"Ethicist" Calls for Non Voluntary Euthanasia
Ah, the slippery slope: It just keeps slip-sliding away.
The latest example comes (again) from the UK, where "one of the country's leading ethicists" has called for the killing of patients who have not asked to be euthanized. As reported by the Guardian: "Len Doyal, emeritus professor of medical ethics at Queen Mary, University of London, takes the euthanasia debate into new and highly contentious territory. He says doctors should recognise [sic] that they are already killing patients when they remove feeding tubes from those whose lives are judged to be no longer worth living. Some will suffer a 'slow and distressing death' as a result."
Wait a minute! That can't be right! We have been told repeatedly by our betters in bioethics that removing feeding tubes leads to euphoria and a pleasant demise. These death ethicists need to get their stories straight.
The right answer, of course, is to stop pulling feeding tubes based on quality of life judgments, not kill the patients even if they haven't asked to be euthanized. Still, come to think of it, another (in)famous doctor named Jack Kevorkian made the same point as Dr Doyal few years ago. I am sure both will be pleased to know that they are in good company.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 8:36 PM
15 Comments
15 Comments:
Well, I'm glad you're opposed to the paternalism of the medical community. If only you would give that power back to the patient, so they don't have to play the "double-effect game."
This whole issue has nothing whatsoever to do with patient "power," and you know it.
It's easy to sit there and talk about your "rights," but these matters typically happen to people who are not in a position to make that judgment, or, they may have thought they wanted to get themselves offed when they were healthy, but when incapacitated and may feel differently can't speak up.
See, you don't get it and you never will. A phony "civil liberties" argument about something having to do with the violation of civil rights of millions of people solely on the basis of disability or health problems isn't about civil liberties at all, especially when talking about the medical establishment.
I should have said, when formerly healthy people find themselves incapacitated, they can longer speak up if they have changed their minds about what they think they wanted.
"they may have thought they wanted to get themselves offed when they were healthy, but when incapacitated and may feel differently can't speak up."
You are assuming that they would rather die. But what if they would rather stay alive like they had already expressed. If you can't tell which way is best for them, it is obviously better to choose the direction they had already chosen.
Ah, but they've been saying it for years, but only in ethical books and journals using euphenisms. They are now coming out of the woodwork...
Interestingly enough, the humor site FARK comments: Going to the hospital in Britain could soon become even more of an adventure as country's top physician urges legalization of non-consensual euthanasia...and check comments...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Involuntary euthanasia? Gee, could it possibly be that this is what happens when we allow the idea that there are classes/groups of people whose existences are so pathetic that we think it is understandable that they'd want to kill themselves and that the COMPASSIONATE thing to do is give them a hand killing themselves?
Of course it is. This is what happens when we tolerate/perpetuate the idea of self suicide. The only way to advocate for PAS is to argue that some people have circumstances that make life not worth living. Once that idea is accepted and tolerated and gains state approval, then the logical step is for some "compassionate" doctor to go ahead and do people with those conditions we argue make life unworthy of life and us a favor by killing them without consent under the presumption/banner that it is the most compassionate thing to do.
This is why allowing assisted suicide nevitably leads to a psychopathic culture/political class like we see in Holland where they debate whether or not to allow 12 year olds the right to end their lives with the assistance of an MD. There's no way of stopping that train once it leaves the station. Hence, the state must do everything it can to oppose assisted suicide and why they must even oppose it to those who, while fully autonomous, request it.
Don, the doctor does have one point. If they can ALREADY decide to starve patients to death, it would be more humane to make the process quicker rather than waiting for a "chance" that they will wake up.
It has nothing to do with "creating a subclass of people whose lives aren't worth living" and everything to do with medical paternalism.
Winston,
We would not let them kill themselves or let doctors be involved if we didn't already think that those people didn't have lives worth living. Otherwise we would make heroic efforts to save their lives just like we do every day in America with our hotlines, intense outreach and treatment centers. You can't argue for assisted self suicide if you don't think the person's life is not worth living.
I don't think this is medical paternalism. This is Don Nelson citizen of the United States-one little tiny voice- saying you can't do that in my country and I'll oppose it any way I can because besides believing that your life is still infinitely valuable you are making me and society complicit in saying that you-the suicidal person and as a result, all others in your condition/cirucmstances which you think warrants your suicide- are life unworthy of life. I know people with those conditions and probably will someday have them too. No way am I going to let it be suggested with law that their lives aren't worth living. I , not some "paternalistic" doctors, am telling these people that you cannot impose your autonomy on us. Besides this is America and we will never ever-as long as we are faithful to our nation's creedal documents and as we make progress towards realizing the ideals of that incredible creed, we can never ever say that there is such thing as life unworthy of life. 60 years ago we bombed a regime like that out of existence. This isn't about medical paternalism. It's about protecting the dignity and rights of whole classes of people and killing any notion that any of them are life worthy of life.
Whenever we agree that lives are so unworth living that it's okay to help them kill themselves, then there's not much we can do to stop involuntary euthanasia. There's nothing to stop us from developing the cultural psychosis in Holland/the Netherlands where they seriously consider lower the age of consent to 12 year olds to kill themselves. It may happen through democratic action in America, but it will be a sad, sad day. And I'm doing my best not to let it happen.
Have a good day
So, Don Nelson, you see no problem with slow suicide, including smoking, alcoholism and laziness, which can shorten one's life by 30-40 years, but a lethal injection at the end of life that shortens it by a few weeks or months in unacceptable. Insane.
If you want to protect life, you should start by extending it and preventing easily preventable deaths.
Let me just say this. You had better hope that euthanasia and assisted suicide are legal if I get a terminal illness. I am NOT going to take this lying down. If I cannot get Nembutal, I will certainly try and get revenge on you and the anti-choice bigots. I refuse to let you make the most personal decision of my life, and I oppose anyone who would usurp anyone's autonomy - including yours. If you want to die "naturally", that's up to you. However, terminal sedation isn't acceptable to everyone, and no one should be forced to either commit suicide early or die in agony.
Lastly, if psychiatrists and psychologists do not consider the terminally ill to be "depressed," what does that indicate about your position?
Winston,
PAS is wrong whether the suicidal person is depressed or not. A week ago I said that the nurse who was testifying at our capitol said that people requesting PAS were not depressed. But she turned around and gave descriptions of these people which sounded like they were pretty depressed. I said her description of PAS requesters undercut her claim that they weren't depressed. When we find depression we should treat it of course, not let the person kill him or herself. But I don't think I was arguing that PAS was wrong because people choosing it would be depressed.
I don't think that people who are doing drugs, cigarettes, alcohol or being lazy are trying to kill themselves. Our intervention programs and public outreach show that we do not approve of people abusing their bodies by those means. And if people are dying by these means, they aren't corrupting the nation by asking that we let doctors finish them off and admit that people with those conditions have lives unworthy of life. My dad has all the conditions advocates of PAS argue make PAS acceptable. He's a walking pharmacy. We can't accept the argument that people like him should be able to kill themselves without saying that people like him are life unworthy of life.
I sure hope you are not saying that alcoholics, druggies, lazy people and smokers aren't worthy of life.
In regards to saying I should do more to protect life if I want to oppose PAS, that sounds like saying that I can't tell someone to stop beating his wife unless I'm willing to marry her and adopt his kids.
People are free to kill themselves. In the US it's not against the law anymore because we don't want them to do it. We don't want them to fear that they'll go to jail if the are NOT successful. We have autonomy too Winston. You just can't demand our help and impinge on our autonomy and say that we have to agree as a society that those lives that are the most vulnerable are not worth living.
I think I prefer my insanity over your outlook. Let's see, would I want to be like Mother Teresa and John Paul II or like Derek Humprhies, Mike Schiavo and Jack Kervorkian? Not a hard call.
Hoping you keep it together and find much joy and happiness. Life is a the greatest gift. Every day is a privilege.
Don, I do not think that "alcoholics, druggies, lazy people and smokers aren't worthy of life."
What I am saying is that if you think that preserving life is more important than respecting autonomy, you should start by outlawing smoking and alcohol the same way you oppose PAS, because smoking shortens life much more than PAS does.
"People are free to kill themselves. In the US it's not against the law anymore because we don't want them to do it. We don't want them to fear that they'll go to jail if the are NOT successful. We have autonomy too Winston. You just can't demand our help and impinge on our autonomy and say that we have to agree as a society that those lives that are the most vulnerable are not worth living."
Will the irony ever end?! I am not declaring that the terminally ill or disabled have "lives not worth living." I am saying that they should be able to get help to die peacefully, IF THAT IS WHAT THEY WANT. I impinge on no one's autonomy.
On the other hand, YOU are impinging on my autonomy, because if I become terminally ill, I have to place myself at the mercy of doctors who may or may not help, and bigots like you who do not respect my choice to go out on my own terms.
YOU are free to die "naturally," if that is what you want.
If you want the terminally ill to die sooner and violently via suicide, then continue to oppose PAS. If you want to give them peace of mind, support PAS. It actually REDUCES suicide among the terminally ill, because some of them die naturally, while having the wonderful peace of mind that Nembutal provides.
In any case, you probably think that the victims of 9/11 should have stayed and burned to death "naturally," rather than take the "immoral" route of jumping out the window.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Why would we help one person/group of persons die, but not others? A lot of people try to commit suicide every year. More and more are young people. In the US we spend huge resources to keep people from suicide. We put police holds on suicidal people to keep them from killing themselves against their wills. We have outreach programs and therapy to keep people from killing themselves.
Now, what are we saying if we tell one group of people that we'll do everything to save their lives, but if someone comes to a doctor and says "I don't want to live anymore" and instead of intervention the doctor says "let me call a shrink to make sure that you really want to do this. And if you really do, then okay, I'll help you kill yourself." We are saying "you know, we don't think that you or people in your condition or circumstances have a life that is really worth living."
That's the answer to my question-why would we help one group kill themselves but intervene to keep others from killing themselves, much less refusing them a doctor to help them pull it off. We have to believe that their lives are not worth living any more. That's the only way we can justify it. Otherwise we would intervene to save them. There's no other way around that and it makes targets out of people in the same condition. It's also true that once we say yes to allowing anyone to kill themselves with our approval for any reason, that opens up the door for self killing for any reason. It leads to the psychotic culture in the Netherlands/The Netherworld? and their debate as to whether or not 12 year olds should be able to request PAS. PAS advocates are for "rational suicide." It also leads to involuntary euthanasia once we accept that there's such thing as life not worthy of life. Those are just some of the reasons the government has to oppose PAS.
If I'm impinging on your autonomy to keep you from killing yourself and keeping society from accepting the idea that there are some people whose lives are so not worth living that it's okay for the doctor to help them kill them so be it. You don't have an absolute right to autonomy and I don't either.
As to the claim that men and women jumping from the twin towers were committing suicide and should have burned to death instead... I don't think you are helping your case there Winston. There's no analogy. I'm going to take that as a comment out of exasperation with me not what you really believe.
I'm done. You get the last word. Have a good day.
"Why would we help one person/group of persons die, but not others? A lot of people try to commit suicide every year. More and more are young people. In the US we spend huge resources to keep people from suicide. We put police holds on suicidal people to keep them from killing themselves against their wills."
Yet you don't put police holds on the terminally ill. Is that because they're too weak to commit suicide on their own? Or is it that most of society understands that it's going to be hard to dissuade them if you cannot reduce the loss of autonomy and dignity. Palliative care has its limits.
"We have outreach programs and therapy to keep people from killing themselves."
Do you force people into these programs? Because I can't think of too many things more depressing than blaming the victim for their own sucidal inclinations. Condemn them and you increase the chances of suicide.
"Now, what are we saying if we tell one group of people that we'll do everything to save their lives, but if someone comes to a doctor and says "I don't want to live anymore" and instead of intervention the doctor says "let me call a shrink to make sure that you really want to do this. And if you really do, then okay, I'll help you kill yourself." We are saying "you know, we don't think that you or people in your condition or circumstances have a life that is really worth living.""
I dare you to say that to the terminally ill. Take away Oregon's law and you can safely assume that patients who would have requested the drug would ALMOST CERTAINLY commit suicide to avoid the pain. Just because they have the drug doesn't mean they have to take it. It's the same as with condoms and contraceptives - hopefully you won't need them, but just in case... you get the idea.
"That's the answer to my question-why would we help one group kill themselves but intervene to keep others from killing themselves, much less refusing them a doctor to help them pull it off."
It's unrealistic to lump the terminally and chronically ill together with depressed teenagers. Teenage depression can be treated much more easily than the side-effects of cancer, final-stage AIDS, etc.
"We have to believe that their lives are not worth living any more. That's the only way we can justify it."
No, we just have to believe that some things are more important than the preservation of biological life, such as autonomy and choosing the circumstances of one's own death. Why should doctors be the only ones who can die painlessly in their sleep? It's unfair to force people to die violently, and it's dangerous to innocent bystanders, too.
"Otherwise we would intervene to save them. There's no other way around that and it makes targets out of people in the same condition."
So you think people should not be allowed to refuse treatment and starve themselves to death? Too bad - that's the "best" option they have at the moment. Terminal sedation must be kept secret from the government.
Also, you yourself said that I could kill myself if I wanted to. What happened to this "preserve life at all costs" ethic, hmmm?
"It's also true that once we say yes to allowing anyone to kill themselves with our approval for any reason, that opens up the door for self killing for any reason."
We have smoking and alcohol, don't we? They can cause terminal illness over time or kill if an overdose is taken. You'd be hypocritical not to ban these.
"It leads to the psychotic culture in the Netherlands/The Netherworld? and their debate as to whether or not 12 year olds should be able to request PAS. PAS advocates are for "rational suicide.""
Sometimes suicide is rational. Look at this pain scale:
Jackalope said, "Once pain reaches a certain level, death may not be such a poor alternative. I'm posting here one of the pain scales commonly used to help patients communicate accurately to their doctors how much pain they are experiencing.
" Pain Scale
0 Pain free
1 Very minor annoyance
mild aches to some parts of the body. No pain medication needed.
2 Minor annoyance
dull aches to some parts of the body. No pain medication needed.
3 Annoying enough to be distracting
Over-the-Counter pain relievers take care of it.
4 Can be ignored if you are really involved in your work, but still
distracting. Over-the-Counter pain relievers remove pain for 3-4 hours.
5 Can't be ignored for more than 30 minutes
Over-the-Counter pain relievers help somewhat (bring pain level from 5
to a 3 or 4) with pain for 3-4 hours.
6 Can't be ignored for any length of time
Can still go to work and participate in social activities. Stronger
painkillers relieve pain for 3-4 hours.
7 Makes it difficult to concentrate, interferes with sleep
Can still function with effort. Stronger painkillers are only partially
effective. (Stronger pain killers bring pain from a 7 to 4-6.)
8 Physical activity severely limited
Can read and converse with effort. Stronger pain killers are not
effective. (Narcotic pain killers do bring this pain down to a level 3 or
lower.)
9 Non functional for all practical purposes
Cannot concentrate. Physical activity halted. Panic sets in. (Narcotic
Pain killers bring the pain level from 9 to the 4-6 level.)
10 Totally non-functional
Unable to speak. Crying out or moaning uncontrollably - near delirium."
"It also leads to involuntary euthanasia once we accept that there's such thing as life not worthy of life. Those are just some of the reasons the government has to oppose PAS."
No, involuntary euthanasia (killing those who have said they want to live) is a result of medical paternalism, which you support.
"If I'm impinging on your autonomy to keep you from killing yourself and keeping society from accepting the idea that there are some people whose lives are so not worth living that it's okay for the doctor to help them kill them so be it."
Fine. I'll just jump off a building if I get cancer, and I'll hope I land on a pro-lifer.
Of course, that was sarcasm. I don't want to hurt others or torture them, but you seem to want to, in the name of "respecting life."
"You don't have an absolute right to autonomy and I don't either."
Of course not. The limits are when my actions would hurt others. Suicide is not one. Oh, "My family will be distraught."? In that case, I better be a total dickhead to them so that they WANT me to die, and may actually shoot me themselves.
"As to the claim that men and women jumping from the twin towers were committing suicide and should have burned to death instead... I don't think you are helping your case there Winston. There's no analogy. I'm going to take that as a comment out of exasperation with me not what you really believe."
Well, if you consider all suicide to be immoral, you would consider the "jumpers" immoral. The fact is that sometimes, suicide is merely choosing one form of death over another.
"I'm done. You get the last word. Have a good day."
Good for you.
Post a Comment
<< Home