Assisted suicide is fine in a perfect world.

We
don’t live (or die) in one
(Times April 1st 2009)

A doctor’s job is to treat the sick and relieve pain. That cannot
be squared with helping the terminally ill to end their lives Ilora
Finlay
When I was a junior doctor, patients who were dying were often abandoned in side
wards, without effective pain and symptom control; terrible deaths were commonplace.
In those days euthanasia seemed a temptingly humane solution.
That is not the situation today. Palliative medicine has come of age; and the modern
hospice movement has grown from the foundations laid by the late Dame Cicely
Saunders, who pioneered the treatment of “total pain” – of mind and soul as well as
body. I have been privileged to play a part in this revolution. I have learnt – from
patients, their families and colleagues – that care of the dying is far more than
diagnosing and treating the physical aspects of terminal illness. That is an important
part of the task, and advances in palliative medicine have revolutionised the science of
pain and symptom control. Care is also about addressing the wider suffering of
incurably ill patients – their anguish at losing personal control of their lives, their failing
strength, loss of self-worth and feelings of dependence on others. That is what the
discipline of palliative care is about – bringing patient-centred care to the most
vulnerable.
Experience of treating many patients over 30 years has convinced me that doctors must
accept death as a natural end to life and avoid inappropriate interventions, but that
legalising euthanasia, whether indirectly, in the form of assisted suicide, or directly, via
lethal injection, is a dangerous step too far.
Proposals to allow “assisted dying”, while undoubtedly well intended, have an air of
unreality about them that is worrying to anyone who works with seriously ill people.
They assume the existence of a perfect world – a world in which all terminally ill people
are entirely clear-headed and make life-or-death decisions on completely rational
grounds; and a world in which all doctors know their patients well and have limitless
time and skill to assess requests for euthanasia.
The real world of clinical practice just isn’t like that. A very small number of terminally ill
people are clear about wanting to hasten their own deaths. But we have to think about
the great majority who are not. Many move during the course of terminal illness from
hope to despair and back again. Depression is a common feature of terminal illness
and, as worrying research from Oregon shows, doctors cannot be relied upon to detect
it before issuing lethal drugs to potential suicides.
Also important are the feelings of guilt that many terminally ill people feel at the
burdens, real or imagined, that their illness may impose on their families. I am not
talking about families callously pressuring terminally ill relatives to end their own lives
but to hidden pressures that come from within the patient.
Making assisted dying just another end of life “choice” may sound harmless enough, but
one patient’s choice can easily become another’s risk. We don’t have a choice about
carrying personal firearms, because the end result would be more dangerous for us all.
We must balance meeting the wishes of a resolute minority who say that they want to
hasten their deaths against the risks of collateral harm to most patients, who want to
live, but are vulnerable to wondering if ending their own life might be preferable to dying
of their illness. I am in no doubt where that balance of harms lies.
I have come across instances in which an apparently firm resolve to die proves nothing
of the sort. In 1991 a young man, a father of three children, was crystal clear in his
repeated request to me for euthanasia. His clinical outlook was bleak. Against all
predictions, he did not die. Eleven years later his wife died, leaving him to bring up their
three children.
In 2006 my own mother was in a hospice bed, in overwhelming pain, repeatedly saying
that she wanted help to end her life. This was perhaps the greatest challenge to my
view of assisted dying. But my mother was not “helped to die” (the current euphemism)
by her doctors. Today, thanks to good hospice care, she lives independently at home
despite her cancer and both her life and our lives are enriched.
Doctors who care for terminally ill people sometimes have the subject of assisted dying
raised by patients. In most cases they want assurance that they won’t be abandoned
and will have care that maintains dignity and addresses their deepest fears. To respond
by processing a request for assisted suicide risks sending a signal that the doctor
agrees that the patient would be better off dead. We rely on our doctors to act at all
times in our best interests. That inevitably gives them a degree of influence, however
unintended, over the choices we make about our health.
We are told that there would be “safeguards”. But it is clear from overseas experience
that applicants for assisted dying get through the net when they should never have been
considered. In Oregon, for example, recent research indicates that one in six of those
who have had physician-assisted suicide suffered from treatable depression that was
not picked up. One reason why we abolished capital punishment 40 years ago was that,
very occasionally, we hanged the wrong person. With an assisted dying law, the risk of
mistakes is very much greater.
In any case, assisted dying – in the sense in which campaigners use the term – is not
something for doctors. Their role is to treat illness where they can and to relieve the
distress it brings where they cannot. It doesn’t surprise me therefore that the most
recent survey of medical opinion has confirmed that most doctors don’t believe that
“assisted dying” is something they can square with the ethics of good medicine.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff is an independent crossbench peer, and Professor of
Palliative Medicine at Cardiff University.

Source: http://peped.org/philosophicalinvestigations/article-against-euthanasia/
 Overview of anti-euthanasia arguments

It's possible to argue about the way we've divided up the arguments, and many arguments
could fall into more categories than we've used.

Ethical arguments

 Euthanasia weakens society's respect for the sanctity of life

 Accepting euthanasia accepts that some lives (those of the disabled or sick) are
worth less than others

 Voluntary euthanasia is the start of a slippery slope that leads to involuntary

euthanasia and the killing of people who are thought undesirable

 Euthanasia might not be in a person's best interests

 Euthanasia affects other people's rights, not just those of the patient
Practical arguments

 Proper palliative care makes euthanasia unnecessary

 There's no way of properly regulating euthanasia

 Allowing euthanasia will lead to less good care for the terminally ill

 Allowing euthanasia undermines the committment of doctors and nurses to saving lives

 Euthanasia may become a cost-effective way to treat the terminally ill

 Allowing euthanasia will discourage the search for new cures and treatments for the terminally ill

 Euthanasia undermines the motivation to provide good care for the dying, and good pain relief

 Euthanasia gives too much power to doctors

 Euthanasia exposes vulnerable people to pressure to end their lives

 Moral pressure on elderly relatives by selfish families

 Moral pressure to free up medical resources

 Patients who are abandoned by their families may feel euthanasia is the only solution

Historical arguments

 Voluntary euthanasia is the start of a slippery slope that leads to involuntary

euthanasia and the killing of people who are thought undesirable
Religious arguments

 Euthanasia is against the word and will of God

 Euthanasia weakens society's respect for the sanctity of life

 Suffering may have value

 Voluntary euthanasia is the start of a slippery slope that leads to involuntary
euthanasia and the killing of people who are thought undesirable
Top

Against the will of God

Religious people don't argue that we can't kill ourselves, or get others to do it. They know
that we can do it because God has given us free will. Their argument is that it would be
wrong for us to do so.

They believe that every human being is the creation of God, and that this imposes certain
limits on us. Our lives are not only our lives for us to do with as we see fit.

To kill oneself, or to get someone else to do it for us, is to deny God, and to deny God's
rights over our lives and his right to choose the length of our lives and the way our lives
end.

The value of suffering

Religious people sometimes argue against euthanasia because they see positive value in
suffering.

Down through the centuries and generations it has been seen that in suffering there is
concealed a particular power that draws a person interiorly close to Christ, a special grace.
Pope John Paul II: Salvifici Doloris, 1984
The religious attitude to suffering

Most religions would say something like this:

We should relieve suffering when we can, and be with those who suffer, helping them to
bear their suffering, when we can't. We should never deal with the problem of suffering by
eliminating those who suffer.
The nature of suffering

Christianity teaches that suffering can have a place in God's plan, in that it allows the
sufferer to share in Christ's agonyand his redeeming sacrifice. They believe that Christ will
be present to share in the suffering of the believer.

Pope John Paul II wrote that "It is suffering, more than anything else, which clears the
way for the grace which transforms human souls."

However while the churches acknowledge that some Christians will want to accept some
suffering for this reason, most Christians are not so heroic.
So there is nothing wrong in trying to relieve someone's suffering. In fact, Christians believe
that it is a good to do so, as long as one does not intentionally cause death.

Dying is good for us

Some people think that dying is just one of the tests that God sets for human beings, and
that the way we react to it shows the sort of person we are, and how deep our faith and
trust in God is.

Others, while acknowledging that a loving God doesn't set his creations such a horrible test,
say that the process of dying is the ultimate opportunity for human beings to develop their
souls.

When people are dying they may be able, more than at any time in their life, to concentrate
on the important things in life, and to set aside the present-day 'consumer culture', and
their own ego and desire to control the world. Curtailing the process of dying would deny
them this opportunity.

Eastern religions

Several Eastern religions believe that we live many lives and the quality of each life is set by
the way we lived our previous lives.

Those who believe this think that suffering is part of the moral force of the universe, and
that by cutting it short a person interferes with their progress towards ultimate liberation.

A non-religious view

Some non-religious people also believe that suffering has value. They think it provides an
opportunity to grow in wisdom, character, and compassion.

Suffering is something which draws upon all the resources of a human being and enables
them to reach the highest and noblest points of what they really are.

Suffering allows a person to be a good example to others by showing how to behave when
things are bad.

M Scott Peck, author of The Road Less Travelled, has written that in a few weeks at the end
of life, with pain properly controlled a person might learn

how to negotiate a middle path between control and total passivity, about how to welcome
the responsible care of strangers, about how to be dependent once again ... about how to
trust and maybe even, out of existential suffering, at least a little bit about how to pray or
talk with God.
M Scott Peck
 The nature of suffering

It isn't easy to define suffering - most of us can decide when we are suffering but what is
suffering for one person may not be suffering for another.

It's also impossible to measure suffering in any useful way, and it's particularly hard to
come up with any objective idea of what constitutes unbearable suffering, since each
individual will react to the same physical and mental conditions in a different way.

Top

Sanctity of life

This argument says that euthanasia is bad because of the sanctity of human life.

There are four main reasons why people think we shouldn't kill human beings:

 All human beings are to be valued, irrespective of age, sex, race, religion, social status or
their potential for achievement

 Human life is a basic good as opposed to an instrumental good, a good in itself rather
than as a means to an end

 Human life is sacred because it's a gift from God

 Therefore the deliberate taking of human life should be prohibited except in self-defence
or the legitimate defence of others
We are valuable for ourselves

The philosopher Immanuel Kant said that rational human beings should be treated as an
end in themselves and not as a means to something else. The fact that we are human has
value in itself.

Our inherent value doesn't depend on anything else - it doesn't depend on whether we are
having a good life that we enjoy, or whether we are making other people's lives better. We
exist, so we have value.

Most of us agree with that - though we don't put it in philosopher-speak. We say that we
don't think that we should use other people - which is a plain English way of saying that we
shouldn't treat other people as a means to our own ends.

We must respect our own value

It applies to us too. We shouldn't treat ourselves as a means to our own ends.

 And this means that we shouldn't end our lives just because it seems the most effective way
of putting an end to our suffering. To do that is not to respect our inherent worth.

Top

The slippery slope

Many people worry that if voluntary euthanasia were to become legal, it would not be long
before involuntary euthanasia would start to happen.

We concluded that it was virtually impossible to ensure that all acts of euthanasia were truly
voluntary and that any liberalisation of the law in the United Kingdom could not be abused.
We were also concerned that vulnerable people - the elderly, lonely, sick or distressed -
would feel pressure, whether real or imagined, to request early death.
Lord Walton, Chairman, House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics looking
into euthanasia, 1993
This is called the slippery slope argument. In general form it says that if we allow
something relatively harmless today, we may start a trend that results in something
currently unthinkable becoming accepted.

Those who oppose this argument say that properly drafted legislation can draw a firm
barrier across the slippery slope.

Various forms of the slippery slope argument

If we change the law and accept voluntary euthanasia, we will not be able to keep it under
control.

 Proponents of euthanasia say: Euthanasia would never be legalised without proper

regulation and control mechanisms in place
Doctors may soon start killing people without bothering with their permission.

 Proponents say: There is a huge difference between killing people who ask for
death under appropriate circumstances, and killing people without their permission

 Very few people are so lacking in moral understanding that they would ignore this
distinction

 Very few people are so lacking in intellect that they can't make the distinction above

 Any doctor who would ignore this distinction probably wouldn't worry about the law
anyway
Health care costs will lead to doctors killing patients to save money or free up beds:
 Proponents say: The main reason some doctors support voluntary euthanasia is because
they believe that they should respect their patients' right to be treated as autonomous
human beings

 That is, when doctors are in favour of euthanasia it's because they want to respect the
wishes of their patients

 So doctors are unlikely to kill people without their permission because that contradicts the
whole motivation for allowing voluntary euthanasia

 But cost-conscious doctors are more likely to honour their patients' requests for death

 A 1998 study found that doctors who are cost-conscious and 'practice resource-conserving
medicine' are significantly more likely to write a lethal prescription for terminally-ill
patients [Arch. Intern. Med., 5/11/98, p. 974]

 This suggests that medical costs do influence doctors' opinions in this area of medical
ethics
The Nazis engaged in massive programmes of involuntary euthanasia, so we shouldn't place
our trust in the good moral sense of doctors.

 Proponents say: The Nazis are not a useful moral example, because their actions are
almost universally regarded as both criminal and morally wrong

 The Nazis embarked on invountary euthanasia as a deliberate political act - they didn't
slip into it from voluntary euthanasia (although at first they did pretend it was for the
benefit of the patient)

 What the Nazis did wasn't euthanasia by even the widest definition, it was the use of
murder to get rid of people they disapproved of

 The universal horror at Nazi euthanasia demonstrates that almost everyone can make the
distinction between voluntary and involuntary euthanasia

 The example of the Nazis has made people more sensitive to the dangers of involuntary
euthanasia
Allowing voluntary euthanasia makes it easier to commit murder, since the perpetrators can
disguise it as active voluntary euthanasia.

 Proponents say: The law is able to deal with the possibility of self-defence or suicide being
used as disguises for murder. It will thus be able to deal with this case equally well

 To dress murder up as euthanasia will involve medical co-operation. The need for a
conspiracy will make it an unattractive option
Many are needlessly condemned to suffering by the chief anti-euthanasia argument: that
murder might lurk under the cloak of kindness.
 A C Grayling, Guardian 2001
Top

Devalues some lives

Some people fear that allowing euthanasia sends the message, "it's better to be dead than
sick or disabled".

The subtext is that some lives are not worth living. Not only does this put the sick or
disabled at risk, it also downgrades their status as human beings while they are alive.

The disabled person's perspective

Part of the problem is that able-bodied people look at things from their own perspective and
see life with a disability as a disaster, filled with suffering and frustration.

Some societies have regarded people with disabilities as inferior, or as a burden on society.
Those in favour of eugenics go further, and say that society should prevent 'defective'
people from having children. Others go further still and say that those who are a burden on
society should be eliminated.

People with disabilities don't agree. They say:

 All people should have equal rights and opportunities to live good lives

 Many individuals with disabilities enjoy living

 Many individuals without disabilities don't enjoy living, and no-one is threatening them

 The proper approach to people with disabilities is to provide them with appropriate
support, not to kill them

 The quality of a person's life should not be assessed by other people

 The quality of life of a person with disabilities should not be assessed without providing
proper support first
Opposition to this argument

Supporters of euthanasia would respond that this argument includes a number of

completely misleading suggestions, and refute them:

 Dying is not the same as never having been born

 The debate is nothing to do with preventing disabled babies being born, or preventing
people with disabilities from becoming parents

 Nobody is asking for patients to be killed against their wishes - whether or not those
patients are disabled
 The euthanasia procedure is intended for use by patients who are dying, or in a condition
that will get worse - most disabilities don't come under that category

 The normal procedure for euthanasia would have to be initiated at the patient's request

 Disabled people who are not mentally impaired are just as capable as able-bodied people
of deciding what they want

 Protections will be in place for patients who are mentally impaired, whether through
disability or some other reason

 It is possible that someone who has just become disabled may feel depressed enough to
ask for death, which is why any proposed system of euthanasia must include
psychological support and assessment before the patient's wish is granted

 All people should have equal rights and opportunities to live, or to choose not to go on
living
Top

Patient's best interests

A serious problem for supporters of euthanasia are the number of cases in which a patient
may ask for euthanasia, or feel obliged to ask for it, when it isn't in their best interest.
Some examples are listed below:

 the diagnosis is wrong and the patient is not terminally ill

 the prognosis (the doctor's prediction as to how the disease will progress) is wrong and
the patient is not going to die soon

 the patient is getting bad medical care and their suffering could be relieved by other
means

 the doctor is unaware of all the non-fatal options that could be offered to the patient

 the patient's request for euthanasia is actually a 'cry for help', implying that life is not
worth living now but could be worth living if various symptoms or fears were managed

 the patient is depressed and so believes things are much worse than they are

 the patient is confused and unable to make sensible judgements

 the patient has an unrealistic fear of the pain and suffering that lies ahead

 the patient is feeling vulnerable

 the patient feels that they are a worthless burden on others

 the patient feels that their sickness is causing unbearable anguish to their family

 the patient is under pressure from other people to feel that they are a burden
 the patient is under pressure because of a shortage of resources to care for them

 the patient requests euthanasia because of a passing phase of their disease, but is likely
to feel much better in a while
Supporters of euthanasia say these are good reasons to make sure the euthanasia process
will not be rushed, and agree that a well-designed system for euthanasia will have to take
all these points into account. They say that most of these problems can be identified by
assessing the patient properly, and, if necessary, the system should discriminate against
the opinions of people who are particularly vulnerable.

Chochinov and colleagues found that fleeting or occasional thoughts of a desire for death
were common in a study of people who were terminally ill, but few patients expressed a
genuine desire for death. (Chochinov HM, Tataryn D, Clinch JJ, Dudgeon D. Will to live in
the terminally ill. Lancet 1999; 354: 816-819)

They also found that the will to live fluctuates substantially in dying patients, particularly in
relation to depression, anxiety, shortness of breath, and their sense of wellbeing.

Other people have rights too

Euthanasia is usually viewed from the viewpoint of the person who wants to die, but it
affects other people too, and their rights should be considered.

 family and friends

 medical and other carers

 other people in a similar situation who may feel pressured by the decision of this patient

 society in general
Top

Proper palliative care

Palliative care is physical, emotional and spiritual care for a dying person when cure is not
possible. It includes compassion and support for family and friends.

Competent palliative care may well be enough to prevent a person feeling any need to
contemplate euthanasia.

You matter because you are you. You matter to the last moment of your life and we will do
all we can to help you die peacefully, but also to live until you die.
Dame Cicely Saunders, founder of the modern hospice movement
The key to successful palliative care is to treat the patient as a person, not as a set of
symptoms, or medical problems.
The World Health Organisation states that palliative care affirms life and regards dying as a
normal process; it neither hastens nor postpones death; it provides relief from pain and
suffering; it integrates the psychological and spiritual aspects of the patient.

Making things better for patient, family and friends

The patient's family and friends will need care too. Palliative care aims to enhance the
quality of life for the family as well as the patient.

Effective palliative care gives the patient and their loved ones a chance to spend quality
time together, with as much distress removed as possible. They can (if they want to) use
this time to bring any unfinished business in their lives to a proper closure and to say their
last goodbyes.

Palliative care should aim to make it easier and more attractive for family and friends to
visit the dying person. A survey (USA 2001) showed that terminally ill patients actually
spent the vast majority of their time on their own, with few visits from medical personnel or
family members.

Spiritual care

Spiritual care may be important even for non-religious people. Spiritual care should be
interpreted in a very wide sense, since patients and families facing death often want to
search for the meaning of their lives in their own way.

Palliative care and euthanasia

Good palliative care is the alternative to euthanasia. If it was available to every patient, it
would certainly reduce the desire for death to be brought about sooner.

But providing palliative care can be very hard work, both physically and psychologically.
Ending a patient's life by injection is quicker and easier and cheaper. This may tempt people
away from palliative care.

Legalising euthanasia may reduce the availability of palliative care

Some fear that the introduction of euthanasia will reduce the availability of palliative care in
the community, because health systems will want to choose the most cost effective ways of
dealing with dying patients.

Medical decision-makers already face difficult moral dilemmas in choosing between

competing demands for their limited funds. So making euthanasia easier could exacerbate
the slippery slope, pushing people towards euthanasia who may not otherwise choose it.
 When palliative care is not enough

Palliative care will not always be an adequate solution:

 Pain: Some doctors estimate that about 5% of patients don't have their pain properly
relieved during the terminal phase of their illness, despite good palliative and hospice care

 Dependency: Some patients may prefer death to dependency, because they hate relying
on other people for all their bodily functions, and the consequent loss of privacy and
dignity

 Lack of home care: Other patients will not wish to have palliative care if that means that
they have to die in a hospital and not at home

 Loss of alertness: Some people would prefer to die while they are fully alert and and
able to say goodbye to their family; they fear that palliative care would involve a level of
pain-killing drugs that would leave them semi-anaesthetised

 Not in the final stages: Other people are grateful for palliative care to a certain point in
their disease, but after that would prefer to die rather than live in a state of helplessness
and distress, regardless of what is available in terms of pain-killing and comfort.
There should be no law or morality that would limit a clinical team or doctor from
administering the frequent dosages of pain medication that are necessary to free people's
minds from pain that shrivels the spirit and leaves no time for speaking when, at times,
there are very few hours or days left for such communication.
Dr. David Roy, Director of the Centre for Bioethics, Clinical Research Institute of
Montreal
Top

Fears about regulation

Euthanasia opponents don't believe that it is possible to create a regulatory system for
euthanasia that will prevent the abuse of euthanasia.

Top

It gives doctors too much power

This argument often appears as 'doctors should not be allowed to play God'. Since God
arguments are of no interest to people without faith, it's presented here with the God bit
removed.

Doctors should not be allowed to decide when people die:

 Doctors do this all the time

 Any medical action that extends life changes the time when a person dies and we don't
worry about that

 This is a different sort of decision, because it involves shortening life

 Doctors take this sort of decision all the time when they make choices about treatment

 As long as doctors recognise the seriousness of euthanasia and take decisions about it
within a properly regulatedstructure and with proper safeguards, such decisions should
be acceptable

 In most of these cases the decision will not be taken by the doctor, but by the patient.
The doctor will provide information to the patient to help them make their decision
Since doctors give patients the information on which they will base their decisions about
euthanasia, any legalisation of euthanasia, no matter how strictly regulated, puts doctors
in an unacceptable position of power.

Doctors have been shown to take these decisions improperly, defying the guidelines of the
British Medical Association, the Resuscitation Council (UK), and the Royal College of
Nursing:

 An Age Concern dossier in 2000 showed that doctors put Do Not Resuscitate orders in
place on elderly patients without consulting them or their families

 Do Not Resuscitate orders are more commonly used for older people and, in the United
States, for black people, alcohol misusers, non-English speakers, and people infected with
Human Immunodeficiency Virus. This suggests that doctors have stereotypes of who is
not worth saving
Top

Pressure on the vulnerable

This is another of those arguments that says that euthanasia should not be allowed because
it will be abused.

The fear is that if euthanasia is allowed, vulnerable people will be put under pressure to end
their lives. It would be difficult, and possibly impossible, to stop people using persuasion or
coercion to get people to request euthanasia when they don't really want it.

I have seen . . . AIDS patients who have been totally abandoned by their parents, brothers
and sisters and by their lovers.
In a state of total isolation, cut off from every source of life and affection, they would see
death as the only liberation open to them.
In those circumstances, subtle pressure could bring people to request immediate, rapid,
painless death, when what they want is close and powerful support and love.
evidence to the Canadian Senate Committee on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide
The pressure of feeling a burden

People who are ill and dependent can often feel worthless and an undue burden on those
who love and care for them. They may actually be a burden, but those who love them may
be happy to bear that burden.

Nonetheless, if euthanasia is available, the sick person may pressure themselves into asking
for euthanasia.

Pressure from family and others

Family or others involved with the sick person may regard them as a burden that they don't
wish to carry, and may put pressure (which may be very subtle) on the sick person to ask
for euthanasia.

Increasing numbers of examples of the abuse or neglect of elderly people by their families
makes this an important issue to consider.

Financial pressure

The last few months of a patient's life are often the most expensive in terms of medical and
other care. Shortening this period through euthanasia could be seen as a way of relieving
pressure on scarce medical resources, or family finances.

It's worth noting that cost of the lethal medication required for euthanasia is less than £50,
which is much cheaper than continuing treatment for many medical conditions.

Some people argue that refusing patients drugs because they are too expensive is a form of
euthanasia, and that while this produces public anger at present, legal euthanasia provides
a less obvious solution to drug costs.

If there was 'ageism' in health services, and certain types of care were denied to those over
a certain age, euthanasia could be seen as a logical extension of this practice.

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/against/against_1.shtml
 Arguments Against Euthanasia

1. Euthanasia would not only be for people who are "terminally ill"
2. Euthanasia can become a means of health care cost containment
3. Euthanasia will become non-voluntary
4. Legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide leads to suicide contagion.
5. Euthanasia is a rejection of the importance and value of human life

1. Euthanasia would not only be for people who are "terminally ill." There are
two problems here -- the definition of "terminal" and the changes that have already
taken place to extend euthanasia to those who aren't "terminally ill." There are many
definitions for the word "terminal." For example, when he spoke to the National Press
Club in 1992, Jack Kevorkian said that a terminal illness was "any disease that curtails
life even for a day." The co-founder of the Hemlock Society often refers to "terminal
old age." Some laws define "terminal" condition as one from which death will occur
in a "relatively short time." Others state that "terminal" means that death is expected
within six months or less.

Even where a specific life expectancy (like six months) is referred to, medical experts
acknowledge that it is virtually impossible to predict the life expectancy of a
particular patient. Some people diagnosed as terminally ill don't die for years, if at all,
from the diagnosed condition. Increasingly, however, euthanasia activists have
dropped references to terminal illness, replacing them with such phrases as
"hopelessly ill," "desperately ill," "incurably ill," "hopeless condition," and
"meaningless life."

An article in the journal, Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, described assisted

suicide guidelines for those with a hopeless condition. "Hopeless condition" was
defined to include terminal illness, severe physical or psychological pain, physical or
mental debilitation or deterioration, or a quality of life that is no longer acceptable to
the individual. That means just about anybody who has a suicidal impulse .

2. Euthanasia can become a means of health care cost containment

"...physician-assisted suicide, if it became widespread, could become a profit-enhancing tool for big HMOs. "

"...drugs used in assisted suicide cost only about $40, but that it could take $40,000 to treat a patient properly so
that they don't want the "choice" of assisted suicide..." ... Wesley J. Smith, senior fellow at the Discovery
Institute.

Perhaps one of the most important developments in recent years is the increasing
emphasis placed on health care providers to contain costs. In such a climate,
euthanasia certainly could become a means of cost containment.
In the United States, thousands of people have no medical insurance; studies have
shown that the poor and minorities generally are not given access to available pain
control, and managed-care facilities are offering physicians cash bonuses if they don't
provide care for patients. With greater and greater emphasis being placed on managed
care, many doctors are at financial risk when they provide treatment for their patients.
Legalized euthanasia raises the potential for a profoundly dangerous situation in
which doctors could find themselves far better off financially if a seriously ill or
disabled person "chooses" to die rather than receive long-term care.

Savings to the government may also become a consideration. This could take place if
governments cut back on paying for treatment and care and replace them with the
"treatment" of death. For example, immediately after the passage of Measure 16,
Oregon's law permitting assisted suicide, Jean Thorne, the state's Medicaid Director,
announced that physician-assisted suicide would be paid for as "comfort care" under
the Oregon Health Plan which provides medical coverage for about 345,000 poor
Oregonians. Within eighteen months of Measure 16's passage, the State of Oregon
announced plans to cut back on health care coverage for poor state residents. In
Canada, hospital stays are being shortened while, at the same time, funds have not
been made available for home care for the sick and elderly. Registered nurses are
being replaced with less expensive practical nurses. Patients are forced to endure long
waits for many types of needed surgery. 1

3. Euthanasia will only be voluntary, they say Emotional and psychological

pressures could become overpowering for depressed or dependent people. If the
choice of euthanasia is considered as good as a decision to receive care, many people
will feel guilty for not choosing death. Financial considerations, added to the concern
about "being a burden," could serve as powerful forces that would lead a person to
"choose" euthanasia or assisted suicide.

People for euthanasia say that voluntary euthanasia will not lead to involuntary
euthanasia. They look at things as simply black and white. In real life there
would be millions of situations each year where cases would not fall clearly into
either category. Here are two:

Example 1: an elderly person in a nursing home, who can barely understand a

breakfast menu, is asked to sign a form consenting to be killed. Is this voluntary or
involuntary? Will they be protected by the law? How? Right now the overall
prohibition on killing stands in the way. Once one signature can sign away a person's
life, what can be as strong a protection as the current absolute prohibition on direct
killing? Answer: nothing.
Example 2: a woman is suffering from depresssion and asks to be helped to commit
suicide. One doctor sets up a practice to "help" such people. She and anyone who
wants to die knows he will approve any such request. He does thousands a year for
$200 each. How does the law protect people from him? Does it specify that a doctor
can only approve 50 requests a year? 100? 150? If you don't think there are such
doctors, just look at recent stories of doctors and nurses who are charged with murder
for killing dozens or hundreds of patients.

Legalized euthanasia would most likely progress to the stage where people, at a
certain point, would be expected to volunteer to be killed. Think about this: What if
your veternarian said that your ill dog would be better of "put out of her misery" by
being "put to sleep" and you refused to consent. What would the vet and his assistants
think? What would your friends think? Ten years from now, if a doctor told you your
mother's "quality of life" was not worth living for and asked you, as the closest family
member, to approve a "quick, painless ending of her life" and you refused how would
doctors, nurses and others, conditioned to accept euthanasia as normal and right, treat
you and your mother. Or, what if the approval was sought from your mother, who was
depressed by her illness? Would she have the strength to refuse what everyone in the
nursing home "expected" from seriously ill elderly people?

The movement from voluntary to involuntary euthanasia would be like the

movement of abortion from "only for the life or health of the mother" as was
proclaimed by advocates 30 years ago to today's "abortion on demand even if the baby
is half born". Euthanasia people state that abortion is something people choose - it is
not forced on them and that voluntary euthanasia will not be forced on them either.
They are missing the main point - it is not an issue of force - it is an issue of the way
laws against an action can be broadened and expanded once something is
declared legal. You don't need to be against abortion to appreciate the way the laws
on abortion have changed and to see how it could well happen the same way with
euthanasia/assisted suicide as soon as the door is opened to make it legal.

4. Legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide leads to suicide contagion. When the
media portrays assisted suicide as a means of “taking control” or claims that someone
helping another person kill themselves is “death with dignity,” then society (including
teenagers) is receiving the dangerous message that suicide is a legitimate answer to
life's problems. See this article: http://www.nationalreview.com/human-
exceptionalism/348985/suicide-contagion-real-wesley-j-smith

5. Euthanasia is a rejection of the importance and value of human life. People

who support euthanasia often say that it is already considered permissable to take
human life under some circumstances such as self defense - but they miss the point
that when one kills for self defense they are saving innocent life - either their own or
someone else's. With euthanasia no one's life is being saved - life is only taken.

History has taught us the dangers of euthanasia and that is why there are only two
countries in the world today where it is legal. That is why almost all societies - even
non-religious ones - for thousands of years have made euthanasia a crime. It is
remarkable that euthanasia advocates today think they know better than the billions of
people throughout history who have outlawed euthanasia - what makes the 50 year old
euthanasia supporters in 2005 so wise that they think they can discard the
accumulated wisdom of almost all societies of all time and open the door to the killing
of innocent people? Have things changed? If they have, they are changes that should
logically reduce the call for euthanasia - pain control medicines and procedure are far
better than they have ever been any time in history.

Source: http://www.euthanasia.com/argumentsagainsteuthanasia.html
 Euthanasia: We can live without it...
By Dr. Kevin Fitzpatrick, anti-euthanasia advocate, Special to CNN
Updated 1729 GMT (0129 HKT) November 27, 2013

Doctors in Belgium can carry out euthanasia in patients' homes using a special kit of drugs.

Story highlights

 Belgian MPs may allow terminally ill children and those with dementia access to euthanasia
 Anti-euthanasia campaigner Dr. Kevin Fitzpatrick argues the system is unsafe
 Fitzpatrick: Euthanasia advocates' solution to suffering is to remove the sufferer
 "Killing someone by lethal injection is not an act of medicine"

Disabled people, elderly people, adults made vulnerable by terminal and other illnesses,
and now children are being told that their lives are not worth living.
This view was forcefully expressed by Professor Etienne Vermeersch in a recent public
debate on euthanasia in Brussels. One of the authors of Belgium's controversial euthanasia
law, Vermeersch said it had been specifically designed to include disabled people.

For Vermeersch it seemed obvious that "a man with no arms or legs" would want to die.

Without conscience or insight into the discrimination of choosing only disabled people as
examples, he shouted at a member of the audience "Just wait until you are paralysed." A
paraplegic wheelchair-user for forty years, I was sitting directly in front of him, and had
spoken before the debate.

His chilling and very final solution to suffering is to remove the sufferer. His zealous delivery
caused a frisson in the room amongst most (though sadly not all) of the audience. With its
clear echoes, this discourse from a government adviser was shocking.

Earlier in the same debate, Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition had
pointed out that the law in Belgium is just not safe:

- Nearly half (47%) of euthanasia deaths are not reported (according to a study carried out
in Flanders in 2007): This is illegal.

- Euthanasia deaths should be carried out by doctors, but according to a 2007 study, nurses
are doing them: This is illegal.

- Some euthanasia deaths are carried out without consent (according to a 2007 study in
Flanders): This is illegal.

The opposite view: Pray you never need euthanasia, but be glad of option
Dr. Jan Bernheim, a leading promoter of euthanasia, admitted that there are problems with
Belgium's euthanasia law. But despite its "imperfections" he still believes it should be
extended to children.

Bernheim argued euthanasia was necessary to remove suffering: yet pain is hardly ever the
reason for seeking euthanasia. In fact, any palliative care specialist will say no-one should
ever be in intolerable pain.

Bernheim claims Dr. Wim Distelmans as his protege: Distelmans recently ended the life of
Nancy/Nathan Verhelst, in front of TV cameras. After a series of botched sex-change
operations, in the absence of other support, Verhelst sought refuge in death by euthanasia.

The Belgian commission to regulate the practice of euthanasia has never referred a case of
euthanasia to prosecutors (and remember only half of those are reported). It is co-chaired
by Distelmans. It is fundamentally unsafe that the most high-profile doctor in Belgium to
carry out euthanasia is also the regulator.

Distelmans also carried out the euthanasia of Mark and Eddy Verbessem, 45-year-old
identical twins, who were deaf and decided they wanted to die after their eyesight began to
fail.

Anorexic Ann G. also opted to have her life ended after being sexually abused by the
Belgian psychiatrist who was supposed to be treating her for her life-threatening condition.

The core of good clinical governance is patient safety but under Belgium's euthanasia laws
that is sacrificed in the name of individual choice. Verhelst, the Verbessems and Ann G. --
bereft of support -- felt they had no choice but death.

The European Social Rights Committee has condemned Belgium for violation of the
European Social Charter because of its lack of social care. It is little wonder that disabled
Belgian people fall into terminal despair, but that does not validate euthanasia becoming a
"treatment" for depression as it has in Belgium.

Killing someone by lethal injection is not an act of medicine: it comes when medicine
apparently has nothing left to offer.

With a 500% increase in euthanasia in Belgium in ten years, it is crystal clear that the law in
Belgium is not safe; we cannot stand by as they try to extend that law to children.

Source: https://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/27/opinion/opinion-anti-euthanasia-kevin-
fitzpatrick/index.html