4 ms·

This has been a thing-everyone-knows-but-no-one-talks-about in hospitals for a long time. And honestly, I wish it would stay that way. Because while I support

This has been a thing-everyone-knows-but-no-one-talks-about in hospitals for a long time. And honestly, I wish it would stay that way. Because while I support the right of terminal patients to die at the time of their choosing and avoid pointless agony, opponents of euthanasia do have a good point– which is not appreciated nearly often enough– that state-sanctioned euthanasia opens the door for family members to start pressuring people to die when they don't really want to. This is a thing that happens more than anyone wants to admit in areas where it is legal. Deliberate ambiguity, where euthanasia is allowed but we all pretend it's not, is the best way to square this circle. Doctors have implicitly understood this for a while, hence this practice. Unfortunately, most people hate ambiguity in their laws, which I understand and think is a good priniple in general, but I wish they'd look more carefully and see that the benefits outweigh the costs here.

hetman 8y ago
It's a shame this was downvoted. It certainly adds an interesting perspective to the discussion even if not everyone agrees with the conclusion.
pwned1 8y ago
Not sure why you're getting downvoted. I agree with you.
keldaris 8y ago
I tend to disagree with that argument because I think the slippery slope issue can be mitigated sufficiently with proper procedures (waiting periods, psychiatrist interviews, etc.). However, it is a valid argument that must be addressed, is appropriately formulated and entirely on topic, so I'm confused as to why it was downvoted.
dmurray 8y ago
Euthanasia in practice but not in name is also easier to reconcile with various codes of ethics (especially religious ones) for the patient or his family. Suicide is taboo, large palliative doses of morphine are not.
notahacker 8y ago
I suppose the question is whether deliberate ambiguity actually creates more scope for the pressuring by family members, because there isn't an established protocol with checks and balances for the patient to agree to die (and in practice any consent they give to "increased medication" may be uninformed or nonexistent).
brandonmenc 8y ago
> state-sanctioned euthanasia opens the door for family members to start pressuring people to die when they don't really want to Everything I've ever read - or heard - from doctors, is the exact opposite - that family members more often than not want herculean and unintentionally inhumane efforts made to keep a suffering family member alive for just a little bit longer.
- bnjms 8y ago
  That may be the usual case but that is not all cases. It does happen that people wish for there parents to die. You see it all over this thread. What no one can say here is that some people also wish for them to die so they can take their payout or stop paying for care.

hetman 8y ago

It's a shame this was downvoted. It certainly adds an interesting perspective to the discussion even if not everyone agrees with the conclusion.

pwned1 8y ago

Not sure why you're getting downvoted. I agree with you.

keldaris 8y ago

I tend to disagree with that argument because I think the slippery slope issue can be mitigated sufficiently with proper procedures (waiting periods, psychiatrist interviews, etc.). However, it is a valid argument that must be addressed, is appropriately formulated and entirely on topic, so I'm confused as to why it was downvoted.

dmurray 8y ago

Euthanasia in practice but not in name is also easier to reconcile with various codes of ethics (especially religious ones) for the patient or his family. Suicide is taboo, large palliative doses of morphine are not.

notahacker 8y ago

I suppose the question is whether deliberate ambiguity actually creates more scope for the pressuring by family members, because there isn't an established protocol with checks and balances for the patient to agree to die (and in practice any consent they give to "increased medication" may be uninformed or nonexistent).

brandonmenc 8y ago

> state-sanctioned euthanasia opens the door for family members to start pressuring people to die when they don't really want to Everything I've ever read - or heard - from doctors, is the exact opposite - that family members more often than not want herculean and unintentionally inhumane efforts made to keep a suffering family member alive for just a little bit longer.

bnjms 8y ago
That may be the usual case but that is not all cases. It does happen that people wish for there parents to die. You see it all over this thread. What no one can say here is that some people also wish for them to die so they can take their payout or stop paying for care.