Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, it's just a question, the person can refuse, so I don't think it is a problem.And what are you referring to? I can't think of any, really.
i agree on that note. even in the medical context, doctors don't have any obligation to carry out more than what's standard care.
i was referring to the possible outcomes and consequences of voluntary euthanasia. i think euthanasia should only be defined in terms of medicine and medical care. permitting the practice outside the medical environment would be detrimental to society. the system would be abused and cases of homicide would become more prevalent. i only bring up this point because suicide doesn't need to involve the medical system.
so, on the basis that euthanasia is defined in terms of medical care, i think there are valid concerns against voluntary euthanasia...
a) if the purpose of euthanasia is to end suffering, doctors might act independently out of compassion or benevolence, which then becomes an act of involuntary euthanasia. such actions would violate patient consent and the concept of self-determination.
b) as i mentioned earlier, the doctor-patient relationship could be compromised. some argue that euthanasia contradicts the very goal of medicine, which is to promote well-being. if doctors are killing their patients, the public may no longer trust doctors to do what is best for their interests. therefore, theoretically, the institution of medicine could crumble. the last bit may be extreme, but everything has stepping stones.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I agree with you, but what safeguards would you put in place (if you were the policy maker) to protect those suffering from depression/mental illnesses etc from exercising this right- if indeed there should be any "safeguards".Also, when money (insert other motives) comes in to play how would those who are vulnerable be protected against exploitation from relatives or doctors. (I.e. Son wants Dad's estate, tells Dad he is a burden and should let himself die. Or Doctors putting pressure on those who are badly ill with little chance of recovery to exercise euthanasia so that they can do other things/get bed space/save moeny etc)
i addressed your question earlier, but didn't really have enough time to elaborate.
consent in the medical context is only valid if its from a rational individual. those who are clinically depressed or suffering from mental illnesses are labeled as incompetent and can't give rational consent. the same restriction would naturally be applied if voluntary euthanasia were to be legalized.
i think oregon's law provides a good staring point. patients have to make a request for prescribed medication that will, in turn, end their lives.
1) the patient has to be suffering from a terminal illness in which death is imminent within the next 6 months. (i personally think this restriction should be expanded to include those who are not necessarily facing imminent death, but are severally ill and have condition will not improve, as well as the severally incapable like quadriplegics.)
2) the patient is required to go through a psychological evaluation to determine competency.
3) the request has to be confirmed by two witness, one of which cannot be a family member, the treating doctor, or someone who is entitled to any material possessions (to prevent coercion).
4) written and oral request with waiting periods.
5) the right to rescind the request.
Originally posted by dadudemon
On Dexter, Dexter killed a psychiatrist for causing quite few of his patients to commit suicide.That brings up another point. People can be indoctrinated to the point of suicide. How can you determine that they are being rational and not just being a puppet?
In the fictional psychiatrist's case, he would yank his patients off of their anti-depressants and then encourage their suicidal thoughts.
I'm still all for euthanasia.
i'm a fan of the show. it can be so disturbingly dark. i love it!
again, consent from someone who is clinically depressed isn't valid.