Serious attack on people soul : now they want to legalise Euthanasia

[mikeforjesus]

They are making it like we all on both sites like to debate these things for one person to shine. These are life and death issues. God set I set before you life and death therefore choose life

I thought the people still had a conscience and some good they did not pass it in Sydney recently we won. But I just heard it passed in another state of Australia: Victoria

This should never be up for a vote. I would not permit a nurse or doctor to kill someone I love even though he asks for it. Some may ask for it in their will but then refuse it later but because of his will you want to show no mercy and kill him ? Or even if he says no before and then says yes you are going to use that against him ? We believe in God who can change their mind in the last minute. When the man listened to Saul Who asked him to kill him instead of the philistines hurting him. David condemned the man who just listened to Saul. Religious people can lose their jobs if they refuse it. But God does not allow us to suffer more than we can bear there is always a way of escape if you did not ask for it.
Some of you will say that had nothing to do with euthanasia but Saul knew he would die from the prophecy of samuel when he raised him from the dead.

We can never know if someone can make someone suffer more than he can bear so if they can I leave that to God.. but you should be able to stop the work of those trying to kill you. But God would never let one suffer more than they can bear I know now

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I am heavily opposed to Euthanasia. Doctors are meant to preserve Life, not to take it.
We are taught resuscitation protocols, emergency drug regimens, to spot the telltale signs of impending collapse...
We are not meant to go against everything we are taught, to end the physiologic processes we fight tooth and nail to preserve.

If a patient is terminal, by all means we can withhold further intervention and let nature take its course. That is very different from active intervention to end it, to overdose our drugs.
In medical ethics there are the principles of Beneficience and non-Malevolence: To do good and to first do no harm. Euthanasia directly contradicts this, in my opinion, as we are harming the organism, and how are we to determine if we are doing good?

In the Netherlands there are elderly dementia sufferers being put to death. They are being dripped and euthanised kicking and screaming, denying they want it. When they were younger, they signed for it, or their caregivers agree to it now, but how are we to determine this is in their best interest? Perhaps if they were compis mentis, or perhaps even on this issue through their dementia they are, they would now have denied it?
There is no way to check or run a quality control of how Euthanasia was practiced or if it was legitimate.

In Belgium, they are accepting young, perfectly healthy individuals for Euthanasia - based on their will to die, their mental illness. That is not a treatment for severe depression, it is simply a negative outcome. If we are to medicalise depression or treat mental illness as actual illness, then on what grounds could we deny the mentally ill, when fairly apsychotic, the same rights to Euthanasia we would grant any other serious and frankly terminal, chronic illness?

This is treading dangerous ground. The ground of "useless eaters", Nazi Euthanasia programmes, and their ilk. We simply don't know if improvement could have occurred. I have seen people in ICU that everyone wrote off as vegetables, wake up, get extubated and walk out of hospital.
Euthanasia could easily see such individuals being given a dose of potassium and sent on their way.

Which brings a further point: ICUs are usually full. The pressure to open beds in ICU is quite high. I can see how doctors might feel pressured to suggest Euthanasia for patients with very poor prognoses, to make room for those with better chances. There was a case of a doctor and matron in Brazil that did just that, illegally, a few years ago. They thought they were doing good, trying to save those with better chances by freeing up beds clogged up with the almost moribund.
Similarly, I remember patients' families trying to pressure ICU staff to kill their relatives - for whatever reason. Usually it was someone that had a particularly cantankerous and ill in-law, and thought it would be better for all that way. They can be quite persistant, too.

No, Doctors should have nothing to do with this. The risks are too high of an unduly pressured or incorrect Euthanasia, and there is no way to bring someone back from the dead. The problems of allowing it for terminally ill, inevitably sees it extended to those with severe disability, then somewhat incapacitated, and as happened in Europe, snowballs down to arguments for the mentally-ill as well.
We should not be entrusted with such power, when 'Trolley experiment'- type choices for limited beds and care become inevitable.
Finally, it is against traditional Medical Ethics and the Oaths we took as we entered the profession.

It may seem cruel to let people suffer when terminal, instead of a merciful coup de grace, but with palliative care we can try and make them as comfortable as possible. If people really want this, they can kill themselves or with the assitance of a family member, they can even create a new profession of a Euthanist, but doctors should not be a party to it. Let people weigh it on their own conscience, not on others'. We don't know what awaits beyond the veil of death, so in my opinion, we have no right to hasten it. Better the devil you know...

Death is a part of life. Jesus wept at the grave of Lazarus. How are we to determine when is it murder and when Euthanasia? Murder for our own aims, however well intentioned, would still be murder. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

So: Do not go gentle into that good Night. Rage, rage against the dying of the Light.

 

[mikeforjesus]

Thankyou for your informative and sensitive caring reply.
If a person suffers when terminal I believe he is still alive with a mind. I do not want in my case for them to give permission to end my life or force anyone to do this.
We should be able to try to stop everyone from doing this atleast but we can't force people not to take their lives. Jesus said we ought to visit the sick not just to say I care but try to support them to endure such illnesses but it is very hard to stand by the sick by those accustomed to luxury but that does not excuse it.

 

[Christie insb]

I am heavily opposed to Euthanasia. Doctors are meant to preserve Life, not to take it.
We are taught resuscitation protocols, emergency drug regimens, to spot the telltale signs of impending collapse...
We are not meant to go against everything we are taught, to end the physiologic processes we fight tooth and nail to preserve.

If a patient is terminal, by all means we can withhold further intervention and let nature take its course. That is very different from active intervention to end it, to overdose our drugs.
In medical ethics there are the principles of Beneficience d and to first do no harm. Euthanasia directly contradicts this, in my opinion, as we are harming the organism, and how are we to determine if we are doing good?

In the Netherlands there are elderly dementia sufferers being put to death. They are being dripped and euthanised kicking and screaming, denying they want it. When they were younger, they signed for it, or their caregivers agree to it now, but how are we to determine this is in their best interest? Perhaps if they were compis mentis, or perhaps even on this issue through their dementia they are, they would now have denied it?
There is no way to check or run a quality control of how Euthanasia was practiced or if it was legitimate.

In Belgium, they are accepting young, perfectly healthy individuals for Euthanasia - based on their will to die, their mental illness. That is not a treatment for severe depression, it is simply a negative outcome. If we are to medicalise depression or treat mental illness as actual illness, then on what grounds could we deny the mentally ill, when fairly apsychotic, the same rights to Euthanasia we would grant any other serious and frankly terminal, chronic illness?

This is treading dangerous ground. The ground of "useless eaters", Nazi Euthanasia programmes, and their ilk. We simply don't know if improvement could have occurred. I have seen people in ICU that everyone wrote off as vegetables, wake up, get extubated and walk out of hospital.
Euthanasia could easily see such individuals being given a dose of potassium and sent on their way.

Which brings a further point: ICUs are usually full. The pressure to open beds in ICU is quite high. I can see how doctors might feel pressured to suggest Euthanasia for patients with very poor prognoses, to make room for those with better chances. There was a case of a doctor and matron in Brazil that did just that, illegally, a few years ago. They thought they were doing good, trying to save those with better chances by freeing up beds clogged up with the almost moribund.
Similarly, I remember patients' families trying to pressure ICU staff to kill their relatives - for whatever reason. Usually it was someone that had a particularly cantankerous and ill in-law, and thought it would be better for all that way. They can be quite persistant, too.

No, Doctors should have nothing to do with this. The risks are too high of an unduly pressured or incorrect Euthanasia, and there is no way to bring someone back from the dead. The problems of allowing it for terminally ill, inevitably sees it extended to those with severe disability, then somewhat incapacitated, and as happened in Europe, snowballs down to arguments for the mentally-ill as well.
We should not be entrusted with such power, when 'Trolley experiment'- type choices for limited beds and care become inevitable.
Finally, it is against traditional Medical Ethics and the Oaths we took as we entered the profession.

It may seem cruel to let people suffer when terminal, instead of a merciful coup de grace, but with palliative care we can try and make them as comfortable as possible. If people really want this, they can kill themselves or with the assitance of a family member, they can even create a new profession of a Euthanist, but doctors should not be a party to it. Let people weigh it on their own conscience, not on others'. We don't know what awaits beyond the veil of death, so in my opinion, we have no right to hasten it. Better the devil you know...

Death is a part of life. Jesus wept at the grave of Lazarus. How are we to determine when is it murder and when Euthanasia? Murder for our own aims, however well intentioned, would still be murder. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

So: Do not go gentle into that good Night. Rage, rage against the dying of the Light.

Your post is very good, taking into consideration that we will all die eventually. I work with elderly dementia patients and most of them know what's going on but make the best of their everyday lives. To think of killing them based on some misunderstanding they had when young would be tragic and foolish.

I wanted to bring up for discussion but I realize now that they are too complex to address in just one post, especially because I am ambivalent myself about some. One which I hope we realize is that we all are going to die. I don't believe in active euthanasia, but sometimes it seems Christians who don't see death and medical intervention think that we should prolong life to the extent that it becomes prolonging death. If I am much older and am living with pain or kidney dialysis, I may not want to be recessitated (? Can't spell it for the life of me and my keyboard doesn't know it either). Maybe God is calling me home, and as I am not in a position to make my wishes at that exact moment, I hope someone will step in for me and not call 911 or start CPR. I am not even firm on this point though because it's complicated, you know. So - - how do you add up care of the very ill and old?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Your post is very good, taking into consideration that we will all die eventually. I work with elderly dementia patients and most of them know what's going on but make the best of their everyday lives. To think of killing them based on some misunderstanding they had when young would be tragic and foolish.

I wanted to bring up for discussion but I realize now that they are too complex to address in just one post, especially because I am ambivalent myself about some. One which I hope we realize is that we all are going to die. I don't believe in active euthanasia, but sometimes it seems Christians who don't see death and medical intervention think that we should prolong life to the extent that it becomes prolonging death. If I am much older and am living with pain or kidney dialysis, I may not want to be recessitated (? Can't spell it for the life of me and my keyboard doesn't know it either). Maybe God is calling me home, and as I am not in a position to make my wishes at that exact moment, I hope someone will step in for me and not call 911 or start CPR. I am not even firm on this point though because it's complicated, you know. So - - how do you add up care of the very ill and old?

I don't know how it works there, but we have Do Not Resuscitate protocols in hospital - often called Not For Max by the caring teams. Essentially on admission we discuss the patient's prognosis with him or with his family, and based on how severely ill he is, we decide if we would actively resuscitate if things go south, or not.

Patients have to give consent for anything doctors do. If they wish to not have a procedure or treatment, that is their right. So the elderly that want to deny all treatment and die naturally, can do so; and those that want to cling to this mortal coil to the bitter end, can do so as well. Otherwise we can give palliative treatment, making them as comfortable as possible, while waiting for nature to take its course. I don't think we have the right to end lives - we can slow the onset of mortality, but dying is natural and inevitable. I think each has to face it on their own.

 

[Dawnhammer]

They are being dripped and euthanised kicking and screaming, denying they want it.

Any credible link for this claim?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Any credible link for this claim?

Panel clears Dutch doctor who asked family to hold patient down as she carried out euthanasia procedure

Dutch doctors against euthanasia for advanced dementia patients

 

[Dawnhammer]

Talk about ethical gaps miles wide. That is pretty disturbing case.

 

[Archie Dupont]

In the Netherlands there are elderly dementia sufferers being put to death. They are being dripped and euthanised kicking and screaming, denying they want it. When they were younger, they signed for it, or their caregivers agree to it now, but how are we to determine this is in their best interest? Perhaps if they were compis mentis, or perhaps even on this issue through their dementia they are, they would now have denied it?
There is no way to check or run a quality control of how Euthanasia was practiced or if it was legitimate.

As a former Dutch citizen I can attest to this actually being not true. There are three requirements for euthanesia in the Netherlands: the person needs to be in hopeless pain (no prospects of improvement). That pain needs to be unbareable and last the person needs to be legally competent to decide over his or her own fait at the very moment of euthanasia. Even if they sign a paper in advance that allows euthanasia, when they become demented later on, they are no longer legally competent and the doctor will not do it. There is actually a fourth unofficial requirement set in place by the doctors themselves. They will interview the patient multiple times over a long period of times to see if they haven't changed their minds (including interviews without their care givers present).

I understand that euthanasia is a difficult subject and I have my own (very disapproving) thoughts about it, but don't base your arguments on stuff that is simply false.

 

[mikeforjesus]

Man In Coma Listens Helplessly As Family Discusses Pulling The Plug

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

As a former Dutch citizen I can attest to this actually being not true. There are three requirements for euthanesia in the Netherlands: the person needs to be in hopeless pain (no prospects of improvement). That pain needs to be unbareable and last the person needs to be legally competent to decide over his or her own fait at the very moment of euthanasia. Even if they sign a paper in advance that allows euthanasia, when they become demented later on, they are no longer legally competent and the doctor will not do it. There is actually a fourth unofficial requirement set in place by the doctors themselves. They will interview the patient multiple times over a long period of times to see if they haven't changed their minds (including interviews without their care givers present).

I understand that euthanasia is a difficult subject and I have my own (very disapproving) thoughts about it, but don't base your arguments on stuff that is simply false.

Please address the newspaper articles I posted above them. It clearly states the guidelines were adjusted in 2015 to allow for the Euthanasia of elderly dementia sufferers and consequently 220 Dutch doctors came out in official opposition (2nd article).
We also see a reported case where just that was done, that was cleared by the ethics board - meaning for each reported case, many others are occurring.

I am sorry, but you need to present evidence of your statement. I have done so. Otherwise it remains just anecdotal.

Euthanasia ok’d for dementia patients who request it when lucid

 

[RedPonyDriver]

I watched my mother suffer horribly her last few months on earth. She went into a coma and would shriek incoherently as her brain twisted her body into an unnatural position and her muscles would spasm. If I could have legally ended her pain, I would have...but instead I had to stand by and watch the hellish suffering...it's one thing to have an academic discussion, it's quite another to live through it.

 

[Archie Dupont]

Please address the newspaper articles I posted above them. It clearly states the guidelines were adjusted in 2015 to allow for the Euthanasia of elderly dementia sufferers and consequently 220 Dutch doctors came out in official opposition (2nd article).
We also see a reported case where just that was done, that was cleared by the ethics board - meaning for each reported case, many others are occurring.

I am sorry, but you need to present evidence of your statement. I have done so. Otherwise it remains just anecdotal.

Euthanasia ok’d for dementia patients who request it when lucid

First for the evidence:
My statements are directly from Dutch lawmaking regarding euthanesia and personal experience with a family member having undergone the same hardship. Your evidence is a link to a newspaper that you quote directly fom without seeming to look for the source. I actually have:

I have put some research into the news article and found some Dutch news prints about it. They are actually a lot more in depth and explanatory than the British ones. Also a lot less drama invoking with word choice, but in essence you are right. This case stirred quite some controversy in the Netherlands. The doctor in question didn't act according to the proper guidelines and was reprimanded as she hadn't acted carefully enough even though she acted in good faith. The woman had previously clearly stated she didn't want to keep living if her mind didn't allow a normal life. She had been seen wandering in delirium through the nursing home apparently in great mental agony. For her type op dementia (Alzheimers) there is no cure and therefore all the boxes were ticked: unbareable suffering without prospect. The woman was indeed squirming on the table but reading the report of the commission I see no indication that it was because she didn't want to die. However the doctor should have indeed stopped the procedure and first investigated the restraint. That is the only thing she did wrong. Her actions were based on the conversations she had with the woman when she was still clear in the head, not based on the actual behaviour of a delirious patient.

As for your last point: demented people can indeed have euthanesia but only if they can still be communicated with. The doctor will only assist if a normal conversation is possible. At the moment the patient is no longer able to talk to the doctor euthanesia is not allowed. By the way even if the patient is able to communicate, the doctor is not obliged to assist. As euthanesia is still officially a murdercase in essence (the doctor can plea for dismissal of legal proceedings), most doctors will want to be sure before continuing and can refuse a requet whenever they want.

 

[mikeforjesus]

And will we again seek to change God law instead of trying to understand instead of our feelings. If you are going to do what you do I give no support in any way to it.I will try to discuss but maybe others are better than me to discuss.

 

[Ron Gurley]

God only should take and give life, from conception until medical/legal death. He alone has infinite and perfect Mercy and Love. His will be done!

Isaiah 42:5
Thus says God the Lord,
Who created the heavens and stretched them out,
Who spread out the earth and its offspring,
Who gives breath to the people on it
And SPIRIT to those who walk in it,

Zechariah 12:1B
Thus declares the Lord
who stretches out the heavens,
lays the foundation of the earth, and
forms the SPIRIT of man within him,(Body/Soul)

Psalm 33: 4-6 (NASB)...a Song of Praise to the Creator and Preserver.
For the word of the Lord is upright,
And all His work is done in faithfulness.
He loves righteousness and justice;
The earth is full of the lovingkindness of the Lord.
By the word of the Lord the heavens were made,
And by the breath of His mouth all their host.

Job 1:21
He said, “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, And naked I shall (DIE!). The Lord gave (LIFE!) and the Lord has taken away. Blessed be the name of the Lord.”

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

First for the evidence:
My statements are directly from Dutch lawmaking regarding euthanesia and personal experience with a family member having undergone the same hardship. Your evidence is a link to a newspaper that you quote directly fom without seeming to look for the source. I actually have:

I have put some research into the news article and found some Dutch news prints about it. They are actually a lot more in depth and explanatory than the British ones. Also a lot less drama invoking with word choice, but in essence you are right. This case stirred quite some controversy in the Netherlands. The doctor in question didn't act according to the proper guidelines and was reprimanded as she hadn't acted carefully enough even though she acted in good faith. The woman had previously clearly stated she didn't want to keep living if her mind didn't allow a normal life. She had been seen wandering in delirium through the nursing home apparently in great mental agony. For her type op dementia (Alzheimers) there is no cure and therefore all the boxes were ticked: unbareable suffering without prospect. The woman was indeed squirming on the table but reading the report of the commission I see no indication that it was because she didn't want to die. However the doctor should have indeed stopped the procedure and first investigated the restraint. That is the only thing she did wrong. Her actions were based on the conversations she had with the woman when she was still clear in the head, not based on the actual behaviour of a delirious patient.

As for your last point: demented people can indeed have euthanesia but only if they can still be communicated with. The doctor will only assist if a normal conversation is possible. At the moment the patient is no longer able to talk to the doctor euthanesia is not allowed. By the way even if the patient is able to communicate, the doctor is not obliged to assist. As euthanesia is still officially a murdercase in essence (the doctor can plea for dismissal of legal proceedings), most doctors will want to be sure before continuing and can refuse a requet whenever they want.

Actually, I am a medical doctor. I first learned of this from Ethics symposia I attended. I have also spoken to Dutch medical students that rotated through my hospital, that confirmed it as well. I posted newspapers as independant verifiable sources, so as not to expect people to take what I say merely on the authority of an anonymous internet poster. You are still on that level though.

I'd like to read the Dutch sources when I have time. Would you mind posting them? I am Afrikaans speaking, so I can follow written Dutch to some extent.

It really changes little to what I have said in any case. To Euthanise someone on the arbitrary fact that communication is still possible, for Dementia, is ludicrous. People with severe enough dementia that it could perhaps be warranted would not be in a fit state to give consent. How would one define 'communication' either? Would we take an arbitrary Mayo Mini Mental test cut-off?

In my opinion, doctors should not be a party to taking life. If the state wishes to allow Euthanasia, then a separate group of Euthanasists or people's family, should take it upon themselves. It is not within the scope of Medicine, as far as I am concerned. As I mentioned in my first post, it is difficult to police when it should be applied, whether it is reasonable to do so, and a lot of pressure could be placed on doctors by family, operational requirements, etc. and near impossible to conclusively determine prognosis in many cases. Such power should simply not be in the hands of mere men.

I appreciate the suffering people are going through. I worked in an ICU for a year and saw many sad cases. It is simply not something we humans are able to judge on our limited understanding and too prone to possible abuse or error. Palliative care, if done properly, can go a long way to easing the suffering of our final years.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I spoke with someone on this topic over the weekend and they made a good point:

As populations in Europe are aging, the countries allowing Euthanasia are likely going to increase. This will be due to the larger burden they would place on the social structure and medical establishment. On economic grounds, Euthanasia would be much cheaper for countries than long-lived dementia sufferers on welfare. It would also be much easier for the rest of the population, to just erase the problem as it were, and increasing awareness of the devastating effects of prodigious old age would make it far more palatable.

This is hypothetical, but seems to be the way the tide is turning. Economist published an issue in support of Euthanasia not so long ago, which essentially made a similar argument. Bleak days are ahead.

 

[Archie Dupont]

Actually, I am a medical doctor. I first learned of this from Ethics symposia I attended. I have also spoken to Dutch medical students that rotated through my hospital, that confirmed it as well. I posted newspapers as independant verifiable sources, so as not to expect people to take what I say merely on the authority of an anonymous internet poster. You are still on that level though.

I'd like to read the Dutch sources when I have time. Would you mind posting them? I am Afrikaans speaking, so I can follow written Dutch to some extent.

It really changes little to what I have said in any case. To Euthanise someone on the arbitrary fact that communication is still possible, for Dementia, is ludicrous. People with severe enough dementia that it could perhaps be warranted would not be in a fit state to give consent. How would one define 'communication' either? Would we take an arbitrary Mayo Mini Mental test cut-off?

In my opinion, doctors should not be a party to taking life. If the state wishes to allow Euthanasia, then a separate group of Euthanasists or people's family, should take it upon themselves. It is not within the scope of Medicine, as far as I am concerned. As I mentioned in my first post, it is difficult to police when it should be applied, whether it is reasonable to do so, and a lot of pressure could be placed on doctors by family, operational requirements, etc. and near impossible to conclusively determine prognosis in many cases. Such power should simply not be in the hands of mere men.

I appreciate the suffering people are going through. I worked in an ICU for a year and saw many sad cases. It is simply not something we humans are able to judge on our limited understanding and too prone to possible abuse or error. Palliative care, if done properly, can go a long way to easing the suffering of our final years.

First things first. Not all newspapers are independent verifiable sources. The way your sources put the issue into words it is clear they report this through the spectacles of their respective countries (not Dutch). To remove all doubt about the validity of both our news sources here is the direct link to the commission report of this particular case so you wont incorrectly state that I am on the level of an anonymous internet poster (I wonder where you got that impression), so lets not dwell on subjective newspapers and look at the report directly:

https://www.recht.nl/exit.html?id=2...eidseisen/oordeel-2016-85/Oordeel+2016-85.pdf

In this report we see indeed (as I have stated before) that the doctor acted in error and didn't apply by the rules even though she acted in good faith. She was reprimanded for that (in the Netherlands a very heavy consequence as you will no doubt know as a 'medical doctor'). Her actions do not reflect the common practice for doctors in the Netherlands and it would be misleading to qualify her actions as common practice in Holland (as you clearly try to do in you original post)

As for the position of doctors in the Netherlands, I think you have been wrongly informed by the Dutch students (that by incident apparently all have talked with you about this specific ethics subject but never mind that), they always have the freedom to participate with or refuse euthanasia. There are doctors who actually don't do it by principle and refer patients to other more lenient doctors. They are absolutely free to refuse these requests. A doctor can very easily remove him or herself from the position of being pressured by removing him or herself from the position of being the active physician.

Doctors are in this situation the very best best (and possibly only) people to support a patient through this process. They, like no other can be objective and have the knowledge and means to help the patient through this. Like I said, euthanasia is in principle a murder crime, and only doctors can get absolution from the law. If a private organisation or a family member would try such a procedure they would be prosecuted for murder, therefore the doctors are the only way to help the unfortunate people who suffer unbearable suffering without prospect.

 

[Archie Dupont]

I spoke with someone on this topic over the weekend and they made a good point:

As populations in Europe are aging, the countries allowing Euthanasia are likely going to increase. This will be due to the larger burden they would place on the social structure and medical establishment. On economic grounds, Euthanasia would be much cheaper for countries than long-lived dementia sufferers on welfare. It would also be much easier for the rest of the population, to just erase the problem as it were, and increasing awareness of the devastating effects of prodigious old age would make it far more palatable.

This is hypothetical, but seems to be the way the tide is turning. Economist published an issue in support of Euthanasia not so long ago, which essentially made a similar argument. Bleak days are ahead.

I think everyone (including yourself after reading this a few more times) will consider this absolutely unfounded backroom talk. As you very smartly point out: this was a point that was made, not an argument based on evidence and sources.

If euthanasia is indeed promoted, it is done based on humanitarian grounds and morality viewpoints. Why would someone be forced to suffer for years being paralyzed, just because he does not have the muscle power to pull the metaphorical trigger? The only reason euthanasia is making such progress is that lawmakers finally manage to break free from the religious lobby that have managed to halt this merciful progress for so many years.

Look at Italy, where a man was not allowed to be killed while being totally paralyzed for over 12 years just because the Vatican decided for him that his life was given to him by God and he should persevere through it and not abandon it. But lo and behold, when the pope was not physically fit anymore to be the pope (a position that is given by god to be held until death) he was allowed to walk away from that god given position without consequences?

A double standard at best

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

First things first. Not all newspapers are independent verifiable sources. The way your sources put the issue into words it is clear they report this through the spectacles of their respective countries (not Dutch).

Independant, as not just my say so and externally verifiable. It is expected that countries' newspapers would report news from their own perspectives.

To remove all doubt about the validity of both our news sources here is the direct link to the commission report of this particular case so you wont incorrectly state that I am on the level of an anonymous internet poster (I wonder where you got that impression), so lets not dwell on subjective newspapers and look at the report directly:

https://www.recht.nl/exit.html?id=219967&url=https://www.euthanasiecommissie.nl/binaries/euthanasiecommissie/documenten/publicaties/oordelen/2016/niet-gehandeld-overeenkomstig-de-zorgvuldigheidseisen/oordeel-2016-85/Oordeel+2016-85.pdf

Thank you. I'll have a look when I have time.
You are an anonymous internet poster though, as am I. Only our external sources mentioned here are actually verifiable. The rest of what a poster says is taken on authority.

In this report we see indeed (as I have stated before) that the doctor acted in error and didn't apply by the rules even though she acted in good faith. She was reprimanded for that (in the Netherlands a very heavy consequence as you will no doubt know as a 'medical doctor'). Her actions do not reflect the common practice for doctors in the Netherlands and it would be misleading to qualify her actions as common practice in Holland (as you clearly try to do in you original post)

I merely stated that such things occurred in the Netherlands, which you also know to be the case. To interpret it as if common practice is your own, not mine, so I vehemently object to your 'clearly'. How pray tell, did I 'clearly' mean for it to be interpreted in this manner? I just mentioned it as it illustrates the dangers of Euthanasia. I never said the Dutch are killing off old people willy-nilly, but that there are real abuses and errors of judgement - which are final in these cases.
You agree that such things have occurred, and even with guidelines that you have outlined, they remain very much a risk. This really does not change my argument one iota. This doctor was cleared in the inquest, for instance.

As for the position of doctors in the Netherlands, I think you have been wrongly informed by the Dutch students (that by incident apparently all have talked with you about this specific ethics subject but never mind that), they always have the freedom to participate with or refuse euthanasia. There are doctors who actually don't do it by principle and refer patients to other more lenient doctors. They are absolutely free to refuse these requests. A doctor can very easily remove him or herself from the position of being pressured by removing him or herself from the position of being the active physician.

Again, I never said all the students have talked to me about this - you are again reading things that aren't there in the text.

I realise they can refuse to practice Euthanasia. It is however not as you describe it. One can be pressured to do things you don't want to do. A doctor that in principle supports Euthanasia could be pressured into doing so for a borderline case, and referring it on is really not addressing the core problem.
It is never simple to look into pleading faces and say no, or to face difficult family members. It is clear to me that you have no experience here in this regard, if you believe it easy to 'not be pressured'.

My wife refused to do terminations of pregnancy when she was working as an Obstetrics and Gynaecology MO, and she was consistently pressured to do so - via extra clinic shifts or calls and by the consultants - in spite of the legal right to refuse to do so. Some of her colleagues caved to it.

Doctors are in this situation the very best best (and possibly only) people to support a patient through this process. They, like no other can be objective and have the knowledge and means to help the patient through this. Like I said, euthanasia is in principle a murder crime, and only doctors can get absolution from the law. If a private organisation or a family member would try such a procedure they would be prosecuted for murder, therefore the doctors are the only way to help the unfortunate people who suffer unbearable suffering without prospect.

I disagree. Doctors should have no part in Euthanasia. No doctor is ever objective when it comes to his patients' wellbeing, or he is a poor excuse for a physician. One fights for your patients, tooth and nail. It is also very difficult to determine prognosis, so 'expertise' here should be laced with umpteen caveats.
I have also addressed why systemic and institutional factors may bias them as well.
The dangers inherent to Euthanasia, of abuses and errors, make it simply beyond the pale, as far as I am concerned.

I think everyone (including yourself after reading this a few more times) will consider this absolutely unfounded backroom talk. As you very smartly point out: this was a point that was made, not an argument based on evidence and sources.

If euthanasia is indeed promoted, it is done based on humanitarian grounds and morality viewpoints. Why would someone be forced to suffer for years being paralyzed, just because he does not have the muscle power to pull the metaphorical trigger? The only reason euthanasia is making such progress is that lawmakers finally manage to break free from the religious lobby that have managed to halt this merciful progress for so many years.

Look at Italy, where a man was not allowed to be killed while being totally paralyzed for over 12 years just because the Vatican decided for him that his life was given to him by God and he should persevere through it and not abandon it. But lo and behold, when the pope was not physically fit anymore to be the pope (a position that is given by god to be held until death) he was allowed to walk away from that god given position without consequences?

A double standard at best

Promoted on humanitarian grounds, but there are clear economic motives in its favour as well. Slavery only ended in mediaeval Europe when serfdom was more economical...One should not underestimate the power of economic factors. It would not be the first time that self-interest and a campaign for 'the common good' would coincide.

Euthanasia and retirement aren't really comparable. Catholicism didn't Euthanise their Pope, nor ever claim that average people shouldn't retire. There had been a previous retired Pope, Celestine V, who was made a saint no less. You are being disingenuous.


You seem to be taking some personal affront to my posts and reading things into them that simply aren't there. This may be my final response to you in this regard, as it is appears that we would perhaps not be able to have much of a fruitful discussion.