the side effects have been so awful. It seems that moderate exercise, and not eating foods that bother you seem most effective. Adequate Hydration is a lot of work, but seems to pay off when dealing with UTIs.

It is unlikely that I will suicide, because I don't seem to have the right stuff. I've seen my Mother and Two Brothers die and do not wish to linger so if there is something terminal, I plan to make use of everything that is legal.

 

[Ponder This]

For those who are considering euthanasia... you should know that there are chemical substances: drugs, medications, etc. known to induce thoughts of suicide (and, thus, actual suicide).

Since suicidal thoughts can be chemically induced in otherwise healthy people, a slippery slope is a genuine concern for any law that permits people to euthanize themselves solely on the basis of being in their so-called 'right mind'. You might say that we should just control for these drugs, but the problem is that chemical imbalances that lead to suicidal thoughts can occur in a natural environment without administering any drugs!

I think the fundamental problem from a medical point of view is the question of what it means to be 'dying'.
It seems that we ought to be able to assist people in dying, but it's just not clear from a medical point of view what exactly constitutes 'dying'.

On the other hand, contemplation of death is a spiritual practice.

 

[Vouthon]

You think that assisted dying has a place in the medical standard of care

I view the rise in calls for 'assisted dying', largely, as a failure by a society to effectively address the factors - mental health, cuts to welfare spending, lack of universal healthcare, poor palliative care, not enough medical research etc. - that contribute to the desire to end one's life.

Assisted dying is opposed by the British Medical Association, the Association for Palliative Medicine, the British Geriatrics Society, all major Disability Rights Groups and virtually every Royal Medical College.

In 2015 the UK ranked number one in palliative care:

UK is the best place in the world to die, according to end-of-life care index

UK is the best place in the world to die, according to end-of-life care index​

The UK is the best place in the world in which to die, according to a study comparing end-of-life care in 80 countries.​

The integration of palliative care into the NHS, a strong hospice movement largely funded by the charitable sector, specialised staff and deep community engagement are among the reasons cited by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU).​

In other words, kill the pain - both mental and physical - and not the patient. Rob George, former president of the British Association for Palliative Medicine, claimed that after a lifetime of caring for more than 20,000 dying patients, he could count on the fingers of one hand those who still desired assisted suicide or euthanasia after receiving the best palliative care.

Despite numerous assisted-dying bills in 15 years, every UK parliament has rejected legalization. The most recent was in September 2015, when the Marris Bill, which attempted to legalise assisted suicide for the terminally ill, was defeated in the House of Commons by a 3 to 1 margin - 330 votes to 118. A majority of both Conservative and Labour MPs voted against the bill. So left and right of our spectrum opposed it.

I do recognise, however, that assisted dying in the case of a terminally ill person can have a justifiable and even sympathetic rationale behind it, even if the ramifications in fact are too grave to risk legalising it. For this reason, I think it is critical that an appropriate degree of discretion is accorded to prosecutors and judges to temper justice with compassion in the "hard cases", as I believe is the case here in Britain.

But what I am saying is that if assisted dying were to be legalised in my country (which it isn't), one needs to ensure that the "right to die" does not become the "duty to die", in which vulnerable people - elderly, disabled, mentally ill - are put under informal social pressure to end their lives out of fear of burdening their loved ones, carers or a state that wants to save spending from the public purse by cutting down on vital services and social welfare that can help these people live with dignity and personal independence.

Of course, one could counter that the right to life is not the same as a duty to live either, and I respect that. I am open to having my opinion changed.

The evidence from the Netherlands, nonetheless, suggests to some that the “right to die” may subtly become the morally-obliging “duty to die”. As such, I remain unpersuaded that we can prevent this slide from "right" to a social pressured sense of "duty".

This is a gift to the worst kind of right-wing libertarians, who desire nothing more than to abolish the welfare state. A society that allows pressure to be placed upon vulnerable individuals to terminate their lives out of fear of becoming a useless burden is an evil society, in my opinion.

 

[Vouthon]

From the parliamentary debate here in the UK (2015) which saw the assisted dying bill defeated:


House of Commons Hansard Debates for 11 Sep 2015 (pt 0001)

Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Labour): I am afraid that I cannot support this Bill. My concern is that we will fundamentally change the way that our society thinks about and deals with the terminally ill, severely disabled people and the vulnerable, troubled and elderly.

I am against this Bill because I worry that the mere existence of the process of assisted dying will make the vulnerable more vulnerable. It will change fundamentally the relationship between a patient and a doctor, and I oppose it most strenuously, because I think it will fundamentally, slowly but inexorably, change our society’s attitude to death and the dying, with a creeping invidious expectation that our elderly, infirm or disabled should take themselves out of the igloo of old, and die a dignified death, leaving the young, fit and able unencumbered by their burdensome, difficult, messy, expensive, pain-filled and challenging lives.

Life is precious. But the virtues in a society that set it apart as wholesome, decent and ethical are those which nurture and value that life. They are the qualities of tolerance, understanding, forbearance and, dare I say it, love, which are such precious commodities. They engender and sustain compassion and ensure a growing humanity, a more civilised society for the living, that shields and truly values life.

My mum died suddenly and unexpectedly, riddled by cancer, but I know that my mum, faced with a terminal prognosis in a world where there was the possibility of state-assisted suicide, acceptable and accepted by society, would have tormented herself during her last months with the question of when she should ask for that button to be pressed. She would have worried about the stresses that my sister and I would have endured, she would have worried about the weight of her care being shouldered by the nurses and the doctors, and she would have been anxious that folk would think that she was consuming too many resources, selfishly staying alive, costing money, when she could and should just die.

My mum was not vulnerable. She was not alone or a depressive. She was dearly loved; and yet I know that the mere existence of legal and assisted suicide would have placed an enormous burden on her. But what of those without a loving family? What of those elderly people—let us face it, they do exist—with families more interested in the cost of care, and its impact on their dwindling inheritance, than the priceless gift of life? Would not some of my more vulnerable constituents think that they ought to take a course of action because it is available and despite the safeguards in the Bill, which I acknowledge have been carefully crafted? Can we be absolutely sure that they would not be pressured into it?

It is naive to believe that we can prevent an elderly, expensive or asset-rich relative being encouraged, coerced or emotionally blackmailed into taking their own life. And if just one person makes that decision to end their life as a result of such pressure, that would be a tragedy.

The Bill seeks to provide the right to assistance in dying only to those who are terminally ill. I believe supporters of the Bill have real integrity and do not intend its scope to be extended further. But if the Bill is passed, I believe that its scope will be extended, partly by case law, to apply to more people. Holland introduced assisted dying for the terminally ill in 2002. Initially, hardly any patients with psychiatric illnesses or dementia sought suicide. Now, just 13 years later, assisted suicide is sought and granted to elderly, lonely or bereaved people. Pressure for doctors to accede to requests comes from patients and relatives, as I believe it will here.​

 

[GoodbyeDave]

I do not want to end up in a hospice, even though I give financial support to one for those who do. I do not want to end up in a home for people with dementia. I want to end my life in a dignified fashion when I'm approaching the point when I shall no longer be able care for myself in my own home. And I am not going to be bullied by people who claim they know better than I, be they the BMA, do-gooder politicians, or Christians.

 

[Ellen Brown]

I do not want to end up in a hospice, even though I give financial support to one for those who do. I do not want to end up in a home for people with dementia. I want to end my life in a dignified fashion when I'm approaching the point when I shall no longer be able care for myself in my own home. And I am not going to be bullied by people who claim they know better than I, be they the BMA, do-gooder politicians, or Christians.

My feelings exactly.