I’m cautiously in favor of legalising euthanasia. Giving people the chance to die with dignity is the right thing to do: but I’m nervous about the following combination of factors:
- the last few months of a person’s life are the most expensive
- we have a socialised healthcare system facing a perpetual budget crisis
- our public debates and government policy directions are influenced by a clique of deranged neoliberal psychopaths who seem to be indifferent to the value of human life
Not hard to see how we could start out giving patients, doctors and families the right to make end of life decisions and wind up somewhere else.
This read as considered until you dropped in the obligatory “neoliberal” commie party line.
Comment by har — July 22, 2010 @ 7:42 am
Sol: Why, in my day, you could buy meat anywhere! Eggs they had, real butter! Fresh lettuce in the stores.
Det. Thorn: I know, Sol, you told me before. Soylent Green.
I am quite relaxed about euthanasia, Would need to be tightly monitored and we could employ people with Philosophy degrees as ethicists in the process.
Not to sure about the NeoLiberals, I think it gets derailed by the religious conservatives types who value life above all else no matter what harm it does to the person living it (see also, abortion debate).
Comment by andy (the other one) — July 22, 2010 @ 8:04 am
I think it gets derailed by the religious conservatives types who value life above all else no matter what harm it does to the person living it
I don’t think they have that much influence in the arena of public debate – we’re much more likely to hear arguments of the ‘elderly patients with no capital assets threaten the integrity of the DHB budget process’ type taken seriously and published as op-eds etc.
Comment by danylmc — July 22, 2010 @ 8:09 am
ooohh… you mean that if we can’t fleece the last dollar from them in a retirement home, perhaps we can just shuffle them off to the abattoir?
noted, and agreed.
Comment by che tibby — July 22, 2010 @ 8:18 am
It is fine with me from an ethics point of view. The concerns I have are around people getting pressured into it for the convenience of others.
Comment by Roger Parkinson — July 22, 2010 @ 8:58 am
In theory legalising euthanasia makes sense but how does it work in practice?
At some stage the terminally ill patient will no longer be capable of making a rational decision and therefore it falls upon the next of kin to act on their wishes. How do you get agreement if, say, the husband or wife of the patient say ‘yes’ but some of the children say ‘no’? Will we see bitter court cases?
We can’t get the organ donation system to work properly because their is a next of kin veto, so how will an even more important decision about the life and death of people work?
So I’m opposed, maybe I will change my mind when someone close to me dies a long and painful death but at the moment I see too many problems with allowing a ‘right to die’.
Comment by ieuan — July 22, 2010 @ 9:01 am
At some stage the terminally ill patient will no longer be capable of making a rational decision and therefore it falls upon the next of kin to act on their wishes. How do you get agreement if, say, the husband or wife of the patient say ‘yes’ but some of the children say ‘no’? Will we see bitter court cases?
Could the patient not make the decision binding ‘while of sound mind’?
Comment by Stephen — July 22, 2010 @ 9:08 am
our public debates and government policy directions are influenced by a clique of deranged neoliberal psychopaths who seem to be indifferent to the value of human life
FFS, Danyl, where do you get all that petrol soaked straw from?
Comment by Craig Ranapia — July 22, 2010 @ 9:24 am
“Retirement Age” will take on new meaning. The Logan’s Run Rest Home has very attractive rates.
Aside from this: Nurses ever helpful, anticipating patient’s needs, I think that society will quickly move to send the message: “don’t be a burden”. It will be interesting to see how many aging environmentalists there are if this bill takes off. Or do they only want capitalists to stop sucking oxygen?
Comment by ZenTiger — July 22, 2010 @ 9:27 am
‘elderly patients with no capital assets threaten the integrity of the tax cutz process’
Fixed.
Comment by Pascal's bookie — July 22, 2010 @ 9:29 am
Anyway, let’s tell the truth without the “neoliberal” sneer. If we tell the truth, Oprah and an endless cavalcade of inspirational “disease of the week” tele-movies LIE. Old people and the terminally-ill aren’t just expensive, they’re scary and smelly and too busy dying in excruciating, unrelenting discomfort to drop life-changing bon-mots in our willing ears.
We really don’t like the old, and fear death. If a Kervorkian smoothie is going to make all that inconvenient discomfort and inconvenience go away, why not grab it with both hands.
Comment by Craig Ranapia — July 22, 2010 @ 9:31 am
We really don’t like the old, and fear death
I do quite like a lot of my elderly relatives and if any of them were terminally ill I wouldn’t want them to suffer in agony for months if they wanted to die. But I wouldn’t want a physician to recommend they be euthinised because the oncology department had a cashflow crisis.
Comment by danylmc — July 22, 2010 @ 9:35 am
It probably wouldn’t be an especially neoliberal problem – bureaucratic would do just as well.
But I can’t help thinking the actual argument reminds me of something: ‘It’s about CHOICE!’ and never mind which party would actually be making the decisions.
Comment by lyndon — July 22, 2010 @ 9:47 am
Danylmac:
Oh, I loved my grandfather — asking a nurse to change his piss-sodden pants and wipe his arse like a toddler because the stink was making me gag? Not at all, and I’m not proud to admit that at that moment I’d have cheerfully (and selfishly) put pillow over his face and pressed down hard.
In the end, if I had an easy answer I’d have shared it with the group already. But I don’t really think it’s a useful contribution to discussion to create a murderous neo-liberal straw-man. The only I’ve ever heard suggesting geronticidal cost management have been entirely facetious.
Comment by Craig Ranapia — July 22, 2010 @ 10:12 am
a good argument for a Funder/Provider split. Subsidies tend to end once the patient dies.
Comment by NeilM — July 22, 2010 @ 10:12 am
Another great post, Danyl.
Comment by The Big Dog — July 22, 2010 @ 10:31 am
Isn’t euthanasia a crime as grave as trying to ordain women ?
Comment by vibenna — July 22, 2010 @ 10:36 am
I reckon it would lead to the creation of another power of attorney document, similar to the existing Enduring Power of Attorney, except this new one would delegate the fateful decision to another person, usually the spouse. Except the spouse is also usually the main beneficiary of the estate, including the life insurance proceeds. At which point the insurance company would not pay out the insurance proceeds, since every insurance policy has a clause basically saying the benficiary cannot have had a hand in the life assured’s death.
A minefield.
Surely if someone is still of sound mind and some limited mobility, and wants to die, a slow swim to Chile seems like a dignified option. That’s my plan, anyway.
Comment by Pat — July 22, 2010 @ 10:58 am
vibenna:
Oy… so if you’ve got qualms about euthanasia you’re not only a murderous neo-liberal but no better than a misogynistic fundie? We’re really not going to get this debate out of the Marianas Trench, are we?
Comment by Craig Ranapia — July 22, 2010 @ 11:16 am
@Danylmc
I think its is squeaky wheel syndrome in policy debate like the sensible scentencing trust, family first types and the Catholic church lady, they make a hell of a noise and sway debates, even when polling tells us the public feel otherwise.
Comment by andy (the other one) — July 22, 2010 @ 11:47 am
and we should start on the National party.
Comment by kerry — July 22, 2010 @ 12:19 pm
Craig, I think vibenna was referring to this recent news story:
The Vatican issued a set of new rules in how they would handle discipline within the Church. Their new rules puts the ordination of female priests alongside pedophilia as a serious crimes which will be subject to investigation.
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Female-priests-as-sinful-as-child-abuse-says-Vatican-98596864.html
Comment by Ataahua — July 22, 2010 @ 12:49 pm
Gruen Transfer in Australia had ads based on euthanasia last night, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5neAm_wT3Q
Quite funny, but serious at the same time.
Comment by Brad H — July 22, 2010 @ 1:00 pm
There are a lot of ‘grey area’ issues, but that shouldn’t affect people who have clearly, of their own free will, said they want to die. I agree there would be problems if someone agrees to be euthanised after someone else has started that conversation, or if they made the decision while going through a bad patch and haven’t had time to reconsider. But if someone’s physical condition has been bad for a while and is not going to improve at all, and they have initiated the discussion, then they should be allowed to die, if that’s what they want. Probably the law should require that someone make a good faith effort to talk them out of it first.
Comment by Helenalex — July 22, 2010 @ 1:23 pm
@Ataahua: Last time I looked Benedict XVI is head of state of the Vatican City not New Zealand – a country where Catholic canon law has no legal effect. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
@Helenlex: There’s some rather interesting implications in a statement like “There are a lot of ‘grey area’ issues, but that shouldn’t affect people who have clearly, of their own free will, said they want to die.” I guess someone should ask John Pollock if he’d prescribe a lethal overdose to someone with a history of severe depression who just didn’t want to go through that ever again. Or, for that matter, would any doctor euthanise me if I lost my sight, and coldly decided any life where I couldn’t ever read a book, or watch a movie, or go to an art gallery just wasn’t worth living.
Comment by Craig Ranapia — July 22, 2010 @ 4:47 pm
Craig – blind wouldn’t cut it, and neither would depression. No assistance needed in either case to end life.
If however you were in a completely dependant state…
Comment by taranaki — July 22, 2010 @ 4:59 pm
I wonder if some of the people criticising Danyl’s last bullet point there are misinterpreting. He said “influenced”, not “controlled”; I doubt he would say that John Key or Bill English, for example, are “deranged neoliberal psychopaths” who are “indifferent to the value of human life”. I think it’s an entirely appropriate description, however, for several members of the Business Roundtable, who I imagine have some non-zero degree of influence.
Comment by derp de derp — July 22, 2010 @ 7:15 pm
“I reckon it would lead to the creation of another power of attorney document…”
- Pat
You already can give power of attorney to another person to make decisions about your life, once you are no longer capable of making those decisions yourself. That’s really the point of it and it includes your healthcare. My Dad has given me power of attorney and explicitly told me in what sort of circumstances he would want his life ended. Of course, at the moment, this is limited to turning of life support, DNR orders, palliative care only etc.
What you’re talking about is involuntary euthanasia because these documents are only really necessary when the person can’t make the decision in the circumstances and is already possible. It’s voluntary euthanasia we’re talking about. The person requesting, while of sound mind, a doctor to actively cause their death – the actual action might not be immediately when the request is made, but an advance directive could be given. Much the same way you can give advance directives for passive means such as DNR orders – something that is possible because we certainly do have the right to refuse medical treatment.
“But I wouldn’t want a physician to recommend they be euthinised because the oncology department had a cashflow crisis.”
- Danyl
I don’t think that would be a realistic implication of a well defined law allowing for active euthanasia. This would at the least be highly unethical. And in any case, do you think there isn’t this ability already present? It’s a possible occurrence in terms of withdrawal of medical treatment, but we don’t say that no one is allowed to make that decision but the patient him/herself because physicians might abuse their powers.
I don’t think it’s that big a problem anyway, based on my own experience of having to turn off my mother’s life support. This idea that has been thrown about that doctors are going to start forcing people to take it is a bit bizarre to me – in my experience, most medical professionals do have their patients’ best interests at heart. There’s always going to be someone who might break the rules, but that’s no reason not to do something.
Comment by Karyn — July 22, 2010 @ 7:27 pm
The debate needs to be engaged.
Which government is going to have the nerve to open it?
Comment by peterlepaysan — July 22, 2010 @ 9:32 pm
Does anyone know how many of the elderly already take this path? Suicides are deliberately not reported well in this country but I keep hearing our young people suicide rate is high. I don’t know about elderly though. Does anyone else know? Surely if it is happening heaps already on a do-it-yourself basis then legitimizing it could be discussed.
Comment by Roger Parkinson — July 22, 2010 @ 10:27 pm
You’ve lost me Craig. I will say, though, that I don’t believe vibenna was being serious.
Comment by Ataahua — July 23, 2010 @ 7:44 am
[...] Dim Post is cautiously in favour of legalising euthanasie but also sees the dangers in death panels. [...]
Pingback by Right to die gives right to kill « Homepaddock — July 23, 2010 @ 8:51 am
@Ataahua: Sorry about that. Just failing to see the relevance of the Catholic Church’s position on the ordination of women, given that we don’t actually live in a Catholic theocracy. I sure hope Vibenna wasn’t being serious, but it’s not exactly useful (or amusing) to dismiss anyone who has qualms around physician-assisted suicide as little better than drooling religious fundies.
@Taranaki: John Pollock isn’t in a “completely dependent” state, but I think I posed a fair question.
Comment by Craig Ranapia — July 23, 2010 @ 9:04 am