Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Keith Maitland on March 15, 2016, 04:55:07 AM
-
THE world’s first ‘death on demand’ law is set to go before legislators in Belgium who have already ushered through an ultra-liberal euthanasia regime. The rules would mean no doctor would be able to block the wishes of a patient who asked to die.
The law - put forward by the country’s opposition socialist party - is thought to have a high chance of commanding support from a majority of Belgian MPs. The proposals come as the number dying each year under the country’s euthanasia laws has doubled in five years to reach more than 2,000. Doctors approached by someone wanting help to die would have to approve it within seven days or pass the patient on to a doctor prepared to give approval. The principle is similar to that which is operated by UK doctors under abortion guidelines, which mean that they are not allowed to prevent a patient from terminating a pregnancy.
The Belgian euthanasia proposals would also compel doctors to treat requests for assisted suicide as urgent cases - so no doctor could try to persuade a patient to wait to see if they change their mind about dying. Lib Dem peer Lord Carlile said he was astonished by the plans for ‘euthanasia on demand’. He said: 'It is astonishing that Belgian politicians, doctors, ethicists and scientists remain so silent in the face of these changes in Belgian law.’
-
The Belgian euthanasia proposals would also compel doctors to treat requests for assisted suicide as urgent cases - so no doctor could try to persuade a patient to wait to see if they change their mind about dying.
That seems a bit strong to me. Many doctors will be unhappy about being compelled to go along with something that goes against their conscience.
I wonder where it will all end.
-
The Belgian euthanasia proposals would also compel doctors to treat requests for assisted suicide as urgent cases - so no doctor could try to persuade a patient to wait to see if they change their mind about dying.
That seems a bit strong to me. Many doctors will be unhappy about being compelled to go along with something that goes against their conscience.
I wonder where it will all end.
They are not compelled to do it. If it goes against their conscience, they are given the option of passing the patient to another doctor who will do it.
-
They are not compelled to do it. If it goes against their conscience, they are given the option of passing the patient to another doctor who will do it.
What if there was a case where no doctor would? The extract of the law seems very prescriptive in that regard. Since this is a form of elective 'medical procedure', would a law compelling doctors to carry out all cosmetic surgery requests also be introduced as part of this move?
-
THE world’s first ‘death on demand’ law is set to go before legislators in Belgium who have already ushered through an ultra-liberal euthanasia regime. The rules would mean no doctor would be able to block the wishes of a patient who asked to die.
The law - put forward by the country’s opposition socialist party - is thought to have a high chance of commanding support from a majority of Belgian MPs. The proposals come as the number dying each year under the country’s euthanasia laws has doubled in five years to reach more than 2,000. Doctors approached by someone wanting help to die would have to approve it within seven days or pass the patient on to a doctor prepared to give approval. The principle is similar to that which is operated by UK doctors under abortion guidelines, which mean that they are not allowed to prevent a patient from terminating a pregnancy.
The Belgian euthanasia proposals would also compel doctors to treat requests for assisted suicide as urgent cases - so no doctor could try to persuade a patient to wait to see if they change their mind about dying. Lib Dem peer Lord Carlile said he was astonished by the plans for ‘euthanasia on demand’. He said: 'It is astonishing that Belgian politicians, doctors, ethicists and scientists remain so silent in the face of these changes in Belgian law.’
Great..........Doctors jailed or struck off for refusal to follow the state .
If somebody wants help to end it all THEY should find a doctor willing to do it.
That's what fucking Google and yellow pages are for.
-
What if there was a case where no doctor would?
Then the patient would have to suffer on. Too bad, eh?
-
They are not compelled to do it. If it goes against their conscience, they are given the option of passing the patient to another doctor who will do it.
They are if they have to provide information and administration on passing on to a consultant or specialist.
-
Then the patient would have to suffer on. Too bad, eh?
Not according to the OP.
-
Whilst I think a person has the right to terminate their lives if they are unbearable, and they are of sound mind, I don't think doctors should assist. I think people especially trained in assisted death should do the business.
-
Whilst I think a person has the right to terminate their lives if they are unbearable, and they are of sound mind, I don't think doctors should assist. I think people especially trained in assisted death should do the business.
... which presumably includes medical training of some sort.
-
... which presumably includes medical training of some sort.
Why would you need medical training to give someone a potion, which will terminate their life, which is how it is done in Switzerland?
-
Why would you need medical training to give someone of potion, which will terminate their life, which is how it is done in Switzerland?
Because you need a certain degree of medical know-how in order to bring about death quickly, peacefully and painlessly.
It's not at all difficult to kill somebody in such a manner - you could find the details in widely-available books thirty or more years ago (Derek Humphry's then-controversial Final Exit, for example) and nowadays online no doubt, but you need to know what drugs to use and how best to administer them. There have been umpteen horrific stories from the USA where they execute death row prisoners by lethal injection, one of the worst ways to kill someone if it goes wrong. Because the manufacturers of barbiturates have a moral objection to capital punishment they won't sell their wares to prisons intending to execute prisoners, so the prisons rely on a far more dodgy three-stage lethal injection which, crucially, is administered by people with little or no medical knowledge. This has led to some prisoners dying in the most appalling agony because the staff have cocked it up - missed a vein and injected the solution into tissue, not given enough anaesthetic first so the prisoner is awake but paralysed and thus they suffocate while conscious, and so on.
In short, it's not hard to kill somebody quickly and painlessly - in fact it's incredibly easy - but it takes the right drugs in the first place (that takes a pharmacist) and the knowledge of how to administer them (somebody with medical knowledge to some level). Only medical folk have such knowledge.
-
Because you need a certain degree of medical know-how in order to bring about death quickly, peacefully and painlessly.
It's not at all difficult to kill somebody in such a manner - you could find the details in widely-available books thirty or more years ago (Derek Humphry's then-controversial Final Exit, for example) and nowadays online no doubt, but you need to know what drugs to use and how best to administer them. There have been umpteen horrific stories from the USA where they execute death row prisoners by lethal injection, one of the worst ways to kill someone if it goes wrong. Because the manufacturers of barbiturates have a moral objection to capital punishment they won't sell their wares to prisons intending to execute prisoners, so the prisons rely on a far more dodgy three-stage lethal injection which, crucially, is administered by people with little or no medical knowledge. This has led to some prisoners dying in the most appalling agony because the staff have cocked it up - missed a vein and injected the solution into tissue, not given enough anaesthetic first so the prisoner is awake but paralysed and thus they suffocate while conscious, and so on.
In short, it's not hard to kill somebody quickly and painlessly - in fact it's incredibly easy - but it takes the right drugs in the first place (that takes a pharmacist) and the knowledge of how to administer them (somebody with medical knowledge to some level). Only medical folk have such knowledge.
You should have training in how to kill someone painlessly of course. But you don't need medical training as such, just how to effectively assist death, I wouldn't think it was that difficult. I would be willing to have such training, should it ever become legal in the UK.
-
You should have training in how to kill someone painlessly of course. But you don't need medical training as such, just how to effectively assist death, I wouldn't think it was that difficult. I would be willing to have such training, should it ever become legal in the UK.
:o :o :o
:-X
-
Then the patient would have to suffer on. Too bad, eh?
No, they can find another doctor. Or they can be treated with sufficient analgesia to make the rest of their life comfortable, and not be given antibiotics etc for anything else that might happen along the way. The Hospice movement and the MacMillan team already do that, relieving suffering in chronically sick/terminal patients.
-
No, they can find another doctor. Or they can be treated with sufficient analgesia to make the rest of their life comfortable, and not be given antibiotics etc for anything else that might happen along the way. The Hospice movement and the MacMillan team already do that, relieving suffering in chronically sick/terminal patients.
Which works for some patients with some illnesses.
Aside from that, being free from pain does not mean freedom from suffering.
-
Which works for some patients with some illnesses.
Aside from that, being free from pain does not mean freedom from suffering.
I know that Rhiannon, I've been around sick people (MND, Parkinsons, MS, oesophogeal cancer, stroke to name a few). There's no easy answer.
-
I know that Rhiannon, I've been around sick people (MND, Parkinsons, MS, oesophogeal cancer, stroke to name a few). There's no easy answer.
No.
I've posted on here before about the chap I knew with MND who drove his electric wheelchair into his garden pond whilst his wife was out. There's no easy answer, no, but I'm damned sure leaving people to do that isn't any kind of solution either.
-
I'm not convinced death on demand is the answer either. :(
-
We have so many human rights now that we make much of, yet the right to a painless death at the time of our choosing isn't one of them.
-
We have so many human rights now that we make much of, yet the right to a painless death at the time of our choosing isn't one of them.
Or at least not in very many places.
That's because when it comes to the final freedom, the I-know-best crowd suddenly view everybody else as reckless and feckless children and themselves as sober, serious parents.
-
Or at least not in very many places.
That's because when it comes to the final freedom, the I-know-best crowd suddenly view everybody else as reckless and feckless children and themselves as sober, serious parents.
There's an element of that, certainly.
There's also the need for personal comfort. It's a bit like some of the homophobia we see; 'I find that distasteful/uncomfortable so you shouldn't be allowed to do it.'
-
Most parents see their job as protecting their children.
http://youtu.be/Pik-JtJ5WlM
I was looking at the case of
Nathan, born Nancy, Verhelst, 44, was given legal euthanasia, most likely by lethal injection, on the grounds of "unbearable psychological suffering" on Monday afternoon.
I really find the mothers reaction strange ( at the end of the clip) did she really not care about her child to that extent?
What a cold person.
What a lonely child she / he was then :(
No one to love them :o
With love maybe they wouldn't have felt so lost :-\
-
While looker deeper into what seems to me to be the very cold reaction of his mother, I have come across another worrying aspect of it.
A survey released on Wednesday has added to debate after finding that three quarters of Belgians support the euthanasia of children with incurable diseases, even without their consent.
The La Libre-RTBF opinion poll found that 38m per cent are "very favourable" to the euthanasia of minors at a time when Belgium's parliament is debating changes to the law to allowing doctors to kill children with terminal illnesses if they ask for it.
The survey also found that 79 per cent of Belgians are in favour of extending the euthanasia law to adults with severe dementia, a condition that raises problems over the question of consent.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/belgium/10349159/Mother-of-sex-change-Belgian-I-dont-care-about-his-euthanasia-death.html
It's underneath at the bottom of the link.
But I find it worrying that they appear to be heading in the same direction as Hitler.
Killing those in society that are deemed " worthless or disabled"
How long will it be before consent isn't required at all? Or parential consent not needed for children.
And how far down the line are they prepared to go in euthanasing children with incurable conditions?
Autistic? Downs Syndrome?
It's what Hitler wanted to do, once , to improve his ayrian super race.
Yes, it's Godwins, but in this case, I think it fits.
-
There's an element of that, certainly.
There's also the need for personal comfort. It's a bit like some of the homophobia we see; 'I find that distasteful/uncomfortable so you shouldn't be allowed to do it.'
Ah, well - that, as A.C. Grayling has said, is the hallmark of every moralist anywhere since for ever - "I don't like it, therefore you can't do it/see it/read it/listen to it/drink it/smoke it/take it."
-
Today, his unnamed mother confirmed Mr Verhelst's comments, made in an interview just before his death, that he had been an unwanted child and admitted she had not yet read his letter to her explaining why he asked to die.
"When I saw 'Nancy' for the first time, my dream was shattered. She was so ugly. I had a phantom birth. Her death does not bother me," she told Het Laatste Nieuws newspaper.
"I will definitely read it but it will be full of lies. For me, this chapter is closed. Her death does not bother me. I feel no sorrow, no doubt or remorse. We never had a bond."
After a life of being rejected by his parents as a daughter, Mr Verhelst had hormone therapy in 2009, followed by a mastectomy and unsuccessful surgery to construct a penis in 2012.
Related Articles
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/belgium/10349159/Mother-of-sex-change-Belgian-I-dont-care-about-his-euthanasia-death.html
So cold!
she ignored her child because she wasn't a boy.
She became a boy........ The family still rejected her.
That is so sad
No wonder they were so unhappy, and then instead of trying to help they just killed him/her ........... And the mother walked away with no responsibility.......
???
-
"I was the girl that nobody wanted," Mr Verhelst told Het Laatste Nieuws newspaper in the hours before her death.
"While my brothers were celebrated, I got a storage room above the garage as a bedroom. 'If only you had been a boy', my mother complained. I was tolerated, nothing more."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/belgium/10346616/Belgian-killed-by-euthanasia-after-a-botched-sex-change-operation.html
:(
-
Wartime, Adolf Hitler suggested, "was the best time for the elimination of the incurably ill."
https://www.ushmm.org/outreach/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007683
Euthanasia – the ‘mercy killing’ of disabled people in Germany
The Hartheim Institute - one of the hospitals where the Euthanasia Programme was carried out, USHMM #76511.
At the beginning of World War II the Nazi regime began killing individuals with physical disabilities, people who were mentally retarded, and the terminally ill. The killings were called ‘euthanasia’, i.e. ‘mercy killings’.
According to the Nazi policy of racial hygiene, people with physical and me
http://www.holocaust-education.dk/baggrund/eutanasi.asp
That was also known as mercy killings.
After Hitler had received a letter from the father of a handicapped child, whom the father wished to be put to death as a mercy killing, the Fuehrer approved the Euthanasia Programme. The idea of the Programme was to “remove” the seriously disabled on a national basis.
It's too similar IMO.
-
I'm not alone in my thoughts on this
Killing Babies, Compassionately:
The Netherlands follows in Germany's footsteps.
Wesley J. Smith
Weekly Standard
March 27, 2006
Print ArticleOriginal Article
At last a high government official in Europe got up the nerve to chastise the Dutch government for preparing to legalize infant euthanasia. Italy's Parliamentary Affairs minister, Carlo Giovanardi, said during a radio debate: "Nazi legislation and Hitler's ideas are reemerging in Europe via Dutch euthanasia laws and the debate on how to kill ill children."
Unsurprisingly, the Dutch, ever prickly about international criticism of their peculiar institution, were outraged. Giovanardi's critique cut so deeply that even Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende felt the need to respond, sniffing, "This [Giovanardi's assertion] is scandalous and unacceptable. This is not the way to get along in Europe."
As is often the case in the New Europe, what is said matters more than what is done. Thus, the prime minister of the Netherlands thinks that killing babies because they are born with terminal or seriously disabling conditions is not a scandal, but daring to point out accurately that German doctors did the same during World War II, is.
That being noted, one wishes Giovanardi had thought twice before raising the Nazi specter. Partly, this is because nothing we are talking about today matches the scope or magnitude of Nazi crimes. As a result, accusing people of Nazi-like behavior allows those amply deserving of moral condemnation to deflect reproaches. Thus, Giovanardi says that killing disabled babies is what the Nazis did, and the Dutch merely retort (correctly) that they are not Nazis.
Still, the "Nazi" analogy is worth exploring, precisely because it is unequivocally true that German doctors did kill thousands of disabled babies, for which a few such physicians were hanged at Nuremberg. Dutch apologists know this, of course. But they claim that the Netherlands' infant euthanasia program is substantially different: Dutch doctors are motivated by compassion whereas the Germans' were motivated by the bigotry of racial hygiene. Of course it is the act of killing disabled and dying babies that is wrong, not the motivation. But even leaving that aside, the Dutch defense is not as persuasive as Prime Minister Balkenende would like to believe.
http://www.discovery.org/a/3384
-
A very sad case. I have occasionally wondered how many gender reassignment surgeries go wrong, when you think about the details of the surgery, mistakes are inevitable. There are also cases where people wish they hadn't had it done afterwards. No matter how strict the guidelines, the psychiatrists cannot ever be 100% certain that the patient knows they are making the right decision. I feel very sorry for this person, it was heartbreaking to hear what he had said about it all.
As for the mother, it would have been better had she said nothing or ''No comment''.
-
A very sad case. I have occasionally wondered how many gender reassignment surgeries go wrong, when you think about the details of the surgery, mistakes are inevitable. There are also cases where people wish they hadn't had it done afterwards. No matter how strict the guidelines, the psychiatrists cannot ever be 100% certain that the patient knows they are making the right decision. I feel very sorry for this person, it was heartbreaking to hear what he had said about it all.
As for the mother, it would have been better had she said nothing or ''No comment''.
Yes, I agree.
-
No.
I've posted on here before about the chap I knew with MND who drove his electric wheelchair into his garden pond whilst his wife was out. There's no easy answer, no, but I'm damned sure leaving people to do that isn't any kind of solution either.
No it isn't, it's horrific. The only thing I can think about that is that at least no-one was employed to kill him, it was his decision and he did it.
I do wonder about people who would euthanase people for a living in the same way as I am wary of anyone who would be prepared to execute a murderer in countries where capital punishment is legal. After a while it must become routine.
MND patients can be cared for and given sufficient morphine in the later stages to relieve their distress, without the intention of euthanasing them. More effort should be put into that type of care imo.
-
No it isn't, it's horrific. The only thing I can think about that is that at least no-one was employed to kill him, it was his decision and he did it.
I do wonder about people who would euthanase people for a living in the same way as I am wary of anyone who would be prepared to execute a murderer in countries where capital punishment is legal. After a while it must become routine.
MND patients can be cared for and given sufficient morphine in the later stages to relieve their distress, without the intention of euthanasing them. More effort should be put into that type of care imo.
And if that's not what they want?