Deaf twins going blind euthanized by request in Belgium

[AniThyng]

Does it honestly change the substance of your argument one bit, the difference between suicide and euthanesia? Let's just agree on the term "whatever it was these two men did" instead then.

[Broomstick]

And you have ZERO right to say MY choice would be stupid or unethical. Or would you rather people NOT follow their ethics and morals? Since there is no universal ethical system there will be conflicts. That doesn't make all parties but one "stupid", as has been proposed here.

So, Broomstick, I'm confused. No one is questioning your right to choose to be an arrogant bitch who for some reason believes that her opinion on whether or not a person of sound mind should be able to end their own life with a doctor's assistance to make sure it happens smoothly and painlessly should have any sort of importance.

I can tolerate someone committing suicide with a doctor's assistance in some circumstances. I absolutely oppose doctors killing patients. Is the distinction lost on people?

And I'm pretty sure no one is proposing that we kill your husband for being disabled.

Not here, no, but rather famously one of his uncles offered to kill him at birth if his parents couldn't bring themselves to do it. He even had a pretty thoroughly thought out method of doing so. I've also seen people argue that any pregnancy involving a fetus with his problem be summarily aborted, usually in ignorance that the disorder involves a spectrum of disability from "not much effect" to "will probably die within a week of birth no matter what we do". So yes, that does come up from time to time.

If you actually studied the history of these things it wasn't JUST the Nazis who were killing the "defective". The practice was widespread throughout the west.

Why yes, it was. And it was immoral because it was done without regard for the consent of the people in question. How is that relevant here?

It's relevant because I'm not convinced that these men were truly informed of alternatives to killing themselves. Now, if more information is brought to light on this I might well change my mind but I'm not going to hold my breath. Consent is meaningless if it's not informed consent, and informed consent means knowing your alternatives.

Are you saying that we should deprive people of the freedom to chose to end their lives (with assistance to make it painless!) because doctors in the past murdered disabled people?

I say doctors should not be in the business of killing people.

If we're going to allow people to, after a thorough exploration of alternatives, choose to kill themselves then yes, we should facilitate the act in the least harmful manner to both the patient and those around the patient. That pretty much means prescribing a lethal overdose of some sort of medication. At that point the patient takes the medication. The doctor doesn't force it down the patient's throat, the doctor doesn't flip the switch to allow the poison to flood into a vein, or whatever - the patient does the act that takes his or her life, no one else does.

This does get sticky when a person is soooo disabled they can not trigger the final act... but we're not talking about that situation here. These men were able to still act on their own. They should do the killing and not force someone else to kill them.

[SomeDude]

I find the sharp distinction between voluntary euthanasia, assisted suicide and suicide very pointless. In the first case, a person asks a third party (an expert) to kill them. In the second case, a person asks a third party to facilitate his suicide. In the third case, the person just commits suicide. There isn't any substantial difference between the first and the second case: in both, the patient is provided with professional care and guidance. In both cases, the caregiver is a cause of the patient's death - it's just that in one case, it's more direct than in the other.

Who actually deals the 'deathblow', so to speak, is irrelevant, as long as both the caregiver and the patient are willing to engage in it. Certain patients might not wish to consider euthanasia: they are not obligated to do so. Certain patients might not be of sound mind: they will be directed to psychological/psychiatrical help. Certain doctors might not be willing to execute the procedure: they are not obligated to do so. Nobody is being forced into anything.

Belgium has instituted a procedure that allows people to choose in which conditions they no longer wish to live, in order to spare them suffering. It avoids messy, failed suicide attempts that cause further suffering for the patient (of which there are plenty), provides a legal framework for doctors (as opposed to the shadowy context in which such events took place before), produces a process during which family members and friends can come to terms which what has happened (as opposed to the sudden trauma of a suicide attempt) and avoids the fact that people have to live in pain for the rest of their lives.

You might not wish to ever consider euthanasia. A friend of mine did - he was diagnosed with cancer, in pain, and didn't want to spend the rest of his days deteriorating. He ended up by getting a meal of French fries for all the family, and was then killed by a caregiver in the presence of his children and wife. He died with a smile. My mother, as well, has already had me sign the forms detailing the conditions in which she would like to be killed. She is of sound health, both physical and mental. Why should you object?

[Broomstick]

Does it honestly change the substance of your argument one bit, the difference between suicide and euthanesia?

Yes it does. In one case you take your own life, which arguably is OK in some circumstances. In the other you kill someone else. Unless that person it trying to kill YOU at the time, no, that's not OK. Under my ethics. Maybe YOUR ethics think killing other people outside of self defense is OK.

Let's just agree on the term "whatever it was these two men did" instead then.

No. Because it matters to me if these men killed themselves or if they were killed by someone else.

If this was truly "assisted suicide" it should have been reported as such. This was repeatedly called "euthanasia". This isn't 1970 when there was no legal distinction between the two, it's 2013 when there are legal definitions at play and society (meaning the larger west and not just individual nations) has made a distinction between the two.

[Vendetta]

It's relevant because I'm not convinced that these men were truly informed of alternatives to killing themselves.

That, right there, is the biggest load of bullshit we're likely to read on the internet people.

You, who has maybe read one or two news articles about this case (one of which probably the Daily Fail), are "not convinced" of the merits of a case which, lets face it, you know the sum total of fuck and all about.

It's time for you to stop talking now, because you're incapable of producing an argument against voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide on anything other than personal emotive grounds, and that's really not adequate.

[SomeDude]

Broomstick,

You should probably try to justify why you believe that killing can only happen in those limited circumstances. Just saying "that's the way it is in my system of ethics" isn't going to cut it.

This is euthanasia, by the way: the existing procedure was established by the Belgian Euthanasia Law.

[PeZook]

Jesus christ, how hard could it be to google the relevant law, Broomstick?

The Belgian act on euthanasia requires that:

1. The patient MUST be of legal age
2. The patient's decision is voluntary, well-considered and repeated
3. The patient is in a medically futile condition involving unbearable physical or mental suffering that cannot be alleviated, resulting from a serious and incurable disorder resulting from illness or accident

Then, the physician MUST:

1. Discuss with the patient their life expectancy and available paliative options, and come to a conclusion agreeing with the patient that there is no reasonable alternative to the patient's situation
2. Be certain of the patient's ability to make the decision, and his unbearable pain or mental anguish
3. Consult an independent physician about the situation, so that he or she may review the medical documentation ; He or she must also concur.
4. Consult a psychiatrist, unless the patient is expected to die in the nearest future
5. Allow AT LEAST one month betwen the request (which must, BTW, be submitted in writing) and the euthanasia itself.

---

Also, the physician is not obliged in any way to actually perform the euthanasia.

So really, you wondering about whether or not the twins were informed about the alternatives to euthanasia is answered by the law itself, which required that to happen before anything could be done to honor their request.

EDIT: Also, the Belgian health care system provides free painkillers to patients, so as to make sure patients are not chosing euthanasia because they cannot afford the meds necessary to alleviate their suffering,

[Vendetta]

Don't sully this conversation with your dirty facts, we're making emotive arguments about subjects which we are also revealing we are far to personally emotionally proximate to here.

[Jub]

So Broomstick, just to be entirely clear which of the following scenarios are most ethical and which are the least? Why?

1. The person in question throws himself in front of a passenger train.
2. The person in question shoots them-self in the head.
3. The person in question overdoses on pills.
4. The person in question is assisted in suicide by a medical professional.
5. The person in question is euthanized by a medical professional.
6. The person in question is assisted in suicide by a non-medical third party.
7. The person in question is euthanized by a non-medical third party.
8. The person in question is forces law enforcement agents to kill him.
9. The person in question commits a crime such that the state executes him.

[Broomstick]

@Broomy
So far your reasoning have been borderline anti-choice, almost all of your arguments can be substituted to make the case that abortion is murder.

We didn't start out discussing abortion, we were discussing two disabled men who, according to reports, were killed by a doctor.

Now due to some quirks of the law assisted suicide is usually how this is done.

I don't view that as a "quirk", I view it as a safeguard. And, again, this was not reported as "assisted suicide", where the patient kills himself, it's reported as euthanasia, where someone else kills the patient. And yes, I am aware of how assisted suicide is where the matters are arranged for the patient to self-administer the lethal dose of medication, that's sort of the point, isn't it?

One of the big reasoning behind this is the quite strange tangent you have entered, ie, relatives and relations. The pain before, during and after of relatives and relations is much reduced in this way as in opposition to a prolonged down period ending in a sudden and heartbreaking suicide.

As someone who has actually taken care of more than one dying relative, up to and including being present at the moment of death, I actually have thought about this and have some experience in these matters. Not all deaths involve agonizing pain. My mother's for instance, was largely painless. True, she was bedridden for the final two months but frankly I would have found it more appalling if she had killed herself four months prior to "spare" me the pain of caring for her in her final (and painless) last days than what actually happened, her dying in home hospice care. In that case, her committing suicide probably would have been far more painful to the rest of the family than what actually occurred. We weren't happy she was dying, we were happy we were able to keep her comfortable and care for her during her final days.

For this to have gone through the whole process and still come to this conclusion then most of what you are arguing is bullshit or ignorance based on limiting your fact finding to journalists.

As I have repeatedly said, IF the entire process was properly gone through, if they men were actually fully informed about alternatives, then even if I don't agree with it I can't argue against them killing themselves. I can recognize that something I find tolerable someone else would find intolerable. What I can not condone is a doctor deliberately killing a patient.

I have also said multiple times that I recognize the media does not fully report these things and often inaccurately reports them. I have repeatedly said that further information might change how I view this. However, as presented I am not at all OK with what occurred.

[Broomstick]

Jesus christ, how hard could it be to google the relevant law, Broomstick?

In Saudia Arabia the law allows decapitation of a woman for having sex outside marriage. I don't approve of that, either! "It's the law" is not the same thing as "just" or "right" or "ethical". Sure, what happened was legal in Belgium, I've never disputed that. The death penalty is legal in about 2/3 of US states but no one seems to have a problem saying how wrong that is even though it's legal.

If the "Belgian Euthanasia Act" is really about assisted suicide then "euthanasia" is the wrong English word to use in translating it from French or Flemish. If it's about allowing doctors to directly kill a patient then the name is correctly translated but I'm not going to say gee, it's legal in Belgium, that makes it OK by me.

The Belgian act on euthanasia requires that:

1. The patient MUST be of legal age
2. The patient's decision is voluntary, well-considered and repeated
3. The patient is in a medically futile condition involving unbearable physical or mental suffering that cannot be alleviated, resulting from a serious and incurable disorder resulting from illness or accident

Then, the physician MUST:

1. Discuss with the patient their life expectancy and available paliative options, and come to a conclusion agreeing with the patient that there is no reasonable alternative to the patient's situation
2. Be certain of the patient's ability to make the decision, and his unbearable pain or mental anguish
3. Consult an independent physician about the situation, so that he or she may review the medical documentation ; He or she must also concur.
4. Consult a psychiatrist, unless the patient is expected to die in the nearest future
5. Allow AT LEAST one month betwen the request (which must, BTW, be submitted in writing) and the euthanasia itself.

Bravo. Now, why can't the patient then do their own killing instead of someone else doing it?

So really, you wondering about whether or not the twins were informed about the alternatives to euthanasia is answered by the law itself, which required that to happen before anything could be done to honor their request.

Right... because no one ever disobeys the law! No mistakes are ever made.

Also, the Belgian health care system provides free painkillers to patients, so as to make sure patients are not chosing euthanasia because they cannot afford the meds necessary to alleviate their suffering,

Yes, I am sincerely glad that's not an issue in Europe.

Actually, even in the US painkillers are dirt cheap and there's usually no obstacles to even the poorest being able to obtain them at the end of life. 30 years ago this was a major issue in medicine but some real progress has been made on that front these last few decades.

[Jub]

The Belgian act on euthanasia requires that:

1. The patient MUST be of legal age
2. The patient's decision is voluntary, well-considered and repeated
3. The patient is in a medically futile condition involving unbearable physical or mental suffering that cannot be alleviated, resulting from a serious and incurable disorder resulting from illness or accident

Then, the physician MUST:

1. Discuss with the patient their life expectancy and available paliative options, and come to a conclusion agreeing with the patient that there is no reasonable alternative to the patient's situation
2. Be certain of the patient's ability to make the decision, and his unbearable pain or mental anguish
3. Consult an independent physician about the situation, so that he or she may review the medical documentation ; He or she must also concur.
4. Consult a psychiatrist, unless the patient is expected to die in the nearest future
5. Allow AT LEAST one month betwen the request (which must, BTW, be submitted in writing) and the euthanasia itself.

Bravo. Now, why can't the patient then do their own killing instead of someone else doing it?

Why is this such a massive sticking point for you? Should somebody who wishes to die but who can't bring themselves to actually open the IV drip be forced to live on instead of asking somebody else to do it for them?

[PeZook]

In Saudia Arabia the law allows decapitation of a woman for having sex outside marriage. I don't approve of that, either! "It's the law" is not the same thing as "just" or "right" or "ethical". Sure, what happened was legal in Belgium, I've never disputed that. The death penalty is legal in about 2/3 of US states but no one seems to have a problem saying how wrong that is even though it's legal.

If the "Belgian Euthanasia Act" is really about assisted suicide then "euthanasia" is the wrong English word to use in translating it from French or Flemish. If it's about allowing doctors to directly kill a patient then the name is correctly translated but I'm not going to say gee, it's legal in Belgium, that makes it OK by me.

The major difference is that the death penalty, beheading of women, arresting women who drive, etc are all acts imposed by the state on the individual ; Whereas this law is all about honoring a patient's choices, and making sure he does not make them rashly, under duress or temporary pain which can be alleviated. In fact it requires doctors to discuss the issue at length and on many occasions.

Bravo. Now, why can't the patient then do their own killing instead of someone else doing it?

Of course he can ; He or she has no legal power to compel the physician to actually do it, nor does the physician has any legal power to impose or suggest euthanasia to the patient. If the doctor feels he shouldn't euthanize patients, all he has to do is inform the patient and state his reasons.

Again, it's all about what the patient wants, nothing is compelled by the state, and there are provisions, safeguards and standards for things like advance directives by patients in case they are unable to make their own decisions, for reporting and evaluating each case to a special comission, etc.

So that leaves your personal beliefs that doctors should never, ever be allowed to actually cause the death of the patient ; And I feel you should probably justify that view in some way.

Right... because no one ever disobeys the law! No mistakes are ever made.

Is this a reason to assume the law was disobeyed in this particular case unless proven otherwise?

[Broomstick]

So Broomstick, just to be entirely clear which of the following scenarios are most ethical and which are the least? Why?

1. The person in question throws himself in front of a passenger train.

Unethical. Aside from the risk of it now being successful and leaving the person even worse off than before, it inflicts mental trauma on witnesses. I suppose there is a small possibility of bystanders being physically injured by flying body parts as well, although I've never heard of it happening. It's not unusual for the person hit by a train to be reduced to pieces too small to cause injury. (I've been witness to this sort of thing a couple times. A human body can get splashed/scattered over a hundred meters of track, train, and surrounding landscape without the training going particularly fast).

2. The person in question shoots them-self in the head.

Unethical. Aside from the potential trauma to the person discovering the body, and the mess left to clean up, there is the potential for the bullet to travel through the body/nearby walls and hit someone else. And, of course, shooting yourself in the head isn't always effective and, again, can leave you worse off than before.

3. The person in question overdoses on pills.

If prompted by an unsound mind not ethical. More ethical in that there is minimal risk to bystanders and/or those finding the body. This one is a bit tricky, as "assisted suicide" often involves overdosing on pills. That's different than some 15 year old offing himself on the spur of the moment because his girlfriend dumped him.

4. The person in question is assisted in suicide by a medical professional.

Probably the most ethical scenario here. The risk of fucking up the suicide is minimal. Risk to bystanders non-existent. The only person harmed is the one suiciding and, presumably, the harm of suicide is less than the harm of the intolerable situation.

5. The person in question is euthanized by a medical professional.

Unethical. Doctors shouldn't be involved in killing people. If someone wants to die they can damn well do it themself.

6. The person in question is assisted in suicide by a non-medical third party.

Questionable. Prior to the legalization of assisted suicide, and in jurisdictions where legalized suicide is still illegal, helping someone in a truly intolerable situation obtain pills might be justifiable. Setting up equipment so someone in an intolerable situation can kill themselves arguably justifiable. So long as the person is assisting and not actually doing the killing I think there are circumstances where this could be ethical.

7. The person in question is euthanized by a non-medical third party.

Unacceptable.

Now, in the past I think the argument could be made that there are people so very disabled as to be unable to kill themselves. Nowadays, though, we have devices that can be controlled by brainwaves. I mentioned that I know someone with locked-in syndrome who spends time on a message board I frequent. He is able to communicate and operate adaptive aids by such subtle means as motions of his eye/blinking (he even uses the tag "blinkie" when posting) and more recently some of those brainwave-controlled devices. Should he chose to end his existence I'd say set up as assisted suicide device where he himself can activate the final administration of whatever medication is used to end his life. He wold need help in that such a device would have to be constructed and he's have to be hooked up to the switch to activate it, but modern technology would enable him to do the killing and no longer requires someone else to to do.

So, short of being in a coma, I'm not sure what situation could occur where the patient couldn't be the one to activate the means of killing. As people in comas don't suffer the question of killing them to end their suffering doesn't apply (although seeing a loved on in a coma certainly can cause suffering in others).

8. The person in question is forces law enforcement agents to kill him.

Oh, totally bad. You're involving a third party in this mess without that party's consent. Terrible. Appalling. At least a doctor involved in assisted suicide is consenting to be involved. This scenario is essentially forcing someone else to take your life. The means usually involved threatening that other person's life, or giving a strong appearance of doing so. So much about this one is just fucked up.

9. The person in question commits a crime such that the state executes him.

As I am opposed to the death penalty this is sort of pointless but of course not everyone is aware of my stance on that issue. I don't view the state executing people, even for the most heinous crimes, as ethical. It is certainly legal in many places but I, personally, am opposed to it. If we can keep a person locked up and prevent them from harming others, as we are certainly capable of doing these days, there is no way to justify killing that person. Deliberately committing a crime (which in many places would necessarily involve murder, that is, killing someone in order to be convicted) in order to get the death penalty is pretty fucked up in my view.

[Broomstick]

Why is this such a massive sticking point for you? Should somebody who wishes to die but who can't bring themselves to actually open the IV drip be forced to live on instead of asking somebody else to do it for them?

If it is physically possible for the person to cause the IV drip to be opened - and with modern assisting devices that pretty much includes everyone - then if you want to die do it yourself. If for psychological reasons you can't bring yourself to do the act then how can you say you want to die?

I think it's pretty awful to ask someone else to kill you. We could probably construct a bizarre scenario involving someone horribly injured out in the wilderness with someone asking a companion to dispatch them rather than allow them to suffer where such a thing might be the least bad of no good alternatives but we're not talking about that. We're discussing people in a modern, civilized setting where there is no urgency and the setting can be arranged to allow the person wanting to die to perform the final trigger to achieve that end.

[Broomstick]

The major difference is that the death penalty, beheading of women, arresting women who drive, etc are all acts imposed by the state on the individual ; Whereas this law is all about honoring a patient's choices, and making sure he does not make them rashly, under duress or temporary pain which can be alleviated. In fact it requires doctors to discuss the issue at length and on many occasions.

If it's the choice of the patient then why can't the patient be the one to perform the act? It certainly makes it clear that it really was the choice of the person doing the dying, doesn't it?

So that leaves your personal beliefs that doctors should never, ever be allowed to actually cause the death of the patient ; And I feel you should probably justify that view in some way.

Not deliberately so, no. If the patient wants to die the patient should do the killing and not ask someone else to do it. Yes, this may require an elaborate adaptive aid for the most severely disabled but I don't see some inconvenience as an intolerable price to pay for ethical conduct.

Is this a reason to assume the law was disobeyed in this particular case unless proven otherwise?

It's a mass media reported story. Journalists can and do get their facts wrong. Is there an issue with questioning such a report?

And, folks, while the conversation has been quite stimulating I have to get ready for work now so further replies will have to wait.

[PeZook]

If it's the choice of the patient then why can't the patient be the one to perform the act? It certainly makes it clear that it really was the choice of the person doing the dying, doesn't it?

He totally can. Why can't the patient ask for help? You're just stating no third party should help them, but so far you haven't justified it in any way, merely stated they should not.

So for what reason? Why is there such a huge difference between handing someone a syringe full of morphine and doing the injection yourself, as long as you are not forced to, of course? What philosophical reasoning brought you to this conclusion?

Mind you, I disagree with you, but I don't necessarily think you have no argument ; You just haven't stated it, and I am curious.

It's a mass media reported story. Journalists can and do get their facts wrong. Is there an issue with questioning such a report?

No, but you probably should do at least cursory research before questioning something, otherwise you quickly go into moon hoaxer "Why no stars on photos?" territorry.

I think it's pretty awful to ask someone else to kill you. We could probably construct a bizarre scenario involving someone horribly injured out in the wilderness with someone asking a companion to dispatch them rather than allow them to suffer where such a thing might be the least bad of no good alternatives but we're not talking about that.

It's not that convoluted: During WW2, prisoners of the Gestapo "Pawiak" prison in Warsaw regularly asked the doctors to do just that, and the doctors regularly complied - but I get what you're saying.

[LaCroix]

I would like to ask what your point is in insisting that the doctor should not assist by directly administering the drug.

It can't be the claim that the doctor would be traumatized like a train conductor when he runs you over. After all, since all parties, the patient and the two doctors, agree that this is the best way to deal with this (as it is demanded by law), the doctor is already convinced of doing an act of kindness by administering a drug in accordance with the patient's repeatedly uttered request for it, even in written. He is under no legal obligation to do it, and he could even prevent it happening through another doctor by simply revoking his consent (as the consent of patient AND BOTH doctors is necessary).

[PeZook]

Actually if the doc revokes his consent he has to referr the patient to another doctor for review, so he can basically wash his hands, but not necessarily prevent it from happening.

[Gaidin]

If it's the choice of the patient then why can't the patient be the one to perform the act? It certainly makes it clear that it really was the choice of the person doing the dying, doesn't it?

Not deliberately so, no. If the patient wants to die the patient should do the killing and not ask someone else to do it. Yes, this may require an elaborate adaptive aid for the most severely disabled but I don't see some inconvenience as an intolerable price to pay for ethical conduct.

There are conditions where such may not be possible. The advanced stages of Alzheimers may be one such example. A legal signed, witnessed, and notarized document may state conditions where such actions are to be carried out on the patient at his own wishes. But the idea of them being able to perform the act on their own strikes me as a tragic comedy in the making.

[SomeDude]

Actually if the doc revokes his consent he has to referr the patient to another doctor for review, so he can basically wash his hands, but not necessarily prevent it from happening.

No, he doesn't have to refer the patient to another doctor for review, which is one of the problems with the current euthanasia law. The doctor can just say 'no' and then refuse to help the patient to find anyone else who is willing to do the procedure.

[PeZook]

Really? I thought section 14 was pretty explicit that he must refer the case to a physician designated by the patient, at the patient's request.

Hmm. I can see the problem here though - if the patient doesn't know any other physician willing to do it, the doctor can just go "tough luck, then, can't help you any more".

EDIT: And of course I am going by a translation which does not need to be necessarily accurate

[Knife]

I would like to ask what your point is in insisting that the doctor should not assist by directly administering the drug.

It can't be the claim that the doctor would be traumatized like a train conductor when he runs you over. After all, since all parties, the patient and the two doctors, agree that this is the best way to deal with this (as it is demanded by law), the doctor is already convinced of doing an act of kindness by administering a drug in accordance with the patient's repeatedly uttered request for it, even in written. He is under no legal obligation to do it, and he could even prevent it happening through another doctor by simply revoking his consent (as the consent of patient AND BOTH doctors is necessary).

LOL, I work hospice. Even if it's the best thing, it is a hard thing. Even if you don't particularly like the patient, it's a hard thing. It all builds up too.

Now, I agree with Broomy, in that I think it's both a cop out and rude as ask someone else to kill you for them. Just because they are a professional in health care doesn't mean all the hang ups and issues with killing human being disappear. If it was that easy to do the patient would do it themselves. I get the feeling we don't have the whole story with these twins, and yet, I've seen cases similar as reported and people with some quality of life, potential of rehab, are asking others to kill them because they just can't do it. There are some serious mental issues going on there and I'm not sure it's prudent to shift the emotional trauma from a depressed patient to a health care worker instead of attempting treatment. As presenting, there is a big difference between losing another sense and feeling lack of control and inability to perform ADL's, and those patients actively dying with significant disease processes that need some meds to relax and let nature take it's course.

[LaCroix]

Actually if the doc revokes his consent he has to referr the patient to another doctor for review, so he can basically wash his hands, but not necessarily prevent it from happening.

I meant "preventing" as in "happening right now", as they need to find a new second doctor, having to start the process all over, which means another mandatory waiting period of one month.

[AniThyng]

Just because they are a professional in health care doesn't mean all the hang ups and issues with killing human being disappear. If it was that easy to do the patient would do it themselves.

How is this a valid argument? A lot of medical procedures (like setting up a lethal injection!) are obviously too difficult to *do properly* by yourself and thus require a professional to intervene to smooth the process. I mean, I probably could jab myself with a giant needle to take a blood sample too, it doesn't mean I wouldn't rather a nurse do it. And as for hang ups and issues, where are we going to draw the line now? Doctors and I presume the other personel involved aren't being forced to do this if they don't want to.