As OLO posters probably know, I am strongly in favour of "active" euthanasia. That is, I believe I should be allowed to request that a doctor to end my life painlessly. This would presumably involve getting a lethal injection.

However, as ever, the devil is in the details. I am sure Dr. McGee is not suggesting that anyone can walk into a doctor's surgery and say "off me doc".

So what are the PROCEDURES and SAFEGUARDS around the process? It seems to me that what we actually need are the much reviled "death panels" that some Republicans accused Obama of seeking to impose on the American people.

Such panels would need clear terms of reference. What would they be?

Another issue. What do we do if a patient is unable to give consent but has previously stated that under such circumstances he wants to die? I am thinking especially of dementia patients. I would like to leave instructions that I am to be killed (I hate euphemisms like "euthanasia") when I reach the point where I am completely gaga. How could this be done in practice?

Steve what of the dilemna when a dementia patient who has never expressed any wish to be euthanased, is not in pain, but whose medical power of attorney rests in a relative who wants to end to end the life of the patient? If we dont respect life, there is a slippery slope going down. Why even have medical care if we dont respect life?
Most people who hold the medical power of attorney for another are also often beneficiaries of the patients will so they have mixed motivations.

nohj

People who have a financial interest in the outcome should have zero input in the decision to end the patient's life unless the patient specifically mentions financial considerations in his "living will". That is why the PROCEDURES and SAFEGUARD surrounding the final decision to end a life are all important.

If I were to get Alzheimer's I would not wish to drain the finances of my children after everything that made me a human has gone.

There is more:

To me it appears obvious that that there comes a point when a patient with Alzheimer's is EFFECTIVELY brain dead. Yes the EEG will show brain activity but all cognition has ceased. The "person" is gone even though the body continues to function. I would not consider terminating the function of that body as euthanasia. It is the moral equivalent of turning off a vacuum cleaner

One difference is that 'withholding' and 'withdrawing' goes on every day of the year. Another difference is that we Australians are too set on allowing politicians to decide what we do with our own lives.

Allowing politicians to decide on whether or not euthanasia should be legalised is allowing politicians to withhold human rights. We are oh so prim and proper when it comes the the rights of foreign students, people who want to enter Australia illegally, fighting wars for the rights of people who can't or will not fight for themselves etc.

It's about time we thought about our own rights didn't even discuss the subject of euthanasia with politicians. Thousands of men and women are sent home from hospitals to die, with the advise to their spouse, "Give him/her as much morphine as he/she wants."

Enough said. Get over the 'legal' crap and realise that you can die with the same dignity as you lived without the meddling of Big Brother.

The debate of so called active euthanasia is an interesting one. While it is important to separate the DNR orders and withdrawal of life sustaining measures from actively terminating a life, I believe that in the end it will do little to help the debate. At the core of the issue are two lines of thought.

Firstly, of course is the life is 'sacred' line of thought. Is the intrinsic value of the life in question greater than the value of the quality of life in question? If someone is suffering intolerably is it right to end that life and save that person from further pain? Those who support euthanasia argue that it is, that to prolong that life and force that person to continue until nature takes its course is worse than the act of ending the life. Those who don't argue that there is nothing worse than ending a life, even for the best intentions.

Second is the spectre of 'suicide'. Suicide is abhorrent to most people, they cannot understand why someone would want to end their life. For many the idea of euthanasia is inseparable from the idea of suicide. If a patient takes pills that will kill them, are they not committing suicide? However like everything else it is not that simple, those in support say no, those who oppose say yes.

Without coming to grips with these issues, there will be no progress in either direction on this issue.

Most of the complications seem to evaporate if we can take as the basis the statement that “Each person should have the unrestricted right to decide if and when they want to depart from this life”
That is the basis. Now all that the law, the doctors, the family, carers etc etc need is to make sure that the opinion being expressed by the patient are genuine and unpressured. There is no question that normally no lethal injection is required, either an injection can be self administered as it was in the Northern Territory or even simpler a drink of Nembutal is very swiftly fatal. The only problem is with Alzheimer and other brain dead patients. Stevenlmeyer seems to have covered this point already. Provisions and Safeguards must be in place to make sure the decision was genuine and unpressured for the sake of all the other people involved. A Living Will, created by the patient, is the simplest and most straightforward method.

It is good to see rational comment on this subject in OLO.
I would go further though. If at a time of one's life when one is rational but feels inclined to make a decision to end it all, why shouldn't one have the right to do so?

It is the medical, religion and political industries that have made all this so complicated. Leave the medicos out of this. They are just one more complicating factor, easily corrupted under the right circumstances and should therefore have no inputs into the matter at all. Nebutal should be available by choice and one doesn't need a GP to be involved in that simple exercise.

Then one needs to take the grafting religious enterprises out of the loop. There would be politicians voting on legislation such as this who would be motivated firstly by a comfortable life, then religion beliefs and the dictates of years of medieval thinking.
We have also allowed politicians to control our lives to such an inordinate extent. One is forced to ask, who are they? Why should they make a judgement on our choices to live or die. What has got to do with them?
The same with families. If the conditions described above are met, rational, sensible, coherent, witnessed, notarised, whatever is required, they need no involvement at all but could be told when it is imminent, or not. Entirely up to the person involved.

As an atheist who has already willed that I am to be removed from my home and cremated, no visitors, on-lookers and certainly no religious mumbo-jumbo or service, it will all be very simple.

If these comments seems logical to readers, rational in content and free of any external influences, of which I can assure you, what else is needed?
We are supposed to live in a free country. Let us extend such freedom to the right to choose one's time and place to die, regardless of health and physical disposition. Keep the grafters out of the business of dying.

That is real freedom and one's personal democratic right!

Very well said, Leigh, and I wonder how often the law would be applied? I suspect it would be very costly to administer and deliver very little if any benefit.

Yes, we have an issue as personal as suicide or assisted suicide, and some think we need bureaucracy to manage it. I cannot think of a personal issue where bureaucracy is less welcome, except perhaps abortion.

Leigh <" Thousands of men and women are sent home from hospitals to die, with the advise to their spouse, "Give him/her as much morphine as he/she wants.""

No Leigh, this is not quite the way it is! There is only so much morphine a GP can order at one time, and the chemists can legally only dispense a certain amount of narcotic pills or medicines at a time.
So no one is able to 'give as much as he/she wants", unless they obtain a supply illegally.

Most friends or relatives of dying people are not comfortable giving morphine injections either, so they need to rely on nurses or doctors to give it.
Medical staff are restricted by law to only give proper dosages of narcotics- usually not enough to 'kill' them outright!
Euthanasia is not legal yet.

The medical profession does work within guidelines, but are known to 'stretch' these rules at times, especially if the patient is in alot of pain.
Unfortunately, some people are under the impression that palliative care will ensure we die a painless death.
We don't see many painless deaths unfortunately.

Anyone who does not want voluntary euthanasia for themselves has only to note this in their 'living will' and we will make sure that they live on to the bitter end.
Just leave the rest of us alone to make our own choice

"Sacred" means, as far as I can tell, "I think this is really important but I can't give you any sensible reasons why." I would like to think that atheists have moved beyond that level of thought and are prepared to give defensible reasons as to why they value the things they do.

Despite the pious platitudes spoken and written about human life, it's quite clear that our masters can and do value other things much more -- motor transport and victory in Afghanistan, to name just two. It's hardly earth-shattering, then, to claim that relief from acute pain and distress might be more important to someone than their chance to appear as a statistic in the next census. As for the 'slippery slope' -- a good part of rational government and legislation involves setting limits that are fair and reasonable, and there is no reason that can't be done in this case as in many others.

Suzeonline,

You don't seem to know anything about the administration of morphine other than by injection and, while I can't prove that LITERALLY 'thousands' of people are relieved in the way I mentioned, I do know for certain that a close relative of mine died peacefully just the way I said, at home, in the company of his wife of 50 years. Short of naming people who would not wish to be named - thanks to our archaic, inhumane laws - I cannot reveal exactly what I do know.

But, I can assure you that help is available, for those requesting it; the elderly father of a friend of my family was relieved of his suffering, permanently, this very day in a public hospital. At his request.

You are right about palliative care.

If you had any imagination, you would that what a well-known doctor and advocate of dignified death publicly admits he does to help people certainly goes on in private. Not everyone wastes time waiting for politicians to decide their fate.

On ABC radio there was an interesting case about woman who lived in the US and was diagnosed with mesothelioma.

She had around 2 million dollars worth of treatment that maybe prolonged her life for a few more weeks.

In the UK mesothelioma is classified as untreatable, so there is no chemo therapy etc.

Perhaps this is a radical example, but where there is money to be made in treating the untreatable, money wins. Regardless of the effect on patient welfare.

The commentator who was talking about her friend, wondered if her friend would not have been better being treated in the UK rather than the US.

Now for the old "you don't need bureaucracy to kill yourself" argument by clear antis trying to spin the issue on the "I'm only denying it because I'm stingy and this somehow affects me" facade.

To answer the question (in the vain hope that it doesn't reappear again because it's "stupid pollution" in online debates) is the margin of error between killing yourself outside the law and the options available if euthanasia drugs and procedures were legalized, which of course everyone already knows about.

Most people who would like the option to die before they start to lose serious memory or cognitive functions from say, parkinsons, aren't exactly thrilled by the options on the table, either;
1- use a knife, an (illegal) gun or rope, poison, jump off a tall building or in front of a train, and give wifey and the kids a big surprise
2- pay huge amounts of money for airline tickets (and the inconvenience of being harassed and possibly outright prevented on the flight if you appear infirm because the flight company doesn't want to get sued), in the hopes of traveling to Mexico and hope the black market death drug isn't botched (and doesn't get picked up by customs if you would like to die in Australia instead)
3- Hope the nurse is willing to starve you to death or overdose your morphine (you might get lucky).

All for the sake because a bunch of angry brainwashed busybodies made a song and dance about simply letting other people use a more humane drug to die- with, no less, so little reason they had to keep thinking up excuses of why we can't be allowed to have it, despite them not being affected at all.

It occurs to me that those who oppose euthanasia generally aren't facing terminal illness. A rather unfair bias when one side hasn't much of a stake in the game.

Listening to the radio last week regarding euthanasia in Tasmania, one commenter vigorously opposed euthanasia from a christian perspective, then qualified his position by stating he was still young and healthy but might change his mind if faced with terminal illness.

Life is one's greatest possession, no one should be able to steal it from you. You should however be permitted to give it away

rexw

And others

I agree that if one is capable of taking one's own life there is no point in involving doctors or politicians. The difficulty arises when one does not have that capability either because of advanced dementia or paralysis.

I'm afraid that is where we do need our politicians to clear up the law.

Next to being confined because of dementia my greatest fear is being starved to death because so-called "passive euthanasia" is permitted.

I really detest these silly, self-righteous &$*CK$ you cannot face up to the simple fact that we all die

Steven

"The difficulty arises when one does not have that capability either because of advanced dementia or paralysis.

I'm afraid that is where we do need our politicians to clear up the law."

How much sense does that statement make? Is it more logical than a potential human pleading with a woman not to destroy her embryo? Are you able to travel into the future, see yourself when you are so incapacitated and decide, "Yes, I think my life should end now."? Will you be the same person and does that give you the right to authorise others to end that life in the future, albeit for the best of humanitarian intentions?

Making a decision in the here and now is rightly one's own choice and requires no governance, but the notion of standing in judgement over one's self at a future point in time is illogical.

KH

What is the point of wasting money that might be better put to other humanitarian causes?

How many people do you envisage using this option annually? What would be the cost of it's administration? How willingly would people participate in legalised killings?

Euthanasia is so simple for some, but for me it poses too many uncertainties and problems.

I have been watching the American conformation hearings on T.V. and one thing is very clear, this modern generation has no idea of the power in words. Afterwards I tested what I heard on my daughter, a school teacher by profession and she had no idea what I was talking about.
A good lawyer can tie you in knots over what is spoken; case in point the reporting of news, he said, she said, what you think was meant versus what was actually said, and what was meant so do you really want to trust politicians, most who are lawyers, with life and death choices and remove your God given right of freewill and allow the law to control your will. As I think Leigh says this is not about death but about control over you and your destiny. Me I have committed my life into the Lords hand as I trust him with my destiny, for his word is true and he shall not be mocked for if you sow to the flesh you reap death but if you sow to the spirit you reap life for what you sow you reap. To fear God is the beginning of wisdom. Don't fear death as it only destroys the body and if you are on planet earth that is something we all must face for it is appointed unto All to die. Then your body goes back to the dirt it is made from and your spirit goes back to God for judgment on whose word you put first place or to put it another way, whose word you chose to believe.

Wrong Fester;

-Illogical to kill yourself before it gets really bad? Despite all the scenarios and situations we outlined so far? It's obvious your trolling if you need to ask.
One can easily discover that they are suffering a terminal or debilitating illness, or simply do not want to experience any loss of control one might associate with themselves when they get very old. Now the problem is, ironically, that it may likely become too hard to actually kill yourself by that stage (especially now because we're forbidden by lobbyists and simpletons), so we can either kill ourselves before it gets bad, and we are still fit enough to catch a plane to Mexico, or risk suffering through the whole thing if we put it off.
That is beside the point that it's really none of your business anyway.

-"Humanitarian causes"? Like what? Why isn't euthanasia a 'humanitarian cause'? Since when did you even CARE about 'humanitarian causes' until it became a convenient excuse to deny people the right to use euthanasia? As for cost- see Switzerland- not much actually (and the alternative, palative care, is quite costly itself. But you're right, we couldn't bear to lose the money- while we're at it, let's close down some universities and use the money for a 'humanitarian cause' also?

"Euthanasia is so simple for some, but for me it poses too many uncertainties and problems."
And here comes the (possible) truth.
The reverse to your statement is more true- it's a simple "NO" issue for YOU because you lack the capacity to evaluate laws, safeguards and protocol required- we however, can.

One of the dilemma's facing the medical profession is that years ago people died because medicine was not able to treat them effectively.

As treatment and management of certain diseases improved, so did the life expectancy of those with these diseases. Subsequently more people with those diseases were surviving longer.

In fact if many of these people were living in third world countries their life expectancy would not be very long.

With increasing numbers, there is increasing demand, and pressure on existing resources.

This creates a quandry.

At some time all of us are going to die. The decision is how and when.

at some stage the last beat of our heart, should be the last beat.

Defining euthanasia!

The day we are born. The government has us, no matter what! And we will fill our time with the best we have and bring in this world with the human we will give. But on our death bed, DON'T you you tell us when our time is up! Every person has the chance to live the life all are given, and the choice of living on this great world.

I will have to agree with most posters on this subject, and when my time comes, Please! Dont let me......... sorry!

I can not Finnish.

mmTT

King Hazza

Perhaps the most illogical thing is your hostility? Surely it is a basic courtesy to assume that all on the forum share an interest in improving the human condition? And I can assure you that I am interested in the subject and its implications. And I also think that ideas should survive on their own, not by virtue of the parties pushing them.

Now you call for drugs like nembutal to be made more readily available. But this would make it easier for anyone to commit suicide, which would presumably include people suffering from unmanaged or unstable mental illnesses. So by helping some you could inadvertently cause the death of others. Would that make our society a better one?

It is unfortunate you cannot manage problems in isolation, but it is the reality.

Small mind indeed Fester.
"And I also think that ideas should survive on their own, not by virtue of the parties pushing them"
Except that those ideas were stupid, shallow and easily debunked- including on this very forum last week. I'm not going to bother slowly showing you all the points myself and others have already made, the fact that you show you're clearly behind in the debate on a point already passed tells me you should have tried reading more instead of pretending the issue stops where you think it does.

Secondly, people committing suicide is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, regardless how sad it is (ignoring that a simple requirement to be either really old, or suffering a debilitating or terminal affliction could be placed). Same deal with your belief of someone relinquishing the right to control their own bodies via mental illnesses (which also have extensive guidelines ourselves, again, already discussed).

The fact that you're too lazy to get all the facts or alternatively, pretend they aren't there and never actually mention them to try to argue against simply dumbs the discussion down. Add to that an odd hostility towards what most argue is a basic right is why others are hostile towards you.

Read through the answers to your questions, then get back to the big people discussion.

King Hazza

Perhaps you should read the climate change threads? No shortage of tail chasing there. I certainly dont see a group of people discussing point after point, coming to an agreement, then moving on.

As for your hostility, it only belittles your argument. If my questions were adequately answered then what need would I have to repeat them? You suggest that all I have to do is read through the threads and all will be revealed to me, yet I seem to be having a bit of trouble finding these revelations.

For example, I cannot find a logical explanation of how I can travel into the future and instruct health practitioners to end my life when I am in the terminal stages of Alzheimer's disease or some other malady. Yet it seems to me that some on the forum believe that signing a piece of paper can give one that ability.

And while agreeing with you that suicide is a personal matter, I think that some might view medical treatment as something more than relinquishing your right to control your body. Surely you dont see the treatment or epilepsy as relinquishing the control of your brain to a medical practitioner? Similarly, the objective of treating a suicidal person is to give them the opportunity for a better life. Would you rather the psychiatrist tell a suicidal patient, "Well, it's none of my business if you want to kill yourself. Would you like a script for some Nembutal?". I would rather they didn't do that.

Bull, Fester.
The 'answers to your questions' WERE answered in agonizing detail in the other euthanasia thread last week- and it's clear you made little attempt to find them as much as excuses not to.

The 'script for the future' is simple. If I am dedicated enough to demand my life ended if I am ever in an incapacitated state, I would express this as a pre-plan to be told to any doctors who would be caring for me. Faced with this, they would assume my will is to die and kill me. If I made no such statement, the doctors would simply assume lacking an expressed wish to die, my will would be to LIVE. If I am never in an incapacitated state, this clause simply would not happen. Not rocket science. I don't get what your childish clairvoyance analogy comes into play.

The 'none of your business' is simple, that nobody has the right to force someone NOT to kill ones self.
Also, you haven't even bothered to note my post that the condition for receiving a dose of a fatal drug to administer to yourself MUST be met with the condition of a terminal/debilitating illness could be implemented.

Which is why I'm talking to you like you're an ignorant mug. Not only am I wasting my time babysitting you through old points because you're too lazy, but you can't even concentrate on the posts I'm making now.

Don't even bother replying until you ask a smart question.

Leigh <" You don't seem to know anything about the administration of morphine other than by injection."

There is no use trying to denigrate me Leigh. I have been an RN for 30 years. I know more about medication administration than you will ever know. I have also been present at literally hundreds of deaths, both in hospital and in the community.

Many people in the last stages of dying often can't swallow, so they need either intravenous, intramuscular, or subcutaneous injections to get their pain relief. That's a fact.

"If you had any imagination, you would that (sic)what a well-known doctor and advocate of dignified death publicly admits he does to help people certainly goes on in private."

I don't need imagination to know about Dr. Nitschke, Leigh, and what is the big secret with his name, or what he advocates?
He is well known in Australia.

People don't need special drugs to kill themselves Leigh, they can do it just fine using more conventional methods. However, when they need help to die when they physically can't do it themselves, then they have to involve others in this act.
At present it is illegal, so yes, we do need it changed via parliament.

Nitschke, and others like him may well be out there doing their own thing, but the rest of us don't want to risk prosecution for murder.

What a wonderful and necessary article!

Rexw,
Don’t you think that people with depression or a mental illness that causes them to have suicidal thoughts should be assessed and receive psychiatric help?

Keep in mind also, that life insurance companies normally do not pay out for deaths caused by suicide. What effect can that have on families or partners?
Where euthanasia and assisted suicide is legal, insurance companies should be obligated to pay out after the patient underwent euthanasia if the medical team, that looked after the patient granted the patient permission to be euthanised or receive assisted suicide.

Leigh,
If this is indeed a fact, that doctors sometimes help people shorten their lives on request, they would do that at the risk of being prosecuted for it.
That’s one reason why euthanasia should be legalised. If it happens anyway ‘behind the scenes’, then why not bring it all out in the open and legalise it to protect these doctors who have compassion for their suffering patients.
It would only take one family member of the illegally euthanised patient to complain to some kind of board for the doctor to be at significant risk of prosecution.

King Hazza,
I would agree if you are saying that people with depression still should have the right to receive assisted suicide or euthanasia if their depression is secondary to a painful or disabling illness without any outlook on improvement.

Fester,
From what I understand, King Hazza was not suggesting that every Tom, Dick and Harry should have easy access to Nembutal just because they have an off day or feel a bit too emo.

Agree Celivia- doctors should either offer a free counselor for suicidal people asking to be administered the drug, or permission to take it if they suffer any extremely painful condition, debilitating condition or handicap with no present prospects of recovery, is exactly what I'm trying to say.

Also agree with you and suzeonline that the point of the bureaucrats is so the doctors aren't required to stick their necks out and break the law if they are to help.

King Hazza

If you had a bag of potatoes and told everyone that it was a bag of vegetables, what would they think? Yet here we have a voluntary euthanasia bill before the Western Australian Parliament that should more specifically be described as an assisted suicide bill. So why use such a broad term that would include prospective killing, which the person had arranged when of sound mind, or mercy killings without consent, when the bill specifies consenting people of sound mind? Are you all that surprised that a few might think you are hiding the odd carrot or onion in that bag?

Similarly with suicidal people, why shouldn't they also have access to the means for a dignified death rather than be condemned to find their own means of dispatch? And they sometimes dispatch themselves quite gruesomely ,as many a construction site worker would attest to, and usually in very sad and lonely circumstances. Would it not be more humane to offer them Nembutal as well?

Sigh Fester, describe what part you don't get.
Voluntary euthanasia is more specific than 'assisted suicide' because it simultaneously legalizes that PLUS the right to access effective suicide drugs- I support both- but moreso the latter to support the first.

What guidelines do you not actually like about a 'death will' if incapacitated- or any supposedly ambiguous circumstances?

Personally I would probably respect the suicider's wish to die, however most others disagree with me- as it would depend on evaluations of how best a suicidal person could be helped, circumstances etc.
However, disability with little chance of recovery is an airtight criteria to put to those who ask for the drug.
Either which way, it would be put to a professional to weigh up considerations and administer him/herself.

Before I can begin to comment, I need to be advised of the participant's religious affiliation/attachment, if any, please?

Fester,
There is really no need to legislate for euthanasia and assisted suicide separately. Euthanasia would automatically encompass assisted suicide. Just look at it as a kind of smogasbord where a range of options are available to those patients, who are granted euthanasia.

Hi SapperK9,
We haven’t bumped into each other here on OLO, have we.
I don’t mind telling you that I’m an atheist, because I can imagine knowing where people come from may help short-cut the discussion.

People who know me on here would know that I only use the term ‘atheist’ for the lack of a better term. I’m an atheist in the way that I’m simply not convinced that there is any evidence that some kind of god exists. Religions are selling their brand of god, and I’m not buying before they present me with evidence.

I have little problem with religion as long as they are open to criticism, don’t oppose paying taxes, and do not interfere with the freedom of people who are not members of their religion. Hehehe : )

Thanks Celivia,

I'm a Darwinist and member of Exit. I just believe that to entertain writing about ethics without declaring any religious affiliations is disingenuous and hypocritical in extremis. It is pointless arguing with Opus Dei about their theology (which can only be based on secondary and tertiary sources), no?

Jim