Ethical Questions

[Dragunov]

The confusion in the House of Lords regarding non-controversial laws lends itself to the complexity of the issue. That's why so many people disagree with and do not fully understand the reasons behind the law. It's a very difficult moral ground to cover, very widely disputed indeed...

[Luci]

Originally Posted by Hughman

The Americans have a very similar system, but it's more of a private syndicate initiative. It's also inefficient and prone to abuse.

please do explain why.


in the netherlands the term passive euthanasia doesn't even exist, well it exists, but it's a wrong term, things like stopping treatment because the patient will die anyway or stopping artificial life things that keep the patient alive are actually categorised under something we call an abstinence policy which falls under the normal jobs of a doctor.
This is also because a doctor here can refuse to act out euthanasia (since there is no right to euthanasia) but cannot refuse the stopping of treatment if a patient asks for it. Thus seperating the two things completely to make the law easier...

just a little word play.

[Singh.Simran]

Originally Posted by Hughman

That's more to do with negligence though isn't it?

In some cases, it depends on intent.

We are assuming the aim - or at least accepted consequence - is death, and therefore we are talking about passive/active manslughter.


As dragunov says, there is "confusion". Although it's more that the lords are trying to be just and the laws are broad, catch-all, and injust.

Soon euthanasia will be accepted, it's just a matter of time.

[Arch_Angel]

Originally Posted by Hughman

That's one view, but leaving the patient to die when you could save them in my mind's view is morally no different to assisting them - not murdering them, assisting them.

Take this scenario:

There is an evil son that wants to kill his father for his inheritance. He goes to his house and finds him the bathroom - he proceeds to drown him. Say however, the son arrives and gives his dad an accidental fright, causing him to fall down the stairs and crack his spine and head. The son could try to save him, but instead he leaves him to die.

In my view those two acts are of equal moral significance. Others would argue the vary nature of an overt act makes it more important than the passive act, but I value the consequences (which includes the path taken - pain, suffering, professional standards)

Equal moral significance yes, but in the eyes of the law this is not so (I don't think at least)

[Hughman]

Originally Posted by Arch_Angel

Equal moral significance yes, but in the eyes of the law this is not so (I don't think at least)

Point (almost) proven: Out laws on euthanasia and medical care are hypocritical, at least in my view. Morality and law are intertwined, and one should reflect the other.

(though the above scenario, the two cases are very similar - the one where he is left to die could be manslaughter, though again the Americans are a bit more sensible [for once] and would have it at second-degree murder, whilst the actual murder would be first degree)

[Hughman]

Originally Posted by Luci

please do explain why.

It's complicated- but from what I understand is that you register onto the list when you are healthy, and potential cross-matches are found between you and other group members. Various system go into place to rank, but it tends to place the healthy and the most matched at the top (as they in turn can provide the most organs upon death). So of course this system is like speculative insurance, with the poor/unhealthy heavily disadvantaged.

[Arch_Angel]

Originally Posted by Hughman

Point (almost) proven: Out laws on euthanasia and medical care are hypocritical, at least in my view. Morality and law are intertwined, and one should reflect the other.

(though the above scenario, the two cases are very similar - the one where he is left to die could be manslaughter, though again the Americans are a bit more sensible [for once] and would have it at second-degree murder, whilst the actual murder would be first degree)

But the law is designed for this to be allowed to happen.....probably

[Hughman]

Originally Posted by Arch_Angel

But the law is designed for this to be allowed to happen.....probably

And this is why the Dutch and Swiss have the some the highest concentration of academics/intellectuals in the world.

Not really a relevant point I know, but a point nevertheless.

[bcres]

Originally Posted by Dragunov

But the action of administering lethal substances or actions is a direct approach, not passive. Therefore, you are murdering the patient, rather than simply allowing their death through progressive deterioration. The action itself makes active euthanasia a very different discipline. The law is very strict when it comes to active euthanasia, besides, like the case with Dr Cox. Allowing a patient to die is a more natural course of action, which does not involve moral guilt or action involved with ending life actively.

what about doctors giving patients that are near death morphine, to ease the pain but in doing so slowing down their respiration which effectively kills them? The end results of active and passive euthanasia are the same, just in passive euthanasia the patient is in a lot more pain. modern doctors have to treat patients with the patients' best interests at heart. the law should be changed to allow euthanasia in very controlled circumstances, like they have in oregon in the US. Patients desiring to be assisted in dying must write a letter to their doctor-if the patient is unfit to write it the closest family member can write it-then the patient's case is examined by the doctor and an independent consultant, and if the patient seems mentally unable to make such a decision, he or she must see a psychiatrist. a 14 day decision time is required, and if the case is approved by both doctors, then the doctor provides the fatal drug which is then administered by the patient, and if not possible it should be administered by the closest family member.

this leaves little room for discrepancies and error, and seems a fair alternative to the doctor having to kill the patient himself.

[f_debelder]

what about doctors giving patients that are near death morphine, to ease the pain but in doing so slowing down their respiration which effectively kills them? The end results of active and passive euthanasia are the same, just in passive euthanasia the patient is in a lot more pain.

But the intent here is not to kill, it is to reduce pain, with death being an unfortunate consequence (if you get me). That's why it is allowed, because the drug is not being administered with the intent to kill, as opposed to your "passive euthanasia".