![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Issue:
Dorothy Terwilliger lies immobilized in a hospital bed, unable to move. She has end-stage cancer, and wishes to end her struggle against death. However, laws prevent her doctors from obeying her wishes.
The Debate:
The Government Position:
- Dorothy and her family are campaigning for a "Dying with Dignity" bill, to change this situation. She implores the government to legalize euthanasia.
- "I understand this is a very difficult time for these people," says freelance medical writer Buy Wall. "But the solution is not to let our medical system slide down the slippery slope of killing people in pain. We must cure, not kill. This is not the right time for euthanasia."
- "I agree, but go further: there is never a right time for euthanasia," says Bishop Roger Falopian. "The lives we lead are given to us by the grace of God, and he decides when they end. It is not for us to question God's divine purpose, no matter how odd or screwed-up it may seem."
The government has yet to formalize a position on this issue.
My thoughts:
While on one hand, I like the idea of reduced suffering, I'm not certain that I want to place the power of ending life in the hands of physicians. Were this an assisted suicied debate, it would be much easier to support. As it is, I'm leaning toward either 'not the time right now', or just dismissing the issue. Of course, this leaves Dorothy to suffer. As for the Bishop's position, I don't want religion involved with government, for so very many reasons.
What do y'all think?
(no subject)
Issue #2 is illogical. It's based on the slippery-slope argument and as such is unsound. Your options are #1 and #3.
If you go with #3, you're going to have some interesting repercussions since it's all religious.
It's time to ask the question - WWBD? :)
(no subject)
In this case, M. Terwilliger is asking for the law, but a law allowing euthanasia seems distinct to me from allowing people to assist one in taking one's own life. In euthanasia, the definition of 'mercy' is up to the person committing the act.
If M. Terwilliger were to ask for protection from prosecution of those who assisted her in preparing the means for her to take her own life, I wouldn't hesitate to sign it into law. To my mind, euthanasia is a horse of a different color.
(no subject)
the difference
I feel that if M. Terwilliger were petitioning to take her own life, I'd help her in a heartbeat. One of the primary safeguards must be that the patient wishing to die must be able to administer the lethal dose to themselves, even if that is by means of an elaborate device that just allows them to
pushactivate the button on a machine that does it for them. At the critical moment of action, it has to be between the patient and the Univers, with no mediation on the part of other humans.The law M. Terwilliger requests does not do this.
Re: the difference
Re: the difference
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
I don't see it that way. The decision - the power - to end life woudl still be in the hands of the sufferer. The doctor may be the tool, but the POWER would still remain with the only person who has the right to make that decision.
It is not a decision I would personally make, regardless of the pain. For myself, I would always err in favor of hope. But I do understand the perspective of one who has nothing to look forward to for the next several months except pain or unconsciousness choosing to put an end to that, and to the incredibly steep cost of maintaining his/her life to no perceivable outcome except death.
Also, the family should be allowed to get on with grieving, and then get on with living their own lives.
Naturally, there should be some very specific legal/medical conditions in place for those considering euthenasia. Degree of suffering and treatability not least among them.
(no subject)
The law as is proposed is too vague.