Euthanasia--Assisted Suicide

Post Reply New Topic

Long post warning!

Check out this story, & the link that covers it, but not just before or just after eating. It's pretty sick.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... offee.html?

Female Dutch doctor drugged a patient's coffee then asked her family to hold her down as she fought not to be killed - but did not break the country's euthanasia laws

A Dutch woman doctor who drugged an elderly woman and then asked her family to hold her down as she fought desperately not to be killed did not break the law, according to medical experts citing the country's euthanasia legislation.

The shocking case was referred to the so-called Regional Review Committee in the Netherlands which admitted that while the case involved some irregularities that merited a reprimand, the female doctor had effectively acted in good faith.

However, they also added that the case should come to court so that judges can confirm that any other doctor who acts in good faith when providing euthanasia to people with dementia cannot be prosecuted.

Regional Review Committee Chairman Jacob Kohnstamm said: 'I am convinced that the doctor acted in good faith, and we would like to see more clarity on how such cases are handled in the future.'

The Netherlands introduced the euthanasia law 17 years ago, and since then more than 5,500 people have ended their life, arguing that they are suffering unbearably. One of those who died was a sex abuse victim who suffered severe anorexia, chronic depression, and hallucinations, and another was a severe alcoholic.

Every time a doctor performs euthanasia, they have to prepare a report for the coroner who sends the relevant documents to the Regional Review Committee.

In the latest controversial incident the unnamed woman, who was over 80, reportedly suffered from dementia and had earlier expressed a desire for euthanasia when she deemed that 'the time was right'.

As her situation deteriorated, it became difficult for her husband to care for her, and she was placed in a nursing home.

Medical paperwork showed that she often exhibited signs of fear and anger, and would wander around the building at nights. The nursing home senior doctor was of the opinion that she was suffering intolerably, but that she was no longer in a position where she could confirm that the time was now right for the euthanasia to go ahead.

However, the doctor was of the opinion that the woman's circumstances made it clear that the time was now right.

The doctor secretly placed a soporific in her coffee to calm her, and then had started to give her a lethal injection.

Yet while injecting the woman she woke up and fought the doctor. The paperwork showed that the only way the doctor could complete the injection was by getting family members to help restrain her.

It also revealed that the patient said several times 'I don't want to die' in the days before she was put to death, and that the doctor had not spoken to her about what was planned because she did not want to cause unnecessary extra distress. She also did not tell her about what was in her coffee as it was also likely to cause further disruptions to the planned euthanasia process.

The Review Committee concluded that the doctor 'has crossed the line' by giving her the first sleeping medicine, and also should have stopped when the woman resisted.

The paperwork and the recommendations of the committee are now being considered by prosecutors and health officials.

Kohnstamm said he was in favour of a trial: 'Not to punish the doctor, who acted in good faith and did what she had to do, but to get judicial clarity over what powers a doctor has when it comes to the euthanasia of patients suffering from severe dementia.'

It comes at a time when the Netherlands is considering a proposed extension to the law which would give all over-75s the right to assisted suicide.

A few conditions would have to be met first. There has to be a 'sustainable, well-considered and intrinsic' wish to die.

A specially trained 'life-ending consultant' would give their verdict about the death wish, which has to be seconded by another consultant or checking committee.

The life-ending consultant would have at least two interviews with the OAP, with at least two months between, to make sure the person knows what they are deciding and that they are not being pressured by their environment. The life-ending consultant could be a doctor, a nurse, a psychologist or a psychotherapist.

The proposal is likely to find support with Prime Minister Mark Rutte's coalition formed by the liberal VVD and their social-democratic partners of the PvdA, the Dutch Labour party.

The Ministers of Justice and Public Health have previously sent a joint letter to Parliament advocating a similar law.

Yet three Christian parties, as well as the Socialist Party (SP) are leading the effort to stop any such law.

MP Renske Leijten of the SP said: 'Elderly care is not in order, a lot of OAPs are lonely and then they are making the ending of life easier?'

Gert-Jan Segers, an MP of the Christian Union, also attacked the plan.

He said: 'The proposal relies on the myth that this is an individual choice, but relatives, society and care workers are also involved.'

His party said the law would contradict with the duty of government to care for and protect the elderly, especially those in a vulnerable position.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am so against this sort of thing. If you want to kill yourself, that is your business, but others doing it to you is murder, and this case is excellent proof of that.
"Helping" someone else to kill themselves is so open to abuse, the only accurate word for it is murder. If someone isn't capable of doing it themselves, then they should not be "assisted" to die. I am not referring to unplugging life maintaining machines, but to drugging someone, or otherwise taking an active hand in making them die. How do we know the current wishes of someone who is in a coma? And who dares to "know" what the current wishes are of someone who is mentally incompetent to understand the situation? In this case the patient was still partially competent. This quack doctor committed murder! Who presumes to have the right to decide who should die, under what health conditions, or when? There are people who would be fine with killing people who are mentally handicapped, or physically disabled. Some of them would also be okay with bumping off people with Autism spectrum issues, or other neurological conditions. I remember when the Netherlands passed their "assisted" murder law years ago. I was against it then, and am even more against it now. No one has the right to kill someone else under the false guise of "assisted" suicide. Man, the NAZIs would have loved this "doctor." See below:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN NIEMÖLLER: "FIRST THEY CAME FOR THE SOCIALISTS..."

Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) was a prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps.

Niemöller is perhaps best remembered for the quotation:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

The quotation stems from Niemöller's lectures during the early postwar period. Different versions of the quotation exist. These can be attributed to the fact that Niemöller spoke extemporaneously and in a number of settings. Much controversy surrounds the content of the poem as it has been printed in varying forms, referring to diverse groups such as Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jews, Trade Unionists, or Communists depending upon the version. Nonetheless his point was that Germans—in particular, he believed, the leaders of the Protestant churches—had been complicit through their silence in the Nazi imprisonment, persecution, and murder of millions of people.

Only in 1963, in a West German television interview, did Niemöller acknowledge and make a statement of regret about his own antisemitism (see Gerlach, 2000, p. 47). Nonetheless, Martin Niemöller was one of the earliest Germans to talk publicly about broader complicity in the Holocaust and guilt for what had happened to the Jews. In his book Über die Deutsche Schuld, Not und Hoffnung (published in English as Of Guilt and Hope)—which appeared in January 1946—Niemöller wrote: "Thus, whenever I chance to meet a Jew known to me before, then, as a Christian, I cannot but tell him: 'Dear Friend, I stand in front of you, but we can not get together, for there is guilt between us. I have sinned and my people has sinned against thy people and against thyself.'"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I realize this has been a long post, but this is a serious matter that concerns everyone, and even more so for those who are less than "perfect" or "normal."

P.S. I'm having trouble submitting this post. I might have even posted it more than once, so don't be surprised if you see several copies of it.

I do not believe every suicide attempt should remain unchallenged, but I definitely agree as to premeditated murder being nothing other than premeditated murder even if the victim quite knowingly, willing and consciously ordered and paid to have it done. My mother died following four months of hospitalization following two botched back-to-back heart surgeries. She had a living will and a DNR order that should have been obeyed by the doctors when she suffered complete cardiac arrest the morning after the first surgery, but those doctors revived her anyway and performed a second surgery to try to keep her alive even though they had previously said what they did in the second surgery would not be needed. It was at that point (and while knowing her prognosis was quite bleak) that she told me she wanted to die...but the doctors refused to stop trying to keep her alive anyway. Four months later and after she had changed her mind and was wanting and trying to remain live, another doctor and a minister buttonholed (bullied) her with their thoughts about "quality of life" and she agreed (as pressured) to stop treatment and go to hospice. The next morning she made it quite clear that she did not want to do that, but the order had already been given and she never awoke from the sedation used to prepare her for transport. I call that murder.

Hmmm... this is a difficult ethical dilemma to talk about. I think euthanasia should be a case by case basis (and always with the explicit consent of the patient), and the way this particular case was handled was all wrong in so many ways. "I'm sure she acted in good faith" should NOT be a valid argument in a court of law. I wish that doctor would get the justice she deserved on Earth, but it looks like she'll have to wait till she's in Saint Peter's division.

I say that I'm somewhat for euthanasia being an option to discuss with a patient because my 93-year-old great-grandfather is still alive, has no signs of dementia, but he can't even get out of bed without a nurse helping him. It's frustrating for him and for his family because he's known for at least a year that he was ready to go. He was put in hospice care, which means that he stopped taking some medicines that were prolonging his life, but that didn't seem to have any effect. It's heartbreaking to see him that way because he's a decorated WWII vet and was very proud of his independence. Until a year ago, he could still drive and get around the house without a walker. He wanted to die at home with his freedom, but now he's in a nursing home. He doesn't have depression or dementia or any other mental illness, he has just accepted that his time is near and is ready to go. In that case, I think euthanasia would be justified as long as it was my great-grandfather's choice.

However, suicide attempts should be taken seriously and the person who attempts suicide should be given the appropriate mental health resources. Suicide isn't just "their business," it also hurts the family and friends left behind. Also, most people who commit or attempt suicide do it for reasons that could easily be fixed, given time and access to the proper resources. Their mental illness prevents them from seeing that.

I think this topic might be better off in PPR, I will just say that I believe this is murder as well and the Dutch policy of euthanasia is disgusting. These doctors that participate in this are a disgrace to their profession.

I think it's wrong for people to have to leave the world in this way. That old woman was forced to die. I'd hate to leave the world in that way. As for the people who would like to knock out people with autism and other special needs people, I feel that they're very evil people with a black bile that pumps right through their very bodies. Those people have no respect for human life whatsoever. Any way I look at it, it's murder.

If someone is incurably ill with no quality of life left whatsoever I don't see a problem with assisted suicide as long as they 100% want it and consent to it. It just brings the inevitable forward a bit.

However, this is outright murder.

I do understand consent would be needed in order for a doctor or someone to carry out the procedure, but the sufferer's personal desire and actual request -- "as long as they 100% want it" -- would always have to precede "consent" in order to keep others from suggesting or recommending it. My mother was pressured into "consent" for hospice and removal of treatment to bring about imminent death against her own will.

I'm sorry to hear about the woman's murder.

Last night, I participated in a thread here on WP where an autistic young woman talked about wanting to wander around at night, and a bunch more of us chimed in that we're the same way or can relate. Also, there are plenty of posts here on WP where Aspies and others with autism express fear and anger (The Haven comes to mind) ... So what, now all some NT has to do is claim someone exhibiting typical autistic behavior or signs or symptoms is "suffering intolerably" to justify killing us?

Euthanasia is evil ...
for everybody.

When does the right to die become the duty to die?