| |
|
January 2005
Euthanasia: We took this to be a form of assisted suicide; when a person wants
to die and asks another person to implement their death.
Note: We discussed whether this was the same as suicide, in that rather than
using drugs, knives etc, the person uses a third party as the tool to implement
death. We also discussed if this was murder, because, regardless of the reasons,
one person was killing another, not accidentally or in self-defence.
The initial question, asked around the room, was: Is it Morally Justifiable?
We went around the room for immediate impressions:
YES: 11
NO:0
PASS/UNSURE:2
(*these results are a combination of definite yes/no answers, and those that
didn’t answer the question directly I took as pass/unsure)
As the majority seemed to think it was morally justifiable, we want on to discuss not only the moral but the legal implications.
• There must be a genuine request to die; legally, this may be difficult
as we may only have the third person’s word for this.
• We may have to have an impartial authority involved such as a GP
• We went on to discuss the way it is handled in Holland where they need
confirmation from 2 GPs that it is the request of the ‘victim’ and
the ‘victim’ must explicitly state on camera that it is their wish
(we saw that this may be difficult when the illness has gone too far for this
to be possible, and if mental health issues are involved in the illness. On
from this we had some concerns regarding others making the decision that a person
with mental health issues should be euthanized. In this case, it was likened
to us ‘putting a dog to sleep’ when it had no influence on the decision)
• It was suggested that there should not be a blanket legalisation of
Euthanasia due to the many pitfalls such as the third party doing it for their
own gain. In regard to this, it was suggested that, there could be some sort
of assessment of domestic and financial situations to see if these could have
affected someone’s decision to euthanize. Another suggestion, involving
this was that each case should be taken on its own merits i.e. the discretion
of Judge, Police etc
• It was also discussed that some forms of euthanasia are in practice
at the moment…doctor’s making the decision not to prolong life,
cancer specialists administering pain control gradually leading to an overdose.
• The above point lead to a discussion of active and passive euthanasia.
• There then arose the somewhat philosophical problem of, if the majority
of us thought euthanasia was morally right, yet many didn’t want it legal,
is it right to have something morally justifiable yet not legal?
• The whole debate suggested to some of us that we were the victims of
the ‘nanny state’, where we were not allowed to take personal responsibility
of something that is implicitly ours; our lives.
• The debate seemed to centralise on whether someone was mentally equipped
to make the decision, AND make it known. This lead to the fact that some people
may find the basic concept of wanting to be euthanized as indicative of being
mentally unstable.
• There was also the concern that if euthanasia was legal and went through
a centralised body or even that of a local institution, there would be red tape
and waiting lists. It was pointed out that this did not seem to be the case
in Holland.
• It was pointed out that a person may be in a great deal of pain and
wants to die, and then be glad they didn’t. We would have to have evidence
of a sustained wish to die.
• It was suggested that the reason that this area is so difficult to make
definite decisions about was because it goes against everything medicine seems
to be striving for: the prolonging of life indefinitely. There seemed to be
a consensus that modern medicine, in terms of its regulations, seems to be more
concerned with the quantity rather than quality of life.
• A point was made that we give animals the right to die without prolonged
suffering, but it isn’t an option for human beings.
• Many people stated that they would be willing to face prison in order
to ease the suffering of someone they loved.
• There was a point made regarding religious and spiritual implications.
If someone believed in an afterlife, then they would not see this as ending
their life, but ending suffering in order to continue their life elsewhere.
• We also discussed illness as a positive entity, rather than just the
privation of health. It was suggested that illness can be a transformative process
for the ‘victim’ and could be seen as having a vital part to play
in society.
It was agreed, overall, that if euthanasia was legal we would have to have evidence
of an informed wish to die, whether this came in the form of video evidence
or written declaration. We would also need some witness to this as a genuine
request, and may also want medical information regarding the person’s
state of mind (which brings its own problems) and the likelihood of the ‘victims’
illness improving.
**Sorry for using ‘victim’, didn’t know what else to use,
and sorry if I’ve missed anything out or mis-interpreted anyone’s
responses.
Terri
Created 21:02:04