10 ms·

My brother in-law works for the NHS. In every hospital and in every year, he's seen countless cases of families dropping their elderly relatives off for no reas

My brother in-law works for the NHS. In every hospital and in every year, he's seen countless cases of families dropping their elderly relatives off for no reason other than to go off on holiday. The chance this law wont be used maliciously is zero.

_Microft 6y ago
How many families who did not do this did he not see? This is the selection effect in all its glory.
- throwaway8581 6y ago
  There’s no claim being made that it’s a huge percentage. All that’s required is for it to be a large number for the post’s concern to make sense.
petercooper 6y ago
Sure, and a lot of freedoms or well intended legal provisions are used "maliciously." Because of the potential to misuse freedoms, should we not have them at all? This is a freedom for which many, including myself, may eventually benefit versus the alternative. I may want to make such a choice for myself (hopefully many years into the future!) rather than live in agony and I really hope the option will at least be there for me in my country.
- GordonS 6y ago
  This is a good point - we can't be scared of everything on the basis it might be misused. The challenge is to have proper regulation, with the right checks and balances in place - I don't think anyone is suggesting you can just rock up to your local euthanasia corner-shop and say "can I haz dead pls?".
- sergioj97 6y ago
  Well there are certainly many freedoms that we restrict or completely deny just because of the potential to misuse them (e.g. freedom to own a gun). I don't think this is the case though, and I agree with all of your second paragraph. But I do think (and it seems that) potential to misuse a freedom is sometimes enough to restrict it, even completely.
bajsejohannes 6y ago
It's not like you can drop off anyone for euthanasia, though. From the article, they must - suffer a "serious or incurable illness" or a "chronic or incapacitating" condition that causes "intolerable suffering" - be an adult Spanish national or a legal resident - be "fully aware and conscious" when they make the request, which has to be submitted twice in writing, 15 days apart
- phasnox 6y ago
  All of those conditions are easily by-passable except for the "legal resident" one.
- keiferski 6y ago
  One and three seem pretty ripe for abuse or creative interpretation.
- aseerdbnarng 6y ago
  I was not suggesting people would drop their relatives off for euthanasia. Only that given how awfully some people treat their elderly relatives, I get shivers thinking about giving these people the power to coerce a family member into suicide for convenience sake. Nominally you can put in place procedures to mitigate this, but I don’t see how it can be foolproof.
louwrentius 6y ago
We have Euthanasia in The Netherlands for decades but there hasn't been any evidence of abuse as far as I can tell. There have been some cases where there was prosecution of doctors because of protocol violations. But I can't recall any 'abuse' of killing of elderly people for the inheritance. The reality is that nothing is fool-proof. In theory anything ever can be abused. But the risk of harm vs. the risk of benefit is too great in favour of the benefit. That's why we drive cars even though they kill 40K+ people a year in the USA. So I don't think the theoretical risk of abuse is a good reason to not allow Euthanasia. Edit: In The Netherlands, each case of Euthanasia / request for assisted suicide is evaluated by multiple doctors / psychiatrists. Each case has to be reported to a special Euthanasia commission that will also verify if things were done right. We don't go over it lightly.
- ekianjo 6y ago
  > but there hasn't been any evidence of abuse as far as I can tell. Is anyone looking for it?
  - dathos 6y ago
    I doubt they just created a law for this and just walked away. According to this [^1] news article made in 2019, of the 62000 cases of euthanasia there were 15 that might not have been what the patient wanted. In only 3 of those 15 it seems that the checks were not properly conducted. [^1] https://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/artikel/2301148-euthanasie-arts-voor-de-rechter-waarom-juist-deze-zaak.html https://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/artikel/2301148-euthanasie-arts-voo...
- samizdis 6y ago
  That responsibility of doctors/psychiatrists to evaluate the case for allowing an individual's choice to die must weigh heavily at times. I remember the case from two years ago of a teenager who, because of an awful childhood, was mortally depressed and chose to die. UK news report [1]. Wikipedia article about the teenager [2] [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/euthanasia-clinic-suicide-depression-rape-anorexia-netherlands-teenager-noa-pothoven-a8944356.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/euthanasia-c... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noa_Pothoven https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noa_Pothoven
simonswords82 6y ago
Just because people drop elderly relatives off to go on holiday does not mean that they'll be dropped off for euthanasia. As with all irreversible decisions (death) there's going to be plenty of paperwork - and rightly so.
- gpvos 6y ago
  The implication is that these are the kind of people that see their elderly relatives as a nuisance and are more likely to push them towards euthanasia, which seems plausible to me.
  - keiferski 6y ago
    Anyone who has spent time taking care of their elderly relatives knows that they are usually not completely aware of many things. Hence the heinous but popular crime of scamming seniors.
cauliflower99 6y ago
It is used maliciously in every country it is legalised. Do not underestimate a person's ability for cruelty.
- dempseye 6y ago
  Will you provide some examples?
- oleander73 6y ago
  Probably, but this is a fully generalized argument against anything that can be used maliciously (which is pretty much anything). So it is obviously a specious argument.
breakfastduck 6y ago
Except it's a fundamentally different proposition, so I don't see the relevance of this anecdote.
- bushman130 6y ago
  I think the relevance is: If a family has decided that an elderly relative is of so little value to them that they will abandon them at a hospital with no need of medical attention, then the convenience of quietly and legally ending their life will outweigh the burden of providing support and family for that relative.
  - breakfastduck 6y ago
    Right, but this isn't what the proposition is. It's that a person has a right to end their own life, not that someone else can just arbitrarily choose to euthanize someone else.

_Microft 6y ago

How many families who did not do this did he not see? This is the selection effect in all its glory.

throwaway8581 6y ago
There’s no claim being made that it’s a huge percentage. All that’s required is for it to be a large number for the post’s concern to make sense.

petercooper 6y ago

Sure, and a lot of freedoms or well intended legal provisions are used "maliciously." Because of the potential to misuse freedoms, should we not have them at all? This is a freedom for which many, including myself, may eventually benefit versus the alternative. I may want to make such a choice for myself (hopefully many years into the future!) rather than live in agony and I really hope the option will at least be there for me in my country.

GordonS 6y ago
This is a good point - we can't be scared of everything on the basis it might be misused. The challenge is to have proper regulation, with the right checks and balances in place - I don't think anyone is suggesting you can just rock up to your local euthanasia corner-shop and say "can I haz dead pls?".
sergioj97 6y ago
Well there are certainly many freedoms that we restrict or completely deny just because of the potential to misuse them (e.g. freedom to own a gun). I don't think this is the case though, and I agree with all of your second paragraph. But I do think (and it seems that) potential to misuse a freedom is sometimes enough to restrict it, even completely.

bajsejohannes 6y ago

It's not like you can drop off anyone for euthanasia, though. From the article, they must - suffer a "serious or incurable illness" or a "chronic or incapacitating" condition that causes "intolerable suffering" - be an adult Spanish national or a legal resident - be "fully aware and conscious" when they make the request, which has to be submitted twice in writing, 15 days apart

phasnox 6y ago
All of those conditions are easily by-passable except for the "legal resident" one.
keiferski 6y ago
One and three seem pretty ripe for abuse or creative interpretation.
aseerdbnarng 6y ago
I was not suggesting people would drop their relatives off for euthanasia. Only that given how awfully some people treat their elderly relatives, I get shivers thinking about giving these people the power to coerce a family member into suicide for convenience sake. Nominally you can put in place procedures to mitigate this, but I don’t see how it can be foolproof.

louwrentius 6y ago

We have Euthanasia in The Netherlands for decades but there hasn't been any evidence of abuse as far as I can tell. There have been some cases where there was prosecution of doctors because of protocol violations. But I can't recall any 'abuse' of killing of elderly people for the inheritance. The reality is that nothing is fool-proof. In theory anything ever can be abused. But the risk of harm vs. the risk of benefit is too great in favour of the benefit. That's why we drive cars even though they kill 40K+ people a year in the USA. So I don't think the theoretical risk of abuse is a good reason to not allow Euthanasia. Edit: In The Netherlands, each case of Euthanasia / request for assisted suicide is evaluated by multiple doctors / psychiatrists. Each case has to be reported to a special Euthanasia commission that will also verify if things were done right. We don't go over it lightly.

ekianjo 6y ago
> but there hasn't been any evidence of abuse as far as I can tell. Is anyone looking for it?
- dathos 6y ago
  I doubt they just created a law for this and just walked away. According to this [^1] news article made in 2019, of the 62000 cases of euthanasia there were 15 that might not have been what the patient wanted. In only 3 of those 15 it seems that the checks were not properly conducted. [^1] https://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/artikel/2301148-euthanasie-arts-voor-de-rechter-waarom-juist-deze-zaak.html https://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/artikel/2301148-euthanasie-arts-voo...
samizdis 6y ago
That responsibility of doctors/psychiatrists to evaluate the case for allowing an individual's choice to die must weigh heavily at times. I remember the case from two years ago of a teenager who, because of an awful childhood, was mortally depressed and chose to die. UK news report [1]. Wikipedia article about the teenager [2] [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/euthanasia-clinic-suicide-depression-rape-anorexia-netherlands-teenager-noa-pothoven-a8944356.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/euthanasia-c... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noa_Pothoven https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noa_Pothoven

simonswords82 6y ago

Just because people drop elderly relatives off to go on holiday does not mean that they'll be dropped off for euthanasia. As with all irreversible decisions (death) there's going to be plenty of paperwork - and rightly so.

gpvos 6y ago
The implication is that these are the kind of people that see their elderly relatives as a nuisance and are more likely to push them towards euthanasia, which seems plausible to me.
- keiferski 6y ago
  Anyone who has spent time taking care of their elderly relatives knows that they are usually not completely aware of many things. Hence the heinous but popular crime of scamming seniors.

cauliflower99 6y ago

It is used maliciously in every country it is legalised. Do not underestimate a person's ability for cruelty.

dempseye 6y ago
Will you provide some examples?
oleander73 6y ago
Probably, but this is a fully generalized argument against anything that can be used maliciously (which is pretty much anything). So it is obviously a specious argument.

breakfastduck 6y ago

Except it's a fundamentally different proposition, so I don't see the relevance of this anecdote.

bushman130 6y ago
I think the relevance is: If a family has decided that an elderly relative is of so little value to them that they will abandon them at a hospital with no need of medical attention, then the convenience of quietly and legally ending their life will outweigh the burden of providing support and family for that relative.
- breakfastduck 6y ago
  Right, but this isn't what the proposition is. It's that a person has a right to end their own life, not that someone else can just arbitrarily choose to euthanize someone else.