He generally assumes that the only form of suffering in death is pain. There are also nausea, vomiting, weakness and fatigue, restlessness, feelings of dread, feelings of humiliation, feelings of intense disgust (google “malignant wound” if you dare), severe shortness of breath, feelings of asphyxiation, and delirium.
Short of putting the patient into a coma, not all pain is treatable. Pain from nerve compression and bone compression are very hard to treat. Pain medications have side effects (eg delirium from morphine), and paradoxical effects (eg intensification of pain from metabolites of morphine). The circumstances of the terminally ill are unstable. A person can be pain free one moment and then be in pain again. Experimentation ensues, and continues until the person is again “reasonably comfortable”. Also there is suffering from being aware of the anguish of your family as they watch you suffer. The overall stats on residual suffering are in the tens of percents for the above (except malignant wounds, which are mercifully not common)
His quotation of the web site http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org/ several times concerns me. One of the luminaries on the site Rita Marker is author of the book “Deadly compassion”, and is described in the blurb of the book as director of the “International Anti-Euthanasia Task Force”. I therefore question their credibility as a source of objective data on the topic. In this debate the use of “front” organisations is rampant, and typically disguises motives and/or beliefs of those behind them and often misleads people as to their objectivity—as appears to have happened in this case.
He fails to make a sufficiently clear distinction between the view that “I do/do not want euthanasia for me” and “I do/do not want to ban euthanasia for anyone”.
I also don’t see much evidence he has researched issues in depth, looking at actual data. He overvalues speculation over data IMHO.
He assumes that the opposition of the AMA is entirely motivated by medical considerations, without investigating how representative the organisation’s views are of doctors in general and the role of religious based activism in their position.
While in some sense not relevant to a rational argument, it is useful to understand the motivations and tactics of the organized opposition to voluntary euthanasia. Overwhelmingly the opposition is religiously motivated, though most religious people in polling do support voluntary assisted dying. You can read e.g. the Catholic Encyclical on euthanasia for details of their actual beliefs, which revolve around a) the notion that God owns your life, not you b) failing to submit to God’s will—as to when you die—is a form of selfishness, arrogance and narcissism http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/06/11/pope-francis-euthanasia-is-triumph-of-selfishness-not-compassion/ and c) the notion that suffering is part of God’s plan (look up “redemptive suffering”) and that suffering is often a very good thing.
When these people raise arguments like slippery slope, killing granny for the inheritance, and the loss of respect for people with disabilities, it helps to understand that these are not their primary concerns. They are typically using these arguments because they work, not because they are true. They appear to feel morally justified to bend facts, make things up, exaggerate, use front organisations with misleading names, etc because it is in a good cause of stopping euthanasia which they regard as a moral evil.
If you are unaware of this, you may fail to be on guard for the kinds tactics that are unfortunately rampant in this debate.
Some criticisms of this piece
He generally assumes that the only form of suffering in death is pain. There are also nausea, vomiting, weakness and fatigue, restlessness, feelings of dread, feelings of humiliation, feelings of intense disgust (google “malignant wound” if you dare), severe shortness of breath, feelings of asphyxiation, and delirium.
Short of putting the patient into a coma, not all pain is treatable. Pain from nerve compression and bone compression are very hard to treat. Pain medications have side effects (eg delirium from morphine), and paradoxical effects (eg intensification of pain from metabolites of morphine). The circumstances of the terminally ill are unstable. A person can be pain free one moment and then be in pain again. Experimentation ensues, and continues until the person is again “reasonably comfortable”. Also there is suffering from being aware of the anguish of your family as they watch you suffer. The overall stats on residual suffering are in the tens of percents for the above (except malignant wounds, which are mercifully not common)
His quotation of the web site http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org/ several times concerns me. One of the luminaries on the site Rita Marker is author of the book “Deadly compassion”, and is described in the blurb of the book as director of the “International Anti-Euthanasia Task Force”. I therefore question their credibility as a source of objective data on the topic. In this debate the use of “front” organisations is rampant, and typically disguises motives and/or beliefs of those behind them and often misleads people as to their objectivity—as appears to have happened in this case.
He fails to make a sufficiently clear distinction between the view that “I do/do not want euthanasia for me” and “I do/do not want to ban euthanasia for anyone”.
I also don’t see much evidence he has researched issues in depth, looking at actual data. He overvalues speculation over data IMHO.
He assumes that the opposition of the AMA is entirely motivated by medical considerations, without investigating how representative the organisation’s views are of doctors in general and the role of religious based activism in their position.
While in some sense not relevant to a rational argument, it is useful to understand the motivations and tactics of the organized opposition to voluntary euthanasia. Overwhelmingly the opposition is religiously motivated, though most religious people in polling do support voluntary assisted dying. You can read e.g. the Catholic Encyclical on euthanasia for details of their actual beliefs, which revolve around a) the notion that God owns your life, not you b) failing to submit to God’s will—as to when you die—is a form of selfishness, arrogance and narcissism http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/06/11/pope-francis-euthanasia-is-triumph-of-selfishness-not-compassion/ and c) the notion that suffering is part of God’s plan (look up “redemptive suffering”) and that suffering is often a very good thing.
When these people raise arguments like slippery slope, killing granny for the inheritance, and the loss of respect for people with disabilities, it helps to understand that these are not their primary concerns. They are typically using these arguments because they work, not because they are true. They appear to feel morally justified to bend facts, make things up, exaggerate, use front organisations with misleading names, etc because it is in a good cause of stopping euthanasia which they regard as a moral evil.
If you are unaware of this, you may fail to be on guard for the kinds tactics that are unfortunately rampant in this debate.