Euthanasia now legal in Holland

CNN ^ | April 1 2002

[NC_Libertarian]

Authorities aren't deciding when people live or die

They've taken a bold step in that direction. I present to you abortion on the state's deman in China as an example.

Eventually you may be deemed a burden on the state health system and you need to be a cost cutting measure for the taxpayers....

[cantfindagoodscreenname]

I see your point from a Libertarian point of view, but it still doesn't sit right with me. I don't like the idea of involving someone else in the process of killing oneself. In this case, a doctor. Doctors are supposed to protect life, not eliminate it.

[NC_Libertarian]

Doctors are supposed to protect life, not eliminate it.

Exactly, I find dispicable, immoral, unethical and wholly disgusting any doctor who would perform either euthanasia or abortion (a.k.a. HOMOCIDE).

Doesn't this go against their oath?

[realpatriot71]

You're right if someone wants to off themselves, they can. Gun to the head, sit in closed garage with the car running, razor blade to the wrists, bottle of tylenol + 1/5 of vodka, etc. We cannot stop them, but who's knows how to best painlessly end life? None other than a physician, probably more specifically an anesthesiologist. Give me one good reason why physicians, with the proper consults and psych evaluations should not be able to help a painfully terminal patient end their lives. We make them stay alive or choose horrible ends so that we can justify our paranoia about what could happen. You're a libertarian man - society above the individual? Or am I hearing you wrong?

[realpatriot71]

Doctors are supposed to protect life, not eliminate it.

I also agree here. Physicians should not be putting needles into anyone who asks, but I ask you to consider this: if a patient has a short time to live, say less than 6 months, and is in horrible pain, is the doc really "eliminating" a life by helping this person end it sooner, rather than 6 months down the road when they would die anyway? The disease is ending the life, not he doc. The patient decides when they will die, not society.

[Romulus]

Too bad about Europe. It'll be missed.

[asformeandformyhouse]

when one will be alloted so many years to live

Remember "Logan's Run"? Amazing how many of the older Science Fiction movies are becoming fact.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Right. And in England, they only wanted to "register" firearms, not take them away.

[NC_Libertarian]

You're a libertarian man - society above the individual? Or am I hearing you wrong?

Exactly why my position is such as it is. The individual is more important then society. This will lead to judgements on what is best for society, not the individual.

Like you said, it's easy to kill yourself. The information on how to painlessly kill yourself shoudn't be prohibited, but homocide should never be allowed, except in self defense.

I beleive you have the right to kill yourself, but there was never a thing where the government had less power then over your life. There is no limitation on the government's prohibition against killing yourself - they aren't that powerfull.

But the direction this goes is a bad one, and IMO, is decidedly un-libertarian.

I guess I'm not "mainstream" libertarian - i'm pro-life - and so I'm against legal homocide (abortion or euthanasia). But, IMHO, most libertarians are not libertarians in this regard.

Euthanasia and abortion are promoted on the left, becuase they want the power to shape and control society, and that means the ability to prune it as they see fit (i.e. The People's Republic of China).

[realpatriot71]

Right. And in England, they only wanted to "register" firearms, not take them away.

Can you not see the difference? Registration and confiscation of firearms is the direct prevention of a natural right, that to self-defense (basically an initiation of force). Allowing people to die as they wish is lifting a restriction on a natural right, that to property and liberty.

[realpatriot71]

But society and the government are not saying who dies or who lives. They are not prosicuting physicians for telling terminal patients how to die, and even giving the patient the drugs and instrcution they need to know in order die.

[NC_Libertarian]

Not yet, but now that it's in the toolchest it's only a matter of time that it becomes a matter of fiscal policy.

I understand your argument, and there is merit to it, but this will create problems a thousand fold greater then the one it seeks to solve.

It denigrates life and the invidual. These decisions will eventually be made on what is best for "the family" or "society". Resentment over the weak and sick and old....

It's not black and white, your points are correct, but...it shocks my conscience too grately. From a libertarian standpoint, I beleive ultimately this be detrimental to the indvidual and free will and liberty.

Consider the startling new policy of forcibly drugging American citizens against their will, even children against their parent's will with psychotropic drugs! Do you trust these people to have homocide as just another medical procedure?

I do not.

[realpatriot71]

I don't particularly trust the government. However, I just cannot believe that there would ever be a policy that killed people because it was too costly to let them live.

[NC_Libertarian]

I wouldn't put anything past a governing body that has prohibited plants, constitutionally protected the right to kill unborn babies, has attacked her own civilians with tanks and chemical weapons, etc....

Those things sound absurd to me too, but they are reality. Imagine, especially under a socialized medical system like holland has, that you have used up all of your state benefits.

So you've got to take grandma home and watch her suffer in agony, or they could just dispose of her cleanly and convienantly, pruneing out the dead weight for maximum revenue. I can easily see it happening.

There have already been reports of people "euthanized" against their will (a.k.a. murder) in Holland where this has been going on unofficially for over 30 years.

[NC_Libertarian]

Another point, someone in the office just brought up. If they haven't even been enforceing the law against this (as it has been going on for 30 years) then do you really think they are going to keep watch to make sure the GUIDELINES are followed?

[realpatriot71]

However, the difference between here and there is private sector health care.

I really believe we could work out a system that would avoid all the pit-falls that you point out.

[NC_Libertarian]

The best solution, IMO, and I think perhaps one we could agree on as libertarians is to end the prohibition on drugs.

Then it's only matter of aquiring a lethal amount of opiate based drugs for a painless suicide, without opening the pandora's box of legalized homocide.

[Don Myers]

Wait until they start looking for "volunteers."

[NC_Libertarian]

What's up with two libertarians debating this, there should be conservatives in here attacking both of us. What's going on? :)

[realpatriot71]

The best solution, IMO, and I think perhaps one we could agree on as libertarians is to end the prohibition on drugs.

Bingo! :-)

This would TOTALLY eliminate the middle man (physician). If If a person can get acess, legally, to morphine, KCl, and a syringe, they could easily take care of business without all the nastiness associated with "traditional" means of offing one's self.