Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2003 2:32 am Post subject: Euthanasia
In my work I have come across certain ethical issues of which I am curious whether they are or are not allowed and why this is the case. These issues are first of all euthanasia. I live in a country where it has been recently legalised. This does not imply killing people, but peacefully ending the life of a person who is not going to get better, who is in a great deal of unbearable pain and who has made this request being sound of mind. Naturally there are other requirements, but I will leave these aside for now. I am aware that the Qu'ran says that we cannot take the life of another (i.e. euthanasia) and that we cannot take our own lives (i.e. physician-assisted suicide). There are some texts and people who suggest that the more we suffer in the here and now, the more we will be rewarded in the afterlife.
Now, before you reply that killing is wrong, I would like you to first ask yourselves where the line is. If someone has been hit by a car, and all that is keeping him alive is a ventilator and artificial supplies of food and drink, is he still alive? Is his spirit still in his body? For if it wasn't for modern medicine, he would have passed away. Is it therefore wrong to turn of the machines and let him die? Another example is someone who has an uncurable illness and is in a great deal of pain. If he receives painkillers to help control the pain, but knows that these painkillers will end his life sooner, is this wrong? Because these are also forms of euthanasia although in different countries they have different names.
I wonder if there have ever been made farmans on this issue.
If doctors who won't kill are 'wicked,' the world is sick
By Licia Corbella, Calgary HeraldJanuary 10, 2009
Talk about Orwellian. A woman described as a "leading expert in ethics" has declared that doctors who refuse to kill their patients are "genuinely wicked." I'm not making this up.
Mary Warnock, a British baroness told the Northern Ireland Forum for Ethics in Medicine and Healthcare this past Monday, that doctors who refuse to break their Hippocratic oath are evil.
It seems that virtually every day, I read another story that proves the world--and what is accepted as good and true --is being turned on its head.
Referring to terminally ill patients who make a written request to be killed when they reach a certain point in their illness, Warnock said: "There are doctors, we know, who don't pay any attention (to those written wishes to be killed).
"But that seems to me a genuinely wicked thing to do--to disregard what somebody had quite explicitly said, that he wants to die . . . "
This is the same old bird (she's 84) who argued that people who have dementia or Alzheimer's disease have a "duty to die" because they are a burden to society and their families.
"If you're demented, you're wasting people's lives--your family's lives--and you're wasting the resources of the National Health Service," she said a few months ago.
There was a time when such statements would be described as wicked and the orator as well.
But in Warnock's twisted world of "ethics," doctors who kill are righteous and doctors who refuse to kill are villainous.
Black is white, white is black and wrong is right. Murder is merciful and compassionate care, cruel. Somewhere out there, George Orwell is saying, "I told you so."
In her Jan. 5 speech, Warnock dismisses the idea that murdering the elderly and "demented" will not lead to a slippery slope of killing infants, depressed teens and others.
But that is precisely what is happening in Holland, where euthanasia has been practised since 1980 and has been fully legal since 2002.
Currently, infants born with defects are often killed by their doctor, with or without the parents' permission, not that permission makes it any more acceptable.
That's not just a slippery slope, it's Mount Everest in a blizzard.
The language surrounding euthanasia is necessarily softened by its proponents, calling the active killing of another human being, mercy killing, dying with dignity and choice. But what actually has been shown to happen in places that embrace legalized euthanasia is the antithesis of choice.
In a government study in the Netherlands, called Medical Decisions about the End of Life, it was found that in 1990 alone 1,031 patients were actively killed by their doctor without their request and of those people, 14 per cent were fully competent, 72 per cent had never expressed that they wanted their lives ended and in eight per cent of the cases, doctors performed "involuntary euthanasia" even though they believed other options were available.
Similar subsequent studies found similar outcomes.
So, this form of "choice" actually leads to thousands of people never being able to make a choice--ever again.
Even some staunch proponents of euthanasia say Holland is an extreme example. Much better to look to Oregon, where physician assisted suicide (PAS) has been legal since 1997.
But in the reports published annually by the state, it's evident that choice is compromised in Oregon too.
In 1998, 12 per cent of PAS patients in Oregon said they chose this irreversible course of action because they didn't want to burden their family. That rose to 26 per cent in 1999, 42 per cent in 2005 and 45 per cent in 2007, the last year figures are available. If that were a company's bottom line, champagne corks would be popping!
In other words, for the infirm and disabled, the right to die quickly becomes the duty to die. Wanting to live despite being frail or ill increasingly is viewed as selfish in places where euthanasia is the law.
That's not empowerment, it's coercion, guilt for living, pressure to die.
According to Belfast's daily paper, The News Letter, after Warnock spoke in the debate --which was ironically held in a local church, one of the members of the audience, Avril Robb, a lawyer and a member of the Medical Legal Society, said she had cared for her parents through their terminal illnesses and stated: "I do know that the last months were very precious."
That is what many who spend time caring for a dying parent, child or spouse says about a loved one's last days and months. Their vulnerability causes all emotional walls to tumble down and petty problems to vanish.
A nurse friend of mine who works in palliative care but had also spent years helping to bring babies into the world says: "I'm convinced that dying can be a more blessed a time than birth."
That may sound counterintuitive, but compared to saying that refusing to kill is wicked, it's much easier to believe.
Don't follow Oregon's lead--say no to assisted suicide
By Dr. Charles Bentz, Calgary HeraldJanuary 17, 2009 3:01 AM
I am an internal medicine doctor, practising in Oregon, where assisted suicide is legal and would like to commend the Jan. 10 column by Licia Corbella, entitled: "If doctors who won't kill are 'wicked,' the world is sick.' "
I would also like to share a story about one of my patients.
I was caring for a 76-year-old man who came in with a sore on his arm.
The sore was ultimately diagnosed as a malignant melanoma, and I referred him to two cancer specialists for evaluation and therapy.
I had known this patient and his wife for more than a decade. He was an avid hiker, a popular hobby here in Oregon. As he went through his therapy, he became less able to do this activity, becoming depressed, which was documented in his chart.
During this time, my patient expressed a wish for doctor-assisted suicide to one of the cancer specialists.
Rather than taking the time and effort to address the question of depression, or ask me to talk with him as his primary care physician and as someone who knew him, the specialist called me and asked me to be the "second opinion" for his suicide.
She told me that barbiturate overdoses "work very well" for patients like this, and that she had done this many times before.
I told her that assisted suicide was not appropriate for this patient and that I did NOT concur.
I was very concerned about my patient's mental state, and I told her that addressing his underlying issues would be better than simply giving him a lethal prescription.
Unfortunately, my concerns were ignored, and approximately two weeks later my patient was dead from an overdose prescribed by this doctor.
His death certificate, filled out by this doctor, listed the cause of death as melanoma.
The public record is not accurate.
My patient did not die from his cancer, but at the hands of a once-trusted colleague.
This experience has affected me, my practice, and my understanding of what it means to be a physician.
What happened to this patient, who was weak and vulnerable, raises several important questions that I have had to answer, and that Canadian citizens should also consider: - If assisted suicide is made legal in Canada, will you be able to trust your doctors to give you and your family members the best care? I referred my patient to specialty care, to a doctor I trusted, and the outcome turned out to be fatal. - How will financial issues affect your choices? In Oregon, patients under the Oregon Health Plan have been denied coverage for treatment and offered coverage for suicide instead, which saves the plan money. See KATU TV story and video at http://www.katu.com/home/video/26119539.html (about Barbara Wagner). Do you want this to be your choice? - If your doctors favour assisted suicide, will they let you know about all possible options or will they simply encourage you to kill yourself?
Suicidal ideation is interpreted as a cry for help. In Oregon, the only help my patient received was a lethal prescription, intended to kill him.
To the citizens of Canada, is this where you want to go? Please learn the real lesson from Oregon.
Despite all of the so-called safeguards in our assisted suicide law, numerous instances of coercion, inappropriate selection, botched attempts, and active euthanasia have been documented in the public record.
Protect your health care. Don't let legalized assisted suicide come to Canada.
Charles J. Bentz, Md, FaCP, is a CliniCal assoCiate ProFessor oF MediCine, division oF General MediCine and GeriatriCs at oreGon health & sCienCes University, Portland, ore.
Betty Coumbias does not need assistance to die. She needs help to learn how to go on living.
The elderly Vancouver woman wants to create a suicide pact with a new twist --assisted suicide for her husband, George, who has heart disease, and for herself as well because she doesn't want to live without him. Dignitas, an assisted-suicide advocacy group based in Switzerland, plans to approach state government officials in Zurich and possibly seek a court ruling to determine the legality of doctors administering lethal drugs to healthy people who don't want to live any longer.
The prevailing ethos in civilized society is that people who want to commit suicide are in dire need of help. They need counselling, and they need the comfort and sympathy of others. Reaching out to help those who are so profoundly depressed and miserable that suicide seems the only way to escape from their pain, is a hallmark of this ethos, which speaks to an unshakable belief in the sanctity of human life. It must not be eroded, for then all human life is immeasurably cheapened and easily accorded the same level of disposability as that of thousands of unwanted dogs and cats euthanized daily be-cause there is no one to love and care for them.
Widowhood is a terrifying and depressing prospect, but the bereaved need assistance in journeying through the grief process, not help in killing themselves.
Assisted suicide is always a wrong moral path down which to walk, whether one is ill, or in good health, as Betty Coumbias is.The oxymoronically named Dignitas is not about dignity at all, for dignity entails learning how to go on with life after loss and rediscovering the joy of living. To argue that dignity is re-ally about a quick and easy launch pad into the terrible permanence of death reduces dying to just another lifestyle choice.
It is telling that, during what hospice personnel call "active dying," the person in whom the process is taking place fights death at many levels. So hardwired is the human organism to go on living that the heart will pump harder to force sinking blood pressure levels back up to normal. The inevitable process of death is marked by such brave little last-ditch efforts on the body's part to rally.
If the human body is not prepared to succumb so easily, then the human ethos that underpins our attitudes toward life and death must not succumb to the blandishments of those who believe that the suicidal should be helped to die, instead of being helped to live.
Bloc Quebecois MP Francine Lalonde is at it again. Her very own neverendum has returned like a bad case of acid reflux.
No, I'm not referring to her aspiration for Quebec to separate from the rest of Canada. Lalonde's second favourite neverendum is far more serious to the well-being of us all. On Wednesday, Lalonde resurrected for the third time her private member's bill for doctors to kill you without penalty, should you request she or he do so, even though both the Supreme Court of Canada and a Canadian Senate committee has rejected legalizing euthanasia. Lalonde's private member's bill is benignly called Bill C-384.
This is what Lalonde said in the House on Wednesday: "The time has come for this Parliament to find a way to decriminalize medical assistance in dying, which is of such vital importance to those whose suffering can no longer be relieved except by this ultimate compassion."
She goes on to say that in recent years three countries in Europe and two U.S. states have enacted legislation which allows physicians to help a patient die.
In her speech, Lalonde says these jurisdictions allow physicians "under certain circumstances--the express request of terminally ill patients being one of them --to help certain persons die." It's strange, though, because that's not what her proposed legislation actually says. Bill C-384 will make it legal for physicians to kill anyone 18 or older who "continues, after trying or expressly refusing the appropriate treatments available, to experience severe physical or mental pain without any prospect of relief."
When proponents of euthanasia speak, they refer almost exclusively to elderly terminally ill people in excruciating pain being the recipients of, as Lalonde called it, "ultimate compassion."
But when you read the small print, her bill includes depressed 18-year-olds who refuse "appropriate treatments" like say, refusing to take their Prozac. So killing off depressed teens who refuse their meds is now "ultimate compassion."The euphemism is nauseating.
In her comments before the House, Lalonde stated: "Serious research . . . clearly shows that the greatest fear expressed in this Parliament some years ago, abuses and the hypothetical slippery slope, has not in any way become reality."
That statement isn't just inaccurate, it's a lie and Lalonde knows it because I told her about reports that show the slippery slope back in 2005 and I taped the phone call in which she listened to facts from those reports which I read to her and faxed to her office.
The Netherlands has been practising the killing of patients for about 30 years. It was made legal on April 1, 2002. Euthanasia in the Netherlands started out as "mercy killing" only for terminally ill, elderly people with full mental faculty who repeatedly ask for death. Now in the Netherlands, anyone over the age of 16, suffering from mental anguish, can seek physician-assisted suicide. What's more, now mildly deformed infants are being killed in the Netherlands.
In a March 2005 New England Journal of Medicine report called The Groningen Protocol, it is revealed that babies born with spina bifida, cleft palate and other abnormalities are being killed by Dutch physicians.
Imperfect babies are being killed and Lalonde says there's no slippery slope? That's not a slippery slope --it's a vertical skating rink.
Consider the case of British Columbia couple George and Betty Coumbias, both 73. George is ill with serious heart disease and is seeking to be killed in Switzerland at a clinic called Dignitas. Betty is perfectly healthy, but she has decided she wants them to kill her at the same time as her husband, and this clinic is seriously considering it. More slipping and sliding going on here.
So, what's the problem, proponents of euthanasia ask? It's their life and they should be free to choose when to end it and how. Proponents of euthanasia always argue it doesn't hurt anyone else. But again, that's not what the scientific studies show.
According to a 1991 Dutch report called Medical Decisions About the End of Life, by Prof. J. Remmelink, attorney general of the High Council of the Netherlands, in 1990 alone 1,031 people were killed by their physicians without their consent or knowledge. What I don't understand is how this fact alone doesn't stop the push for euthanasia cold. Of those 1,031 people murdered against their will, 14 per cent were fully competent and 72 per cent never expressed the will to be killed. In other words, those patients were given no choice then or ever again. That could be you or your teenager or your infant should Lalonde's bill become law.
Numerous other reports in the Netherlands made similar hair-raising findings. In 1995, 950 people were killed without their consent or "choice," and in 2005 (the most recent report in the Netherlands) 550 people were killed by their doctors without request or consent.
That's what happens when euthanasia is entrenched in a society. Call your MP and demand that he or she oppose this evil bill.
Death a certainty, not a right
Calgary HeraldJuly 18, 2009
The Quebec College of Physicians is taking the country down a dangerous path by reopening the often murky debate about euthanasia. It wants to recommend it be considered appropriate care in some instances.
Euthanasia is never appropriate.
The college is referring to the common practice of treating terminally ill patients with painkillers, to manage their suffering. Physicians constantly adjust and increase the morphine required, and sometimes the analgesic is what kills the patient, not the disease. But is this euthanasia? The Quebec doctors want to argue: Yes.
"The question here is to decide whether a drop in dosage or an increase in dosage constitutes a criminal act," says college secretary Yves Robert. "We may go as far as to recommend that in certain cases where the pain is unbearable, the amount of analgesic required could correspond to a form of euthanasia."
It's curious the college wants to go down this road, considering physicians make these decisions daily without fear of criminal charges. They do not need it spelled out in the Criminal Code.
This is an attempt to bridge the huge chasm between passive and active euthanasia. There is a difference; one allows nature to take its course, the other deliberately takes a life that someone -- in this case, a doctor--has deemed is no longer valuable.
To amend the Criminal Code in this way, would be to legitimize a form of euthanasia, setting a precedent that could be extended well beyond terminally ill patients.
The move could lead to an "end of life" policy adopted by the Quebec government. If that happens, it may only be a matter of time before that role would be expanded to include voluntary assisted suicide.
In Oregon, residents are prescribed a fatal dose of medication if they have a disease expected to kill them within six months. Yet, a lot can change in six months.
Take HIV/AIDS, which was once a death sentence, but is now something people live with as they would a chronic illness, thanks to advances in medications.
Physicians are not infallible. They have been known to make mistakes, or diagnose someone with a terminal illness, only to be proven wrong and witness a so-called miraculous recovery.
If Quebec physicians are so concerned about making their patients' final days as comfortable as possible, they should advocate for better palliative care programs. With good pain and symptom control, the desire for euthanasia, from a patient's perspective, diminishes drastically. Yet most people die without ever seeing a palliative care provider. And without palliative care, pain and symptom control cannot be optimized.
Quebec physicians should be helping their patients live as comfortably and fully as possible, until they take their last breaths, and not a second sooner.
By Bishop Fred Henry, For The Calgary HeraldJuly 28, 2009
On May 13 Francine Lalonde, a member of parliament with the Bloc Quebecois, introduced her private member's Bill C-384, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (right to die with dignity), to legalize euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in Canada.
The issue is one of pressing interest and concern but also widespread confusion.
A major cause of the confusion is what George Orwell, in his essay, Politics and the English Language, calls the language of "euphemisms, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness." Some of the language being used in the euthanasia debate appears "designed to makes lies sound truthful and murder acceptable, and give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
The rhetoric of "choice," "aid-indying," "compassion," "a new medical treatment," "self-determination," "autonomy," and "death with dignity" tend to cover up the reality that euthanasia is a deliberate act undertaken by one individual with the intention and result of ending the life of another to relieve that person's suffering. Assisted suicide is the act of killing oneself with the assistance of another who provides the knowledge, means or both.
This proposed legislation would reverse the reigning medical ethic which for more than two millenniums has insisted that doctors must heal and never kill. Legalizing physician assisted suicide would irreparably damage the doctor-patient relationship. The patient's trust in the doctor's wholehearted devotion to the patient's best interests will be hard to sustain once doctors are licensed to kill. Furthermore, such legislation would put undue stress on the conscience of the physician pressured by patients and others to take part in killing.
The unmistakable issue is the intentional killing of a human being. It has nothing to do with natural death or dignity, and everything to do with killing. We are NOT discussing letting someone die.
Euthanasia is NOT respecting a patient's refusal of treatment at any time in the course of treatment. Medical tradition and practice clearly distinguish between refusal of medical intervention and intentionally causing death by euthanasia.
Euthanasia is NOT discontinuing treatment when it serves no therapeutic purpose or the patient requests treatment to cease; nor is it abstaining from medically futile treatment.
All treatments that impose undue burdens on the patient without overriding benefits or that simply provide no benefits may justifiably be withheld or withdrawn. In making such decisions, the judgment is about the worth of treatment, not about the worth of lives. The provision of adequate medicines to control pain is not euthanasia. The administration of high doses of painkillers and sedatives to terminally ill patients may lead to a shortening of their lives. It is, however, morally acceptable to administer such drugs in doses which are linked to their painkilling or sedative effects, and not to the termination of life. It is not correct to call this "euthanasia" because there is no intention to shorten the patient's life.
Those favouring assisted-suicide have not given adequate attention to palliative care. The goal of palliative care is to give comfort and thereby enable the dying to live while dying. Letting life ebb away can in no way be equated with active euthanasia. Allowing to die is a world removed from giving a lethal injection.
Palliative care also aims at lessening or managing the suffering of terminal patients. Often they feel helpless, lonely, in the way, and a burden to others. With empathy, comfort care, and affirmation, palliative caregivers accompany patients in their suffering and by their kindness and compassion help the patient maintain a sense of worth and a feeling of belonging, and move from depression to hope.
The legislation of aid-indying would pose a threat to the elderly, the infirm, handicapped newborns and to all members of society who are unable to look after their own best interests. This kind of legislation says to them: "you're not important; you're not needed; in fact, you are a burden to others."
Canadian citizens should be assured that their dignity at every stage of life is recognized by government as important. They must be reassured by government that their needs will be met humanely. They must be shown true compassion in the care they receive from society, not through death-dealing, but by being looked after in a life-giving way.
As Canadians, we all have a duty to speak up for the rights and dignity of every citizen. In short, it is Bill C-384 that must die!
Euthanasia is a licence to kill
By David Warren, The Ottawa Citizen
August 1, 2009
The word "euthanasia" was designed from the beginning as a euphemism --as an attempt to draw the happy face over a profoundly ugly thing, and thereby slide over the moral depths--in the pioneering days of eugenics. The purpose of euphemism is to decorate a lie.
"Self-murder" was the word for killing yourself in several European languages (in German, for instance, Selbstmorder); and in English and the Romance languages the word "suicide" is just self-murder from the Latin (sui+caedere).
Of course, killing someone else is not suicide. That is murder, plain and simple, in all European languages --or at best "accessory to murder" in legalese, which was punished as murder until (figuratively) the day before yesterday. It didn't matter if he wanted to die.
That suicide is the ultimate subjective act, and thus, in effect, the final act of narcissism, was among the striking observations of Tomas Garrigue Masaryk. He was the 20th-century Czech thinker and statesman whose 1881 book Suicide and the Meaning of Civilization laid the foundation for much later social thought.
It was Masaryk's thesis that suicide rates, already at historical highs, and climbing, in the more industrially advanced parts of Europe by the 1880s, would continue to rise through the decades ahead, with decreasing religiosity and increasing modernization. He predicted that this trend would spread to regions yet untouched, as the symptoms of modernity reached them.
This was not so much a question of religious denomination, as of religious practice. There would be a rough, inverse correlation between church attendance and the suicide rate. Later statistical studies have borne this out, and Masaryk thus stands among the few sociologists whose work retains any empirical value.
Masaryk grasped the difference between depression and hopelessness, which we like to slur over today. Depression only makes one accident-prone; the real self-killer is the absence of hope for the future. This is a distinction that has been vindicated in psychiatric studies of the dying; it points directly to a dimension of human life that is irreducibly moral and religious.
Masaryk's book is much deeper and more comprehensive than Le suicide (1897), by Emile Durkheim --still presented as the standard classic on its subject to sociology majors, who will never hear of Masaryk. This is partly because of Masaryk's "unmodern" audacity, in showing that the phenomena of suicide are moral and religious, as opposed to natural. People kill themselves for all sorts of stated reasons, but what goads one man to suicide goads another to renewed life, and the only sound predictor is religious formation.
Loss of religious belief, and what is more significant, religious practice--for beliefs mean little when not put into practice; words mean little without deeds --was the true common factor. Life lost meaning once religion was abandoned.
We have lost our historical sense as well as our religion, and it is hard for us to appreciate today the longer historical trends that Masaryk was examining. We have the impression that the Christian religion was still going strong in the 1950s, and that something happened in the 1960s--the sexual revolution, or whatever--to change all that. No.
To a longer view there is not much to choose between those decades. In the English-speaking world, the outward "loss of faith" is an event that began among Victorian liberal elites. That in turn was preceded by the religious desiccation of the 18th-century; which had its roots in the Protestant Reformation, etc. History does not arrange itself in hermetic periods.
We face today not a continuing revolution in morals and manners, dating from the 1960s, but the last whanks of a revolution wrought centuries ago. Masaryk was looking at the fallout from "the Enlightenment," in the broadest possible sense. He foresaw much by penetrating beneath shorter-term trends, and by wrestling directly with core moral and philosophical concepts.
The many symptoms of civilizational decay that lay partly concealed beneath the surface of society only recently came into full view, in the open pornography, the open nihilism, the despairing flippancy, visible throughout our contemporary public life. But the pond was long draining, and it is only now we see fish flopping in the mud.
Euthanasia is the final "life issue," the clincher for what the last pope called "the culture of death." Even when legalizing abortion, we agreed only to the slaughter of human beings we could not see. It was still possible to look away, to pretend we were not killing "real people," only "potential people."
But when we embrace so-called "mercy killing," we embrace slaughter not only for the sick and old, but ultimately, the "option" of easy suicide for ourselves. It will be hard to go lower.
David Warren is a columnist With The Ottawa Citizen.
Last week, Debbie Purdy, a British multiple sclerosis sufferer, secured what those promoting assisted suicide see as a useful victory. Asked to rule on Great Britain's assisted-suicide law -- specifically whether her husband could face charges if he accompanied her to a Swiss euthanasia clinic and was with her as she died--the law lords agreed the law was opaque, and required Westminster to clarify it.
The next day, a private member's bill was proposed to allow terminally ill Britons to end their lives without leaving the country, or criminalizing those who aid them.
Those who fear euthanasia, may take comfort from the bill's slender chance of ever receiving parliamentary time.
Still, these events further illustrate how radical social change, in whatever sphere of human activity it is forced, relies on two things:Clever exploitation of sympathetic but marginal circumstances, and our monstrous capacity to deny the long-term implications of small changes to address them --as in, "What slippery slope? That would never happen."
Sadly, "that" often happens exactly as pessimists say. Against contemporary consensus, revolutions have been snatched from moderates, by bloodier men. War came to Europe despite assurances that concessions to Hitler meant it never would. Suffice to say skilful activists find incrementalism a powerful lever in sowing doubt and creating conditions for a dam-bursting moment of transition.
Purdy, after all, is an extremely sympathetic case. No decent person can fail to sympathize with the fears and apprehensions of a woman facing a protracted and potentially painful death. Right-to-die advocates know this, and use it. And, without appealing to a faith not universally shared, how do life's defenders rebut the arguments of fairness, and that this woman's life is hers to dispose?
Typically, by suggesting such cases are the thin end of a wedge: If physician assisted suicide is permitted to desperately ill people, it will eventually be available for the merely depressed, commonplace for the suffering, and a danger to the dependent elderly whose continued existence violates the right of their children to a convenient life, (secured by their inheritance).
Never happen? It already does, in Holland.
It is salutary to reflect that revolutionaries from Cromwell through Robespierre, to the tyrants of the early 20th century and the abortion activists of the 1970s have in common that for their new and perfected world orders to flourish, somebody --the Stuarts, the aristocracy, class enemies, the Jews, the unborn-- must die. The assisted-suicide movement is but the latest such culture of death: If it has its way, an unwilling generation will pay with their lives for the noble principle of choice, sure as slopes are slippery.
Perhaps the British will see this: When they clarify their law, Purdy may not like it.
However, Canada should take no comfort from that. Activists merely wait for the next good case, and this country has its own peculiar philosophical vulnerability, the charter right to equality. In 1993, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected the contention laws against assisted suicide were discriminatory, but nobody should assume it would do so again. The Constitution is, after all, "a living tree" supposed in judicial circles to evolve with public opinion. Contra the bromide that such a thing could never happen here, it is entirely possible that it might.
The clarity actually required, here and in Great Britain, is that life is sacred and vulnerable. When it is depreciated in one law, it is depreciated in all.
That is, as the right to die is conceded to someone eagerly desiring it, a death sentence is quietly pronounced on someone else clinging to life.
September 7, 2009
A More Perfect Death
By ROSS DOUTHAT
As if there weren’t enough end-of-life anxieties floating around the health care debate, the Montana Supreme Court has chosen this month to weigh whether their state should join nearby Oregon and Washington in endorsing physician-assisted suicide.
What’s at stake is the right to voluntary euthanasia, not the sort of involuntary plug-pulling that some Republicans have claimed is concealed in the finer print of the current health care reform proposals. But you don’t have to share Sarah Palin’s death panel fears to see perils lurking at the intersection of physician-assisted suicide and health care reform.
Consider the words of a prominent oncologist, bioethicist and health care wonk, critiquing assisted suicide in 1997, just before a Supreme Court ruling on the issue. “Once legalized,” this writer warned in the pages of The Atlantic, “euthanasia would become routine. Over time doctors would become comfortable giving injections to end life and Americans would become comfortable having euthanasia as an option.” From there, it would be an easy slide to euthanizing the incompetent: “Comfort would make us want to extend the option to others who, in society’s view, are suffering and leading purposeless lives.”
Comfort — and budgetary constraints. Euthanasia would be much more likely to pass from an exception to a rule, the bioethicist argued, “in the context of demographic and budgetary pressures on Social Security and Medicare as the Baby Boom generation begins to retire, around 2010.”
In the great health care debate of 2009, that’s the kind of argument you’d expect to hear from a Republican politician. But the words were actually written by Ezekiel Emanuel, a health-care advisor at the Office of Management and Budget, and the brother of Rahm Emanuel, the White House Chief of Staff.
Ironically, Dr. Emanuel now stands accused of favoring some sort of death panels himself, thanks in part to a paper he recently co-authored, which argues that the scarcest medical resources (emergency vaccines, say, or donated organs) should be provided to younger, healthier patients before they’re given to the aged and infirm. His critics have seized on the paper to suggest that Emanuel — and by extension, the Obama administration — might support applying age and health-based rationing to medical treatment in general.
Yet the conservatives pillorying him, unjustly , as a “deadly doctor” could just as easily be quoting him. Twelve years later, Emanuel’s Atlantic essay remains a lucid case for the existence of a slippery slope, especially under government-managed health care, to some sort of death-by-bureaucrat.
Just because Ezekiel Emanuel and Sarah Palin agree that a slope exists, however, doesn’t mean that America will slip down it.
In a more cost-conscious culture, there’s no question that physician-assisted suicide could lead to a particularly sinister form of rationing. The European experience offers plenty of cautionary tales — from the spread of less-than-voluntary euthanasia in the suicide-accepting Netherlands, to the recent controversy over Great Britain’s “Liverpool Care Pathway,” whose supposedly-merciful approach to dying patients may involve withdrawing care before their death is actually certain.
But the American way of death is different. Our move toward physician-assisted suicide springs from the same quest for mastery over mortality that leads us to spend nearly twice as much on health care as any other developed nation. And our instincts run so strongly toward unlimited spending that it’s much easier to imagine the government going bankrupt paying for extreme life-saving procedures than it is to imagine a suddenly cost-conscious bureaucracy pressuring doctors to administer lethal overdoses.
It sounds paradoxical to link the desire for unlimited medical treatment to the desire for physician-assisted suicide. But the idea that there’s a right to the most expensive health care while you want to be alive isn’t all that different, in a sense, from the idea that there’s a right to swiftly die once life doesn’t seem worth living.
In each case, the goal is perfect autonomy, perfect control, and absolute freedom of choice. And in each case, the alternative approach — one that emphasizes the limits of human agency, and the importance of humility in the face of death’s mysteries — doesn’t mesh with our national DNA.
There are many good reasons to oppose assisted suicide. It transforms a healing profession into a killing profession. It encourages relatives to see a loved one’s slow death as a problem to be solved, rather than a trial to be accepted. And as Emanuel noted in his 1997 essay, its “beneficiaries” are far more likely to be suffering from psychological distress than unbearable physical pain.
But in the profligate, Promethean United States, it probably won’t lead to rationing-by-euthanasia. It’s just as likely to become one more “intervention” that we insist every health insurance plan should cover — on our way, perhaps, to a rendezvous with fiscal suicide.
Euthanasia damages trust in doctors
October 17, 2009
It should be disturbing news to Quebecers that 75 per cent of medical specialists in that province would probably be in favour of legalizing euthanasia, according to a survey of its members done by the Quebec Federation of Medical Specialists. Nothing could be more calculated to destroy the trust in their physicians that patients should by rights be able to have than the knowledge that a given doctor looks favourably on euthanasia.
The organization clarified the results of the survey by stating that it refers to euthanasia "within a clearly defined legislative limit." There is no such thing, and both doctors and patients are fooling themselves if they think there is. The compendium of illness is so vast and the ways a single malady can affect different people so varied that it is impossible for any issue this serious to be so black and white that it can be clearly defined by legislation. Health-care providers always work in shades of grey, due simply to the diversity of the patient population they're caring for.
And unless a patient is aware that his or her doctor is adamantly opposed to euthanasia, confidence in that doctor will be eroded. No patient can then be sure that a doctor has saving lives in mind when giving advice on such things as drug dosages for pain or sedation for someone hospitalized with a serious illness. Nor will patients be any longer confident that a doctor looking after them when they are unconscious has not written them off as candidates for euthanasia when discussing care and treatment plans with their families. Loved ones may find themselves agreeing to levels of drug administration for a sick family member, for example, which they don't have the medical expertise to challenge, and are not even in an emotional state to begin to do so.
Euthanasia should and must remain outlawed in Canada, despite the leanings of the QFMS, and despite Bill C-384, which proposes legalizing euthanasia and is in second reading in Parliament. Patients have an inviolable right to trust that their doctor is doing everything possible to help them live. A favourable feeling among doctors toward euthanasia is the farthest thing possible from the Hippocratic oath, which states: "I will do no harm or injustice to (my patients) . . . I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan . . . "
Test these bioethicists for consciousness
By Naomi Lakritz, Calgary Herald
November 29, 2009
It's said that where there's life, there's hope. It also seems that where there's life, there's someone ready to devalue it.
Last week, the world heard about the case of Rom Houben, a 46-year-old Brussels man who spent more than two decades living the nightmare of a medical misdiagnosis. Paralyzed in an auto accident, Houben was thought to be in a persistent vegetative state until three years ago when scans showed that his cerebral cortex--the part of the brain scientists say governs thought, language and other higher functions --was active. It turned out that Houben had been fully aware all those years, but trapped in his paralyzed body, he was unable to let doctors know.
This should be happy news, especially because in the three years since Houben's true diagnosis of locked-in syndrome was made, he has learned to communicate with the help of an aide and a special keyboard and computer. But it has dealt a severe blow to those who set themselves up to judge the quality and value of the lives of others, because it puts paid to their cherished notions about euthanasia and that oxymoronic phrase, "right to die." That term is often slyly used as though it meant the right of the disabled individual in question, when actually it means someone else's right to decide the disabled person should die.
So roaring back they came, the dissenters, ready to denounce Houben's restored communication ability as a mere parlour trick. I'm not sure what satisfaction they get from savaging this helpless man's accomplishments, but then I don't presume to pass judgment on the level of sentience at which they function, as they have passed judgment on Houben's.
Houben is so lucky to have a wise, compassionate doctor like neurologist Steven Laureys caring for him. In an interview Friday with newscientist.com,Laureys said, "What is happening now is very regrettable. I feel sorry for Rom and about what some people have written on the Net. He knows what people are saying, and one can only try to imagine what he has already been through. . . . He is again being treated as if 'it is impossible, he cannot be a cognitive being.' "
Indeed, some cretins posting online dismissed Houben as a "fraud," a "hoax" and a "poor stiff."
Laureys added, "We don't have the neural correlate of consciousness. However, there is a whole literature on the brain's metabolic activity in the vegetative state and on its activity when it is functioning normally."
Consciousness is the ultimate mystery of human existence. How dare anyone make dismissive assumptions about the state of Houben's consciousness and self-awareness? There is simply no ruling out the possibility that apart from the known physical functions of the brain, something else is the seat of consciousness. Call it the mind, call it the soul--we have no way of knowing anyone else's depth of experience of cognition, regardless of how disabled they appear outwardly.
Arthur Caplan, a professor of bioethics professor at the University of Pennsylvania, dismisses Houben's communication as "Ouija board stuff" and says the things Houben communicates are not natural for someone who has suffered an injury like his. If anything, it is the bioethics profs who appear to be the soulless ones. Listen to what bioethicist Jacob Appel wrote, which was posted Tuesday on www.huffingtonpost.com:"Conservative activists may attempt to use his tragedy as an argument against withdrawing care from those believed to be persistently comatose. However . . . these calamities may instead offer a compelling argument for withdrawing such care. In fact, such circumstances might present the rare occasions when active euthanasia is morally justified without overt consent."
In other words, it might be OK to kill Houben because others think he'd be better off dead. Never mind what he thinks. To use the euphemism "active euthanasia"-- why not just call it murder?--in the same sentence as "morally justified" is absolutely appalling.
"Keep in mind," Appel continues, "that patients like this have no guarantee that their consciousness will ever be discovered."
Appel says "no conscious individual should ever be euthanized against his wishes . . . " but then he suggests that where no wishes have been expressed, a sort of referendum could be held for the public to decide what the "default" position should be--life or death-- "or we could even conclude that some forms of suffering are so horrific that a few patients may have to die against their preferences so that others will not have to undergo years of unremitting psychological agony."
God help us if health care ever reaches that state of moral degradation.
As for letting patients like Houben live, "we should recognize that such a policy is neither obvious nor intuitive," Appel writes.
He's quite wrong there. Such a policy is not only obvious and intuitive, it is the only moral choice there is.
Compassion not at core of euthanasia debate
By Jim Mahony, For The Calgary Herald
December 12, 2009
As people across Canada line up for flu shots, their Members of Parliament are considering a more chilling issue: legalized euthanasia. And while there is every indication that Bill C-384, Bloc MP Francine Lalonde's 'right-to-die' bill, will itself die an early death, it raises issues about compassion that must be faced down, sooner or later.
If there is any doubt about the issue's importance, it was brought home by a recent poll of Quebec doctors which Canada's euthanasia advocates -- and some journalists -- have greeted as if it were a clear call for legalized euthanasia by the province's medical profession. In fact, the survey by the Quebec Federation of Medical Specialists was anything but, as even a brief review will make clear.
While 74 per cent of federation members who responded would "certainly or probably" favour a legal framework for euthanasia in Canada, those who say the poll is evidence of majority support for euthanasia overlook a critical point. Of the federation's more than 8,000 members, just 23 per cent, or less than one in four responded to the poll. That's hardly a ringing endorsement, and it conveniently leaves out the 6,000 Quebec specialists who didn't voice their views one way or the other.
Equally important, federation members make up only about half of Quebec's roughly 16,000 doctors, some 8,200 of whom are family physicians and general practitioners (i. e., non-specialists). Most of these doctors belong to another professional group which notably has not weighed in on the euthanasia debate. Let's not generalize about medical opinion until all physicians' groups have spoken.
Far from heralding any sea-change in Canadian society, the federation's poll is more likely evidence that a minority of Quebec specialists -- those endorsing euthanasia -- are trying to get a jump on their more Hippocratic colleagues in the public debate on this topic. On that score, it's worth noting that the Canadian Medical Association, a much larger, national physicians' group, has made very clear that it does not support euthanasia, a point which Canada's euthanasia-boosters have somehow overlooked.
In the end, the debate over euthanasia will not be won or lost by opinion polls, but through a reasoned public discussion. Moral values are naturally part of that dialogue because many faiths, including Christianity, view killing -- the taking of innocent life -- as morally wrong. Yet, euthanasia-boosters bridle at any talk of killing, preferring to chant the "right to die" mantra. That only confuses the issue. One Quebec doctor offers a more reasoned view.
"To give the right to die to the patient, you must give a right to kill to the physician," Andre Bourque, head of family medicine at the University of Montreal, told the CBC in October. If there is any doubt about what euthanasia proponents are asking for, Bourque's comment makes it clear. It is about killing, not dying.
Since Bill C-384 was tabled in Ottawa, it's also about one MP asking Parliament to give Canada's doctors the legal right to kill. Thirty years ago, there would have been little debate on this issue, because so few Canadians would entertain the notion of euthanasia. Only since society has largely sidelined religious belief have some of its "thinkers" discarded traditional morality, including much of the value usually accorded human life.
Of all things, belief in God may be the best indicator of one's views on euthanasia. Very few believers endorse it. Yet, among atheists, who recognize few laws higher than the state, support for euthanasia is common. After all, they believe no one will ultimately be around to enforce the rules, whether here or in the hereafter. With that mindset, anything goes -- that, at least is the logic.
In fairness, some people view euthanasia as the answer to the problem of suffering. Society wants a quick fix, especially for suffering among the dying, terminally ill and elderly. Yet, how often need it be said that we do not show compassion by killing, but by journeying with the sufferer? Arguably, there is no quick fix for any complex problem, least of all this one.
If Canada legalizes euthanasia, it will go swiftly from being a society that brings compassion to the suffering to one that merely executes them, albeit in a clinical setting. Euthanasia advocates say unspecified "safeguards" will ensure that only the willing will be killed. Yet, safeguards had no such effect in the Netherlands, where cases of involuntary euthanasia (i. e., without consent) are well documented. The Remmelink report made that clear.
Canada should think twice before going down the road of imposed death, but so should doctors. Whenever talk of legalizing euthanasia arises, ethicists ask how it would affect the often fragile trust that exists between patient and doctor. "A physician is there to support, comfort (and) heal," says Dr. Bourque. "The minute you give him the right to kill, you have changed something in the relationship."
That's an understatement. The tradition of the physician as healer is long-standing and ancient. Patients have for centuries looked to their doctors for help, healing and relief, never for death. Arguably, the success of any treatment depends on the continuance of that trust. How long will it survive, if doctors are given the right to kill?
A journalist and former Calgary lawyer, Jim Mahony writes about healthca reethicsandend-oflife issues from a Catholic perspective.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum