Ethics of Euthanasia (dat alliteration)

[academicbulimia]

Headline says it all really, basically I just wanted to know your intelligent thoughts on such an issue

[pi]

Is this a "rant and debate" or is this a "can you do my english oral research for me pl0z?"?

If the former, present a topic to debate

If the latter, hit up Google

[academicbulimia]

damn caught out haha nah I'm actually doing my oral on school funding (gonski report) all that jazz

I was just talking to my friend about this so yeah it was thought provoking. Mainly do you think people have the basic human right to die how and when they want to?

[Russ]

A more pertinent question is probably "does the right to die obligate a medical professional to help you do so". It's generally not contested that people have the right to refuse lifesaving medical treatment.

[Special At Specialist]

Doctors should not be obliged to provide lethal treatment for those who choose to die, but they should not have to face criminal charges for choosing to do so either.

[abeybaby]

Its a tricky question... to present my brother's (5th year melbourne MBBS) view:

The way the law is framed is very intelligent. Euthanasia is defined as treatment where the intention is to cause death. However, if treatment causes death, but is not the intention, then it's not euthanasia. This means that doctors can prescribe lethal amounts of painkillers under the 'intention' of pain relief if a patient, in reality, wants to be euthanised.

so whether or not society agrees on the issue, doctors can still euthanise, or refuse to euthanise at their own will.

[Eriny]

I think that's the thing. I support euthanasia (with appropriate safeguards, etc.) but if I were a doctor, I don't think I could handle the idea of purposefully killing someone, even if they are in tremendous pain. It's a big thing to ask someone to do, especially when they've been trained to save lives. The theory of it is easy, the actual reality of prescribing lethal doses of painkillers though is pretty confronting, at least in my view.

[sabii]

Its a very hard question. Someone in my class presented their oral presentation on this topic, they were for it. The arguments they presented were:
- The person is in pain, as well as the family members and doctors.
- Its a personal choice each individual deserves and who are we to decide whether they should be allowed to kill themself or not.
- We put animals down if they get too old or have a disease to make their death less painful yet we deprive humans of the same right.
- No one likes to be in pain.

I personally am sitting on the fence, its such a difficult choice to make.

[academicbulimia]

This means that doctors can prescribe lethal amounts of painkillers under the 'intention' of pain relief if a patient, in reality, wants to be euthanised.

I dont think doctors wold do this though, due to the consequences of doing this and then getting found out.

[ninwa]

Its a tricky question... to present my brother's (5th year melbourne MBBS) view:

The way the law is framed is very intelligent. Euthanasia is defined as treatment where the intention is to cause death. However, if treatment causes death, but is not the intention, then it's not euthanasia. This means that doctors can prescribe lethal amounts of painkillers under the 'intention' of pain relief if a patient, in reality, wants to be euthanised.

so whether or not society agrees on the issue, doctors can still euthanise, or refuse to euthanise at their own will.

Are you sure? This doesn't sound right. Intention is a significant aspect of a murder/manslaughter charge.

[abeybaby]

All i can do is present my brothers view.. im not sure myself how true this is, but this is what he tells me

[slothpomba]

The way the law is framed is very intelligent. Euthanasia is defined as treatment where the intention is to cause death. However, if treatment causes death, but is not the intention, then it's not euthanasia. This means that doctors can prescribe lethal amounts of painkillers under the 'intention' of pain relief if a patient, in reality, wants to be euthanised.

A philosophically idea heavily related to that is the principal of double effect (or for the more philosophically inclined - from the SEP).

Doesn't seem like it's actually true though...

When these assumptions are made, double effect seems to provide at least part of a justification for administering drugs to relieve pain.

Yet the first assumption is false. Physicians and researchers have insisted repeatedly that it is a myth that opioids administered for pain relief can be expected to hasten death (Sykes and Thorns, 2003 provide a review of a large number of studies supporting this claim). There is no research that substantiates the claim that opioid drugs administered appropriately and carefully titrated are likely to depress respiration. In a survey of research bearing on this issue, Susan Anderson Fohr (1998) concludes: “It is important to emphasize that there is no debate among specialists in palliative care and pain control on this issue. There is a broad consensus that when used appropriately, respiratory depression from opioid analgesics is a rarely occurring side effect. The belief that palliative care hastens death is counter to the experience of physicians with the most experience in this area.” The mistaken belief that pain relief will have the side effect of hastening death may have the unfortunate effect of leading physicians, patients, and the patients' families to undertreat pain because they are apprehensive about causing this alleged side effect.

The appropriate conclusion, then, is that double effect plays no role whatsoever in justifying the use of opioid drugs for pain relief in the context of palliative care. Why is double effect so frequently mentioned in discussions of pain relief in the context of palliative care if its application rests on (and thereby perpetuates) a medical myth? The popularity and intuitive appeal of this alleged illustration of double effect may have two sources. First, the point of mentioning the permissible hastening of death as a merely foreseen side effect may be to contrast it with what is deemed morally impermissible: administering drugs that are not pain relievers to a patient with a terminal illness in order to hasten death and thereby cut short the patient's suffering. Second, the myth that pain relief hastens death might have persisted and perpetuated itself because it expresses the compassionate thought behind the second assumption: that the hastening of death may be a welcome side effect of administering pain relief to patients at the end of life.

Yet even this apparently compassionate assumption may be unduly paternalistic. Patients receiving palliative care whose pain can be adequately treated with opioid drugs may well value additional days, hours or minutes of life. It is unjustified to assume that the hastening of death is itself a form of merciful relief for patients with terminal illnesses and not a regrettable side effect to be minimized. Recall that the traditional applications of double effect require agents to seek to minimize or avoid the merely foreseen harms that they cause as side effects. On this point, popular understandings of double effect, with the second assumption in place, may diverge from traditional interpretations of the principle.

If they are very terminally ill (going to die within the next month or two) and every hope of possible treatment available to modern medicine has been exhausted and if their pain and/or discomfort can not be managed at a humane level then i think it is OK in those restricted circumstances. They were going to die anyway but we shouldn't take this as an automatic justification. We're all dying of simply being alive, you will die one day, does it make it right for me to kill you? Why/Why not? If you think of this question, you get one step closer to an answer.

[ninwa]

South Australia is considering it...

The Ending Life with Dignity Bill 2013 (SA) was introduced into the House of Assembly and received its second reading speech on 7 February 2013.

According to the long title, the purpose of the Bill is to make provisions for the "administration of medical procedures to assist death of a limited number of persons who are terminally ill, suffering unbearably and who have expressed a desire for the procedures, subject to appropriate safeguards".

Specifically, the Bill proposes to:

(a) set out the objects of the proposed Act, including to ensure that people who have voluntarily requested euthanasia can obtain appropriate and humane medical assistance to hasten death;
(b) establish the Voluntary Euthanasia Board ("the Board") and prescribe its composition requirements, including that it consist of eight members;
(c) prescribe the terms and conditions of appointment and various procedures, including the duty to keep board minutes from meetings;
(d) prescribe various functions of the Board, including the delivery of a report to the relevant Minister on or before 30 September, outlining the Board's work;
(e) prescribe various powers of the Board, including the power to make declarations;
(f) allow the Supreme Court of South Australia to review the decision of the Board on its merits, if an appeal is lodged within seven days after the person has received the Board's decision;
(g) determine the criteria necessary for a person to make a voluntary euthanasia request, including that they are an adult person of sound mind who is terminally ill, and that they are independently examined by two medical practitioners;
(h) prescribe procedural requirements for a voluntary euthanasia request, including provisions on the witnessing, form, amendment and revocation of a request;
(i) establish a register for all voluntary euthanasia requests and administered by a Registrar, and allow the Registrar the means to require more information;
(j) allow medical practitioners to carry out a request and the process for compliance, including by administering drugs in appropriate concentrations to end life and reporting to the State Coroner;
(k) make provision for the approval of an interpreter in relation to a voluntary euthanasia request;
(l) insert various miscellaneous provisions, including to prescribe ten years imprisonment for the offence of undue influence; and
(m) prescribe forms, including the voluntary euthanasia request form under Sch. 1.