Euthanasia

[Open Access] Lerner BH, Caplan AL. Euthanasia in Belgium and the Netherlands: On a Slippery Slope?. JAMA Intern Med. Published online August 10, 2015. http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2426425

Part of the problem with the slippery slope is you never know when you are on it. Is the use of euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide appropriate for 1 of 20 to 25 dying patients? What if the next round of data indicates that the number has increased to 1 of 10 or 15 patients? Careful, independent studies are crucial to ensure that the safeguards put in place in the Netherlands and Belgium are working and that these end-of-life strategies remain ones of last resort for desperate individuals, not the wrong response to frailty and loneliness.

The European data are particularly relevant for the United States. Although proven interventions that ease the suffering of dying patients, such as hospice and palliative care, remain underused, 25 state legislatures and the District of Columbia have considered legislation related to physician-assisted dying during 2015.10Versions of physician-assisted dying are already allowed by legislation in Oregon, Washington, and Vermont and by court decisions in Montana and New Mexico. A 2014 Gallup poll found that 7 of 10 Americans believe physicians should be allowed to “legally end a patient’s life by some painless means.”6Meanwhile, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in February 2015 that terminally ill patients in that country have the right to physician-assisted suicide.

Although the euthanasia practices in the Netherlands and Belgium are unlikely to gain a foothold in the United States, a rapidly aging population demanding this type of service should give us pause. Physicians must primarily remain healers. There are numerous groups that are potentially vulnerable to abuses waiting at the end of the slippery slope—the elderly, the disabled, the poor, minorities, and people with psychiatric impairments. When a society does poorly in the alleviation of suffering, it should be careful not to slide into trouble. Instead, it should fix its real problems.
 
Disturbing pic here


Incidentally, that was actually also Mother Teresa's position on suffering which is why despite the gi-hugic contributions made to the "Missionaries of Charity" the place she ran in Calcutta never got improved and neither did the level of poverty there.

Actually alleviating their suffering would have been an affront to their closeness to Christ.


I have no issue with religion but Mother Teresa was a worthless whore in my book.
 
Incidentally, that was actually also Mother Teresa's position on suffering which is why despite the gi-hugic contributions made to the "Missionaries of Charity" the place she ran in Calcutta never got improved and neither did the level of poverty there.

Actually alleviating their suffering would have been an affront to their closeness to Christ.


I have no issue with religion but Mother Teresa was a worthless whore in my book.
Religion is a lot like a penis. I don't care if you have one, just don't force it into my life....

This means knocking on my door on a sunday morning, blowing up a bunch of people in the name of your god.... ETC.
 
You have a constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness. But if we looked at it like that, then the police shouldn't have to help you, fire department shouldn't have to put out your fire, worker laws shouldn't exist, minorities shouldn't have the rights to be served in any establishment, etc. There are countless services that we have rights to that the government doesn't own. When the service provided greatly impacts public health, it's a no brainier. The ability to have quality healthcare should never be contingent on the ability to pay. We've created a system where it's profitable to keep people unhealthy. What do you think that system produces?

The police don't have to help you nor does the FD have to put out your fire (unless it poses a danger to the public at large). The SCOTUS has reiterated this point in over a dozen cases. e.g.

"...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)

"Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)
 
Back
Top