SusanofO
Posts: 5672
Joined: 12/19/2005
Status: offline
|
NorthenGent: Most people cannot believe I am this big a techno-idiot, bt I am (I am goin gto try now to insert the link you kindly posted - and tahnks for the instructions. I do appreciate it.). I do apologoze (truly. It is highly frustratingbecause it's a good article). Okay - let's see me try to do this...
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/smith200312230101.asp
YayyyY!! Oh Northern Gent - it worked! Wow - you actually taught me how to so this (no kidding, I really didn't know, and was always screwing it up before, when I tried. Thank you!!)
Anyway, that's the article I was referring to - as I said, it is "conservative", but pretty stratight-forward, and defintiely full of food for thought, IMO.
juliaoceania: I agree (in principle) with everything you said. My point, really, was that the law has a few flaws (IMO) in terms of the way euthansia is practiced, even though the actual law states it will not and should not be practiced that way. There are other laws where this happens, fo course, too - the justice system isn't perfect as far as execution of the law, and there have always been corrupt officials, doctors, etc.
I realize there are also many happy outcomes with the way it is currently being practiced.
But the article I just posted did give me pause, because they are apparently euthanizing more than a few folks in the Netherlands now - without their consent. It's more then a few. It's more than a few hundred, even, actually.
The reason this bothers me is - the nature of death is irrevocable. There are no second chances to re-think that decision. It's done, over, and very, very final (and I am not trying to be insulting or anything; I know you realize this as well. Just sayin.  ).
To anyone: I do see definite probelms with the implementation. Because whenever I hear people discuss this, I do think most picture a sceanrio exactly like the one where there is a happy outocme, no legal problems, no greedy heirs, no "death without consent." If that were the case, all of the time, I guess I wouldn't have a problem with it. But - I do have a few questions, too.
1) What about babies? If they are alive, they are not capable of making a decision to end thier own life. So - this is supposed to make it okay that their parents automatically get to make that decision instead, for them?
Personally, I have a real moral problem with this. Other people might not, but I don't think even a parent is in a position to decide whether or not their parental status makes them supposedly scarosanct enough to determine whether someone (their child) who clearly hasn't had a chance to live a full life , or even a couple of years of it - should be able to decide to end it - just because they (or a doctor) has deemed it "unliveable".
There are plenty of severely handicapped kids in the world who've undoubtedly added to it in terms of what they had to offer to others, and in terms of how other people were probably able to grow via being touched throughtout their own lives by the fact they came into contact with them.
I admit that's pure opinion - but other people never seeem to consider these questions when they consider this overall question. Bottom line -IMO, it's not a parents' life to "end" - its the child's. They are a living human being, regardless of whether they are cognizant enough to make a decison - it's not a fetus, and emobryo, etc - we are talking about a living human.
This kind of question really isn't an "individual decision" (IMO) - it's a cultural one.
2) What about situations where there are hundreds of cases of "termination without consent" arising - (because this will happen, it is happening now). Is this really acceptable? This circumstance in the Dutch culture has just become a "fact of life" (or rather death) these days. That does bother me, even though I realize that most people are going to be far more concerned about how they actually envision this circumstance working for themselves.
These folks do have a so-called "Living will." I think if a law like this is going to be enacted, it's been made clear that everyone (supposedly) has a living will already, simply due to the nature of the way the law is worded, adn how (in theory) it is supposed to work. It probably does, in fact, work that way much of the time - but rampant abuse of the intentions of peoples' living wills are still taking place.
Maybe this is "inevitable" - but the fact that Dutch doctos are not presecuted when this happens, bothers me a lot, too.
3) And in the U.S., with the privatized health-care system, I see plenty of room for insurance companies to be making "quality of life" decisions based solely on the finacial implications of choosing to extend a life, or not, what the term "quality of life" means. I realize that in theory - it is doctors (supposedly) that will be determining this decision (along with a patient). But - in practice - it's often (today, right now) the insurance company - simply because they make the decision of who will receive re-imbursement for the care. It happens now - and it's only gonna get worse if we enact a Euthanasia law here in the U.S.
**I don't want Blue Cross, or anyother insurance company, making any more decisions about soething as serious about who gets to live or die -based on the fact that a person is poor, or "under-insured" - anymore than they do now - it's way to much power to determine life or death in the hands of a third-party with an obvious conflict-of-interest .
By the same token, I don't want the U.S. government deciding old folks, for example, on Medicare (or poor people whom are on Medicaid) are all supposed to take a "suicide pill" or something, because they are taking up "too much" of the national budget. Think it couldn't happen? In a nation where we are billions of dollars in debt, for a war we didn't want in the first place, I see this as a not that unlikely possibility. I realize they sometimes get screwed now, by the same budgetary reasons, but - death is pretty irrevocable.
I am not sure that any cmments along the lines of: Well it happens now anyaway... are a good enough reason to ensure circumstances where even more of this will happen.
- Susan.
< Message edited by SusanofO -- 2/24/2007 10:09:18 AM >
_____________________________
"Hope is the thing with feathers,
That perches in the soul,
And sings the tune without the words,
And never stops at all". - Emily Dickinson
|
RE: I might of asked this question before but anyway sh... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread