Should Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Be Legal?

[Berlin76]

The age requirement is fairly straightforward. But when the idea of mentally sound comes into play, that's when thing get difficult.

As you say, who defines the term mentally sound, who decides who is and who isn't, is this criteria even valid? That's where the issue gets very, very thorny!

Sound of mind
This is exactly what you commented to me yesterday in my tread on my euthanasia.
The person has to be able to know past and present and be present in their state of mind. And accordingly communicate with the doctor about their health and wish and state.

When this is clearly and rational than the person is sound of mind.

The doctor can't make a decision when the person is not all there mentally due to dementia or psychosis

 

[fightingsioux]

Sound of mind
This is exactly what you commented to me yesterday in my tread on my euthanasia.
The person has to be able to know past and present and be present in their state of mind. And accordingly communicate with the doctor about their health and wish and state.

When this is clearly and rational than the person is sound of mind.

The doctor can't make a decision when the person is not all there mentally due to dementia or psychosis

Good point, and yes, that's what we were discussing on another thread.

Many jurisdictions (states & countries) and many private organizations use the idea of mental competency, which is always situational. So, relating to assisted suicide:

Do you understand the situation?
Do you understand the potential consequences?
Can you understand and retain any information about the subject that you've learned, or is presented to you?
Based on this information, can you make a decision?
Can you communicate this decision?

But mental competency and mental illness don't necessarily mean the same thing. One can be competent but ill, sometimes quite ill.
One can be mentally ill and also not be mentally competent.

As discussed in the original ProCon article that I posted, many individuals and groups disagree about what standard to apply. Some say mental competence is all that's necessary, others say a complete absence of any mental illness!

 

[TAW122]

Absolutely. There is no reason that the government and society (along with many selfish masses) should dictate how an individual should live or die. It's the individual's right and body and he/she owes nothing towards society. Since no one consented to being conceived or brought into this world, then at the very least, society and government should keep their hands off of the individual's right to choose whether to live or die.

Furthermore, I do believe that there should be checks and systems put into place to ensure that abuse and misuse of the process does not happen and that each individual requesting said services are doing so by their own volition (free will) and not being coerced or pressured into dying. Having said checks and systems in place would filter out most cases of abuse and/or impulsive decisions made by individuals who may/not truly wish to die or are in an acute crisis.

 

[Quarky00]

Current assisted euthanasia , where available , is a very lengthy thorough process , with several in-depth assessments , family/relative consultation , etc . It's already there , no need to invent the wheel - just improve it . It should never be just an assessment and off you go ...

Many countries offer a process for removal of life support care under many circumstances , again , something to build on . I've read it , quite hefty assessment guidelines . In short - current procedures are thorough and effective , and should be improved .

Note many pro-lifers misleadingly represent future euthanasia as "an easy process". Oh , just a decision by a doctor and that's it . That is FALSE . Don't fall into that trap :) I wish it was simple sometimes , but I know it mustn't . It should just be made slightly easier and accessible than current situation . Small steps .

 

[TAW122]

Good points @Quarky00 and yes, what you said about the procedure is true, even for the "passive euthanasia" as in withdrawing and removing life sustaining support. We first need to improve on the passive euthanasia criteria as well as having more rights for the patients. I have made a topic exposing the flaw in reasoning that religious people use to deny euthanasia (both active and passive).

 

[chris8000]

So when I was 21, I may of been deemed mentally sound by a doctor, but I was extremely unhappy and wanted to end it. Now I look back at that time and I think, what I terrible decision that would have been. Which is part of this problem isn't it?

A compassionate and reasonable minded doctor, would of just of said to me, clearly your going through something which could well be temporary as you want to die at the moment because your depressed because of X, Y, Z. Here is some therapy or something, come back again if it doesn't work, and so this process can be repeated several times until we can be sure this is a dead end.

If they said, here you go here are your cyanide pills, then does this not, defeat the point of medical practice which is to help people get better? Admittedly sometimes it cannot, and then euthanasia makes more sense given there is considerable suffering. But this is different to the situation I have described just now, where it seems crazy to me to waste a young persons life.

 

[TAW122]

@chris8000 In the situation you described, yes, this is why there should be processes and criterion in which each patient goes through (including a waiting period and multiple recovery attempts) before immediately ending life. In fact, in current policy and law in regards to euthanasia (Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland to name a few), there are already many hoops and processes as well as criterion to be met before the doctor gives an approval for the process to go on. If the patient falls short of this, then he/she would be denied euthanasia.

So in short, yes I do believe having checks in place (the ones that exist) are important and they currently do exist. What should change in the future is how the criterion is applied to people who are suffering long term and those with little prospects of relief. I still believe that in certain instances, the criterion is still too restrictive for those who wish to end their suffering. It is a gray area so there is perfect guideline, but it certainly can be improved in the future.

 

[Bleak Stoic]

It should absolutely be legal, 100%. No contest from me.

 

[fightingsioux]

Current assisted euthanasia , where available , is a very lengthy thorough process , with several in-depth assessments , family/relative consultation , etc . It's already there , no need to invent the wheel - just improve it . It should never be just an assessment and off you go ...

Many countries offer a process for removal of life support care under many circumstances , again , something to build on . I've read it , quite hefty assessment guidelines . In short - current procedures are thorough and effective , and should be improved .

Note many pro-lifers misleadingly represent future euthanasia as "an easy process". Oh , just a decision by a doctor and that's it . That is FALSE . Don't fall into that trap :) I wish it was simple sometimes , but I know it mustn't . It should just be made slightly easier and accessible than current situation . Small steps .

This was famously illustrated in 2010 when the British writer Martin Amis--in response to pro-choice euthanasia advocates--suggested that the next step will be "suicide booths on every corner."

 

[chris8000]

Haha. Will there be a sign on the door of the suicide booth saying 'only for over 18s and those of a rational mind?'

 

[Ame]

In an unrelated conversation with someone here earlier today, I revisited the results of a poll conducted here on the forum. One of the questions that was looked at was interesting and the community's response seems to supports one of my suspicions:

"Do you believe there are cases where euthanasia should be allowed?"​

n = 657 responses​

99.2% - Yes​

0.80% - No​

Of course, please take into consideration the age of this survey and whether or not the sampled population can be deemed representative of the forum's population.

I am all for auto-determination, yet where does one draw the line when the desire to end one's life arises as a symptom of their illness? It is for this reason that safe guards (like the assessment of an interested person's capacity to provide informed consent) are - our at least, in my opinion, ought to be - put in place. Unfortunately, when it comes to mental health conditions, most often there are no measurable bio-markers for healthcare providers to determine whether or not someone's illness is redeemable to an extent deemed acceptable to the person suffering.

In these kinds of situations, we must consider the likelihood of one of two potential outcomes and their consequences:

1. That medical assistance in dying was provided to someone whose mental health condition was in fact transient and that would have remitted with appropriate treatment, thereby cutting their life short and depriving them of a fulfilling future.
2. That medical assistance in dying was denied to someone whose mental health condition remained severe and enduring despite attempts at therapy, thereby leaving them to suffer in anguish for the remainder of their lives.

 

[WhyIsLife56]

Do you mean for a person of any age, a child for example?

Asking this also to Wayfarer & Nnana.

"This shouldn't even be a question. Humans claim to be intelligent but they don't think at all. Like at all. This should already be legal and it should be a right but the fact that it's not explains how humans and humanity as a whole are actually in fact stupid.
Why do humans have a brain in the first place? Do they think it's some kind of decoration for their head or something?"

This was my previous comment and it still stands.

All these comments just don't understand anything about compassion. Think of the children. The children that still contemplate suicide all over the world. Kids still commit suicide all over the world. Do you really want them to go through abuse and torture until the age of 18 or something? This is why humanity deserves to rot.
Humanity deserves to suffer if they have no compassion.
Even on a suicide forum people are still delusional.

 

[fightingsioux]

So far I've been really impressed with the mostly well-thought out replies. I'm 71 and learning every day, like to hear reasonable perspectives from others.

Even if you're a younger person not really thinking about things like physician-assisted suicide, I hope you read the ProCon.org article in the original post. There are some topics that might interest anyone on this forum: "What is a Good Death?" and "Is there a legal right to die?" to name just two.

 

[chris8000]

OK, I am reading the pro and cons from the link you sent.... https://euthanasia.procon.org/top-10-pro-con-arguments/

I think the fact that suffering is passed on from the individual to the relatives and loved ones, is an important perspective.

However, Utilitarianism would add up the suffering of the individual then compare it to the suffering caused on other individuals by the action, then in some cases tell us that it makes sense because the individual suffering outweighs the suffering of the many, in other cases it would not.