Should MERCY killing be allowed?

[Neo-Logic]

In cases of terminal illness and untreatable pain while the patient can give rational consent then yes I think it would be moral for assisted suicide. With careful and reasonable checks in place.

Patients suffering mental illness without either of the previously stated conditions I could never support it.

Both? That would be problematic. Explicit consent must be a fundamental criteria to be met in my opinion.

Now I'm only thinking of situations where the patient presents consciousness.

I see a lot of "IFS" in your post, and rightly so. Your ideal candidate for euthanasia would be someone, as you've stated, with terminal illness, unmanageable pain, and can give 'rational' consent. I think there are some contradiction in some of your criteria though. Do you feel that someone in 'unmanageable pain' that's suffering is 'rational' and can give rational consent? If the pain is unquestionable, then duress must follow. If duress is the cause of the consent, then the consent could be void. Psychologically, constant pain can have an immense impact on rationality and rational choice making.

 

[Neo-Logic]

Can people in pain even make rational decisions and give 'legal consent'?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

This week the DPP in the UK has Clarified in what circumstances a person assisting another to die will be prosecuted. This was as a result of a House of Lords ruling, calling for such clarification.

Basically if some one has made it clear that they wish to end their life, but because of their condition need help to do so, and the person who agrees to help does so solely for compassionate reasons, then they will not be prosecuted.
However all the laws on Murder and manslaughter remain in effect.

The assisted suicide must be only instigated by the sufferer.

 

[gnomon]

I see a lot of "IFS" in your post, and rightly so. Your ideal candidate for euthanasia would be someone, as you've stated, with terminal illness, unmanageable pain, and can give 'rational' consent. I think there are some contradiction in some of your criteria though. Do you feel that someone in 'unmanageable pain' that's suffering is 'rational' and can give rational consent? If the pain is unquestionable, then duress must follow. If duress is the cause of the consent, then the consent could be void. Psychologically, constant pain can have an immense impact on rationality and rational choice making.

That's true.

Mercy killing is a topic that while I feel can be morally justified it does have some very serious issues related with it.

I personally believe pain management in the United States leaves a lot to be desired especially with the state of the government's drug war and their position towards doctors who administer pain treatment. Right now it's too restrictive.

But as to the issue overall. I just hope I'm never in the position to have to make such a decision.

 

[Hevenly Heathen]

Man has three inalienable rights: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

If life is a right, we have a right to say when and where if we want to terminate our own. Terminally ill or in untreatable pain is a logical means to consider an end, and is morally acceptable to me.
Suicide may seem like a waste, but it's one's own life, and if it is their desire, it's up to them, not me. It is also moral to me to allow suicide.
The taking of another person's life without consent is immoral.
If taking another person's life when they are unable to give consent but are terminally ill or in pain, that should be left to their family, and the government should stay out of it unless they are going to take complete responsibility of the individual. But I consider it moral.

Edit: It is immoral to refuse anyone's last request because of one's own emotional attachment.

 

[Neo-Logic]

Man has three inalienable rights: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

If life is a right, we have a right to say when and where if we want to terminate our own.

Big if -- none of those three are absolute rights. Nothing in the Constitution represents an absolute. They're all but part of the whole. If you run towards the police with a sharp knife, I'm pretty sure your right to life will be over before you reach them.

Terminally ill or in untreatable pain is a logical means to consider an end, and is morally acceptable to me.
Suicide may seem like a waste, but it's one's own life, and if it is their desire, it's up to them, not me. It is also moral to me to allow suicide.
The taking of another person's life without consent is immoral.
If taking another person's life when they are unable to give consent but are terminally ill or in pain, that should be left to their family, and the government should stay out of it unless they are going to take complete responsibility of the individual. But I consider it moral.

Here's the controversial question: do you believe that someone in constant pain can give 'legal' consent that's rational and logical? If someone is in constant pain, they are through psychological, neurological, and physiological perspectives, under duress and can't be trusted to make the rational choice.

No contract that was signed when someone was in great deal of pain would ever be enforceable in a court of law, but can an answer given to end one's own life whilst under pain ever be 'rational'?

Edit: It is immoral to refuse anyone's last request because of one's own emotional attachment.

That's a rather absurd claim. Any last requests? Even in the context of this topic, it's still absurd. No individual should be compelled to act on a choice other than rational when it comes to taking someone else's life. And the right to take someone else's life ends at your own safety -- not because of an emotional attachment either for or against the mercy killing. And given that the choice made or consent given is unlikely to be rational, it would be less morally justifiable to mercy kill, not more.

 

[Neo-Logic]

This week the DPP in the UK has Clarified in what circumstances a person assisting another to die will be prosecuted. This was as a result of a House of Lords ruling, calling for such clarification.

Basically if some one has made it clear that they wish to end their life, but because of their condition need help to do so, and the person who agrees to help does so solely for compassionate reasons, then they will not be prosecuted.
However all the laws on Murder and manslaughter remain in effect.

The assisted suicide must be only instigated by the sufferer.

I can swallow most moral arguments for euthanasia, but my limit ends at the legalization.

The DPP clarification is likely to be unsustainable. I'm not sure if it's the way you described it or if that's how it actually works, but from what your post suggests, it could lead to a lot of abuse. It would be quiet easy to convince an irrational and possibly temporarily insane person due to extreme pain that's being suffered that dying is the best choice -- and to sign whatever forms necessary and coerce them towards assisted suicide. I reckon we would see a huge increase in the 'assisted suicides' amongst high-pain patients. The likelihood and potential for abuse makes it such that the danger is no longer with the unmanageable pain of the patient, but the unmanageable pain of the family who can't see them suffer or worse, who can't see themselves being burdened any further with medical bills for someone that's going to die anyways and in pain.

This situation is truly a paradox. In a perfect world, mercy killing should definitely be allowed, but in the real world, it should never be legal to curb potential abuse.

If the cause is extremely genuine and circumstances dire, it is more utilitarian to let an individual mercy kill illegally, break the law, and then attempt to convince a jury of their peer for an acquittal than to open the floodgates to support the act.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I can swallow most moral arguments for euthanasia, but my limit ends at the legalization.

The DPP clarification is likely to be unsustainable. I'm not sure if it's the way you described it or if that's how it actually works, but from what your post suggests, it could lead to a lot of abuse. It would be quiet easy to convince an irrational and possibly temporarily insane person due to extreme pain that's being suffered that dying is the best choice -- and to sign whatever forms necessary and coerce them towards assisted suicide. I reckon we would see a huge increase in the 'assisted suicides' amongst high-pain patients. The likelihood and potential for abuse makes it such that the danger is no longer with the unmanageable pain of the patient, but the unmanageable pain of the family who can't see them suffer or worse, who can't see themselves being burdened any further with medical bills for someone that's going to die anyways and in pain.

This situation is truly a paradox. In a perfect world, mercy killing should definitely be allowed, but in the real world, it should never be legal to curb potential abuse.

If the cause is extremely genuine and circumstances dire, it is more utilitarian to let an individual mercy kill illegally, break the law, and then attempt to convince a jury of their peer for an acquittal than to open the floodgates to support the act.

The DPP are the people who make decisions on the progress of each individual case. they have all the facts of the police investigation, and can insist on any more data they need to allow a prosecution to proceed.

The system is not changing from the one in place now, the only change is that we now know how they are to come to those decisions.
Before any case comes to court, on any subject, they are the ones who decide if there is a case to answer and if there is a possibility of a guilty verdict. If they are not satisfied, the case can not go to court. The Police have no say in this. Neither an aggrieved party nor the police can insist on a prosecution.

 

[McBell]

Mercy killing - it's an act whereby someone in a terminal stage of a disease or condition whose suffering and pain cannot be mitigated by medicine and they are consequently 'killed' by a loved at the victim's request.

Of course, this is the ideal description, but there are complications. The potential for abuse is tremendous. Legally, most states punish mercy killing as manslaughter or murder, and physicians cannot assist in suicides of patients either. Most acts, therefore, are done illegally by some family member.

Is mercy killing moral? More importantly, do you feel it's being done for the patient that's suffering or the families of those patients that can't manage to see them suffer? How does this affect self-determination? Can someone EVER give up their right to life, even with consent, under duress?

Given that it's not legal, would you knowingly and willingly break the law and risk charges to ever mercy kill a loved one that's suffering if they requested this under excruciating pain?

You mean like the Death With Dignity Act:

State of Oregon: Death With Dignity Act

http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/127.html

Oregon Death with Dignity Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​

 

[Panda]

Terry Pratchett recently gave an amazing speech on this issue and how he feels he should have the right to die how and when he wants (For those who don't know he has Alzheimers). The whole speech can be found here

 

[Panda]

This situation is truly a paradox. In a perfect world, mercy killing should definitely be allowed, but in the real world, it should never be legal to curb potential abuse.

Wrong, in places like Switzerland where euthanasia is legal there have been NO reported cases of it being misused or abused. Also here is a youtube link to the speech I mentioned [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUE3pBIuAGk[/youtube]

 

[zenzero]

Friend Neo-Logic,

Should MERCY killing be allowed?

If you are talking of *euthanasia*;
Personal opinion is that Life is individual's and if the individual wishes, he should have the right to end it.
The other reason is that *death* is only from one life to another till one achieves *nirvana*, and so even if one ends his life in one he has to go through the pains in another which he avoided as that is KARMA driven.

Love & rgds

 

[Neo-Logic]

You mean like the Death With Dignity Act:

State of Oregon: Death With Dignity Act

http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/127.html

Oregon Death with Dignity Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​

I mean like the fact that most states in the United States specifically prohibit this, less a few states like Oregon and Virginia. They're by far the exception and not the rule, hence, given that it's illegal.

http://www.nightingalealliance.org/pdf/state_grid.pdf

 

[Neo-Logic]

Wrong, in places like Switzerland where euthanasia is legal there have been NO reported cases of it being misused or abused. Also here is a youtube link to the speech I mentioned

A bold claim for someone who only quoted a video, which I won't watch.

First off, Switzerland laws on euthanasia, unlike laws in certain states that allow physician assisted suicides, decriminalizes the act even when it does not involve physicians. This consequently has lead to non-physicians being involved in assisted suicide and it's questionable how effective their methods can be to actually see a 'painless' death through. Swiss law has no such requirement for a physician. It maybe that theres no reported cases of misuse or abuse because the definition of tolerance has been stretched so far and wide as to encompass actions that would otherwise be criminal, like ordinary people becoming executioners of 'mercy'.

Plus, How detectable would abuse in these cases actually be? You have distressed terminally ill patients in pain. Like I've said, it's not hard to talk someone in that mental condition to say "hey, you're going to die and you're in pain, let us help you go peacefully, plus you'll save the family money, etc etc" in various permutations to make it a convincing talk. Who would report the abuse? The distressed and pained patient who is extremely susceptible to collusion? The family members who can't see their loved one suffer? Or worse, the family member who think of them as a burden and want to stop that burden? The doctor who is not an investigator and has no such training? There's very few ways to actually measure 'abuse' in these cases which is why opening the door for euthanasia is opening the doors for someone to coerce someone else into death at their most vulnerable.

I feel in these situations, the prudent approach is the only way to go. And the prudent approach is to recognize that while individual patients may be under great deal of stress, legalization would endanger the lives of all patients in a great deal of stress and pain.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1125125/

 

[Neo-Logic]

Friend Neo-Logic,


If you are talking of *euthanasia*;
Personal opinion is that Life is individual's and if the individual wishes, he should have the right to end it.
The other reason is that *death* is only from one life to another till one achieves *nirvana*, and so even if one ends his life in one he has to go through the pains in another which he avoided as that is KARMA driven.

Love & rgds

Interesting point, but in most systems, they seek to prevent death at all costs, because life is proven and precious, but we can't really prove after life and that's for debate.

 

[McBell]

I mean like the fact that most states in the United States specifically prohibit this, less a few states like Oregon and Virginia. They're by far the exception and not the rule, hence, given that it's illegal.

http://www.nightingalealliance.org/pdf/state_grid.pdf

I guess we can always hope that the other states will eventually catch up with Oregon.

Problem is that there are far to many people who hold to the self serving bull **** story called "Sanctity of Life".

Funny how they have no problems what so ever with putting someone on life support, but whine and cry how unplugging said machine is wrong because it is "Playing God".

 

[McBell]

Interesting point, but in most systems, they seek to prevent death at all costs, because life is proven and precious, but we can't really prove after life and that's for debate.

Has to do with a seriously outdated Hippocratic Oath.

Euthanasia was once much less serious a problem. When doctors had fewer "supportive" aids, artificial respirators, and knowledge of electrolyte balances, patients with terminal illnesses tended to die quickly. Now, medicine faces the fact that a person can be kept technically alive for an indefinite period, though they can never be cured. Thus the doctor must decide whether supportive therapy should be instituted and for how long. This is a problem because doctors have traditionally felt that they should keep their patients alive as long as possible, using every available technique. Now, the morality - and even the humanity - of such an approach must be questioned.
There is a corollary: whether the patient facing an incurable disease has the right to refuse supportive therapy; whether a patient facing weeks or months of terminal pain has a right to demand an easy and painless death; whether a patient who has put himself in a doctor's hands still retains ultimate life-and-death control over his own existence.

Crichton, Micheal. A Case of Need (Appendix). First ed. New York City: SIGNET, 1969. 415-416.​

 

[Neo-Logic]

I guess we can always hope that the other states will eventually catch up with Oregon.

We can only hope ...

Problem is that there are far to many people who hold to the self serving bull **** story called "Sanctity of Life".

Funny how they have no problems what so ever with putting someone on life support, but whine and cry how unplugging said machine is wrong because it is "Playing God".

I don't have a problem with people killing themselves. I have a problem with the potential for abuse that we cannot mitigate in reality. Given the circumstance, it's prudent to not legalize the act of assisted suicides.

 

[Neo-Logic]

Euthanasia was once much less serious a problem. When doctors had fewer "supportive" aids, artificial respirators, and knowledge of electrolyte balances, patients with terminal illnesses tended to die quickly. Now, medicine faces the fact that a person can be kept technically alive for an indefinite period, though they can never be cured. Thus the doctor must decide whether supportive therapy should be instituted and for how long. This is a problem because doctors have traditionally felt that they should keep their patients alive as long as possible, using every available technique. Now, the morality - and even the humanity - of such an approach must be questioned.
There is a corollary: whether the patient facing an incurable disease has the right to refuse supportive therapy; whether a patient facing weeks or months of terminal pain has a right to demand an easy and painless death; whether a patient who has put himself in a doctor's hands still retains ultimate life-and-death control over his own existence.

Crichton, Micheal. A Case of Need (Appendix). First ed. New York City: SIGNET, 1969. 415-416.

The 'need' for euthanasia is one small externality coming out of the advancement of medical science and technology. The advancements do far more good, even for those in pain. Without it, they are unlikely to even survive as long as they do and the pain would probably be that much more intolerable.

 

[McBell]

The 'need' for euthanasia is one small externality coming out of the advancement of medical science and technology. The advancements do far more good, even for those in pain. Without it, they are unlikely to even survive as long as they do and the pain would probably be that much more intolerable.

Seems to me that the point of the quote is more to allow the one who is suffering to be allowed to choose to end said suffering.


Do not get me wrong, I agree with your concerns of abuse.