This pissed me off the other day
With a thinly-veiled pro/anti-euthanasia debate on the Today Programme. The chap who was opposed to it had lost his mother not so long ago, and she had been in a position where they were considering euthanasia. Obviously I have every sympathy for the man; it's a horrible decision to have to face, and not one to be taken lightly.

But then he cited the argument that they always use - the "what if?" argument. Apparently on the last day his mother had briefly regained consciousness. I don't know whether she was sufficiently sentient to communicate, but she briefly flickered into life before she relapsed and eventually passed away.

All rather touching. And, he argued, he was opposed to euthanasia because, if they had switched off the life support, they would have missed out on that last opportunity.

As I say, my sympathies go out to the feller, but I hate that argument. There's something so horribly manipulative about it. It plays on that uncertainty, that lingering "you never know...", which, unfortunately, doesn't happen in the majority of cases.

It reminds me of the anecdote where one doctor asks another whether he would have terminated the unborn child of a syphilitic mother, which would be born with various other ailments. If the other doctor says "yes," he is told
"Then you would have killed Beethoven."

Witty, perhaps, but not statistically accurate. He would have killed one unborn child who would probably have been born with various ailments and hereditary syphilis. Historically, the chances of such a child going on to become a hugely influential figure in late-classical/early-romantic music are very small indeed*.

I don't think it's right to play this "what if?" card in these cases. If your relative is predicted to spend another month, in agony and partially sedated, then any number of things could happen before that month is up. They might die sooner. They might hang on longer than that. Yes, they might regain consciousness. But there's no certainty of any of these things happening. You're playing on the fear bought on by people's uncertainty, and that will never help them come to a reasoned decision regarding whether or not to pull the plug.

*_{I'm not saying that we should therefore terminate such pregnancies, I'm just trying to say I don't think that's a watertight argument against abortion}
(LongJohnBaldry, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 10:46, 1 reply, 16 years ago)

The person who gave the what if argument because
his mother MAY have been conscious for about 2 seconds was an incredibly selfish fuck. He was doing it for himself, not for his mother.

If someone chooses to live in incredible pain thats fine, but a person should be able to chose to end things painlessly if that is what he or she wants. Whose fucking business is it but the person who is sick?

Also, in case we end up in a situation where we can't make a decision, we have living wills that clearly state we should not be kept alive through artificial means when there is no hope of recovery.
(MichaelS wasn't picked again, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 12:49, Reply)