3 ms·

I tend to support euthanasia, but its practice in that article scares me. I guess I believe that people ultimately do have a responsibility to others. Her son

I tend to support euthanasia, but its practice in that article scares me. I guess I believe that people ultimately do have a responsibility to others. Her son did not ask to be born and Tom's quote "You’ve just taken away the suffering of one person and transposed it to another!" convinces me that euthanasia is not as clean as we might believe. What if Tom having suffered this triggering event and having a genetic predisposition to depression applies for euthanasia? It seems euthanasia for the whole family is ethically above board in Belgium, but I still feel that outcome is unacceptable. The only thing that really bothers me is that so many ethicists in Belgium (as far as this article describes) believe this is clear cut. I generally don't have too many disagreements with most concepts of western philosophy, but if this is the end result of the application of self-determination, I definitely have plenty of reservations. Finding out that your parent committed suicide after the fact is just unacceptable to me, especially because the parent in this article did honestly express to the doctor that she cares for them.

tremon 10y ago
I'm not sure that I agree with your belief that voluntary termination (I prefer that term over euthanasia) can ever be clean. It is a process that is necessarily fraught with pain, even if that pain isn't visible on the outside. I'd like to believe that no doctor would take such a decision lightly, but that of course is hard to ascertain. I do agree with your sentiment about the ethicists. The article paints a picture like the review boards and experts are closing ranks against the "outside world". It's somewhat understandable given that these are considered hard-won "victories" by the humanist camp and still under constant pressure, but it reduces transparency in an area that absolutely requires both transparency and accountability. It's almost like regulatory capture: it encourages practitioners to play it fast and loose knowing they will be backed, and that should not be allowed. However, in this particularly case: I understand it can be very hard for next-of-kin to learn that someone close has chosen to die, and that they were not involved in the process. I've watched it happen twice from somewhat nearby, and I certainly hope never to experience it any closer. The anger, hurt and guilt from not being included in such a life-altering decision can be enormous. At the same time, I don't see how drawing more people into the situation should be up to the physician; that choice too should be squarely in the patient's hands. For me it is enough that the doctor suggested she should contact her children. For me, the bigger question is why these doctors felt qualified to assess her wish: it does not sound like any of the doctors that approved her request had more than a cursory involvement in her (long-term) treatment.
- nommm-nommm 10y ago
  >For me, the bigger question is why these doctors felt qualified to assess her wish: it does not sound like any of the doctors that approved her request had more than a cursory involvement in her (long-term) treatment. Big problem. Doctor shopping is a big issue in euthanasia.

tremon 10y ago

I'm not sure that I agree with your belief that voluntary termination (I prefer that term over euthanasia) can ever be clean. It is a process that is necessarily fraught with pain, even if that pain isn't visible on the outside. I'd like to believe that no doctor would take such a decision lightly, but that of course is hard to ascertain. I do agree with your sentiment about the ethicists. The article paints a picture like the review boards and experts are closing ranks against the "outside world". It's somewhat understandable given that these are considered hard-won "victories" by the humanist camp and still under constant pressure, but it reduces transparency in an area that absolutely requires both transparency and accountability. It's almost like regulatory capture: it encourages practitioners to play it fast and loose knowing they will be backed, and that should not be allowed. However, in this particularly case: I understand it can be very hard for next-of-kin to learn that someone close has chosen to die, and that they were not involved in the process. I've watched it happen twice from somewhat nearby, and I certainly hope never to experience it any closer. The anger, hurt and guilt from not being included in such a life-altering decision can be enormous. At the same time, I don't see how drawing more people into the situation should be up to the physician; that choice too should be squarely in the patient's hands. For me it is enough that the doctor suggested she should contact her children. For me, the bigger question is why these doctors felt qualified to assess her wish: it does not sound like any of the doctors that approved her request had more than a cursory involvement in her (long-term) treatment.

nommm-nommm 10y ago
>For me, the bigger question is why these doctors felt qualified to assess her wish: it does not sound like any of the doctors that approved her request had more than a cursory involvement in her (long-term) treatment. Big problem. Doctor shopping is a big issue in euthanasia.