5 ms·

It works very well in countries such as the Netherlands, I've seen that first hand in cancer cases. It is the most dignified thing to do for a thinking person.

by marquis 13y ago

It works very well in countries such as the Netherlands, I've seen that first hand in cancer cases. It is the most dignified thing to do for a thinking person. Do you have examples where a large percentage of the cases are obvious malpractice? I have long planned that I will do everything in my power not to stay on life support, and recommend you do the same for the sake of your family and your sanity.

a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
> not to stay on life support Ceasing or preventing disproportionate medical measures is a very different thing than decisively murdering somebody. To my understanding, living wills already allow the former.
- marquis 13y ago
  >decisively murdering somebody Is that what Scott Adams was proposing? I'd think you'd be hardpressed to find someone who is interested in decisive murder. Edit: lostlogin - you're right. Those horrors exist. I'm not from the U.S. so I forget that such medieval concepts are still in practice. Again, the great irony - the right to die is not allowed but can be forced on you.
  - lostlogin 13y ago
    The US. Drones and the death penalty are what I have in mind. And neither of those are going away soon. Not that many countries are any better, we just don't have the money to keep up.
ars 13y ago
> not to stay on life support It's not such a simple decision. I know someone who was on life support and minimally conscious and recovered from there to more or less normal health. It would be better to specify something like: no life support provided there is also no cognitive ability for 2 months. That gives at least a chance of recovery.
- pantalaimon 13y ago
  There is a difference if you had a car accident and are 20 years old or if you are having terminal cancer at 80.
bulte-rs 13y ago
It's actually regulated quite well here in te Netherlands. Strict protocols to follow by at least two "independant" doctors. Doesn't mean stuff never goes "awry" though.
- shabble 13y ago
  is "awry" better or worse than the status quo?
  - bulte-rs 13y ago
    Awry as in: there recently was a case in which a doctor disregarded protocols in several cases; this was undetected for quite a while. This always leads to discussions here in NL, not about euthanasia practice in general, but about the amount of control and the ethical "framework" surrounding the protocols.
rodgerd 13y ago
Perhaps glibly tossing out a country with a strongly collectivist ethos that sees the government provide fully-funded, universal care for those with long term illness, as an example of why voluntary euthenasia would work well in a country where "Devil take the hindmost" appears to be the approach is not the best. I'm generally a fan of voluntary euthenasia. But pretending there's no scope for abuse, especially in a country where the single biggest cause of personal bankruptcy is illness, is at best hopelessly naive.

by marquis 13y ago

a8da6b0c91d 13y ago

> not to stay on life support Ceasing or preventing disproportionate medical measures is a very different thing than decisively murdering somebody. To my understanding, living wills already allow the former.

marquis 13y ago
>decisively murdering somebody Is that what Scott Adams was proposing? I'd think you'd be hardpressed to find someone who is interested in decisive murder. Edit: lostlogin - you're right. Those horrors exist. I'm not from the U.S. so I forget that such medieval concepts are still in practice. Again, the great irony - the right to die is not allowed but can be forced on you.
- lostlogin 13y ago
  The US. Drones and the death penalty are what I have in mind. And neither of those are going away soon. Not that many countries are any better, we just don't have the money to keep up.

ars 13y ago

> not to stay on life support It's not such a simple decision. I know someone who was on life support and minimally conscious and recovered from there to more or less normal health. It would be better to specify something like: no life support provided there is also no cognitive ability for 2 months. That gives at least a chance of recovery.

pantalaimon 13y ago
There is a difference if you had a car accident and are 20 years old or if you are having terminal cancer at 80.

bulte-rs 13y ago

It's actually regulated quite well here in te Netherlands. Strict protocols to follow by at least two "independant" doctors. Doesn't mean stuff never goes "awry" though.

shabble 13y ago
is "awry" better or worse than the status quo?
- bulte-rs 13y ago
  Awry as in: there recently was a case in which a doctor disregarded protocols in several cases; this was undetected for quite a while. This always leads to discussions here in NL, not about euthanasia practice in general, but about the amount of control and the ethical "framework" surrounding the protocols.

rodgerd 13y ago

Perhaps glibly tossing out a country with a strongly collectivist ethos that sees the government provide fully-funded, universal care for those with long term illness, as an example of why voluntary euthenasia would work well in a country where "Devil take the hindmost" appears to be the approach is not the best. I'm generally a fan of voluntary euthenasia. But pretending there's no scope for abuse, especially in a country where the single biggest cause of personal bankruptcy is illness, is at best hopelessly naive.