Monday's News

[bobsavegan]

I just finished reading today's NY Times and found an an interesting article that I would like to share...

"Five states, in various forms, countenance doctor-assisted dying. Others are considering it. In California, legislation to permit such assistance is scheduled to receive a hearing this week. A lawsuit in New York that seeks a similar result was filed in State Supreme Court last month by a group of doctors and dying patients. The emotional wallop of these issues is self-evident, and it is captured in the latest installment of Retro Report, a series of video documentaries that explore major news stories of the past — looking back at where we have been to see where we may be headed.

Euthanasia is not permitted anywhere in the United States. Direct action by a doctor to take a life is deemed a step too far even by states that have no problem with indirect action: letting physicians prescribe pills that patients themselves then swallow. Are these distinctions without significant difference? Dr. Kevorkian believed so. It is the sort of question that lawmakers and judges, too, are called on to answer. Those who brought the New York lawsuit argue that equal-protection rights are violated by an existing state ban on doctor-assisted suicide (or “aid in dying,” as its advocates prefer). How is it, the plaintiffs effectively ask, that doctors in New York are allowed to hasten death for some terminally ill patients by removing life support but are prohibited from hastening it for others by way of a prescription?"

I am in favor of doctor assisted suicide and I am hoping I might get a chance to vote on it on a referendum.

Does anyone else have an opinion on this?

[ceptimus]

I think doctors already do it - though in a restricted form so as to stay within the grey areas of the law.

One example is when a patient is suffering pain - then the doctors will administer diamorphine or similar pain-alleviating drugs - and when the dose is upped sufficiently to kill the pain then it also speeds the killing of the patient.

Another way doctors euthanize patients is by withholding liquids - the patient then eventually dies through complications of dehydration. This seems a cruel way to do it (though pain meds would also be prescribed when the patient is still conscious) - if assisted dying were legal and commonplace then death-by-dehydration wouldn't be required. We would never choose to put down our ailing pets by dehydration, and you'd think we could be at least as kind to our fellow humans as we are to our pets.

[JoeP]

There are some high-profile campaigners for assisted dying -
Terry Pratchett: my case for a euthanasia tribunal | Society | The Guardian

I think it's a thing that governments and legal systems are being too slow on, but you can't discuss the issue without discussing the primary risk, which is that it will be abused: terminal patients who can't fully speak for themselves and who are a burden to families - possibly just a cost burden - may be pushed into it without being fully aware or informed and without fully deciding for it.

In the US especially this probably means a huge fear of lawsuits.

[Corona688]

It also faces much religious opposition for varying reasons.

[JoeP]

Well, this is a good discussion. Thanks Bob.

[Ymir's blood]

Also seems to inspire a number of anti-Belgian rants.

[Watser?]

Oh yeah, where's that Belgium-hating guy?

No, I don't mean Stormlight :blankface:

Anyway, it's also sort of legal in these here Netherlands that I am sitting in right now. I personally think that's one of the better laws we have here.