Trunkles at Large

I am in favour of Euthanasia for those that want it. Unfortunately, it is illegal throughout most of the world. I would like to see that change. I can understand that it is not easy to legislate appropriately so I looked at the issues against euthanasia and came up with this list of solutions for the main ones.

• Medical Ethics - A doctor has taken the Hippocratic Oath in some form or other. In principle, that oath says that a physician may not do anything that may harm life. I would suggest that euthanasia might actually improve life, albeit in the short term. Which would you rather have, a few days in which to say goodbye to friends and family, happy in the knowledge that your pain and suffering will be over soon, or, potentially, many years of that pain and suffering, pain and suffering that is likely to effect the lives of many others. By assisting in euthanasia a physician may have given the best treatment available. However, some physicians may feel unable to assist in euthanasia. So I suggest that if euthanasia is legalised then all physicians should add a smaller addition to their personal registration that says whether they will or will not assist in euthanasia. The physician then has the choice to opt in or out as fits their own standpoint.

• Moral acceptability - For some people, euthanasia is tantamount to murder or suicide. That is, of course, their own opinion and they are completely entitled to it.
• Religion - Many people with religious beliefs say that human life belongs to their god, and so we have not got the right to end it. Again, this is their personal opinion and they are entitled to it.
• Can it be done? - Are you, as the patient, competent to make the decision under the circumstances. You may be under the influence of a variety of drugs and be suffering. Your metal state may not be competent to make a reasoned decision.
• Is it needed? - Is the suffering temporary or is it genuinely terminal or incurable?
• The needs of others - Family and friends may not want their loved one to die. I can understand that totally, I would not wish those that I love to die. But then, do I want them to suffer? Of course not. To me, accepting, and supporting their decision to die may be the biggest expression of my love for them that there could be. My only wish would be to be there when they go, to hold their hand so they know that I love them. And yes, I will cry uncontrollably. Yes, I will grieve and mourn for them. I will also be happy, knowing that they are no longer suffering, that they are at peace. I would rather my abiding memories of them were of happy times, not of pain and suffering.
• Coercion - Medical care costs money and there are those who would try to get people to accept euthanasia simply to ease that financial burden. This is, of course, abominable and easily preventable, as you will see.

The solution to each of the last six is simple. You, the individual, opt in or out before it become of importance. Your doctor or some similar reasonable authority, maybe even a separate “Euthanasia Register” kept by government, keeps a record of your decision, and on what grounds you opt out, if you do opt out, regarding euthanasia. You opt in or out as you desire. If your beliefs say “no” then you opt out. The whole point being that is a decision for you, the individual, to decide, not others.

If you have opted out then euthanasia cannot happen, unless decided on by what one might call the “Euthanasia Tribunal”, who will make a decision appropriately. If you have opted out then there would have to be very compelling reasons for the tribunal to approve the euthanasia.

The Euthanasia Tribunal is a group of competent people who will look at each case and make an appropriate decision. Those that sit on it MUST have opted in to euthanasia in general and be seen to be impartial. The tribunal hears evidence from those for and against euthanasia in this specific case, not in general. You reason for opting out would also be observed, so, for example, if you opt out for religious reasons, then the clergy can speak against. Take, for example, the following. A man and his family are deeply religious. His spouse is not, but her family is. The spouse is in a situation where euthanasia is possibly appropriate, but has not registered her desired option and is not in a competent state to make the decision. The tribunal is not allowed to hear one word against it from anyone who has opted out for a moral or religious reason, on the principle that their opinion would reflect their morals or religion, rather than the patient’s. I would suggest that the tribunal consist of a judge and several physicians, at least two of which should be experts in the particular condition the patient has. The tribunal has the power to say yes or no to euthanasia. It also has the power to examine the cost of continuing treatment. If that cost is beyond what the person or their immediate family can afford, then the cost of that care, what ever it is, will be born by the state. This would negate the coercion factor.

So, there it is, my solution to the euthanasia issue. We all opt in or out. Physicians and the others who may be involved in the decision path opt in or out. If the individual has opted in then only others who have opted in may be part of the decision path.

I’m quite sure that there are plenty of holes in what I’ve said and there must, of course, be process in place to ensure that abuse does NOT occur. I hope you will agree though, that it gives the individual, whose body it is, to make the decision appropriate to them rather than having the opinions of others foisted upon them.

My regstration details? I’ll opt in please, it’s what I want for me and my body.