Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
170 Posts
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [7] | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Netherlands being out-euthanized? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Commander Harris
Netherlands
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
About a week ago the liberal hell hole that I call home was stirred by the story that in Belgium two brothers were simultaneously euthanized. They requested to be euthanized because after being born blind, they were now going deaf.

As far as I could gather, euthanasia can be granted on grounds of both unbearable and hopeless suffering. Now the debate has once again started in the Netherlands too. Are those criteria good standards? When is suffering unbearable and hopeless? Who guards against rash and badly founded decisions? Also what does the apparent shift to more lenient granting mean for doctors?

So I am curious. Does someone have a right to euthanasia and if so, is it absolute?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
max89 wrote:
Who guards against rash and badly founded decisions?



Who is hurt by them, other than the person desiring euthanasia?
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I see no reason why people should not be allowed to kill themselves in a way hat is painless and does not inconvenience others. But I think that it has to be informed consent (the those who cannot choose would not have the right).
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dependents.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Commander Harris
Netherlands
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
djgutierrez77 wrote:
max89 wrote:
Who guards against rash and badly founded decisions?



Who is hurt by them, other than the person desiring euthanasia?


I phrased that badly. I guess it's twofold:
- Is the person not suffering of psychiatric disease or is the person caving in to some kind of pressure
- There is an increase in the western world of loneliness among the elderly and this could also play a role in the decision

Basically, is their enough safeguard against motives besides the stated criteria?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Life is a lamp-flame before a wind.
msg tools
badge
mu
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think that everyone should have the right to live, but also the right to die, if so desired. Should health institutions be allowed to help people to die? That's a more difficult question. It could prevent much suffering, but it could also be easily abused; perhaps not today, but possibly tomorrow. It would be a powerful tool indeed in the hands of an authoritarian regime.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
max89 wrote:
djgutierrez77 wrote:
max89 wrote:
Who guards against rash and badly founded decisions?



Who is hurt by them, other than the person desiring euthanasia?


I phrased that badly. I guess it's twofold:
- Is the person not suffering of psychiatric disease or is the person caving in to some kind of pressure
- There is an increase in the western world of loneliness among the elderly and this could also play a role in the decision

Basically, is their enough safeguard against motives besides the stated criteria?
If someone hate their life is it not better to end it in a hospital then under train?
4 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Commander Harris
Netherlands
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
max89 wrote:
djgutierrez77 wrote:
max89 wrote:
Who guards against rash and badly founded decisions?



Who is hurt by them, other than the person desiring euthanasia?


I phrased that badly. I guess it's twofold:
- Is the person not suffering of psychiatric disease or is the person caving in to some kind of pressure
- There is an increase in the western world of loneliness among the elderly and this could also play a role in the decision

Basically, is their enough safeguard against motives besides the stated criteria?
If someone hate their life is it not better to end it in a hospital then under train?


I would say that is preferable. However, as Butsudoka said it's easily abused and in the end it's monitored by the government. Then there's burden that would put on an already stressed healthcare system and not to mention the burden on a doctor who might find that in 40 years a minority of his patients die of natural causes.

Let me be clear, I support the right to die as much as the right to live. But the question is if this should fully fall under medical supervision. Should everyone who has tired of living be able to go to his doctor and ask for a lethal injection?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
As I understand the problem, the issue is that it is not people killing themselves but others killing people and saying that the people killed wanted to be killed. The question then becomes whether the person really wanted to be killed, whether they were in a fit state to make that choice and whether killing them is justifiable homicide even if they demonstrably do want it and are deemed capable of deciding.

On the one hand, I see how a person should have a say over whether to live or die. Yet on the other, I see how having someone else do it lends itself to abuse. How can one judge if the person was competent to decide after they're already dead?

When people who potentially benefit from the death are involved, the situation becomes even more complicated.

Frankly I do not have a good answer, although I would suggest:
1. Promote real palliative care.
2. Get people to have living wills that are properly documented and registered.
3. Ask medical patients when they are still healthy at what point they would want to stop efforts to keep them alive and the specifics of what that means for them.
In other words, do everything possible as policy to prevent the situation in the first place.

Then when it does happen (which obviously it always will) judge and sentence the people involved as leniently as possible. In other words, if they really did think thy were doing what the person wanted and did it for selfless reasons, don't prosecute. Yet perhaps do something like not allowing the people involved in the killing to benefit from the dead person unless some pretty strict legal requirements are met.

What do others think?
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
St. Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I thought some places medical officials provided the means, but it was the patient who actually did the deed. Like the doctor would set up the IV, but it was the patient which would trigger the release.

A small distinction maybe.

Quote:

Should everyone who has tired of living be able to go to his doctor and ask for a lethal injection?


Other then pesky rules and regulations, why not? I mean, wouldn't it stand to reason that your doctor would know the way that was least painful? And what two consenting adults decide to do by entering a contract, what business is it of anyone else? Of course, perhaps the doctor should have the right to refuse. I dunno.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Dearlove
United Kingdom
Chelmsford
Essex
flag msg tools
SoRCon 11 23-25 Feb 2018 Basildon UK http://www.sorcon.co.uk
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
whac3 wrote:
Then when it does happen (which obviously it always will) judge and sentence the people involved as leniently as possible. In other words, if they really did think thy were doing what the person wanted and did it for selfless reasons, don't prosecute. Yet perhaps do something like not allowing the people involved in the killing to benefit from the dead person unless some pretty strict legal requirements are met.

What do others think?


I think you've missed the point of the case where the killing isn't done secretly in a corner, but in the open, with recorded statements etc. by a neutral party, probably in the medical profession, with legal permission. I'm reasonably sure this is the OP's scenario.

You can then agree or disagree with whether that should be supported, but it makes much of what you wrote irrelevant. (Except of course the try to make the case unnecessary as far as possible, which I hope we all agree with.)
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Zé Mário
Portugal
Porto
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
What about minimum age for taking the decision? Surely not 18.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
St. Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Asur wrote:
How about minimum age for taking the decision? Surely not 18.


If someone is terminal, why not? Why should anyone of sound mind not be allowed to choose how they leave this world, instead of allowing their body to waste away to the point they need machines to stay alive?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
"that's a smith and wesson, and you've had your six"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
max89 wrote:
Does someone have a right to euthanasia and if so, is it absolute?


I think that as long as protocol is followed, e.g. mentally evaluation to make sure the decision you make is a sound minded choice. And a mile of paperwork is signed, e.g. personal liability to lenders is handled, life insurance is revoked, etc.

Then I can see no reason why you shouldn't "legally" have that option.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Zé Mário
Portugal
Porto
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
COMPNOR wrote:
Asur wrote:
How about minimum age for taking the decision? Surely not 18.


If someone is terminal, why not? Why should anyone of sound mind not be allowed to choose how they leave this world, instead of allowing their body to waste away to the point they need machines to stay alive?


You'ld lose 40% of the teenagers...
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
"that's a smith and wesson, and you've had your six"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Asur wrote:


You'ld lose 40% of the teenagers...


40% of teenagers in the Netherlands has a terminal illness? What the heck is in the water?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dearlove wrote:
whac3 wrote:
Then when it does happen (which obviously it always will) judge and sentence the people involved as leniently as possible. In other words, if they really did think thy were doing what the person wanted and did it for selfless reasons, don't prosecute. Yet perhaps do something like not allowing the people involved in the killing to benefit from the dead person unless some pretty strict legal requirements are met.

What do others think?


I think you've missed the point of the case where the killing isn't done secretly in a corner, but in the open, with recorded statements etc. by a neutral party, probably in the medical profession, with legal permission. I'm reasonably sure this is the OP's scenario.

You can then agree or disagree with whether that should be supported, but it makes much of what you wrote irrelevant. (Except of course the try to make the case unnecessary as far as possible, which I hope we all agree with.)

Who said anything about doing it secretly, whether in a corner or otherwise?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Dearlove
United Kingdom
Chelmsford
Essex
flag msg tools
SoRCon 11 23-25 Feb 2018 Basildon UK http://www.sorcon.co.uk
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
whac3 wrote:
Dearlove wrote:
whac3 wrote:
Then when it does happen (which obviously it always will) judge and sentence the people involved as leniently as possible. In other words, if they really did think thy were doing what the person wanted and did it for selfless reasons, don't prosecute. Yet perhaps do something like not allowing the people involved in the killing to benefit from the dead person unless some pretty strict legal requirements are met.

What do others think?


I think you've missed the point of the case where the killing isn't done secretly in a corner, but in the open, with recorded statements etc. by a neutral party, probably in the medical profession, with legal permission. I'm reasonably sure this is the OP's scenario.

You can then agree or disagree with whether that should be supported, but it makes much of what you wrote irrelevant. (Except of course the try to make the case unnecessary as far as possible, which I hope we all agree with.)

Who said anything about doing it secretly, whether in a corner or otherwise?


You said

Quote:
Then when it does happen (which obviously it always will) judge and sentence the people involved as leniently as possible.


That explicitly indicates illegality - we don't sentence people for following a legal process. And most people don't pre-announce plans to do something illegal, as they would be stopped. Hence secrecy.

You also said

Quote:
the issue is that it is not people killing themselves but others killing people and saying that the people killed wanted to be killed.


which also implies the absence of an open process, as "saying that" implies doubt.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lynette
United States
Richland
Washington
flag msg tools
Yep, I am a girl Scientist. Come for the breasts; Stay for the brains!
badge
For as long as I shall live I will testify to love; I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
djgutierrez77 wrote:
max89 wrote:
Who guards against rash and badly founded decisions?



Who is hurt by them, other than the person desiring euthanasia?


Well studies in Oregon have shown that old people now feel "pressured" to die to relieve a "burden" from their children/grandchildren. Even when they are still enjoying life, and because of this depression is more prevalent in many of those who choose to not take the option because they feel a huge burden of guilt every day just for being alive.

Also like with our recent plunge into the abyss from another medical procedure being "available" discussion ... in Oregon insurance companies send out letters that deny people coverage for possible cures while reminding them that that "dying" is fully covered though.

Once it is an option... pressure starts to be put upon those who WOULDN'T choose it like it is somehow their "duty" to society to off themselves once they are old and/or very ill.

And society starts to shift toward thinking it actually is their "duty" to die.

8 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
St. Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Asur wrote:
COMPNOR wrote:
Asur wrote:
How about minimum age for taking the decision? Surely not 18.


If someone is terminal, why not? Why should anyone of sound mind not be allowed to choose how they leave this world, instead of allowing their body to waste away to the point they need machines to stay alive?


You'ld lose 40% of the teenagers...


Considering we like to lament about the shortcomings of teenagers, you act like this would be a big loss.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Meerkat wrote:
djgutierrez77 wrote:
max89 wrote:
Who guards against rash and badly founded decisions?



Who is hurt by them, other than the person desiring euthanasia?


Well studies in Oregon have shown that old people now feel "pressured" to die to relieve a "burden" from their children/grandchildren. Even when they are still enjoying life, and because of this depression is more prevalent in many of those who choose to not take the option because they feel a huge burden of guilt every day just for being alive.

Also like with our recent plunge into the abyss from another medical procedure being "available" discussion ... in Oregon insurance companies send out letters that deny people coverage for possible cures while reminding them that that "dying" is fully covered though.

Once it is an option... pressure starts to be put upon those who WOULDN'T choose it like it is somehow their "duty" to society to off themselves once they are old and/or very ill.

And society starts to shift toward thinking it actually is their "duty" to die.

So has the number of old people dying risen?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lynette
United States
Richland
Washington
flag msg tools
Yep, I am a girl Scientist. Come for the breasts; Stay for the brains!
badge
For as long as I shall live I will testify to love; I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
Meerkat wrote:


Well studies in Oregon have shown that old people now feel "pressured"...

So has the number of old people dying risen?


I am not sure how to answer that... obviously some of them are opting for euthanasia. Which means some of them are dying sooner than they would naturally.

However as "old people" already they are going to "die" at some point so I don't know what it does to old people as a category in mortality statistics.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Meerkat wrote:
djgutierrez77 wrote:
max89 wrote:
Who guards against rash and badly founded decisions?



Who is hurt by them, other than the person desiring euthanasia?


Well studies in Oregon have shown that old people now feel "pressured" to die to relieve a "burden" from their children/grandchildren. Even when they are still enjoying life, and because of this depression is more prevalent in many of those who choose to not take the option because they feel a huge burden of guilt every day just for being alive.

Also like with our recent plunge into the abyss from another medical procedure being "available" discussion ... in Oregon insurance companies send out letters that deny people coverage for possible cures while reminding them that that "dying" is fully covered though.

Once it is an option... pressure starts to be put upon those who WOULDN'T choose it like it is somehow their "duty" to society to off themselves once they are old and/or very ill.

And society starts to shift toward thinking it actually is their "duty" to die.



I'd have to read the study (or more correctly, have someone who knows how to interpret the data read the study for me), but my first reaction is to scoff and say that it sounds ludicrous, as does the anecdotal nonsense about the insurance companies.

Also, this kind of thing is why we can't have anything like a sensible discussion around end-of-life care.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Meerkat wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
Meerkat wrote:


Well studies in Oregon have shown that old people now feel "pressured"...

So has the number of old people dying risen?


I am not sure how to answer that... obviously some of them are opting for euthanasia. Which means some of them are dying sooner than they would naturally.

However as "old people" already they are going to "die" at some point so I don't know what it does to old people as a category in mortality statistics.
If they are dying earlier we should have seen a statistical blip. If X percentage of old people die each year, and a significant number of them take their life early then we should see Y deaths among the elderly in a given year.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dearlove;

You seem to have a stick perpetually up your proverbial arse wherever I'm concerned. You go out of your way to find idiotic nits to pick. I have no idea how you construe that what I wrote demands technical illegality, as opposed to circumstances which demand legal inquiry; which rightly or wrongly will probably involve judgments. Frankly I don't care what your problem with me is.

I kindly invite you to go take a flying leap or to at least stop chafing at my arse.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [7] | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.