Re: Euthanasia a Human Right ?

"Olav Christian B?e" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In our western societies we are protected by laws, and we are granted
> natural individual rights and freedom.
Those who are supposedly elected to represent us create laws, allocate
rights and invent freedoms, often for narrow party-political reasons. This
results in the implementation of all manner of nonsense, much of which
undermines 'natural' rights. The definition, and allocation, of 'natural'
rights and laws vary according to location, time and opinion. In addition,
most rights are alienable, in that governments can remove them at will
(freedom of movement, for example, is what prison alienates, and most
governments happily slap injunctions on the press as and when they feel like
it). The things that are granted are priveleges - things like the 'right' to
pursue happiness, the 'right' to raise a family, the 'right' not to be
killed - these are all priveleges that can be, and frequently are, revoked

>... there is however, no right or law, permitting us to terminate another
human being´s life except for a few
> exceptions; in war, selfdefence and abortion of an unwanted pregnacy
within a short time frame.
There's a  good reason for this. At a guess, I reckon that somewhere near 0%
of a random sample would have no objections to having their life terminated
by somebody else. In most places, self-defence is only a defence against
murder - you'd still get done for manslaughter.

> We regard it humane however, to end an animal´s life if it is suffering
from age, a disease or an
> injury which is not cureable, for human beings this is not the case.
Not quite true. Most animals are 'humanely' killed when they become
uneconomic, or their illness becomes too costly to treat. Humans, too, are
often left to die when they get expensive diseases, although improvements in
palliative care means that death can be postponed for a considerable time
quite cheaply. Even if a cure for a disease exists, it can remain
'incurable' for the poor. Actuaries know all about what the value of a life
is in the eyes of society and, for governments, insurers and the healthcare
industry, the 'sanctity' of life is a financial, rather than a moral,
commodity.

> More than one doctor must independantly
> diagnose the condition to be terminal and there must be no cure
> available to releave the pain for the pasient.
Given the ability of doctors to disagree about anything, and the fact that
one doctor's 'terminally-ill' patient is another doctor's research project,
I'm not sure this is the best approach. In addition, there is the
possibility of 'miracle' cures. If one person has spontaneously recovered
from a 'terminal' condition, does the condition stop being terminal? Is a
condition terminal if it takes 5 years to kill you, or 10, or 75? And how
painful should it be before it qualifies? Is there a scale from, say, Ouch
through Eeek to Eugh? Would women (who have a higher tolerance to pain, I'm
told) be more or less eligible than men?

In the UK, at least, anecdotal evidence is that nearly all pain can be
relieved with morphine, and increasing doses of this have been administered
unofficially by doctors to elderly patients as a form of euthanasia for
years. However, a recent case here involving a Dr Harold Shipman, an
enthusiastic practitioner who was remembered generously in the wills of many
unsuspecting (and mostly healthy) patients, but regarded less fondly by the
law, has put an end to much of this.

Personally, I can't see any alternative to 'living wills' combined with some
sort of not-for-profit euthanasia agency. The only barrier to this happening
is the indignant opposition of politicians who fondly believe they are the
moral guardians of their adoring electorates. Unfortunately, it's very
unlikely this will change very soon, and equally unlikely that
pro-euthanasia candidates would gain sufficient sponsorship to win a
workable majority.