 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Dad collapsed a few years ago...after a couple of days we were told by two seperate consultants that he would not recover. After considering whether or not to smother him with a pillow,to put his fitting to an end, we asked the doc to up his morphine to try and "relax" him...doc advised against it, but at our insistence he upped the dose, he died peacefully when his heart stopped shortly after.
We knew dad would not want to be left in this condition, and I for one had no problem with making this decision.
It did get me thinking about this subject.
I looked at the Holland model as it is the one that everyone always mentions.
The dutch courts set guidleines back in the late 1980's, therse were:-
1. The patient must be experiencing unbearable pain.
2. The patient must be conscious.
3. The death request must be voluntary.
4. The patient must have been given alternatives to euthanasia and time to consider these alternatives.
5. There must be no other reasonable solutions to the problem.
6. The patient's death cannot inflict unnecessary suffering on others.
7. There must be more than one person involved in the euthanasia decision.
8. Only a doctor can euthanize a patient.
9. Great care must be taken in actually making the death decision.
Through various legal challenges in the Dutch Courts the pool of candidates has grown from the terminally ill, to the chronically ill, to those who are mentally suffering.
In 2001 the UN Human Rights Committee reported on the Holland experience. The report expressed grave concerns about the situation there.
It was concerned that the system may fail to detect and prevent situations where undue pressure could lead to these criteria being circumvented and that, with the passage of time, such a practice may lead to routinization and insensitivity to the strict application of the requirements in a way not anticipated.
With regard to children there were concerns expressed that the law is also applicable to minors who have reached the age of 12 years. The law provides for the consent of parents or guardians of juveniles up to 16 years of age, while for those between 16 and 18 the parents' or guardian's consent may be replaced by the will of the minor, provided that the minor can appropriately assess his or her interests in the matter. It considered it difficult to reconcile a reasoned decision to terminate life with the evolving and maturing capacities of minors.
The Dutch define "euthanasia" in a very limited way: "Euthanasia is understood [as] an action which aims at taking the life of another at the latter's expressed request. It concerns an action of which death is the purpose and the result." This definition applies only to voluntary euthanasia and excludes what the rest of the world refers to as non-voluntary or involuntary euthanasia, the killing of a patient without the patient's knowledge or consent. The Dutch call this "life-terminating treatment."
Some physicians use this distinction between "euthanasia" and "life-terminating treatment" to avoid having a patient's death classified as "euthanasia," thus freeing doctors from following the established euthanasia guidelines and reporting the death to local authorities.
In 1991 the Remmenlink Report was published in Holland. It found that in 1990 2,300 people died as the result of doctors killing them upon request (active, voluntary euthanasia).
400 people died as a result of doctors providing them with the means to kill themselves (physician-assisted suicide).
1,040 people (an average of 3 per day) died from involuntary euthanasia, meaning that doctors actively killed these patients without the patients' knowledge or consent.
14% of these patients were fully competent.
72% had never given any indication that they would want their lives terminated.
In 8% of the cases, doctors performed involuntary euthanasia despite the fact that they believed alternative options were still possible.
In addition, 8,100 patients died as a result of doctors deliberately giving them overdoses of pain medication, not for the primary purpose of controlling pain, but to hasten the patient's death.
In 61% of these cases (4,941 patients), the intentional overdose was given without the patient's consent.
The European Court of Human Rights have been asked several times by UK citizens to rule on this issue in their favour. The Courts have conceded that Article 8 of the Convention of Human Rights, the right to a private and family life, is capable of applying to tha final moments of someone's life. However, they have not conceded that Article 2, the right to life, can be extended to the right to die.
Currently a person has the right to refuse treatment ie ventilation or resucitation. They can be given pain relieving treatment and can die in the most dignified way in law. I was lucky in that my father collapsed, did not regain consiousness and died only a couple of days later. I have not had to watch a close family member suffer over a long period.
Taking things into consideration I believe that by legislating for euthanasia, even with tight guidelines, you are opening the door for legal challenges to have the law interpreted more loosely. In short, it will be the thin end of the wedge.
I think that this would be dangerous for our society.
With regard to Dignitas I think that it is interesting to note it is looking to tighten it's rules as it has become increasingly concerned about the growth and effect of euthanasia tourism.
|
