Just an idea...

[boystrange]

There are quite a few cases where someone has refused medical treatment, but it has been given to them anyway by well meaning doctors and such as without it the patient would have definately died (eg: refusing a transfusion for religious reasons, going into a coma, and then while in the coma the transfusion being performed against your wishes

Comments

yeah it's crap

[anonymous]

Hey jaidev, maybe i should sue somebody and use the payout to get my life back :p

u no who this is from

[quog]

Not that I agree with refusing things as simple as a blood transfusion, but at the end of the day, it's a personal decision. If someone wants to refuse treatment, them that's their right.

THe difference between that and euthanasia is the difference between the passive and the active. Big difference.

However, I also think that voluntary euthanasia should be available for the terminally ill, but that's a different story.

[boystrange]

Is it really a different story? In both you are choosing to end your life because you see it as the "best path to take". I wonder what would happen if someone terminally ill stopped eating, and made it clear that they did not want anyone to try and save thier life?

Just as a side note I wonder if anyone in society can just do that if they want to die? - Down a bottle of pills but hold a little sign "Don't treat me, I have thought long and hard about this and I understand what I am doing, I am also fully aware of the consequences"

[badesumofu]

You could, but if someone found you, it seem,s likely that they would try to save your life. I'm not sure if they would be legally bound to, though. A doctor very probably is.

Since 'harm minimisation' arguments don't come into euthanasia in the same way they do for abortion and drug use, all that is left is the good of liberty, vs the good of people not dying.

When you come down to it, you have competing goods (as you do in almost all of these types of debates) and at the end of the day, one has to come up trumps. For me, whether 'people who want to die not dying' is even a good at all is dubious at best. Liberty, however, is a very very important good. So for me, liberty definitely comes up trumps.

[badesumofu]

While you're correct in that essentially Jaidev's idea forces the euthanasia to be active rather than passive, I think there is rather a large difference between letting someone die and killing them.

[badesumofu]

For a start I think volunatary active public euthanasia should be legal, irrespective of whether the patient is dying. If someone wants to die, it should be legal to help them. Of course, doctors (or anyone, for that matter) shouldn't be obliged to, though.

By a very similar token, I also think if a person is in their normal state of mind, able to give informed consent, etc. then if they say they don't want treatment, they shouldn't get treatment.