The Netherlands weigh euthanasia for the healthy

[TitanTiger 20,508]

Otherwise known as "murder."

http://thefederalist.com/2017/06/30/netherlands-considers-euthanasia-healthy/

[Strychnine 1,803]

19 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Otherwise known as "murder."

http://thefederalist.com/2017/06/30/netherlands-considers-euthanasia-healthy/

 

While I cannot fathom what must be going on inside the mind of someone that wants to die, I also have no problem with allowing them to be euthanized per their wishes.  That said, someone should obviously be examined for mental illness before allowing it.

[TitanTiger 20,508]

3 minutes ago, Strychnine said:

While I cannot fathom what must be going on inside the mind of someone that wants to die, I also have no problem with allowing them to be euthanized per their wishes.  That said, someone should obviously be examined for mental illness before allowing it.

A healthy person who wishes to die obviously cannot be prevented from committing suicide.  That's awful and sad, but that's on them.  Creating a law that allows (and perhaps requires, if asked) a doctor's participation or facilitation of such a thing is abhorrent.

[Strychnine 1,803]

Just now, TitanTiger said:

A healthy person who wishes to die obviously cannot be prevented from committing suicide.  That's awful and sad, but that's on them.  Creating a law that allows (and perhaps requires) a doctor's participation or facilitation of such a thing is abhorrent.

 

I am fine with creating a law that allows them that right, as long as it is not requiring any unwilling physician (or any care provider) to participate.

[Grumps 3,704]

As Titan stated, a person can kill himself/herself at anytime. I think this is a legal issue more than a medical issue. Physician's don't need to be involved in euthanasia.

[AU64 10,122]

On ‎7‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 2:40 PM, Grumps said:

As Titan stated, a person can kill himself/herself at anytime. I think this is a legal issue more than a medical issue. Physician's don't need to be involved in euthanasia.

Most or many would find that such actions would violate their oath to "do no harm".....but the thing is, if such procedures become law, under current thinking a doctor might be required to carry out the 'murder" by the government as a condition of employment?   Just wondering?

[TitanTiger 20,508]

18 hours ago, AU64 said:

Most or many would find that such actions would violate their oath to "do no harm".....but the thing is, if such procedures become law, under current thinking a doctor might be required to carry out the 'murder" by the government as a condition of employment?   Just wondering?

There are some who believe that a person shouldn't be allowed to be an OBGYN unless they are willing to perform abortions.  In their minds, it's just part of the job.  The "do no harm" motto was tossed out the window a long time ago.

[Grumps 3,704]

6 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

There are some who believe that a person shouldn't be allowed to be an OBGYN unless they are willing to perform abortions.  In their minds, it's just part of the job.  The "do no harm" motto was tossed out the window a long time ago.

I disagree that the motto has been tossed out by many physicians. Certainly some physicians have good ethics and others have bad ethics, but I think that most physicians are cognizant of the concept of harm.

[TitanTiger 20,508]

11 hours ago, Grumps said:

I disagree that the motto has been tossed out by many physicians. Certainly some physicians have good ethics and others have bad ethics, but I think that most physicians are cognizant of the concept of harm.

I guess it all just depends on what the meaning of "harm" is.

[Strychnine 1,803]

4 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I guess it all just depends on what the meaning of "harm" is.

 

I must admit that if a person has become certain that suicide is their necessary course of action, I would prefer they have a legal, painless, and effective method of going about it.  It has to be preferable to the alternative of self-inflicted gunshot wounds, hanging, or drug/medication overdose.  All of those have a certain likelihood of failure, that could leave the person alive and in much worse shape than they were previously.  I would say that in this context, that is a variable to consider in defining "harm" from a physicians' perspective.  As I said previously, no physician or care provider should be compelled to assist anyone in committing suicide.  Considering the likely demand for such services, or lack thereof, I doubt it would take many physicians to meet that demand.

Personally, I can understand someone with a terminal illness wanting to be euthanized instead of suffering until they die from it.  I cannot understand an otherwise healthy individual wanting to be euthanized, but I cannot agree with denying them that right if someone is willing to do it.  However, I do believe that an examination and determination that they are of sound mind should be a prerequisite.

[TitanTiger 20,508]

11 minutes ago, Strychnine said:

As I said previously, no physician or care provider should be compelled to assist anyone in committing suicide.  Considering the likely demand for such services, or lack thereof, I doubt it would take many physicians to meet that demand.

The problem is, I'm not sure everyone in a position to make such laws feels the same way.  

 

11 minutes ago, Strychnine said:

Personally, I can understand someone with a terminal illness wanting to be euthanized instead of suffering until they die from it.  I cannot understand an otherwise healthy individual wanting to be euthanized, but I cannot agree with denying them that right if someone is willing to do it.  However, I do believe that an examination and determination that they are of sound mind should be a prerequisite.

I'm not proposing locking them in a rubber room to prevent them from taking their own life.  But involving others in your decision is beyond problematic.

[Strychnine 1,803]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

The problem is, I'm not sure everyone in a position to make such laws feels the same way.  

 

I'm not proposing locking them in a rubber room to prevent them from taking their own life.  But involving others in your decision is beyond problematic.

 

It is doubtful that a law allowing euthanasia that also required physicians to participate would ever be passed here, or even in the Netherlands.  I seriously doubt that a majority of the people that think euthanasia should be allowed also think that people should be required to perform it.

Involving others in your decision to be euthanized is not problematic at all if others are willing to participate.  It is only problematic if others are required to participate in your decision, without regard to their own decision on the matter.  While I recognize a person's right to be euthanized humanely, I also recognize a person's right to not participate in euthanizing anyone.  There is obviously a middle ground here where those wanting to be euthanized can have it performed by someone willing to do it.

[AUDub 11,164]

23 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I guess it all just depends on what the meaning of "harm" is.

I often compare it to the decisions some palliative care nurses and physicians may have to make. Or the one that gave my little bro that last bolus did, for example. You do eventually get to a point on a patient that is actively dying - hours, maybe minutes to live - where relief of suffering, rather than prolonging life, is the less harmful act.

That's not to say they're overdosing them with painkillers to shorten their suffering. More like giving them enough to keep them comfortable without concern for oversedating them.

[TitanTiger 20,508]

10 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

I often compare it to the decisions some palliative care nurses and physicians may have to make. Or the one that gave my little bro that last bolus did, for example. You do eventually get to a point on a patient that is actively dying - hours, maybe minutes to live - where relief of suffering, rather than prolonging life, is the less harmful act.

That's not to say they're overdosing them with painkillers to shorten their suffering. More like giving them enough to keep them comfortable down without concern for oversedating them.

Those decisions are understandable.  When you reach the limits of what current medical science can do for someone, they aren't going to get better and in fact will get progressively worse, simply making someone comfortable and allowing a natural death is reasonable.

This isn't that.  They aren't even comparable.  You have a healthy individual who simply clinically depressed.  They need counseling, treatment and relationship, not a murderer in a white coat.