Hello sweets,

I have been having a discussion with my friends for a while.

The Topic.... Euthanasia

This is a topic that is very delicate. As for me.. I am all for this law.
Why do we put down animals? we want to spare them from cruel pains when we know that they won't get better no matter what we do.

Yet when it concerns a human being we go on and on with treatment long after all hope is lost. When treatment stops they get send home..... to die. To me personally it's inhumanity in it's worst form. It's stripping a person from all dignity, not only for them having to just wait for death, but imagine the family.. the person knows he or she will die and that it will get much worse before it happens and they are forced to undergo it, and they have to see their loved ones in such pain over this knowlegde.

I am just interested in your point of views because the descision to be for or against it can be based on so many things.... religion, personal beliefs, or science.

Love, Moon

wow, took me forever to respond to this, but I wanted to take the time to post a proper reply.

First of all, I think euthanasia is a very touchy and difficult subject and not to be taken lightly. That includes yelling either "YES!" or "NO!" before considering the many aspects that need to be thought about. We spent almost half a year discussing this subject in my ethics class at school, and we never really agreed on anything because obviously people have different feelings about it, because of their own morals, but also because of things they may have experienced. I'll try to summarise the most important facts so you can see why and how my opinion came about.


Pro's

1. As Moon said, modern medicine may be able to prolong a person's life, but if this person merely suffers and has to wait longer until he or she is finally allowed to die, it is questionable whether a doctor should be forced to keep the patient alive at all costs. Just because you can drug someone until the person doesn't feel the pain anymore, or just because you can slice someone open, operate again and again to keep the person alive a bit longer does not mean this is desireable. Life and the dignity of man must not be touched, yes, but what dignity is there when someone's not really living anymore but merely dying slowly and painfully?

2. Every person has a mind of his/her own, a free will to decide what he or she wants. If you can decide to get married or not, to have a baby or not, all sorts of important decisions, you should be allowed to decide that you want your life to end because for you, it's not worth living anymore. Suicide has always been associated with negative thoughts, but if you look at the very original meaning of the word, which comes from the two Latin words "sui" = oneself and "cedere" = give up, it means to give up one's own life out of one's own free will. The bible says you must not kill and that life is the greatest gift, yes. But by ending your own life, you do not physically hurt anyone. Yes, your family is going to be sad, but if you are going to die anyway, they should understand that you do not wish to suffer. The sadness remains the same, I think. Furthermore, life may be a gift. But if you do not want this gift any longer, you should be allowed to return it.


Con's

1. If you are in great pain, chances are you wish to die simply to not be in pain anymore. But in fact, you only want to get healthy again, so you may mix up the desire to die with the desire to be well, and in fact, you do not want to die. It is questionable wheter a patient should be allowed to decide he/she wants to end his life just because he feels miserable.

2. Even if you've been diagnosed with a supposedly deadly illness, there's always hope you will get healthy again. I'm sure everyone has at leats heard of one miracle healing, maybe even experienced one in his/her own family. How do you truly know God won't help you? What if you'd only have needed some more time to heal? Or in case of a person in coma, there have been many people who were in a coma for years, and then woke up after 5, 10 or even 15 years. When can you really be sure there is no more hope?

3. Euthanasia always involves a second person, be it a member of the family or the doctor, or the nurse. Is it really okay to ask a nurse to give you a poisonous injection? Is it okay to ask your wife, your daughter etc to prepare you a poisonous drink? Is it okay to ask a doctor to turn off the machines that keep you alive even though he knows you're going to die then? My point is, your wish to die technically makes another person a murderer, and even though it may be something that you want, the other person may not want to committ a mercy killing. So unless you are still capable of carrying out the act of ending your life yourself, there is always someone else involed, and you cannot automatically assume that this person is okay with it.

4. Abuse. There have been cases where people where euthanised because their families could not be bothered to take care of them anymore. Or because hospitals needed space, etc. The moment you allow the killing of a person under certain circumstances, there will be cases where this liberty will be abused. Of course you cannot guarantee it won't happen if euthanasia is illegal. But by making it legal, the abuse becomes easier.


considering all this, I think it really depends on the very situation of each individual. I honestly do not know how I would react if I were in the situation of considering euthanasia, either for myself or for a member of the family. I only know that I have seen horrible tragedies in senior homes, and that sometimes I've wondered if maybe it wasn't better for those poor people to die. But I really cannot speak for everyone, which nobody should.


My opinion is, "I'm not sure", leaning a slight, slight bit towards "no". A bit lame, I know. But that's it, I'm afraid.

I do not think I agree with you there. The word "Murder" or "Murderer" implies malicious intent, wich is most defenitely not the point here. In Holland a doctor is not obliged by law to fufill the request of the patient. The doctor is allowed to make his own decision on wheter or not he sees breaking his oath as an act of mercy or as a criminal fact.

Your saying that as soon as you take a life you are a murder. On the really basic level I agree, But all over the world lives are taken and in this context a person that will stop the suffering of a dying man/woman would fall in the category of Gacy, Manson and Dutroux. People who have killed with malicious intent times 100.

Offcourse I realize you do not mean that (I am just presuming here). Shitty thing is that this is one of those topics that has a grey area that expands over the entire universe. On a more personal level, I would never ask my kids to do that for me. I would never want them to carry that burden.

But on the point of the senior homes... I have to agree with you completely. I never did give that much thought I am ashamed to admit... It would be an immensely scary thought.. I'd be like putting down stray animals because nobody cares about them.

Altough I have been looking at the way this law is built up and thankfully in the case of euthanesia (not to be confused with coma's, where the family has to decide) the person in question has to request it personally with the doctor or lawyer etc., and then you get the arduous talks and test from more doctors and pshycologists.

well, I suppose you could call it murder and thereby attach some negative association to it, mercy killing and thereby make it sound like it's something the person should be grateful for, or euthanasia, which is originally Greek for "good death" and thereby make it sound like a nice and peachy thing. But the very simple fact that you end someone's life, with or without malicious intent, remains the same. That is the very problem. But I know you understood what I mean, heh. So no argueing there. It's just that how we call a certain thing often influences how people think of it.

Of course, and although I do not support this point of view, you can argue that, well, then another doctor is going to do it. I don't know what it's like in Holland, but in Germany you have the right to choose your doctor, so if you're not satisfied with the doctor who treats you, you'll go to another. so I guess that only postpones the problem, or rather passes on the responsibility to someone else.

again, this is understandable, but does making a relative stranger (doctor, nurse etc) carry that burden change what they have to do? I don't know if it's easier to harm someone that you do not have a too emotional connection to. I'd still feel bad about it.

I know, we covered that. it actually seems like a huge stunt of bureaucray.

In holland you can choose your doctor as well, but I think if a person agrees to do that for you, to help you die I mean, is that not a good death... Is death sometimes not kinder than living?

It is never nice and peachy, death doesn't work that way.. atleast not for the living. For the dying among us it can be. And truthfully spoken between you and me and everyone reading this, I'd rather die on my own terms than to place my life in de hands of doctors until they can't do anything anymore (or in the hands of god if you are religious)

When your diagnosed with a terminal disease, it is like your own body has become your worst enemy. Slowly but surely you lose control over it until there is nothing left. as incredibly strange as it may sound... the only thing you can control is your own death.

But the fact that because this law is so young and still in the middle of so much ethical discussions (understandibly) Makes it very long before you can die as you want to. There even have been cases where the person died while waiting for the request to be granted.

That does disturb me.... A lot. That in the end of your life you will be reduced to legal terms. It makes me shiver really. Hmmmmm....m still for this but doubt and more questions reach my mind