b3ta.com links
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » links » Link 1224357 | Random (Thread)

This is a normal post Still thinking about it.
Though since I think that assisted should be available for pretty much anyone, irrespective of their reasons or status, I'm inclined to think that there's no especial problem here. It doesn't follow from that that anyone has a duty to provide it - and so the State might in this case decide not to make particular efforts to accommodate his request - but, again, there's no particular difficulty from a moral point of view that I can see offhand.
 (I helped save b3ta! Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 16 Sep 2014, 9:47, , Reply)
This is a normal post The only thing that I can think of, via a short string of logic, would be that the person doing the injecting (or whatever) could be classed as a killer.
Or even a mass killer if he does it lots of times. Which seems a bit unfair. I'm possible making a wholly stupid statement there, which is why I'm blaming it on my understanding of logic :)
 (I helped save b3ta! Fray Brentos *mega-belms*, Tue 16 Sep 2014, 9:52, , Reply)
This is a normal post Technically, yes.
But since Belgium has some fairly liberal euthanasia laws - they've even legalised it for children (again, defensibly in my view) - that's not so huge a consideration.

Fun fact: euthanasia is legal in Belgium, but assisting suicide isn't. That means that some people are allowed to kill others legally, but not allowed to help people kill themselves.
 (I helped save b3ta! Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 16 Sep 2014, 10:10, , Reply)
This is a normal post surely if this guy wants to die just because he has a miserable life
then this would be assisted suicide?
 (I helped save b3ta! mutated monty, Tue 16 Sep 2014, 10:24, , Reply)
This is a normal post It's the means by which it's done that's important.
Very loosely, euthanasia involves Smith administering a life-ending treatment to Jones at Jones' request. Assisted suicide involves Smith providing to Jones the means to kill himself, and Jones administering it to himself.

Under Belgium's 2002 law, the former is legal, and the latter illegal. That's precisely the opposite to what we find in other assisted dying regimes - Washington, for example, or the repeated proposals in the UK - under which providing assistance to Jones to self-administer his own death is or would be legal, but actually killing him wouldn't be.
 (I helped save b3ta! Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 16 Sep 2014, 10:31, , Reply)
This is a normal post I appreciate that it is different but I have often wondered why we are allowed to remove life support
from loved ones without their consent (as they cannot provide consent) but cannot do it if they give consent. Speaking as someone that has had to do the former I have often wondered why in the eyes of the law i am not a killer?
 (I helped save b3ta! herd of chickens First part only £1.99 and comes with a free, Tue 16 Sep 2014, 10:44, , Reply)
This is a normal post If they're not competent,
then treatment has to be provided if it is in their best medical interests. If it is not, then it might actually be required that it be removed - to provide futile treatment, for example, would be treatment that is not in their interests, and might qualify as assault.

More, if we have reason to believe that a non-competent patient would have refused certain treatment had she been competent, then we may withdraw it; the Mental Capacity Act actually goes further, and makes certain advance refusals of treatment binding.

If the patient is competent, then a medic is perfectly entitled to withdraw futile treatment too: there's no obligation to provide treatment that is not in the patient's best interest. (cf a case called Burke, from about 2004, for this.)

Consent to withdraw treatment is a trickier one - that would, by implication, describe a case in which treatment was not futile, but the doctor (for some reason) came up with the idea of withdrawing it anyway. I can't see how that'd happen.

It can be withdrawn at the patient's request, though - indeed, it must be, again to avoid assault and/ or battery.

"Loved ones" make no odds. There is no proxy decisionmaking for adults in English law - it's the best medical interests that count strictly speaking, and best interests in a slightly wider sense that count in practice. (Thus a patient's beliefs about dignity might be taken into account when assessing what is in her best interests.) Even with children, next of kin only get a say insofar as that they're assumed to know best what would be in the child's best interest - but that's a rebuttable assumption.

The law wouldn't see a medic who withdrew treatment as a killer, though, because - quite correctly, I think - simply withdrawing treatment won't kill anyone who is well. That is: it's the underlying condition that kills. The most that happens is that death is allowed.

Some ethicists think that killing and letting die are morally equivalent; but I disagree, and the law agrees with me!
 (I helped save b3ta! Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 16 Sep 2014, 11:06, , Reply)
This is a normal post What were your thoughts on that severely disabled guy who took his fight for the right to die to the high courts...
He lost and ended up starving himself to death a few months later :(
 (I helped save b3ta! Fray Brentos *mega-belms*, Tue 16 Sep 2014, 11:12, , Reply)
This is a normal post Hang on -
I'm writing something on the Belgian case for the Oxford Practical Ethics blog - I need to be quick before some other bugger publishes something - but on that case, go to blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/ and search for "Nicklinson". In short, I think he had a reasonable moral case, but his legal case was hopeless.
 (I helped save b3ta! Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 16 Sep 2014, 11:27, , Reply)
This is a normal post Poor bugger :(

(I helped save b3ta! Fray Brentos *mega-belms*, Tue 16 Sep 2014, 12:06, , Reply)
This is a normal post Actually, I thought I'd done more on that case.

(I helped save b3ta! Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 16 Sep 2014, 12:30, , Reply)
This is a normal post Why not have an IV line put in, then a simple button press to administer the dose
The person who wants to die connects the IV to the feeder, presses a button, and the anaesthetic dose is administered, followed by the lethal dose a few minutes after. The doctor wouldn't have to be in the room.
 (Ol' Ginger Bastard a role model for the children, Tue 16 Sep 2014, 12:57, , Reply)
This is a normal post That'd still fall foul of the intention claim -
setting up the machine'd count as assisting suicide, which is illegal in England and Wales under the Suicide Act. (Not sure about Scotland and whether the Act applies there as well.)
 (I helped save b3ta! Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 16 Sep 2014, 13:16, , Reply)
This is a normal post but shirley
there would have to be a certain point in the set up of the machine. if it was a modular device, say 5 components, left in parts in the room...
This is where it gets silly, if someone tops themselves in my bathroom with a hot bath and some razor blades whats the difference?
 (Ol' Ginger Bastard a role model for the children, Tue 16 Sep 2014, 13:28, , Reply)
This is a normal post Well, as long as you hadn't provided the blades in order for them to off themselves, you'd be OK.
Like I said, it's all about intention. (If you know someone is suicidal and foresaw the attempt, but did nothing to prevent it, you might fall foul of negligence laws - but I'm not sure of that. I don't really know anything about negligence.)
 (I helped save b3ta! Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 16 Sep 2014, 13:35, , Reply)
This is a normal post Until now, I thought of Belgium as a country of war memorials, chocolate and paedo gangs.
I reckon there's a TV series begging to be made called The Euthaniser. Bit like a sort of hit-man but he goes around humanely killing people who are terminally ill. Danny Dyer can star.
 (I helped save b3ta! Fray Brentos *mega-belms*, Tue 16 Sep 2014, 10:26, , Reply)