Healthy 24-year-old granted right to die in Belgium

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Good thing then that the doctor isn't forced.

They are forced to make that call. They should never have that power nor obligation. Their job is to keep you alive. If you don't want to be alive don't go to a doctor.

Basically if you want to kill yourself we have many options available. Don't be a selfish asshole and make the rest of us come up with rules and regulations and take on the responsibility for you. I want no part of it and I sure as fuck don't want my politicians and doctors having a part in it. The only time the rest of us need to be worried about this at all is if somebody is incapacitated with no hope of recovery and lacks the ability to make that call.

If the doctor in question doesn't want to make that call the doctor says so and the patient needs to go elsewhere. It's also not the job of a doctor to keep a patient alive no matter the cost. In more than a few cases that's just inhumane.
And going to a doctor to exit-life-stage-left is imho the least selfish option. The selfish option is to be an asshole and throw yourself on in front of a car, train or jump in a canal resulting in a lot of misery for people who have the misfortune to be at the wrong place on the wrong time. And/Or for the family left behind that has to hear/find (depending on method of 'leaving') you in less than amusing situations (cause it's always a hoot to find out that a family member hung himself in your cellar/slit his wrists in your bath/got flattened by a vehicle of choice...).
And that's excluding the usually hefty bill from the state in case the dearly departed left in such a way that trains were halted, highways were closed or dredgings needed.
So no, don't be an asshole and go see a doctor. In best case a new perspective is found that results in staying alive, in worst case euthanasia happens but in a setting that allows for setting where goodbyes can be said (if desired), with something that approaches dignity instead of a corpse splattered on a windshield and total strangers needing psychological assistance because of trauma. After all, you're not the only one living on this world.

As for this:"The only time the rest of us need to be worried about this at all is if somebody is incapacitated with no hope of recovery and lacks the ability to make that call."
->if the person in question can no longer make the call it's too late -assuming said person neglected/was unable to specify what should happen in this situation. If euthanasia is done than it's -iirc- murder. Luckily for most, doctors have ways to make it not seem as such but it's not unheard of for family and doctors to get into a lot of problems with the courts.
Hence the law: better legal protection for the doctor while allowing to people to make that final choice (on 'short' or long notice).

[Crazy_Ivan80]

I am amazed that 50% of the people here responded positively to this statement:

I believe people should be able to choose to euthanized for any reason.

Anyone? For any reason? Seriously?


So if some 18 year strolls into their doctors office and says "I want to kill myself because my cat died" the doctor should just write her up a prescription, have a nice day?


ANY REASON?

I think so. People are free to do what they want with their body, including to terminate themselves, even if the reason is stupid.

People are free to do what they want with their body (within limits), but you don't have the right to force a doctor to prescribe you a lethal dose of phenobarbital.

doctor doesn't have to prescribe if he/she doesn't agree for any reason.

Doctors must conduct themselves within their code of ethics and the law.  Doctors can't do what they want for any reason

This law specifies that a doctor who doesn't want to partake in euthanasia doesn' t have to.

I've already posted the law before. I'll do so again: the French version this time since you're Canadian.

http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/cgi_loi/change_lg.pl?language=fr&la=F&cn=2002052837&table_name=loi

Art. 14. La demande et la déclaration anticipée de volonté telles que prévues aux articles 3 et 4 de la présente loi n'ont pas de valeur contraignante.
  Aucun médecin n'est tenu de pratiquer une euthanasie.
  Aucune autre personne n'est tenue de participer à une euthanasie.
  Si le médecin consulté refuse de pratiquer une euthanasie, il est tenu d'en informer en temps utile le patient ou la personne de confiance éventuelle, en en précisant les raisons. Dans le cas où son refus est justifié par une raison médicale, celle-ci est consignée dans le dossier médical du patient.
  Le médecin qui refuse de donner suite à une requête d'euthanasie est tenu, à la demande du patient ou de la personne de confiance, de communiquer le dossier médical du patient au médecin désigné par ce dernier ou par la personne de confiance.

[crazy canuck]

I am amazed that 50% of the people here responded positively to this statement:

I believe people should be able to choose to euthanized for any reason.

Anyone? For any reason? Seriously?


So if some 18 year strolls into their doctors office and says "I want to kill myself because my cat died" the doctor should just write her up a prescription, have a nice day?


ANY REASON?

I think so. People are free to do what they want with their body, including to terminate themselves, even if the reason is stupid.

People are free to do what they want with their body (within limits), but you don't have the right to force a doctor to prescribe you a lethal dose of phenobarbital.

doctor doesn't have to prescribe if he/she doesn't agree for any reason.

Doctors must conduct themselves within their code of ethics and the law.  Doctors can't do what they want for any reason

This law specifies that a doctor who doesn't want to partake in euthanasia doesn' t have to.

I've already posted the law before. I'll do so again: the French version this time since you're Canadian.

http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/cgi_loi/change_lg.pl?language=fr&la=F&cn=2002052837&table_name=loi

Art. 14. La demande et la déclaration anticipée de volonté telles que prévues aux articles 3 et 4 de la présente loi n'ont pas de valeur contraignante.
  Aucun médecin n'est tenu de pratiquer une euthanasie.
  Aucune autre personne n'est tenue de participer à une euthanasie.
  Si le médecin consulté refuse de pratiquer une euthanasie, il est tenu d'en informer en temps utile le patient ou la personne de confiance éventuelle, en en précisant les raisons. Dans le cas où son refus est justifié par une raison médicale, celle-ci est consignée dans le dossier médical du patient.
  Le médecin qui refuse de donner suite à une requête d'euthanasie est tenu, à la demande du patient ou de la personne de confiance, de communiquer le dossier médical du patient au médecin désigné par ce dernier ou par la personne de confiance.

I think you are missing a nuance here.  This legislation requires the doctor to note in the file if there are medical reasons to reject the request before handing it off to the next doctor.  Presumably this is so the next doctor does not miss the fact that there are medical reasons to refuse the request.  The legislation anticipates that there will be medical circumstances where a patient's request to die will be refused ie where the medical condition does not meet the legislated test for when euthanasia should be considered.

Bottom line.  Your point that people can do whatever they want with their bodies for any reason does not withstand close scrutiny.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

I am amazed that 50% of the people here responded positively to this statement:

I believe people should be able to choose to euthanized for any reason.

Anyone? For any reason? Seriously?


So if some 18 year strolls into their doctors office and says "I want to kill myself because my cat died" the doctor should just write her up a prescription, have a nice day?


ANY REASON?

I think so. People are free to do what they want with their body, including to terminate themselves, even if the reason is stupid.

People are free to do what they want with their body (within limits), but you don't have the right to force a doctor to prescribe you a lethal dose of phenobarbital.

doctor doesn't have to prescribe if he/she doesn't agree for any reason.

Doctors must conduct themselves within their code of ethics and the law.  Doctors can't do what they want for any reason

This law specifies that a doctor who doesn't want to partake in euthanasia doesn' t have to.

I've already posted the law before. I'll do so again: the French version this time since you're Canadian.

http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/cgi_loi/change_lg.pl?language=fr&la=F&cn=2002052837&table_name=loi

Art. 14. La demande et la déclaration anticipée de volonté telles que prévues aux articles 3 et 4 de la présente loi n'ont pas de valeur contraignante.
  Aucun médecin n'est tenu de pratiquer une euthanasie.
  Aucune autre personne n'est tenue de participer à une euthanasie.
  Si le médecin consulté refuse de pratiquer une euthanasie, il est tenu d'en informer en temps utile le patient ou la personne de confiance éventuelle, en en précisant les raisons. Dans le cas où son refus est justifié par une raison médicale, celle-ci est consignée dans le dossier médical du patient.
  Le médecin qui refuse de donner suite à une requête d'euthanasie est tenu, à la demande du patient ou de la personne de confiance, de communiquer le dossier médical du patient au médecin désigné par ce dernier ou par la personne de confiance.

I think you are missing a nuance here.  This legislation requires the doctor to note in the file if there are medical reasons to reject the request before handing it off to the next doctor.  Presumably this is so the next doctor does not miss the fact that there are medical reasons to refuse the request.  The legislation anticipates that there will be medical circumstances where a patient's request to die will be refused ie where the medical condition does not meet the legislated test for when euthanasia should be considered.

Bottom line.  Your point that people can do whatever they want with their bodies for any reason does not withstand close scrutiny.

the bottom line is Fate's point.

I'm not missing a nuance here though: A doctor does not need to participate in a euthanasia if he doesn't want to. But if there's (also) a medical reason as to why, this reason needs to be added to the medical file (because it's medically relevant). The first two lines of the article are quite clear -as is the version in Dutch-: no doctor (or anyone else) is obligated to participate in such a procedure.

[dps]

Basically if you want to kill yourself we have many options available. Don't be a selfish asshole and make the rest of us come up with rules and regulations and take on the responsibility for you. I want no part of it and I sure as fuck don't want my politicians and doctors having a part in it. The only time the rest of us need to be worried about this at all is if somebody is incapacitated with no hope of recovery and lacks the ability to make that call.

I'm all for a leaner, meaner government, but even I don't think that looking to the government for regulation of procedures with health and safety implications makes you a selfish asshole.

Well wouldn't the gov't watching out for health and safety opt for that which ensures health and safety (aka not permitting its doctors to prescribe medications for the sole purpose of depriving a patient of health and safety)?

There are many more health and safety aspects than the death thing.

Yes, and a lot of regulations about them.  Garbon's point is that we expect those regulations to ensure health and safety, not undermine it.  For example, very few people have a problem with the government having laws that require automobiles to have working brakes.  Conversely, almost everyone would have a problem with the government having laws that prohibit automobiles from having working brakes.

[The Brain]

Basically if you want to kill yourself we have many options available. Don't be a selfish asshole and make the rest of us come up with rules and regulations and take on the responsibility for you. I want no part of it and I sure as fuck don't want my politicians and doctors having a part in it. The only time the rest of us need to be worried about this at all is if somebody is incapacitated with no hope of recovery and lacks the ability to make that call.

I'm all for a leaner, meaner government, but even I don't think that looking to the government for regulation of procedures with health and safety implications makes you a selfish asshole.

Well wouldn't the gov't watching out for health and safety opt for that which ensures health and safety (aka not permitting its doctors to prescribe medications for the sole purpose of depriving a patient of health and safety)?

There are many more health and safety aspects than the death thing.

Yes, and a lot of regulations about them.  Garbon's point is that we expect those regulations to ensure health and safety, not undermine it.  For example, very few people have a problem with the government having laws that require automobiles to have working brakes.  Conversely, almost everyone would have a problem with the government having laws that prohibit automobiles from having working brakes.

I don't follow.

[crazy canuck]

Ivan,

just to be clear.  Are you arguing that people should be able to do whatever they want with their bodies no matter what the reason might be or have I mixed you up with someone else?

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Ivan,

just to be clear.  Are you arguing that people should be able to do whatever they want with their bodies no matter what the reason might be or have I mixed you up with someone else?

not me iirc.
I'm in the camp that sees euthanasia as unfortunate but preferable to having to hang on when your quality of life is so low as to be non-existant and that ending it with the help of doctors and after making sure there's really no acceptable alternative left is preferable to jumping off a bridge, hanging yourself, etc with all the additional misery that follows such an event. While at the same time providing the doctors (and other medical personel, lets not forget them) with legal protection when such an event happens.

[crazy canuck]

Ivan,

just to be clear.  Are you arguing that people should be able to do whatever they want with their bodies no matter what the reason might be or have I mixed you up with someone else?

not me iirc.
I'm in the camp that sees euthanasia as unfortunate but preferable to having to hang on when your quality of life is so low as to be non-existant and that ending it with the help of doctors and after making sure there's really no acceptable alternative left is preferable to jumping off a bridge, hanging yourself, etc with all the additional misery that follows such an event. While at the same time providing the doctors (and other medical personel, lets not forget them) with legal protection when such an event happens.

I apologize then.  I did mix you up with someone else. We agree on this issue. 

[dps]

Ivan,

just to be clear.  Are you arguing that people should be able to do whatever they want with their bodies no matter what the reason might be or have I mixed you up with someone else?

not me iirc.
I'm in the camp that sees euthanasia as unfortunate but preferable to having to hang on when your quality of life is so low as to be non-existant and that ending it with the help of doctors and after making sure there's really no acceptable alternative left is preferable to jumping off a bridge, hanging yourself, etc with all the additional misery that follows such an event. While at the same time providing the doctors (and other medical personel, lets not forget them) with legal protection when such an event happens.

I apologize then.  I did mix you up with someone else. We agree on this issue. 

Rex Francorum was the one how made that statement.  You probably thought it was Ivan because he quoted it I one of his posts.