Euthanasia
Australia – Fatally Flawed Experiments in 21 countries with euthanasia
A booklet of 100 pages titled: “Fatally flawed Experiments in Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia” documents the failure of euthanasia laws in 21 countries/states around the world. Euthanasia laws, once legalised, quickly moved goal posts that went from unbearable suffering to include depression, mental illness, symptoms associated with old age that were not fatal, child euthanasia, suicidal ideation, prisoners and mental health detainees, Disabilities, victims of sexual abuse, non-terminal conditions, and psychiatric disorders. Studies also cited how doctors and nurses often deliberately hastened death of a patient without explicit consent or request from the patient for euthanasia. Among the 21 listed countries are Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Canada, Germany, Spain and Western Australia. More, Fatally Flawed Experiments in Euthanasia.
USA – Organ Donation Euthanasia: the healthy can now die to donate
When organ transplant medicine began, the “dead donor rule” was instituted to assure a wary public that people’s vital organs would only be procured after the person was dead. A corollary to that rule assures the public that people will not be killed for their body parts. Many bioethicists are now pushing to allow doctors to kill via organ harvest, sometimes called “organ donation euthanasia” (ODE).
At first, this proposal was limited to patients on the verge of death or the permanently unconscious. Now, a prominent bioethics journal has published a piece urging that healthy people be allowed to die by removal of vital organs. The author claims that because people can instruct life-sustaining treatment to be withdrawn (LST), and can donate their organs after death, that ODE is also OK because it will result in death, too, and result in more usable organs procured and more lives saved.
Proponents of ODE argue that if the patient consents, it would be permissible to procure the patient’s organs before death. This will of course mean that the patient will die from donating his or her vital organs instead of dying from having his or her treatment withdrawn. However, this seems ethically immaterial in this situation since the outcome for the patient will be the same.
But that’s not true. Not everyone dies after having life-sustaining treatment withdrawn. Indeed, under current organ-donation protocols, if the patient doesn’t die, he is taken back to the ward and usually disqualified as an organ donor thereafter. If this does not constitute a slippery slope then people live in a state of denial or ignorance, wherever euthanasia is legalized it always morphed into something else. “If we can do this, then why not do that also?” More
USA – California seeks to expand euthanasia
The California assisted death lobby is supporting a court case to expand assisted suicide to euthanasia in California.
Legally, assisted suicide is a form of suicide where the law requires a person to “self-administer” a lethal drug cocktail with the assistance of a “medical professional” while euthanasia is a form of homicide whereby the “medical professional” lethally injects the person with a lethal drug cocktail. In the past few years the American assisted death lobby has pushed the limits of state assisted suicide laws.
In 2019, Oregon eliminated the 15 day waiting period for assisted suicide and currently California is debating assisted suicide expansion bill SB 380 which, among other things, eliminates the requirement of a formal examination of the law. The New Mexico assisted suicide law only requires a 48 hour waiting period, that can be waived, and it redefined who could approve assisted suicide to include nurses. More
Australia – Politicians aren’t listening to logical, evidence-based arguments.
Five out of Australia’s six states have lawful assisted suicide and euthanasia: Victoria, Western Australia, Tasmania, South Australia and recently Queensland joined. The new law has three serious flaws. First, health practitioners are permitted to initiate a discussion of “assisted dying” with patients. Second, doctors who have a conscientious objection to “assisted dying” are obliged to refer to a compliant doctor. And third, healthcare facilities must permit “assisted dying” on their premises, even if it violates their “institutional conscience”. These concerns were raised in the amendments and all of them were voted down. Opposition to euthanasia is not just religious; there are countless reasons to oppose it on medical, legal, and social grounds. More