Wednesday, January 13, 2016

Euthanasia for the non-terminal

The Oregon Death with Dignity law is very clear about requiring a terminal diagnosis. Now, in highly secularized Belgium, this requirement is being waived. Here. Also, in the Netherlands, the consent requirement for euthanasia is being relaxed.

Does anyone see a dangerous trend?


planks length said...

Does anyone see a dangerous trend?


A long time ago, I predicted that it would be a short step from euthanasia being legal to it becoming mandatory.

Now there's a huge difference between refusing medical care in an end of life situation, and actively taking steps to kill somebody. My own grandmother resolutely rejected all efforts to prolong her life just before she died at age 87, but it was nature and her own body that ended her life - not some doctor or "mercy killer". Big difference.

Hugo Pelland said...

If it were the case that consent requirements are being relaxed, that would be dangerous yes. But from these 2 articles, it seems that it only gives people more control over their own lives.

Not sure what to think about families not being aware though; that sounds unnecessarily cruel. But that's still up to the individual in the end...

The example if that 'Tom' in the New Yorker article is puzzling. We can certainly empathize with his loss, and feeling of being cheated because he didn't see it coming. At the same time, if his mother wanted to die peacefully, without pain, and especially without uavong to fight with Tom, and others, who would obviously try to stop her, then she might have had good reasons to do it in secret.

In any case,
Thanks for these links!

Saints and Sceptics said...

Thanks for that link Vic,
We've examined that issue on our site, and the issue might raise its head again in the near future.


PS: We've just put up a version of the argument from reason that you might be interested in.