Euthanasia

[nerdanel]

This inexorably leads me to another discussion that probably belongs in the Symp -- why is it right to let a human "suffer" when they are on the "suffering" side of the line rather than the "with medical help they can have some pretty reasonable quality of life" side? It always bothers me in these discussions.

If we are genuinely being compassionate to our suffering animals by euthanizing them rather than not letting them suffer, why do we not allow human beings even to elect that same compassion? It bothers me - if I was terminally ill and suffering, would my family show me less compassion than an animal, even at my request?

[Holbytla]

This inexorably leads me to another discussion that probably belongs in the Symp -- why is it right to let a human "suffer" when they are on the "suffering" side of the line rather than the "with medical help they can have some pretty reasonable quality of life" side? It always bothers me in these discussions.

If we are genuinely being compassionate to our suffering animals by euthanizing them rather than not letting them suffer, why do we not allow human beings even to elect that same compassion? It bothers me - if I was terminally ill and suffering, would my family show me less compassion than an animal, even at my request?

Medicine is not an exact science and no one knows all of the answers.
New cures and treatments are being discovered daily.
Personally I am not comfortable making life and death decisions which are beyond human scope.

That is how I see it anyway.

[Sunsilver]

Nerdanel, a VERY controversial question indeed!

I have something of a specialty in palliative care. My take on it is this: pain control is advanced enough now that humans should not have to suffer while dying. If they are suffering, their doctor needs some education in how to control pain.

And, euthanasia for humans is illegal in most countries in the world.

Maybe some day we will be more enlightened, but, humans being the potentially corrupt beings they are, I think that is a long, long way down the road. Right now there is still too much risk of avaricious relatives forcing the euthanasia in order to get money from the estate.

I am wondering if there is some way we can get around this, like a videotaped living will from the person, stating that they do not wish to be kept alive by artificial means, if there is no hope of recovery.

Still, medically it's a grey area. After a stroke, a patient may not be able to swallow, and may have expressed the wish not to be kept alive by artificial means (e.g., tube feeding). However, I have seen patients recover from this to the point where they have a half-decent quality of life.

A very touchy topic indeed....

[Frelga]

A big question, yes. I think part of the answer lies in that the quality of life for us humans is not defined strictly by the physical well-being. Someone who is bed-ridden can still live an intense intellectual and spiritual life. The balance might tip at some point, but not at the same point as for the animals. Of course, there's more to it...

[yovargas]

An important factor is that humans can usually just say when they feel like they're done...

[Sunsilver]

Post deleted

[Cerin]

If we are genuinely being compassionate to our suffering animals by euthanizing them rather than not letting them suffer, why do we not allow human beings even to elect that same compassion?

Because animal life is considered lower than human life, illustrated by the fact that we kill animals to eat them and most people consider this acceptable, but most people consider it unacceptable for people to kill one another except in war or officially sanctioned punishment, and most people consider it scandalous for one person to eat the dead remains of another person.

So if we consider, which we apparently do at least as a society at this point, that we have authority over the lives of animals in a way we do not have over fellow humans, then it becomes our responsibility to exercise compassion in our authority over the life forms we consider expendable for our purposes.

Because we don't have that authority over the disposition of human life except in specific circumstances, there is no context in which to exercise that compassion. I think that is what the thinking is.

I believe physicians should be allowed to expedite the dying process at the request of a suffering, dying patient. After all, it is the interference in extending life that has in part created some of these situations. If physicians are allowed to exercise such decision-making power at one end of the equation, I think they should also be able to do so at the other end. Otherwise there is this imbalance.

[Padme]

One way of looking at this is do we really want to equate human life equal to animal life? Think about human history for a moment, what is the quickest way to kill off a group of people....and to justify it, to dehumanize them, to make them animals. Throughout all of human history people have judged other humans to be lower life forms and thus it was ok to enslave, rape, murder and kill them.

I agree with the doctors being able to facilitate death, but it is a very slippery slope and if any government is involved then the government could be the judge of who can and will be euthanised.

I also agree that people should have the option to not live without reprocussions. I have seen cancer take people before and would not wish anyone that death, as it is a painful death. Therefore, I have have no problem with euthanasia within certain conditions and with certain standards. However, it is a slippery slope, and my honest opinion is that the human race is light years away from ever being able to have a system that works. There is still too much hate and anger in the world to allow human euthanasia, someone somewhere would use it as geonicide.

[nerdanel]

Just to be clear: I am not equating animal life to human life. I am questioning whether euthanasia is a form of compassion for suffering beings, and if it is, why it should not be made available to human beings who request it while in great pain (a fundamental difference from the animal context; pets have no means of "requesting" euthanasia or appreciating the consequences, generally.)

I am not walking away from this discussion, but I'm leaving work early to pack up and head off for the airport to Alaska for a five day vacation. I'll be doing outdoorsy stuff for most of my time there and will not probably not have Internet access. I might respond again, but if I don't, it's for lack of Internet access, not lack of interest.

[Padme]

Have fun.



take me with you

[Holbytla]

I think animals, cats especially know when they are going to die.
I have had old sick outdoors kind of cats, that just went out into the woods one day and never came back.

In a lot of ways, animals are more in tune with nature than we are.
Perhaps animals are capable of self euthanasia in some form?

At some point, I think all animals, humans included have a greater wish to die than to live.
It is just that in many cases the will to survive is really strong.
Without that will though, I am not sure any amount of medicine will help someone to live.

How do you measure a will to survive and who is to judge that?

[truehobbit]

I am questioning whether euthanasia is a form of compassion for suffering beings,

I think it's not.
When it comes to creatures who can't express themselves, I think it's not for us to decide when they suffer too much.

I think your original question is a good one, only I'd answer it the other way round.

If we are genuinely being compassionate to our suffering animals by euthanizing them rather than not letting them suffer, why do we not allow human beings even to elect that same compassion?

I think that animals should be granted a similar respect as humans and be left to die in their own good time, given that we will never know what it is they want or need.

In the case of humans, the question is more difficult.
We CAN say if we want to stop suffering. And I believe that we have the right to end our lives at will if we choose so.
Therefore, theoretically, I'd say that a suffering human who expresses a wish to be killed to stop suffering (if they can't commit suicide anymore) could have their wish granted.

However, there's a really big problem in this, which for me means that practically this is all impossible, and it's the same consideration that prevents most people from accepting a person's right to choose suicide.

Namely, that when someone expresses a death wish, we cannot know whether they do so for a good reason. Apparently, if you look at society's rejection of suicide, a death wish in a healthy person is discounted, supposing it's not expressing what they really want. So, what makes us so sure a death wish of a suffering person is their real wish?

Maybe they just suffer from weak self-image that makes them feel guilty? (Feeling they are a burden upon others.) Maybe someone talked them into feeling that? (People who'd like to be rid of the trouble of caring for them.) Maybe they are in a momentary weak state but might get better? (Feeling a bout of despair that might pass.)

From what I've heard, a majority of fatally ill people develop an irrepressible will to stay alive. All the people who say 'if I were suffering like that I'd want to die' never actually have suffered like that. They cannot know how one's perception changes if the horrible imagination becomes reality.

In the light of this I think that the dangers of getting it wrong when giving in to a death wish expressed by a suffering person are too great.

I simply don't know one way or the other - whether it would be ok to agree to a person's death wish or not, how to judge whether they really meant it. I think that in some cases one might be pretty sure to do the right thing, and then it's ok, but there will be others where it's not so sure.

With animals, the thing that makes it easier is that if we do get it wrong it's not such a big deal - after all, we do kill them for food etc, so our conscience with respect to animals isn't quite so tender as when it comes to humans.

[Cerin]

I am questioning whether euthanasia is a form of compassion for suffering beings, and if it is, why it should not be made available to human beings who request it while in great pain

It's a form of compassion when a life is under our authority.

Many people believe we don't have authority to end a human life, even in the exercise of compassion, even at the request of the person him/herself.

[Frelga]

Therefore, theoretically, I'd say that a suffering human who expresses a wish to be killed to stop suffering (if they can't commit suicide anymore) could have their wish granted.

Please forgive the frivolity, but I never would have made it out of labor if things worked that way. Luckily, they hooked me up to an epidural instead.

Again, it's a big question.

[truehobbit]

Frelga, that's why I wrote the whole long part trying to show that practically it's impossible.


Yes, it's a big question.

[Frelga]

I know, Hobby, which is why I apologized. It just was the first thing that crossed my mind. And of course I didn't mean it. If anesthesia were not available at my request, which I of course knew it was, I would have pulled through somehow, pain or no pain.

[Crucifer]

Ho hum...

If a person is in their absolute right mind, and has thought ling and hard about the decision, i.e. it's not impulse, and so long as there is little or no chance of recovery, I think that the person should be able to say "End it now please". Otherwise, it is too chancy.

[Túrin Turambar]

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that euthanasia should be available free to anyone of legal capacity. If I was in great pain and felt that my life had run its natural course, I would consider it a violation of my most fundamental rights to be told that I couldn’t die because my disease ‘wasn’t life-threatening enough’ or ‘there’s a chance of recovery and a half-normal life’. If there is a patient who wants the procedure and a doctor who can, in all good conscience, perform it, then let them IMHO.

[Erunáme]

If I was in great pain and felt that my life had run its natural course, I would consider it a violation of my most fundamental rights to be told that I couldn’t die because my disease ‘wasn’t life-threatening enough’ or ‘there’s a chance of recovery and a half-normal life’.

I agree.

[Crucifer]

I agree there, Lord_M, I was just saying that some people might simply want life to end because they can't bear living at that time. If there is greater than say, 60% chance of recovery, a patient should be denied euthanasia. Less than that, and other things come into play.