|
Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!
|
| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Gadget Girl |
Posted - July 18 2002 : 10:42:51 PM
OK GIRLS! (Ilse, in particular - and I have NOT forgotten the Iraq question I posed, just not enough time to sit and post my thought yet)
I'm taking a Professional Ethics class this summer, and in the last few days we have been discussing the different approaches and defenses of both sides of the euthanasia issue. Five or six states in the US have tried to make laws governing the practice of physician-assisted suicide without much success. The Supreme Court has left the issue up to individual states as they concurred that suicide was not a constitutional right. Oregon passed a Death with Dignity law in 1997, however John Ashcroft has vowed to do something about that.
In our discussions we looked at how the Act Utilitarian would address a case (on a case by case basis for the "happiness" of the majority) and how the Rule Utilitarian would defend a rule either for or against it, and that the pure Kantian perspective would be to respect life absolutely, no euthanasia for any reason for the human should not use his body as a means, or instrument, to an end. In discussions on the Rule Utilitarian view on being FOR euthanasia, I had great discomfort with the way the majority of folks were leaning (e.g. Euthanasia allowed only if the patient can give voluntary consent to a particular procedure). And I know there are many different viewpoints, in many different scenarios and cases, and I'm not trying to fish for opinions really here. The question I have regards one of the defenses of the FOR argument in that it was suggested that we have to have *voluntary consent* (no consent by proxy or legal guardian)to prevent humanity, in future generations perhaps, from sliding down "the slippery slope" toward going beyond the intention of merely relieving physical suffering. I stated that this excludes all children and mentally incapacitated individuals from relief of suffering. Saying it was only OK for rational, consenting adults to have the priviledge of relief of suffering. I took issue there, BUT then this evening I read an article about the "EXIT BAGS" that have been manufactured in Canada and Australia. Exit bags consisting of a medication, such as Nembutol, being given rendering the patient unconscious and then a bag is placed snuggly over the head (of course I'm thinking here that some assistance would be necessary since I would have difficulty performing THAT task once unconscious) and death results from hypoxia. A type of self-inflicted suicide that is pain free (of course the stance of the church is that pain free or not, active or passive, it is still not moral) and preferable to starvation or other painful means. The point of this article that caught my attention was that depressed elderly women were being targeted as this method only costs about $30. This already looks like "slope sliding" to me, assuming the most humane intentions fostered this law. So my question to you, Ilse in particular, since physician-assisted suicide is legal in Holland (and Switzerland), are there any stipulations in place with your laws that prevent its use for intentions other than relief of *physical* suffering (prevent its use for *psychological* suffering as is being attempted in Australia), rules to prevent the temptation of the slippery slope per se? Or is it simply viewed as a person's choice, in which case the view IS simple?
I promise this is not an attempt to have you guys do a paper for me!! Just *wrassling* in my own mind with this issue.
 Diana
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Ilse |
Posted - November 10 2002 : 1:15:42 PM
It does, indeed. Well, he doesn't seem all that eager to rid the earth of his own harmfull presence, though..... |
| Scott Bubar |
Posted - November 09 2002 : 7:12:55 PM
Ilse, this reads like something out of a grade "B" sixties sci-fi novel! |
| Ilse |
Posted - November 09 2002 : 6:10:37 PM
Somewhat offbeat, but maybe very true to the title "a slippery slope" 
Church of Euthanisia under scrutiny
Amsterdam - Justice department in Amsterdam will closely follow the performance of house artist Chris Korda of the Church of Euthanasia next Wednesday in Paradiso.
The American Korda calls himself pastor and is against the multiplication of the human race. He promotes suicide, euthanasia and cannibalism. According to Korda, man is destroying the earth.
Senator Rouvoet of the Christian Union questioned state secretary Donner of Justice on the subject. The Amsterdam council member Res (Christian Democrats) asked Mayor Cohen to prohibit the meeting. This is only possible, according to the Mayor, if a disturbance of public order is expected. This is not the case. The Justice Department does not foresee problems either.
A crowd puller the Church of Euthanasia isn't. Paradiso, which is housed in a former church, has not sold more than a dozen tickets yet.
|
| Lainey |
Posted - October 30 2002 : 11:52:13 PM
It's been a pleasure to fight with y'all! I've thoroughly enjoyed it!!! 
I think the forum is working as it's supposed to & I hope to see it continue to do so. It sure keeps you on your toes!
As stated before, all opinions are welcomed & sought after ... BUT, be prepared to back up what you say with logical arguments & reasoned reflections. Or the lions will pounce ... 
Thanks for the link, Ilse. Will be awaiting these developments.
"Fides et Ratio" |
| Ilse |
Posted - October 25 2002 : 2:47:32 PM
Thanks for the compliments, guys  I feel the same way about you, but you know that. One of the reasons I posted my "confession" here, was also to show, that, even though some people have had negative experiences, this forum does what it was meant to do, what it was created to do. We exchange viewpoints, exchange arguments, and sometimes, as in this case, someone realizes his/her opinion does not cover the whole range of sides or the complexity to a topic. What can I say? Read carefully, think carefully. Be open.
Lainey, I haven't yet found any new information on the hearing, but I'll surely post it when I find it. In the meantime here's the link to the Council of Europe:
http://www.coe.int/portalT.asp
HM, yes, the Creation vs Evolution thread is a particular good one too!
Ilse
Edited by - Ilse on October 25 2002 2:50:51 PM |
| Adele |
Posted - October 24 2002 : 1:26:28 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Lainey:
Wow, Ilse! That's astounding ...
Questions regarding Human Rights/Right to Life & euthanasia have been neglected & avoided like a black plague. Please do update the council's hearing & investigations. I'd be very interested in its discoveries & developments.
Regarding your personal note; I'm flattered! :)
If I might turn those tables ... only an honest, intellectually/morally focused person would allow herself/himself to relect upon & challenge such firmly held beliefs - and state so publicly. My respect, Ilse.
"Fides et Ratio"
Couldn't agree more (with both of you!)...Ilse and I discussed our enjoyment of this section of the board at some length the other night. Ilse's comments about the Euthanasia topic were similar to how I felt about the Creation vs Evolution thread. I don't think I posted on that subject, but I thoroughly enjoyed the excellent, informed and articulate perspectives. Much food for thought there.
If I might join in the little group appreciation going on here, I would like to compliment you both. I don't know anyone who can put her views across as well as you Lainey, you should be considered the perfect example of how to debate on this board. And as for Ilse, well.....last year she came to visit me for a couple of days, then we went to the gathering, and then we spent a couple more days in NC together afterwards. We must have discussed every major topic going and we seldom agreed on anything!! (sorry Rich, your idea of a European mindset just doesn't work where we are concerned!  ) The way I see it, it made for consistently stimulating conversation - just ask the poor man who got trapped sitting between us at a bar on our first night in Charlotte!!
One last thing, I know I have a tendency to forget sometimes...is not only does Ilse also present an informed and articulate case...she also does it in a second language.
HM
|
| Lainey |
Posted - October 24 2002 : 02:19:04 AM
Wow, Ilse! That's astounding ...
Questions regarding Human Rights/Right to Life & euthanasia have been neglected & avoided like a black plague. Please do update the council's hearing & investigations. I'd be very interested in its discoveries & developments.
Regarding your personal note; I'm flattered! :)
If I might turn those tables ... only an honest, intellectually/morally focused person would allow herself/himself to relect upon & challenge such firmly held beliefs - and state so publicly. My respect, Ilse.
"Fides et Ratio" |
| Ilse |
Posted - October 22 2002 : 6:29:45 PM
In the news in Europe on this subject:
The Council of Europe will hold a parliamentary hearing on euthanisia in Europe coming Friday (October 25). The human rights organization, in which 44 European countries participate, has announced this last Monday.
The hearing is the starting point of a large investigation that the Council will do into the inconsistency of euthanasia laws with the European Treaty on Human Rights.
The Council of Europe has been very critical on the subject of euthanasia since the acceptance of the law in the Netherlands in April 2000. The then reporter on the rights of terminal patients, the Austrian Edeltraud Gatterer, was very adament that the Dutch euthanasia law violated the right to life in the Treaty.
After last year in Belgium a more farreaching law was planned -which has been accepted in the meantime- the parliamentary meeting of the Council of Europe decided to appoint a new reporter, specialized on the subject of euthanasia. This report is expected to be finished somewhere next year, and will then be debated upon by the parliamentary assembly.
In this assembly parliamentarians of the 44 member states (including the Netherlands) have a seat.
-----
I thought that would be newsworthy to you guys that have contributed their thoughts to this thread. On a more personal note though, I jumped at the opportunity to bring up this thread once more. It's my personal highlight of this forum, as of yet. I entered it with a fixed opinion on the subject, based on the common public opinion in the Netherlands. However, the arguments offered by Lainey surely smashed any certainties I had, and I'm still pondering a new position today. Lainey, you're an ace!
Ilse
|
| Lainey |
Posted - July 20 2002 : 8:16:09 PM
No - thank YOU, all, for engaging the debate & Diana for presenting the challenge.
Diana, your P Ethics class sounds very stimulating. Could you continue to post topics as they arise and keep us a bit updated on developing consensus.
Lainey
PS Christie, thanks! But ... my background's not much more than my background.
|
| Ilse |
Posted - July 20 2002 : 5:12:16 PM
Wow, Elaine, what a post! You've sure given me lots to think about
Thank you, for making me question once again those things I'd already considered fait accomplit.
|
| Christie |
Posted - July 20 2002 : 10:07:08 AM
Lainey,
You always post the most profound statements. I don't know your background, but you should be a lawyer or college professor. Compared to the meager scraps I gave Diana, I think you posts are an absolute banquet of food for thought. I never took philosophy classes in college and my knowledge of law doesn't extend past television so I don't have much ground to stand on. But I do agree with you, I can't see the courts or government sanctioning suicide for the very points you made ethically and legally.
Christie
|
| Lainey |
Posted - July 20 2002 : 05:21:00 AM
“Out of the crooked timber of humanity no straight thing can ever be made.”
- Immanuel Kant
Perhaps Kantian philosophy can be summed up with this one assessment of man’s inability
to ever get it right on his own. Or, thank God for God.
Regarding euthanasia & law; it isn’t quite correct to say prohibitions and legislations are
derived from particular religious beliefs, or that religion is being afforded an unmerited
influential voice upon social justice. Sound laws are founded upon ethics & consensus of common
good, both necessary elements for any society to function & both reflective of a multitude
of wisdoms, including those found among religious tenets and medical/social ethicists. As
I’ve argued before, the silencing of religious philosophy is foolish, unjust, & fatal.
Religious thought is very much about social justice, & therefore, as worthy of
consideration as are the thoughts of doctors, pragmatists, sentimentalists, professors,
lawyers, accountants, et al. The denial of religious philosophy to be heard in matters of
law and/or social issues in favor of emotion, sentiment, and convenience is suppression of
intellect, fact, judgment, & justice, and leads to the erosion of society itself. It’s much like
silencing society’s elders which does indeed lead to the slippery slope of madness.
To consider religious thinkers unfit for the debate is misguided & self-defeating. All
relevant points, facts, consequences, & theories must be heard & weighed if law is to
serve the common good and fulfill its most important function, which is the protection of
individual rights & the defense of the most vulnerable.
To frame this issue as merely one of religious judgment or intolerance is simply false. Law is
ALWAYS loaded with moral judgment - speeding, stealing, lying, killing, slandering,
adultery, etc. Each places a restraint upon individual behavior because all are judged as
reckless, dangerous, and harmful. To take moral judgment out of the equation is to invite
anarchy, and to leave moral judgment in place IS to consider religious thought, even when
done passively.
Current law prohibiting euthanasia is not the result of meddling moralists. It's the historic, traditional norm for societies. Most notably voiced in the very ancient 'Hippocratic Oath' - 4th century BC.
(America is a WASP country - certainly not a Catholic confessional state. Catholic teaching on life/moral issues can hardly be considered the catalyst for prohibition against euthanasia. Traditional, universal views of life, & English common law are the source.)
The religious arguments against suicide; One does not create oneself, therefore, one hasn’t
the right to destroy oneself {I will kill and I will make to live: I will strike, and I will heal,
and there is none that can deliver out of my hand. - Deuteronomy}, and the understanding
that suicide is motivated by fear, depression, despair, pain, guilt, escapism, grief,
hopelessness, anguish, anger, stress, plea for help, etc. Suffering can be physical,
emotional, spiritual, psychological. It can be rational or irrational. It can be terminal or
temporary. Unnatural means of prolonging a person’s life are not an issue here, as life
support systems often serve only to prolong an inevitable death and not to heal or save a
life. Unnatural means of ending it is the issue. The questions religion asks are; ‘Is the value of the
person less than or greater than the condition of the pain, & does the humanity of the
person outweigh the desire to end one’s life? Does social justice demand the
compassionate alleviation or easement of pain or does it demand the complicity of
eliminating the life, and consequently, the pain, itself? Does man have the moral right to take his/hers/another's life for any reason?’
The ethical arguments are; Does a physician (to cure; a healer) violate the hippocratic oath
to practice the art of healing & to exercise that art solely f |
| Christina |
Posted - July 19 2002 : 1:51:37 PM
WOW Diana, now THIS is a thinker! I didn't ever think I'd hear the phrase "Kantian perspective" since I got out of Philosophy class...
The whole topic is rife with spiritual, political, moral and etc. aspects depending on how you look at things. And I think THERE is the key. I'm Catholic and our religion is technically against euthanasia...but at the same time I don't believe that gives us ANY right to judge or determine what others should be able to do. (I'm also, admittedly, a VERY liberal Catholic who looks at a LOT of issues VERY differently than the more conservative wings of the faith...) but that aside...
I agree with the idea that was mentioned earlier in this thread that sometimes our courts in this idea use religion too much as a basis (or at least the ideological basis) for a decision. Just because one person's faith or belief system says euthanasia is wrong does NOT give him the right to influence the decisions of the general population. And frankly after the suffering I have seen some friends and relatives go through and the suffering I have heard about from others, I think the possibility of remedying that suffering by any means necessary is everyone's right to have. It's an interesting topic to think about what this means for those who are not "legal consenting adults." It reminds me of these cases where parents have children who are incurable or brain-dead who face conflicts over keeping them alive...who decides for those who can't decide for themselve??? Hmmm, I'm going to be thinking about THAT one for a long time...
just my two cents or three cents or whatever it is...
Christina
|
| Ilse |
Posted - July 19 2002 : 09:23:36 AM
Diana said:
quote:
So my question to you, Ilse in particular, since physician-assisted suicide is legal in Holland (and Switzerland), are there any stipulations in place with your laws that prevent its use for intentions other than relief of *physical* suffering (prevent its use for *psychological* suffering as is being attempted in Australia), rules to prevent the temptation of the slippery slope per se? Or is it simply viewed as a person's choice, in which case the view IS simple?
Is the view simple? No, actually. The Dutch law (Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide(Review Procedures) Act) does not truely legalize euthanasia. Technically it is still illegal to terminate a patient's life on his or her request, but it is now decriminalized. Doctors who observe the strict requirements for euthanasia will not face prosecution. This is assessed by the Regional Committees for Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide.
The requirements (straight from the Act):
Chapter II. Requirements of Due Care
Article 2
1. The requirements of due care, referred to in Article 293 second paragraph Penal Code mean that the physician:
a. holds the conviction that the request by the patient was voluntary and well-considered,
b. holds the conviction that the patient’s suffering was lasting and unbearable,
c. has informed the patient about the situation he was in and about his prospects,
d. and the patient hold the conviction that there was no other reasonable solution for the situation he was in,
e. has consulted at least one other, independent physician who has seen the patient and has given his written opinion on the requirements of due care, referred to in parts a – d, and
f. has terminated a life or assisted in a suicide with due care.
2. If the patient aged sixteen years or older is no longer capable of expressing his will, but prior to reaching this condition was deemed to have a reasonable understanding of his interests and has made a written statement containing a request for termination of life, the physician may carry out this request. The requirements of due care, referred to in the first paragraph, apply mutatis mutandis.
3. If the minor patient has attained an age between sixteen and eighteen years and may be deemed to have a reasonable understanding of his interests, the physician may carry out the patient’s request for termination of life or assisted suicide, after the parent or the parents exercising parental authority and/or his guardian have been involved in the decision process.
4. If the minor patient is aged between twelve and sixteen years and may be deemed to have a reasonable understanding of his interests, the physician may carry out the patient’s request, provided always that the parent or the parents exercising parental authority and/or his guardian agree with the termination of life or the assisted suicide. The second paragraph applies mutatis mutandis.
quote:
other than relief of *physical* suffering (prevent its use for *psychological* suffering as is being attempted in Australia),
I'm not entirely sure, but I think the Dutch law does not exclude unbearable psychological suffering as a ground for euthanasia. I remember a case coming before court a few years ago (before this law came in effect) of a doctor assisting in such a suicide. It concerned a very intelligent senior citizen who used to be a senator. He was then in his 80s, had no relatives left and experienced an ever growing sense of futility and usel |
| Christie |
Posted - July 19 2002 : 07:07:47 AM
Diana,
Wow, what a weighty topic. My two cents (which aren't worth much) is I think suicide is a moral issue because of religion. Depending on personal beliefs makes it acceptable -- as a Catholic girl I've always been told it's a sin against God and those who commit it go straight down. Heck, that was the whole point of the movie "What Dreams May Come." However, personally I feel that people who take their lives are in a physical and spiritual pain so intense they feel they have no alternative. How could God argue against that? Sorry, I don't mean to get off on a moral tangent, but in our country I think the courts are ruled by religion many times.
I was surfing the web a little for your topic and came across the following sites. I thought they might help. Good luck! Christie
http://www.internationaltaskforce.org/index.htm
http://www.lwc.edu/administrative/library/suic.htm
http://wings.buffalo.edu/faculty/research/bioethics/court.html
http://www.willamette.edu/wucl/pas/index.cgi
http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/provider/death.htm
|
|
Around The Site:
~ What's New? ~
Pathfinding
|
Mohican Gatherings
|
Mohican Musings
|
LOTM Script
|
History
|
Musical Musings
|
Storefronts on the Frontier
Off the Beaten Trail
|
Links
Of Special Interest:
The Eric Schweig Gallery
|
From the Ramparts
|
The Listening Room
|
Against All Odds
|
The Video Clips Index
DISCLAIMER
Tune, 40, used by permission - composed by Ron Clarke
|
| The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!] |
© 1997-2025 - Mohican Press |
 |
|
| Current Mohicanland page raised in 0.24 seconds |
 |
|
![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]")
