Duty to Die

[Adam]

Baroness Warnock: Dementia sufferers may have a 'duty to die'

I debated whether this belonged here or over in Philosophy, but ultimately decided to put it here because the reactions I've seen mostly seem to be assuming that assuming that the Baroness (hee!) was suggesting that the government actively kill people. In reality, what she said was:

Originally Posted by The Baroness(hee!)

Lady Warnock said: "If you're demented, you're wasting people's lives – your family's lives – and you're wasting the resources of the National Health Service.

"I'm absolutely, fully in agreement with the argument that if pain is insufferable, then someone should be given help to die, but I feel there's a wider argument that if somebody absolutely, desperately wants to die because they're a burden to their family, or the state, then I think they too should be allowed to die.

"Actually I've just written an article called 'A Duty to Die?' for a Norwegian periodical. I wrote it really suggesting that there's nothing wrong with feeling you ought to do so for the sake of others as well as yourself."

She went on: "If you've an advance directive, appointing someone else to act on your behalf, if you become incapacitated, then I think there is a hope that your advocate may say that you would not wish to live in this condition so please try to help her die.

"I think that's the way the future will go, putting it rather brutally, you'd be licensing people to put others down."

In other words:

1. She believes that people who want to die because they feel that their condition imposes too great a burden on their families, the public, etc. ought to have euthanasia available to them as an option.

2. She believes that such people may have an ethical duty to seek euthanasia.

3. That's all. She at no point suggests that the government ought to force anyone to seek euthanasia.

Personally, I'm fully on board with 1, and disagree with 2, but I don't see why the appalled reactions, i.e.:

Neil Hunt, the chief executive of the Alzheimer's Society, said: "I am shocked and amazed that Baroness Warnock could disregard the value of the lives of people with dementia so callously.

Naturally, over on this side of the pond, wingnutistan is claiming that government death camps for Alzheimer's patients are the inevitable outcome of government health care, and that Hitler was a liberal:

When progressives attained total control of Germany, they killed 6,000,000 Jews. The next time they consolidate that kind of power, they'll be going after anyone with costly and/or chronic diseases.

Jesus H.

[Petra]

My Alzheimer's friend loves life and hopes she'll live to 100. I hope she does, too - just not with me.

I suppose I could attempt to convince her of her duty to die, but she'd forget within minutes of me advising her of her duty! It's a no win situation.

As for the views of that aristocratic bint (Baroness [heee!] War Knock [snigger]) - I bet she renegs when her time comes.

[Watser?]

That ''Hitler was a liberal" or "Hitler was a socialist" crap is all over the internets, especially places like Digg. You need to ignore an awful lot of reality to even come up with that stupid shit, but there are a lot of yguys out there.

[Ensign Steve]

Originally Posted by Adam

1. She believes that people who want to die because they feel that their condition imposes too great a burden on their families, the public, etc. ought to have euthanasia available to them as an option.

2. She believes that such people may have an ethical duty to seek euthanasia.

3. That's all. She at no point suggests that the government ought to force anyone to seek euthanasia.

Personally, I'm fully on board with 1, and disagree with 2, but I don't see why the appalled reactions, i.e.:

I also agree with #1, and disagree with #2. My mom agrees with #2, and she harps on me to honor her wishes. I hope I can convince her to change her mind before it gets to that point, because I want her to live to 100 like Petra's friend. The way I figure it, she'd have to be a burden on me for at least 31 years (so far) for us to even be square.

[1Samuel8]

I find the discussion of euthanasia -- whether it is state enforced or otherwise -- to be highly hypocritical because it is effectively practiced whether we like to admit it or not.

Take a look at any palliative care facility where people are slowly dying of painful disease. You will see people who are gradually pumped up with narcotics until they fall into a coma and then some. They die of the overdose.

I am not saying that is right or wrong -- I am just saying that it happens and the family knows that full well. There often is no other choice except for the person to endure a painful slow death.

[Kael]

To me, it's simply a foolish line of thought, and a dangerous one.

The most glaring thing, to me, is this line:

"If you're demented, you're wasting people's lives – your family's lives – and you're wasting the resources of the National Health Service..

Hitler doesn't even enter the issue, at least not yet. This is skirting the edge of eugenics, and is a serious issue. Then there's the line about having an "advocate" decide for the patient.

I don't how I feel about the "right to die" idea, as I've never been in such a position, nor known someone who is. Ethically, I don't think I have a problem with it, though I don't think it should ever be officially sanctioned by the government. That's the kind of thing individuals need to figure out with their families.

When it becomes a "duty to die", you're in dangerous territory, and, to me, there is no ethical justification. No one has a "duty" to die.

As far as government healthcare, the idea that it leads to Nazi death camps is pretty stupid. Not sure how I feel about that one either. On one hand, you have the US system, with its high prices and insurance mess. On the other hand, I've spoken with many people who've had experience with a government-run healthcare program, from Canada's to the US military's, and they have very little good to say about it. I myself was in an army hospital for a bit. I received far better medical care in the local hospital. The army one was far less expensive, though, so I don't know which side to stand on there. Maybe both?

[lisarea]

Our old governor, Dick Lamm, said something about the duty to die. Anyway, his position was fairly nuanced--the argument was that medical resources are limited, and employing artificial means to keep an older person's heart pumping for a little while longer when they might be put to better use.

But everything he said was reported as those three words--duty to die--and stupid old people went from there, talking about how Dick Lamm said they should commit suicide now just to make room or something.

There is just a type of person who will have an initial, very emotional response to some sound bite, and they'll spend enormous amounts of time and energy defending that reaction, rather than exploring and evaluating the more nuanced issue.

As for her what she actually said, I agree with #1 and not with #2. People should have the right to make a free, informed choice about ending their lives, but they should not be subjected to social pressure to do so.

[mickthinks]

As for the views of that aristocratic bint (Baroness [heee!] War Knock [snigger])

Mary Warnock isn't an aristocrat. 'Baroness' is the title she was granted at the age of 61 along with her seat in the British upper house.

It's not a good thing to sneer at an idea out of inverted snobbery.

I bet she renegs when her time comes. She's 84 and I bet, if the time comes, she doesn't.

Mick

[D. Scarlatti]

In this area, Hitler was more of a compassionate conservative than a liberal. Hitler and his pals figured that state resources were wasted on supporting the mentally infirm, especially when they were preparing for continental war. Even so, the family of the mentally infirm person had to apply to the government and be granted permission before they could do them in.

[Petra]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

As for the views of that aristocratic bint (Baroness [heee!] War Knock [snigger])

Mary Warnock isn't an aristocrat. 'Baroness' is the title she was granted at the age of 61 along with her seat in the British upper house.

It's not a good thing to sneer at an idea out of inverted snobbery.

I bet she renegs when her time comes. She's 84 and I bet, if the time comes, she doesn't.

Mick

Oh, dear. I seem to have struck a nerve.

But moving right along, what do you think of her views on this matter? Do you think the sick and infirm have a duty to die?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Kael

Hitler doesn't even enter the issue, at least not yet. This is skirting the edge of eugenics, and is a serious issue.

Technically, it's not eugenics. To quote teh wiki, "Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention." End of life issues have nothing to do with improvement of hereditary traits.

Then there's the line about having an "advocate" decide for the patient.

As long as the advocate is a person named beforehand by the individual in question, I don't have an issue with that.

I don't how I feel about the "right to die" idea, as I've never been in such a position, nor known someone who is. Ethically, I don't think I have a problem with it, though I don't think it should ever be officially sanctioned by the government. That's the kind of thing individuals need to figure out with their families.

I'm not sure what you mean by "officially sanctioned". I think it should be sanctioned in the sense that it should be perfectly legal, but I don't want the government handing out informative little "Is It Time For You To Die?" pamphlets.

When it becomes a "duty to die", you're in dangerous territory, and, to me, there is no ethical justification. No one has a "duty" to die.

Well, I'm not going to argue there. I've never found any form of ethical philosophy that postulated the existence of duties, other than those willingly accepted via contracts, etc., to be convincing.

As far as government healthcare, the idea that it leads to Nazi death camps is pretty stupid. Not sure how I feel about that one either. On one hand, you have the US system, with its high prices and insurance mess. On the other hand, I've spoken with many people who've had experience with a government-run healthcare program, from Canada's to the US military's, and they have very little good to say about it. I myself was in an army hospital for a bit. I received far better medical care in the local hospital. The army one was far less expensive, though, so I don't know which side to stand on there. Maybe both?

I think the basic gist is that health care gets more expensive every day. Currently, the costs are kept down somewhat by the fact that so many people simply can't afford anything but the most basic health care. So, the reasoning goes in certain circles, if you suddenly allow all those people to have better access to health care, the limited supply of health care will be divided among a larger group of people, and the evil government, rather that the virtuous market, will decide who gets what. Why, they'll probably just start killing people to keep costs down!

I've never met anyone who had anything good to say about American health care either, tbh. I think the takeaway lesson is that people just don't like going to the doctor. Anecdotal evidence, then, may not be all that accurate, since we're just trying to judge who bitches the least about waiting in queue to go into a cold room and let a stranger put his fingers up their ass. Once you look at the numbers, though, Americans get less and pay more.

[mickthinks]

Oh, dear. I seem to have struck a nerve.
No Petra, you've made a boob, that's all, and now you've a choice; whether to join the few who accept responsibility for their mistakes, or to run and hide in the ranks of those who pretend they're faultless.

But moving right along ...
Hmmm ... I'd like to stay with the idea that there's a mistake to retract for just a little while longer, if it's all the same to you.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

I'd like to stay with the idea that there's a mistake to retract for just a little while longer.

This is an unusual development.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Petra

Oh, dear. I seem to have struck a nerve.

For the record, I Hee! every time I type Baroness (hee!) because I'm an American child of the 80's, and all I can think of is:

[mickthinks]

This is an unusual development.
LOL Neither is it a bad idea.

[Petra]

I apologise, I made a boob. I didn't look the woman up, and assumed that her Baroness status made her an aristocrat by birth. I didn't realise her peerage was honorary.

[Adam]

She's still a member of a ruthless terrorist organization determined to rule the world, though. Obviously.

[godfry n. glad]

Bare an ass for me.

[Petra]

Originally Posted by Adam

She's still a member of a ruthless terrorist organization determined to rule the world, though. Obviously.

Indeed.


GnG, you don't want no 84 year old to bare an ass for you. Trust me on this.

[mickthinks]

Thanks Petra.

But moving right along, what do you think of her views on this matter? Do you think the sick and infirm have a duty to die?
Those aren't quite her views on this matter, I think. I also think it may be important to distinguish between memory loss and more severe forms of dementia. I have no problem with the idea that my life may become a wasteful burden.

So, provided that 'duty to die' isn't confused with 'no right to live', I don't see anything in Warnock's idea I can object to.

Mick

[Petra]

dreaded double post! Gah!

[Petra]

I live with dementia, so believe me I know the difference between mere memory loss and dementia.

I think it's a fine line between "duty to die" and "no right to live". A line so fine that it is barely perceptible.

(I don't have a problem with euthanasia, btw. But I do have a serious problem with what amounts to guilt tripping people into shrugging this mortal coil in order to not be a burden on anyone.)

[mickthinks]

I live with dementia, so believe me I know the difference between mere memory loss and dementia.
I believe you.

I think it's a fine line between "duty to die" and "no right to live". A line so fine that it is barely perceptible.
I think 'moral duty' is something you decide for yourself, whereas 'legal right' is something that society decides to grant or withhold from you. That's a pretty big difference and quite crucial when it's an issue of the sufferer's wishes.

But I do have a serious problem with what amounts to guilt tripping people ...
I think the phrase 'guilt-tripping' implies something invalid about the guilt. If I have a genuine moral responsibility, there's no good reason why that shouldn't be discussed in my hearing.

Mick

Then the question of what constitutes a "genuine" responsibility is raised, and things get really messy (except for simpletons, whom I periodically envy).

As to the distilled points, I absolutely agree with the first. The second one is an "iffy" thing. May is what makes it less certain for me. I've heard it reported that 80% of every health dollar in the United States is spent on people in their last year of life. From a pragmatic, financial viewpoint (void of nuance and basic compassion), therefore, it would be a reasonable expectation for people who can no longer match in contribution what they take to take a good, hard kick at the bucket.

However, Life, for me in any event, is not so utterly deprived of wonder, mystery and a sense of the ineffable that I could view such a decision in either/or terms.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Uthgar the Brazen

Then the question of what constitutes a "genuine" responsibility is raised, and things get really messy (except for simpletons, whom I periodically envy).

Yay! I've always wanted to be envied!

As to the distilled points, I absolutely agree with the first. The second one is an "iffy" thing. May is what makes it less certain for me. I've heard it reported that 80% of every health dollar in the United States is spent on people in their last year of life. From a pragmatic, financial viewpoint (void of nuance and basic compassion), therefore, it would be a reasonable expectation for people who can no longer match in contribution what they take to take a good, hard kick at the bucket.

However, Life, for me in any event, is not so utterly deprived of wonder, mystery and a sense of the ineffable that I could view such a decision in either/or terms.

Yah, it's a tough call. A good chunk of our health care dollar does, indeed, get spent on the minute prolonging of the lives of those who are near death anyway. On the one hand, from a purely utilitarian sense, that money could be better spent. On the other hand, when its my family in that last year of life, I damn well want every minute of it. It's difficult to say what's fair. I have a pretty strong gut feel that "the rich get to live out that last year and the poor get introduced forthwith to their new friend, the bucket" sure as hell isn't.