Thoughts on euthanasia

[Mr Greene]

Greene: Sure, but in such a scenario couldn't they just push through this basic Euthenasia plus whatever else they wanted anyway? If maniacs are writing the rules we are doomed, no matter what the state is when they get in.

I'm not sure it's a valid counter argument to particular points. But then I fully admit I'm not up on legal matters so I could be being naive.

It is far easier and quicker to amend existing legislation than to draft completely new legislation therefore to have something like what is proposed on the statute books could only enable a future regime. Given that such would presumably be on the books indefinitely a government of bigots is near enough inevitable thus attempting to brush it under the carpet rings alarm bells.

[Ravenshire]

This legislation exists. In Oregon and Washington, the Death with Dignity Act was passed in 1993, showing it is possible to get the language correct.

---

Although Oregon’s groundbreaking law remains widely popular, the occurrence of a hastened death is relatively rare, averaging just more than 44 hastened deaths per year over a 15-year span.

In 2012, the most recent year for which we have an annual statistical report, terminally ill patients who died after ingesting medication under the Act accounted for 0.2 percent of all deaths in Oregon. The top three concerns patients expressed to their attending physicians when requesting medication under the Act reflect the patients’ desire to maintain control over their final days. Of the end-of-life concerns expressed, the least common was “financial implications of treatment.”

Reviewing 15 years of data in the aggregate, 1,050 terminally ill patients have received prescriptions, and 673 of these patients have ingested the prescribed medications to hasten their deaths, while 377 chose not to. Over 15 years, only 2 percent of the people who used the law did not have insurance coverage. In 2012, excluding those few for which insurance status was unknown, all of the participants were covered by some form of insurance.

http://www.americanbar.org/publications/...y_act.html

---

I had no idea that Washington had also passed a Death With Dignity act. Gives me more choice where to move if the time ever comes, and hope that other states (c'mon Colorado) will do the same as time passes.

[Ravenshire]

Greene: Sure, but in such a scenario couldn't they just push through this basic Euthenasia plus whatever else they wanted anyway? If maniacs are writing the rules we are doomed, no matter what the state is when they get in.

I'm not sure it's a valid counter argument to particular points. But then I fully admit I'm not up on legal matters so I could be being naive.

It is far easier and quicker to amend existing legislation than to draft completely new legislation therefore to have something like what is proposed on the statute books could only enable a future regime. Given that such would presumably be on the books indefinitely a government of bigots is near enough inevitable thus attempting to brush it under the carpet rings alarm bells.

The type of regime you're describing wouldn't bother with drafting legislation. They'd simply start killing the undesirables. A far more likely proposition, Nazi Germany for example, would (and did) indeed draft completely new legislation that excluded Jews from civil society. To keep their majority, they would have to continue to appear reasonable to that majority. Regardless, fear of an unlikely scenario is not a justifiable reason to deny someone the right to self determination.

People have the right to decide for themselves, and do all the time whether is codified into law or not. No one is proposing death panels or allowing anyone besides the terminally ill patient to make the decision. I am vehemently against euthanization without informed consent, for some of the same reasons that some people are against it in all cases. The two U.S. jurisdictions that allow it only allow the patient to decide and only if the patient is able to give informed consent. That is the most reasonable position to both protect the individuals rights and protect the individual from harm that could be imposed by others.

My right to live as I choose (within the boundaries of not violating the same rights of others) must include the right to stop living. Despite the myths, suicide is not a crime in most jurisdictions (and nowhere in the U.S.). Unless you live in one of the exception areas, you will not be tried for attempted murder if you fail, nor will you be locked up as a felon. You may wind up subjected to psychiatric evaluations to determine your state of mind, but it's not a crime. So, your imaginary regime already has a wedge. "It's already legal for these undesirables to kill themselves, and society would be better off without them, so we'll just help them along."