3 ms·
Well the real question is has DNR orders already crossed the line into euthanasia? I'm sure there have been many people allowed to die who would have made a com
by electromagnetic 17y ago
Well the real question is has DNR orders already crossed the line into euthanasia? I'm sure there have been many people allowed to die who would have made a complete recovery from their injuries.
As far as I know where euthanasia is currently legalized the person has to pass a psych test to see if they are of sound mind and that they're not being coerced into making the decision. If the psychiatrist feels something is off then the euthanasia isn't performed (at least in theory). The person also has to suffer from a terminal illness that the doctors at the euthanasia place can verify.
Emo kiddies aren't going to pass the psych evaluation or the terminal illness evaluation. However there should be a chicken clause that the person getting euthanised still has the ability to back out right until the end.
However with legalised euthanasia the state would be required to cover terminal illness costs in all people who refuse euthanasia for various reasons, because it's unlikely that these peoples families will voluntarily cover the costs when there's the option that they don't have to.
- Groxx 17y agoI'll play devil's advocate here, and point out that a lack of DNR orders have probably imposed torture on many more than have been possibly been euthanized, because the family can't respect their unwritten wishes without huge legal battles. Though I do see where you're coming from, and the last part is a good point. It'd certainly be abused that way, but that'd hardly be a first for a gov't-supplied service. That's part of why things with high abuse potentials are handled by the government, though; no private industry wants to touch them, and they're nearly guaranteed to lose money. As it's "for the greater good" though, it's worth the taxes (arguably).