Deaf twins going blind euthanized by request in Belgium

[JLTucker]

In fact, why does there have to be any justification at all?

Should children be allowed to commit suicide?

There's a difference between a child and a grown adult contemplating suicide. For one, the adult is able to perceive certain aspects of what is about to be done and what it means. There's thought put into it. Do you really think children have the cognitive ability to assess the situation as clearly (that can be allowed given the mental state of deciding to kill yourself) as an adult?

[Serafina]

In fact, why does there have to be any justification at all?

Should children be allowed to commit suicide?

Oh hey, someone does not understand the ability to make informed decisions/give informed consent!
Nor do you understand the difference between suicide and voluntary euthanasia.

The criteria for voluntary euthanasia (or assisted suicide as it is sometimes called) are rather simple:
The person in question must not have a psycholigical or neuroligical condition that impairs their ability to make decisions, and the person must otherwise be able to make informed decisions. That includes being told about alterantives - treatments for medical conditions one suffers from mostly.
The brothers in question most likely had both - they talked to medical professionals, who assessed their mental health and told them of their options to live with their condition.

This is VASTLY different from suicide - which is not done under any such consultation, and stems from a psychological condition that could be cured.
Because that condition affects a persons ability to make decisions, and because the condition itself could be cured, we see that cure as the vastly superior option, preserving (and even increasing) quality of life.
This was not the case here - there were no options to preserve a level of quality of life the brothers would have been comfortable with. Nor were their abilities to make decisions for themselves notably impaired.

From what the articles say about them (essentially having a secret language, still living together at the age of 45, etc.) it isn't impossible that they had some sort of disorder, which makes the ethics of this more questionable.

Of course the ethics would be questionable if they had a psychological disorder. That being so is highly unlikely however, since they were screened by doctors for such.
I also resent the notion that living together under such circumstances is in any way indicative of a psychological disorder. They were most likely to each other the person who could understand them the best and who had the least problems communicating with them. Searching human contact and communication is not a sign of a disorder.
Having a secret language is also not - as common wisdom would make you believe - a refusal to communicate with others. Instead it stems from a search for maximal quality of communication, and only finding such a high level of communication in one (or rarely more) other person (typically a twin). In most cases it fades after a while because the ability to provide on the same level with others arises, making the "secret language" redundant. Due due their disability, this was likely not the case for the two brothers here.

[Alyeska]

Nice strawman.

No. It was an honest question. I am glad you don't agree with it.

Obviously I'm talking about consenting, competent adults.

I was asking the question for clarification. It was not as obvious as you think it was

It's very telling that your only recourse is to resort to a logical fallacy.

Enough already.

Now, you make note of consenting competent adults. Someone who is depressed is no longer of a fully sound mind. Thats part of what depression is. Something that interferes with someones ability to live life. If the cause for the suffering can be removed, then the depression goes away. There is no second chance. No changing your mind with suicide. When its done, its done. Which is why physician assisted suicide is traditionally reserved for terminal illness or life long debilitating illness.

But these twins didn't suffer from a terminal illness. They didn't suffer from a debilitating disease. They were depressed about their impending blindness. Something that is readily treatable. They could have continued to live meaningful lives. They could have continued to communicate with each other. They could have continued to communicate with friends and family. Technology has improved what deafblinds are capable of doing.

Suicide over simple depression is a tragedy. Depression is an illness. And to die from a treatable illness is a horrible tragedy. A doctor is to do no harm. Helping a terminal patient end their suffering is not harm. But helping a depressed patient commit suicide when they could have been treated, that is irreparable harm.

What of the friends and family of these two men? Now they are plagued with sadness and quite possibly even depression.

[Alyeska]

There's a difference between a child and a grown adult contemplating suicide. For one, the adult is able to perceive certain aspects of what is about to be done and what it means. There's thought put into it. Do you really think children have the cognitive ability to assess the situation as clearly (that can be allowed given the mental state of deciding to kill yourself) as an adult?

I am well aware of the difference. But given the direction that Cosmic Average was going with some of the things he said, I wanted to find out where he drew the line BEFORE making assumptions about his actual beliefs.

[Cosmic Average]

If the cause for the suffering can be removed, then the depression goes away.

And if the cause cannot be treated? Is the person expected to endure to satisfy your morals?

But these twins didn't suffer from a terminal illness. They didn't suffer from a debilitating disease.

Just because you imagine you could stoically undergo losing your sight and hearing does not mean that other people would not consider such issues to be debilitating.

Also, one of the twins had spinal deformities and heart disease. That's the literal definition of debilitating.

What of the friends and family of these two men? Now they are plagued with sadness and quite possibly even depression.

What? The family held a ceremony before the euthanasia and seems to support the brother's decisions.

“Many will wonder why my brothers have opted for euthanasia because there are plenty of deaf and blind that have a ‘normal’ life,” he said. “But my brothers trudged from one disease to another. They were really worn out.”

Mr Verbessem said his twin brothers were going blind with glaucoma and that Eddy had a deformed spine and had recently undergone heart surgery.

“The great fear that they would no longer be able to see, or hear, each other and the family was for my brothers unbearable,” he said.

What you choose to bear, or imagine you'll be able to bear, is your own burden. Do not foist it on others.

[Broomstick]

If the cause for the suffering can be removed, then the depression goes away.

And if the cause cannot be treated? Is the person expected to endure to satisfy your morals?

Under some ethical systems suicide is never seen as a valid option. It is not beyond possibility that one or more people in this thread hold such a position

But these twins didn't suffer from a terminal illness. They didn't suffer from a debilitating disease.

Just because you imagine you could stoically undergo losing your sight and hearing does not mean that other people would not consider such issues to be debilitating.

MOST people with severe disability, after a period of rehabilitation and being provided with adequate assistance, actually DO want to live. It is hardly a bizarre question to ask if a person facing increasing disability has been adequately provided with adaptive assistance. Given that in the 20th Century some rather horrific things occurred in connection with euthanizing the disabled (and in many cases, people less disabled than these men) it's not surprising some people are suspicious about this particular situation. Now, as I noted earlier, IF their "additional medical problems" were notably severe also that might alter how this is viewed... but such information is scanty. Why? Who is monitoring this? Doctors? Doctors were some of the worst offenders in the 20th Century butchery of cripples, who is watching the doctors? Was there any sort of ethical review by outside parties here? What safeguards are their on the euthanasia process in Belgium and were they all followed in this case? These are all legitimate questions in any case of euthanasia or assisted suicide.

Also, one of the twins had spinal deformities and heart disease. That's the literal definition of debilitating.

My spouse, who has spinal deformities severe enough to lead to partial paralysis and chronic pain, and is starting to show signs of heart disease would vehemently disagree with that statement. It hasn't really stopped him from doing what he has wanted to do in life, and short of a career in dance or as a runner it's not very limiting.

You seem to think the default is "disability is intolerable". Others think the opposite is the default. Repeating your position over and over doesn't make it more true.

What of the friends and family of these two men? Now they are plagued with sadness and quite possibly even depression.

What? The family held a ceremony before the euthanasia and seems to support the brother's decisions.

You fucking moron - death is always painful for those surviving unless they're sociopaths. Even when death ends intolerable suffering it's still sad. People mourn the dead. Mourning and grief cause pain. It's not intolerable pain (usually) but it is pain and suffering nonetheless.

Mr Verbessem said his twin brothers were going blind with glaucoma and that Eddy had a deformed spine and had recently undergone heart surgery.

Heart surgery is now justification for euthanasia? What the fuck? Seriously? Eddy has a deformed spin but they also said he wasn't pain - what?

What you choose to bear, or imagine you'll be able to bear, is your own burden. Do not foist it on others.

Unlike you, I don't automatically think killing cripples is a good idea or should be the default position. I am going to question it.

[Cosmic Average]

You fucking moron - death is always painful for those surviving unless they're sociopaths. Even when death ends intolerable suffering it's still sad. People mourn the dead. Mourning and grief cause pain. It's not intolerable pain (usually) but it is pain and suffering nonetheless.

You shit eating fucktard, where did I say that the family didn't experience emotional grief?

And besides which, dipshit, the pain of the family is irrelevant--the decision to end their own suffering was up to the brothers. It would have been utterly SELFISH and SELF-ABSORBED for the family to demand that the brothers suffer agony that they find utterly unbearable for the family's sake.

Just because your cultural mores dictate that suicide is wrong does not mean that others have to conform to your belief system.

You're a goddamn moron who conflates murder with assisted suicide.

[Broomstick]

And besides which, dipshit, the pain of the family is irrelevant--the decision to end their own suffering was up to the brothers. It would have been utterly SELFISH and SELF-ABSORBED for the family to demand that the brothers suffer agony that they find utterly unbearable for the family's sake.

So... you're saying the pain of the family is irrelevant, ONLY the pain of the person contemplating suicide counts? Why is that? Why is one person's pain valued above another's? Isn't it just as selfish and self-absorbed for the suicide to demand their friends and loved ones suffer pain? How do we really know who is in more pain here when we have no objective way to measure pain?

Just because your cultural mores dictate that suicide is wrong does not mean that others have to conform to your belief system.

Ah, another one who actually hasn't read and comprehended what I wrote.

I NEVER said suicide could NEVER be justified. I do, however, seem to draw the line called "intolerable" at a much different place than you do. For all the emo-prancing of people here shrieking "how DARE you impose YOUR views/tolerance/ethics on SOMEONE ELSE!!!!" that is, in fact, exactly what you are doing to those in this thread that disagree with YOUR views/tolerance/ethics.

I do, in fact, think there are circumstances where suicide is a tolerable option. It's just that I think there are far, far fewer such situations than you do. For all your instance that people respect the choices of others you have had complete disregard for those of us here, in this thread, who choose differently than you do. You fucking hypocrite.

You're a goddamn moron who conflates murder with assisted suicide.

If my ethical system says that assisted suicide is, in fact, murder under that system that does not make me a moron, it likely makes me ethically consistent. YOU don't agree with my ethics so you call me mentally retarded. How very mature and sensitive you are (not).

But let's retreat a bit here - this was NOT a case of "assisted suicide". It was EUTHANASIA. That means someone else killed these men, administered poison, ended their lives. It wasn't suicide at all. So yes, I really do think there is a strong possibility these men were murdered. Even if that was OK under Belgium law it's not OK with me. It conflicts with MY ethics and beliefs. Kindly show me as much consideration as you grant to those party to this killing of two men.

[Jub]

So Broomstick you support people being selfish if they don't want a medical treatment due to religious reasons but don't support them being selfish in this case? Why is one acceptable and the other not? Why are some choices made about your body and life more acceptable than others even if they might lead to the same results?

[Cosmic Average]

So... you're saying the pain of the family is irrelevant, ONLY the pain of the person contemplating suicide counts?

Yes, because it's their pain, their life, NOT the pain of their family. It's their body, their choice.

I NEVER said suicide could NEVER be justified. I do, however, seem to draw the line called "intolerable" at a much different place than you do.

What is considered tolerable is subjective and personal and you have ZERO right to make that determination of another person's pain.

For all the emo-prancing of people here shrieking "how DARE you impose YOUR views/tolerance/ethics on SOMEONE ELSE!!!!" that is, in fact, exactly what you are doing to those in this thread that disagree with YOUR views/tolerance/ethics.

There's obviously a difference. No one is forcing you to undergo assisted suicide by allowing others to have the procedure. Assholes like you, on the other hand, are preventing others from obtaining a dignified end.

If my ethical system says that assisted suicide is, in fact, murder under that system that does not make me a moron, it likely makes me ethically consistent.

What? If my ethics system says that red is green, that doesn't make me consistent, it makes me a moron. Your ethics system is not some sacred cow and it is beyond reproach.

YOU don't agree with my ethics

Your ethics are repugnant and hypocritical.

But let's retreat a bit here - this was NOT a case of "assisted suicide". It was EUTHANASIA. That means someone else killed these men, administered poison, ended their lives. It wasn't suicide at all. So yes, I really do think there is a strong possibility these men were murdered. Even if that was OK under Belgium law it's not OK with me. It conflicts with MY ethics and beliefs. Kindly show me as much consideration as you grant to those party to this killing of two men.

You obviously have no idea on the procedures involved here. The drug is administered orally. It's mixed into a drink and then given to the patient, who then drinks it willingly.

These men went to a doctor requesting assisted suicide. The doctor declined to assist them. They then found another doctor and had to wait a year and a half before they were allowed to commit suicide.

That is not murder.

[Jub]

GHETTO EDIT: Also, isn't dying in this way better than the mess suicides tend to leave behind? Or would you rather police have to clean them up and investigate cause of death and cause even more pain to the family?

[Scrib]

So... you're saying the pain of the family is irrelevant, ONLY the pain of the person contemplating suicide counts? Why is that? Why is one person's pain valued above another's? Isn't it just as selfish and self-absorbed for the suicide to demand their friends and loved ones suffer pain? How do we really know who is in more pain here when we have no objective way to measure pain?

As always utilitarian concerns are only one part of a system that takes into account the lives and rights of people.Even if you could measure the total pain caused by living vs. dying here, there is the matter of the rights of these people.Simply put, the family does not get to inflict further suffering on people for their own enjoyment. They do not get to force someone to live because THEY would be in pain if they died. The alternative is that people would be lose the fundamental freedom of deciding when their lives end because a bunch of other people so decide. You can see why that's a road most people don't want to go down. It's utterly selfish and really, where does it end? Do you tie down terminally ill people and force feed them experimental treatments? Or do you just force people to be deaf and blind forever?

[SomeDude]

If the cause for the suffering can be removed, then the depression goes away.

And if the cause cannot be treated? Is the person expected to endure to satisfy your morals?

Under some ethical systems suicide is never seen as a valid option. It is not beyond possibility that one or more people in this thread hold such a position

The same can be said about abortion, but we don't take those ethical systems for granted either. Why would ending the life of a fetus be within the purviews of one's liberty while ending one's own life wouldn't be?

But these twins didn't suffer from a terminal illness. They didn't suffer from a debilitating disease.

Just because you imagine you could stoically undergo losing your sight and hearing does not mean that other people would not consider such issues to be debilitating.

MOST people with severe disability, after a period of rehabilitation and being provided with adequate assistance, actually DO want to live. It is hardly a bizarre question to ask if a person facing increasing disability has been adequately provided with adaptive assistance. Given that in the 20th Century some rather horrific things occurred in connection with euthanizing the disabled (and in many cases, people less disabled than these men) it's not surprising some people are suspicious about this particular situation. Now, as I noted earlier, IF their "additional medical problems" were notably severe also that might alter how this is viewed... but such information is scanty. Why? Who is monitoring this? Doctors? Doctors were some of the worst offenders in the 20th Century butchery of cripples, who is watching the doctors? Was there any sort of ethical review by outside parties here? What safeguards are their on the euthanasia process in Belgium and were they all followed in this case? These are all legitimate questions in any case of euthanasia or assisted suicide.

Are you honestly going to go Godwin here? Euthanasia in the early 20th century was involuntary. This was voluntary, and after a long (I repeat: one and a half year) process of deliberation. Every request for euthanasia needs to be validated by a second, independent doctor. The patient needs to request the procedure explicitly, and in view of witnesses. (I know this, because I've already been asked to sign a document validating [as a witness] a relative's request to be euthanized in certain conditions.)

What you choose to bear, or imagine you'll be able to bear, is your own burden. Do not foist it on others.

Unlike you, I don't automatically think killing cripples is a good idea or should be the default position. I am going to question it.

See, contrary to the apparent thought of Americans, we don't go around killing cripples. We've merely established a procedure in which people who are able to give consent, are of sound mind and are in what they judge to be unbearable suffering, to end their lives properly with the care of a doctor, without having to resort to illegal and unsafe manners of suicide. And since it was mentioned earlier in this thread: legislation is currently being proposed by certain parties to extend this right to minors in the same situation.

[Broomstick]

So Broomstick you support people being selfish if they don't want a medical treatment due to religious reasons but don't support them being selfish in this case? Why is one acceptable and the other not? Why are some choices made about your body and life more acceptable than others even if they might lead to the same results?

It is not nearly so black and white as that. I think such cases require careful, individual consideration and a blanket yes/no is entirely inappropriate.

Part of what makes one acceptable over the other is the difference between action and non-action. Withholding treatment is different than actively administering a poison, at least in my view.

[SilverWingedSeraph]

Part of what makes one acceptable over the other is the difference between action and non-action. Withholding treatment is different than actively administering a poison, at least in my view.

You're totally right. One is more humane.

(It's not the former.)

[AniThyng]

So Broomstick you support people being selfish if they don't want a medical treatment due to religious reasons but don't support them being selfish in this case? Why is one acceptable and the other not? Why are some choices made about your body and life more acceptable than others even if they might lead to the same results?

It is not nearly so black and white as that. I think such cases require careful, individual consideration and a blanket yes/no is entirely inappropriate.

Part of what makes one acceptable over the other is the difference between action and non-action. Withholding treatment is different than actively administering a poison, at least in my view.

I do think it is a valid point to note that in abortion threads, anyone who posits that abortion in situations where the mother's life is in no danger should be an absolute last resort only after all other alternatives are exhausted (adoption, counseling to persuade the mother to keep the baby*, etc) has to prepare him/herself for a torrent of abuse about how he/she must be a misogynist bent on controlling and punishing women.

*How does this differ from counselling someone to reconsider suicide, using the logic that "people that care about you might get upset"!. All the other ones work too. "People have survived pregnancies!" "People have succeeded in raising a child they did not want!" "people have regretted aborting their child!"

If anything, you'd think that it would be easier to support euthanesia over abortion because the person wishing to euthanize himself really does get to say so. A fetus gets no such luxury, the mother (rightfully i might add, before anyone declares I must think otherwise) gets to decide.

[Broomstick]

So... you're saying the pain of the family is irrelevant, ONLY the pain of the person contemplating suicide counts?

Yes, because it's their pain, their life, NOT the pain of their family. It's their body, their choice.

And if that choice causes pain in other people then it's NOT just their pain, their actions cause repercussions and does not exist in isolation. You completely ignore that. You say it's selfish if others demand a person continue to suffer. I say it is also selfish to deliberately opt for a course that causes suffering in others. Of course, there are situations where suffering in someone, or several people, is unavoidable and those are situations where there are no good answers, just the attempt to determine the lesser evil.

I NEVER said suicide could NEVER be justified. I do, however, seem to draw the line called "intolerable" at a much different place than you do.

What is considered tolerable is subjective and personal and you have ZERO right to make that determination of another person's pain.

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.

There's obviously a difference. No one is forcing you to undergo assisted suicide by allowing others to have the procedure.

IF someone views assisted suicide as murder then it's not enough to simply say "Oh, it's not me, it's alright".

In the case of a terminal disease where pain can no be alleviated by other means it may be the lesser of two evils, but I don't think it's OK in most circumstances. And, again, this has NOT been described as "assisted suicide" where someone take their own life, it's been repeatedly called euthanasia where somebody else takes their life. While self-killing might be acceptable under some circumstances I don't see where killing somebody else is OK unless its a matter of self-defense. Which this clearly was not, as these two men where attacking the doctor who killed them.

If my ethical system says that assisted suicide is, in fact, murder under that system that does not make me a moron, it likely makes me ethically consistent.

What? If my ethics system says that red is green, that doesn't make me consistent, it makes me a moron. Your ethics system is not some sacred cow and it is beyond reproach.

Now who's being a moron? This isn't a matter of "red or green", it's a matter of when it's OK to take another human's life. My ethical system says that's not OK unless there's no alternative to saving your life or that of another. There was nothing life saving about this. Self defense was not involved. Therefore, this was not a justified killing.

YOUR ethical system is no more a sacred cow than mine. What, you can't withstand questions? It's intolerable to you that someone else draws a different line on where killing other people is acceptable?

YOU don't agree with my ethics

Your ethics are repugnant and hypocritical.

I find yours repulsive and hypocritical. Now we're even.

These men went to a doctor requesting assisted suicide. The doctor declined to assist them. They then found another doctor and had to wait a year and a half before they were allowed to commit suicide.

If it's suicide then WHY is every goddamned media report calling it "euthanasia"? There is a difference, the main one being that in suicide the person kills him or herself and in euthanasia someone else kills them. I find one tolerable under limited circumstances. I find the other to be cold blooded murder.

That is not murder.

Yes, yes it is.

[Broomstick]

GHETTO EDIT: Also, isn't dying in this way better than the mess suicides tend to leave behind? Or would you rather police have to clean them up and investigate cause of death and cause even more pain to the family?

Again - this has been repeatedly reported as euthanasia, NOT suicide. While I strongly disapprove of suicide I will concede that if anyone has a right to take a person's life it is that person him or herself and there are circumstances where that is a tolerable course of action. Killing other people outside of self-defense is not. Euthanasia is not suicide, it's putting someone else to death.

[Spoonist]

@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.

Now due to some quirks of the law assisted suicide is usually how this is done.
The doctor does not kill the patient, instead the doctor sets up the conditions so that the patient can at their own free choice have a chance to commit suicide efficiently and without unecessary distress.
Mostly this is inserting a needle which is attached to a fluid bag, but the fluid is not started by the doctor. Instead it is the patient that needs to turn the switch which will start the process.
The doctor is also present with a medical team if something unexpected should happen. Including revival equipment.

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.
It is also the task of the review to in part talk to relatives and relations to help them deal with the whole situation.
Most of these requests are withdrawn during the process and a whole lot of those left are rejected due to medical concerns.
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.

[Jub]

GHETTO EDIT: Also, isn't dying in this way better than the mess suicides tend to leave behind? Or would you rather police have to clean them up and investigate cause of death and cause even more pain to the family?

Again - this has been repeatedly reported as euthanasia, NOT suicide. While I strongly disapprove of suicide I will concede that if anyone has a right to take a person's life it is that person him or herself and there are circumstances where that is a tolerable course of action. Killing other people outside of self-defense is not. Euthanasia is not suicide, it's putting someone else to death.

Perhaps I was unclear, but this euthanization seems cleaner and less traumatic than most methods available to a person wishing to commit suicide. Is this not better than the person buying a gun and painting the walls or police having to drag a body out of a bloody bathtub? Not to speak of throwing oneself in front of a train or jumping from a height. If they were really afraid of killing themselves/each other they could have gone for the good old suicide by cop.

All in all this method of them dying allowed them to do it comfortably, without risk of surviving the attempt in an even worse off state, and in a way that involved as few outsiders as possible. What's the harm in going this way instead of the usual ways people in their state of mind tend to?

Also, euthanasia doesn't equate to murder as it doesn't violate the law of the land. This is no more a murder than would be an execution or a police officer killing a person in the line of duty.

[Broomstick]

The same can be said about abortion, but we don't take those ethical systems for granted either. Why would ending the life of a fetus be within the purviews of one's liberty while ending one's own life wouldn't be?

Because a fetus is not a human being, at least not in the early part of pregnancy, thus, killing it is not murder.

On the other hand, if I encounter someone who sincerely holds the view that a fetus IS a human being and killing one IS murder I don't automatically start insulting the person. There is not one, universal, system of the morals and ethics. I don't agree with such a system, but if someone does hold that view then speaking out against abortion and attempting to have it outlawed does make sense. For them to do otherwise would be hypocritical.

Just because you imagine you could stoically undergo losing your sight and hearing does not mean that other people would not consider such issues to be debilitating.

Oh, please - it IS debilitating. I do not, however, view "being debilitated" as automatic justification to kill a human being.

And if they wanted to die, why did they need to force someone else to kill them? They are able-bodied enough to kill themselves. If they can do it themselves why force someone else to do the deed.

MOST people with severe disability, after a period of rehabilitation and being provided with adequate assistance, actually DO want to live. It is hardly a bizarre question to ask if a person facing increasing disability has been adequately provided with adaptive assistance. Given that in the 20th Century some rather horrific things occurred in connection with euthanizing the disabled (and in many cases, people less disabled than these men) it's not surprising some people are suspicious about this particular situation. Now, as I noted earlier, IF their "additional medical problems" were notably severe also that might alter how this is viewed... but such information is scanty. Why? Who is monitoring this? Doctors? Doctors were some of the worst offenders in the 20th Century butchery of cripples, who is watching the doctors? Was there any sort of ethical review by outside parties here? What safeguards are their on the euthanasia process in Belgium and were they all followed in this case? These are all legitimate questions in any case of euthanasia or assisted suicide.

Are you honestly going to go Godwin here?

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.

Euthanasia in the early 20th century was involuntary. This was voluntary, and after a long (I repeat: one and a half year) process of deliberation. Every request for euthanasia needs to be validated by a second, independent doctor. The patient needs to request the procedure explicitly, and in view of witnesses. (I know this, because I've already been asked to sign a document validating [as a witness] a relative's request to be euthanized in certain conditions.)

Why do able-bodied people wishing to die require other people to administer their deaths? That what euthanasia is - sanctioned killing of one human being by another. What prevents these men from suicide?. Sure, IF you're going to go that route doctors and pharmacists calculating a lethal dose makes sense, but the person wanting to die can do the deed then why is someone else required?

What you choose to bear, or imagine you'll be able to bear, is your own burden. Do not foist it on others.

Unlike you, I don't automatically think killing cripples is a good idea or should be the default position. I am going to question it.

See, contrary to the apparent thought of Americans, we don't go around killing cripples.

If you euthanize cripples you sure as hell do. Especially when such cripples are still capable of administering their own medication.

We've merely established a procedure in which people who are able to give consent, are of sound mind and are in what they judge to be unbearable suffering, to end their lives properly with the care of a doctor, without having to resort to illegal and unsafe manners of suicide.

Get your story straight - "euthanasia" is killing someone else. "Suicide" is killing yourself (note that BOTH are killing). Which was it? Because I keep repeatedly seeing the word "euthanasia" here which is killing someone else. IF these men killing themselves was justified (which I still question, I'm not convinced potential alternatives were adequately presented but for the sake of argument this time let's say they were) why does someone else need to kill men who still possessed the physical ability to end their own lives? I'm not saying they should be forced to use a method like jumping in front of a train or off a bridge, what I'm saying is that IF you're in a situation where killing yourself is justified then do it yourself. Sure, avail yourself of advice and help to make it as minimally harmful to others as possible, and to prevent a situation where the person survives in even worse condition, but if you can kill yourself don't force someone else to do it for you.

And since it was mentioned earlier in this thread: legislation is currently being proposed by certain parties to extend this right to minors in the same situation.

Given my stance in this thread do you understand why I find that absolutely appalling? A minor who is, say, 15 or 16 might be able to give meaningful consent but from my understanding that legislation will give doctors and families the right to kill people who can not consent. I'm not convinced your current safeguards on adults are adequate, now you're considering sanctioned killing of people who can't consent? In the case of a profoundly incapacitated adult there is at least the possibility that they had expressed their views on the subject prior to whatever terrible thing left them in that state, or perhaps the adult was a member of a religion that would likely guide their views, but in the case of small child who has never had the opportunity to state an opinion...?

If I lived in a society where that was legally OK at the very least I'd be lobbying for such decisions to be made not by a single doctor, and that an impartial third party be involved to make sure this decision was truly being made for the patient and not, for instance, because heirs want their stuff. Of course, such situations are even more sticky in the US where such a decision might be made due the financial burden such a person represents where killing them might enable financial survival and keeping them alive might mean grinding poverty for their immediate relatives, but in a sane country where there is universal health coverage that motivation wouldn't come from the family (of course, then there's the question of when someone is too expensive for a society to keep alive).

This is one area where concerns shouldn't be dismissed as a slippery slope argument because Western civilization already slide down that slope once before in the 20th Century. The Nazis were the most extreme manifestation, and the unveiling of their butchery did cause some society reversals elsewhere, but you can't say "we would never go there" when in fact we already have done so in the past.

[Ralin]

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. And no one is questioning your right to choose to stupidly believe that such is murder. And I'm pretty sure no one is proposing that we kill your husband for being disabled. So, exactly what choice are you talking about?

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? 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?

[Vendetta]

Because a fetus is not a human being, at least not in the early part of pregnancy, thus, killing it is not murder.

There are ethical systems which state that it is. Their grounds for doing so are just as subjective and unilateral as yours are for decrying assisted suicide.

Remember that there is a signficant difference between assisted suicide and euthanasia. Assisted Suicide is carried out at the wish of a person deemed psychologically able to make a sovereign decision regarding the end of their own life, and is also, unlike ordinary suicide, designed specifically to allow a person to end their life cleanly, surely, and with minimal suffering.

The demand that others kowtow to your personal moral code, as you are doing, is the spectre of totalitarianism here, not the right to die on ones own terms.

[Thanas]

Yeah, the rest of society argument is persuasive. It is much less traumatic than any of the above methods for the rest of society. Neighbours and cops do not have to be traumatized, there is no infringement on the quality of live of others, no train driver who gets PTSD due to rolling over a disabled person etc. Especially train drivers....a lot of them in Germany suffer psychiatric stress due to suicides.

[Broomstick]

I do think it is a valid point to note that in abortion threads, anyone who posits that abortion in situations where the mother's life is in no danger should be an absolute last resort only after all other alternatives are exhausted (adoption, counseling to persuade the mother to keep the baby*, etc) has to prepare him/herself for a torrent of abuse about how he/she must be a misogynist bent on controlling and punishing women.

Except I'm not anti-abortion. I am anti-killing human beings. Aborting a fetus that's a ball of cells, that doesn't have a significantly developed nervous system, that isn't viable as a separate entity is not killing a human being in my ethics. I don't have a problem with a woman eight weeks pregnant having an abortion, it's her choice. On the other hand, I can't condone "aborting" eight months into the pregnancy because at that point you do, in fact, have a baby that can survive on its own outside the womb, usually even without extensive medical intervention.

The worst difficultly regarding abortion, from my viewpoint, is that the dividing line is fuzzy. The critter isn't a fetus one day then, at the stroke of midnight, a human being. Biological systems don't work that neatly. Abortion early on in a pregnancy is not a problem as far as I'm concerned. Past a certain point, though, it has to be a matter of life or death or at least high odds of endangerment of the mother.

*[quote[How does this differ from counselling someone to reconsider suicide, using the logic that "people that care about you might get upset"!. All the other ones work too. "People have survived pregnancies!" "People have succeeded in raising a child they did not want!" "people have regretted aborting their child!" [/quote]
All of those statements are true. I don't think if someone says "I want to kill myself" we should just hand them a gun or a bottle of pills, we should make sure that is really the "best", or at least the "least bad", alternative. If people have actually been reading what I write instead of going into kneejerk mode I have, several times, questioned if adequate attempts were made to present alternatives to these men. Since we are unlikely to ever seen their full records of treatment I accept that question may be unanswerable but I will nonetheless ask it. There's this vague "other medical problems" thing and I'm not at all certain what that involves. Someone had heart surgery? That's grounds for killing yourself? Usually heart surgery is done to make things better, not worse, so that doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense to me unless the surgery had an unusually bad outcome. Someone has a spinal problem? What does that mean? Their back hurts but the pain is controllable, or are their hands numb due to spinal damage? Because the former I don't see as a reason to kill yourself, but the latter would be horribly devastating to someone deaf and blind since most of their communication channels would be enormously dependent on touch and hands so yeah, that's where killing yourself makes more sense to me.

If someone is considering killing themselves due to some intractable medical problem then yes, "have you considered the effect this may have on your family?" is a legitimate question to ask. People have been known to post-pone such things until after a wedding, a holiday, after giving people opportunities to say good-bye, etc. That is, in fact, done out of consideration for other people. Is that really such a horrible thing?

If someone has a hazardous pregnancy then yes, if other women have survived it then that should be mentioned. ALL potential outcomes, along with the odds of their occurrence, should be discussed. "Yes, we have one instance in a thousand where the woman survived this sort of pregnancy", "20% of women who continue this survive and 50% of those are left impaired", or "outcomes are unpredictable, sorry, this might be fatal or it might now, you have to decide whether you want to risk death or abort this pregnancy". Anything less is not informed consent.

Raising a child they didn't want? If you don't want the kid you have there are options, from giving the kid up for adoption to yes, raising the child anyway. Again, the alternatives need to be presented. I know two people who had children that were products of rape. One of them chose to carry the pregnancy to term - her choice - and raised the child to adulthood. The other had the kid - again, her choice - then gave him up for adoption. Obviously, other women have aborted in such situations. Those are all legitimate choices and I don't see how they are relevant to the discussion of assisted suicide or euthanasia. Now, killing a six month old baby because you no longer want the kid or changed your mind, that's not acceptable but that's not what we're talking about either.

If anything, you'd think that it would be easier to support euthanesia over abortion because the person wishing to euthanize himself really does get to say so.

You can't "euthanize yourself" unless you start talking about suicide as "self-murder". OK, I suppose you can do that, but that's not how the words are usually used.

I find it extremely disturbing that "suicide" and "euthanasia" is conflated here. "Suicide" is killing yourself. "Euthanasia" is killing someone else. "Assisted suicide" is helping or facilitating someone who commits suicide, it's not euthanasia.

A fetus gets no such luxury, the mother (rightfully i might add, before anyone declares I must think otherwise) gets to decide.

Since I think most of us are in agreement that a fetus isn't a human being (at least not before some point, but I don't want get into that argument here) can we retire that sidetrack now?