OT: Enlightened Europe

They let axe murderers go, but put their doctors in jail.

The logic is "who makes the decision".

A judge and 12 peers to have some one put to death.

or

An old man who has had enough of western medicine.

Sounds simple to me.

ance or Belgium, but euthanasia is apparently

W.r.t. these two items, sound, and well-said. Thanks.

James Arthur

You'd have to think about what was going on in each case.

Sounds good to me. I'm no fan of psychiatrists.

alzheimers-sufferers

accelerated-deaths

It becomes perfectly logical once one realizes that taking away or imposing life to someone is a question of rights, not a life vs death one, therefore it is completely normal to support euthanasia and condemn death penalty at the same time.

Just wait until one of your (older) relatives is slowly dying in agony. You'll see the logic then.

Or a 33 year old son (*), dying in agony from colon cancer :-(

(*) Duane Lee Thompson, 1972-2006 ...Jim Thompson

Euthanasia is a question of rights, but I can still to some extend understand those who oppose legalizing it

Some one waiting to benefit might try to talk a person into it, or a person might do it because they feel they don't want to be a burden

keeping it illegal raises the bar

-Lasse

No jury in France. Just a panel of judges.

In France and Belgium the decision has already been made for all future cases. Those countries *do not have* a death penalty, period.

Mark L. Fergerson

Yes, getting grandma to pull her own plug will get her money into your pocket sooner.

But,

In the next 30+ years as the boomers start dieing off, this will become more important then it is today.

As most of us in the news group fall into that category, how would you want to be treated 20 years from now.

Just like the jury of your peers saying you must die, a system that says you must live could be far worse.

The discussion should have been public a long time ago, but now is good too.

The world can't wait with the status quo.

hamilton

I think pretty much the same in all states... it's called a "Living Will". ...Jim Thompson

Same here in California, via the "Durable Power of Attorney" and "Advanced Care Directive" document(s). My wife and I have already done those, and made just these sorts of stipulations.

In reading through the article about the French legislation, here are my impressions:

- This isn't about "active" euthanasia - that is, the giving of medication or taking of actions whose intended purpose is to cause death. It's about "accelerated death" - the giving of medication whose primary purpose is beneficial (typically, to relieve extreme pain in a terminally ill patient) but which, as a side effect, can cause the person to die sooner than they would if not medicated.

- "Accelerated death" can also refer to situations in which the patient is withdrawn from certain life-sustaining treatments (e.g. feeding by tube, IV food and hydration).

- The alternative to this (which is a fact of life in some jurisdictions) is that some terminally-ill patients end up dying in an extended process of serious or extreme pain, because their physicians are unwilling (or afraid) to prescribe enough narcotic painkillers to keep the pain under control, because the heavy doses of painkillers could cause the patient to die due to respiratory depression. The doctors also may keep the patient on various forms of artifical life support (IV liquids, tube feeding) even though these are purely "supportive" and do not address the patient's actual illness. The doctors are unwilling to be accused of "mercy killing" or "assisting suicide" as a result of overmedication or removing life support.

- There are some places where a terminally ill patient is authorized to request medicine which they know will kill them, and a doctor is authorized to prescribe it on that basis. Wiki says that this is legal in "Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Switzerland and three American states (Oregon, Washington, and Montana)."

- The report in France does not appear to go as far as authorizing this type of "assisted suicide". Rather, it's referring to expanding the set of circumstances under which an "accelerated death" scenario is considered acceptable.

- Apparently, in France, since 2005, it has been possible for a terminally ill patient to tell his/her doctor something like "Doc, keep me comfortable. Keep me out of pain... give me enough morphine to make the hurt go away. I realize that this may result in me dying somewhat sooner than I would otherwise. That's my decision, and I accept that outcome." With authorization like this, the doctor can give adequate medication and not be prosecuted.

- The report in France seems to suggest expanding this to include several new situations: (1) The patient is terminally ill, is no longer able to communicate with his/her doctor, but had left advanced instructions to this effect ("If I should ever..."). (2) The patient is terminally ill, is no longer able to communicate with his/her doctor, and has left no written instructions concerning this issue. The patient's family would be able to request that supportive treatment be stopped.

(3) The patient is "so far gone" that they are surviving only due to constant artificial life support (e.g. a persistent vegitative state, so severe that tube feeding is required).

As long as these sorts of policies are implemented with adequate controls and safeguards, I don't have a problem with what is being proposed. If a person is terminally ill, and thus certain to die in the near future, I really don't see that the State has a sufficiently compelling interest to override the patient's wishes and force unwanted "life-sustaining" treatment upon that person, and force the person to linger (disabled and/or in pain) for days or weeks or months. The individual's wishes (if adequately expressed) should be honored.

My father-in-law really wanted to live... he was very afraid of dying. Although physically disabled and suffering from dementia, his instructions were "keep me alive as long as possible", and that's just what was done. It came at a serious cost to him and his family... but it was the right thing to do, given how he felt.

My wife and I feel otherwise, and we've made our choices clear... and expect and hope that these instructions will be honored.

That doesn't stand in the way of legalising euthanasia. Over here killing someone is still a crime. The justice department chooses not to prosecute if there where sound medical grounds for euthanasia which where verified by a second doctor.

eimers-sufferers

celerated-deaths

Well, i see a very simple difference between someone personally choosing to shorten their life versus the state deciding to do so. Please tell me that you merely missed this distinction. I could upset me to think that someone could not see it.

?-)

heimers-sufferers

ccelerated-deaths

urder-192855747.html

They missed the boat only to the extent that the axe murderer did not return to jail. I heartily approve of making the (liberal) professional that signs them out of jail share the penalties of their charges misdeeds. Far less recurring crimes that way, now if only we could incarcerate more of the wall street and other corporate executive criminals.

?-)

apparently on

death

condemn

become

good too.

It goes by various terms in various states, In Kalifornya you need a separate document, which includes durable power of attorney. For any one interested check the current (territorial/local to you) requirements.

?-)