Blows my mind that we will give animals the right to a humane end of life and yet here I am sat in a "civilised" country (UK) and it's illegal to give humans that same out.
I watched my Dad die of cancer - and for the last week it was simply inhumane that we didn't let him die sooner through a cocktail of drugs. Others who have watched their loved ones die slow painful deaths will broadly agree.
Besides, people can still kill themselves regardless of laws. They can take their own lives in various gruesome ways. They can also fly to a euthanasia centre like Dignitas.
LAws were supposed to protect people from each other, not from ourselves.
It's about time all governments reconsidered their laws on euthanasia.
> Blows my mind that we will give animals the right to a humane end of life and yet here I am sat in a "civilised" country (UK) and it's illegal to give humans that same out.
This is because we value human life more than animal life.
This philosophical view is summarized by "Kantianism for people, Utilitarianism for animals." From this perspective, human life is an end-in-itself and animal life is not.
People who have this perspective (including me) feel that there is no scientific, empirical reason to value human life at all. Therefore putting the value of human life in utilitarian terms doesn't make sense and will lead to a devaluation of human life.
Why do you characterize voluntarily ending ones own life, in particular for people who are incurably sick as utilitarian?
We're not talking about turning grandma into soylent because the bills are getting too large, we're talking about two things first and foremost. Human dignity, and human autonomy over one's own body.
I can agree that euthanasia available for everyone for some sort of social or cost reason devalues life, but very few people are arguing this and it's not what the debate is about right now.
For example in Switzerland (we have euthanasia for years), you must be psychologically healthy, and express the wish to die for yourself, and you need a good point. But our health-system/social-system is also ~pretty good (so no need for grandma to lighten the burden on the family). I think it's great and i am pretty proud about this particular point in Switzerland.
> Why do you characterize voluntarily ending ones own life, in particular for people who are incurably sick as utilitarian?
Because most arguments for euthanasia (in this thread and elsewhere) argue for maximizing utility/minimizing suffering.
> We're not talking about turning grandma into soylent because the bills are getting too large, we're talking about two things first and foremost. Human dignity, and human autonomy over one's own body.
Why not turn grandma into soylent? Doesn't cannibalism maximize utility? How can we cremate grandma when people around the world are starving?
What if the reason we don't eat each other is also the reason we shouldn't euthansize people?
> I can agree that euthanasia available for everyone for some sort of social or cost reason devalues life, but very few people are arguing this and it's not what the debate is about right now.
The post I responded to is saying "let's treat humans more like dogs". So, from my perspective, you aren't quite grasping what this debate is about.
>the post I responded to is saying "let's treat humans more like dogs". So, from my perspective, you aren't quite grasping what this debate is about.
The OP was saying that we give dogs more rights than people, not that dogs are worth less than humans. OP was saying we treat animals more dignified and with more compassion at the end of life than we treat ourselves, which is true ironically enough.
And sorry but what are you on about exactly? What has end of life euthanasia to do with cannibalism? Who is advocating we allow cannibalism or comparing it to euthanasia?
Dogs don't have a right to euthanasia. Dog owners have a right to kill their pets for particular reasons, and livestock owners in general have a right to kill their animals for food and kill 'pests' to protect their livestock.
Most importantly, dogs have no way to deny being euthanized.
In general, humans have more rights given to allow them to stay alive than pets do.
Saying dogs can be killed by their owners so dogs have more rights than people doesn't make sense. If humans had owners, the owners could probably kill them too.
Disclaimer:
In case, it somehow is confused that I'm accused of advocating for slavery, murder, euthanasia, etc. then let it be known that I am not. I think life is an end into itself, and thus ought to be protected.
Some animals are especially deserving of your Kantianism. Particularly Beavers and Lemurs. Did you know Peter Singer proposes exactly the thing you fear?
Obviously, part of the problem is that it's a very politically ugly topic. People hate thinking about death so much that they put off writing their wills until the day they actually die, after all!
With that being said, there are rational arguments against euthanasia. You need to be extremely careful with creating legal ways to kill people. Recall what governments have tended to do in the past when given power over, for example, forced sterilization or forced institutional commitment. Now imagine what can happen with a hostile actor in the mix... rightfully a scary proposition!
I'm not against euthanasia, despite my counterarguments, but I do believe that this is the kind of thing that should be a constitutional right afforded to the individual and not a power that may be exercised over you by anyone else (not even by proxy or process). The stakes are simply too high, because there are no take-backs if someone screws up.
I do believe that this is the kind of thing that should be a constitutional right afforded to the individual and not a power that may be exercised over you by anyone else (not even by proxy or process).
Some power a government can exercise is toat least prevent life insurance companies from putting suicide clauses into plans. These clauses withhold paying out benefits due to suicide.
That on its own is an interesting problem, isn't it?
If you insure a car, then crash it for the payout, we would consider that insurance fraud. We make it against the law, because it has a negative externality in the form of making everyone else's insurance rates higher.
In principle, suicide clauses exist for the same reason. If they didn't exist, you would actually be incentivizing people to kill themselves and raising insurance premiums for everyone else. These are both bad things that most people would want to avoid. Then again, it's not like you can kill yourself twice, so, unlike car insurance fraud, this is a self-solving problem!
My gut tells me that awarding life insurance payouts to families of suicide victims is the wrong tool for this particular problem. Perhaps the government itself should insure individuals against family suicides? This would avoid creating undue drag upon the private insurance market while also ensuring that even poor families (those I suspect are most vulnerable to losing a bread-winner to suicide) are protected. Since the two systems are now decoupled, you could even independently disincentivize suicides for financial security by making the payout lower than a normal life-insurance payout typically would be.
> along with the consent of the patient and/or family responsible for care decisions, doesn’t seem that complicated to me
Dead people can't testify. If someone is euthanized, how do you show--after the fact--that the consent wasn't coerced? This is a problem that can be solved. But it is thorny, complicated and thus difficult.
Cultural Inertia is a powerful thing. As a parallel, docking a dog's tail, clipping its ears, or declawing a cat is considered inhumane, but routine neonatal circumcision is accepted and defended. Why would an aesthetic modification be unethical on a pet animal, but encouraged for an infant human? If something is culturally accepted as normal, it's a lot harder to critically examine it.
I tend to find acceptance of neonatal circumcision and declawing in the same societies.
To me it's pretty simple; unless it's medically necessary you don't do anything (in the context of irreversible medical procedures) against a creature's will. Be it human or otherwise.
My grandpa fell down the stairs of their farm in his sixties. He was paralyzed and needed help with everything. He slowly developed cancer over time but was forced to just lay in bed. All he did was beg for pain pills and to be set free. He complained that a sick animal on the farm would be put down but no one would help him. It was very heart breaking for a young kid to see. I get why no one grant his wish: no one wants to be the one to "kill" him and the (false) hope of a miracle. This is a complex issue: we already have DNR which seem to break the same "do no harm" ethics for a doctor.
Medical ethics require patient consent for treatment. Consent can be assumed in some limited and temporary circumstances but if a patient of sound mind explicitly withdraws consent like with a DNR order then ethically the doctor can't intervene.
The "do no harm" principle only comes into play after consent has been established.
This is a good documentary on the efforts of the Right to Die movement in Oregon a decade ago.[0]
In it, there’s a woman with cancer who clearly enjoys living. She’s active, she participates in the world, she goes on despite her illness… until there’s no ability to experience joy.
Her body is being destroyed. She has a protrusion the size of a football in her midsection. She literally can’t function at a base level. Only then does she opt to end her life. She didn’t give up. She fought until she had no fight left.
Also contained within are obscene images of “pro-life” advocates fighting furiously to force people to suffer until the bitter end. They think themselves moral and just. They are, in fact, barbaric. It so angers me that religious people and institutions would inflict their beliefs on others in such a cruel way.
If I was having severe mania or a psychotic episode, the legal frameworks we have in place would allow me to be sectioned to prevent me causing harm to myself and others.
to an extent yes. I think there is some value in having a "cool-off period". many problems in life do not seem so bad a year, a month, or even a week later. but there are also people who are physically well but live their entire lives in misery. I don't think our current system treats them humanely.
We do give people the option to be euthanized, they just have to commit a really horrific crime first, and it make take a while for all the paperwork to go through after that, but eventually you will get euthanized.
Should it really blow your mind though? Most western governments (including the UK & Spain) are heavily influenced by a religion where one of the commandments is Thou shalt not kill, and this is taken literally by many. Governments are also funded by the living.
If someone kills themselves (regardless of laws), they could forfeit some benefits of a "natural" death, like life assurance benefits (and I'm sure life assurance companies have some sway over the government regulation with regards to this).
I'm sure those considering suicide wouldn't be considering this, but this is the type of things where only governments can get involved to make a positive change for people's lives.
I watched my Dad die of cancer - and for the last week it was simply inhumane that we didn't let him die sooner through a cocktail of drugs. Others who have watched their loved ones die slow painful deaths will broadly agree.
Besides, people can still kill themselves regardless of laws. They can take their own lives in various gruesome ways. They can also fly to a euthanasia centre like Dignitas.
LAws were supposed to protect people from each other, not from ourselves.
It's about time all governments reconsidered their laws on euthanasia.