shutterbug;
In other words this is just a ploy to help the mentally ill commit suicide.
Good to see you took time to research the issue properly before giving us the benefit of your opinion.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/336/25/1795?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&searchid=1053331332570_624&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&minscore=5000&journalcode=nejm
I'm sorry, it seems you didn't do your homework properly, you are the "zwakste schakel", goodbye...
Yeru;
Holland allows Euthanasia, in 1998 over 1000 elderly were killed withou their consent, and it was legal.
Yeru, could you please cite your sources, and ensure that they detail what they define as "withou their consent" (at all, at the time, what?)? I'm not contesting the figure, I merely want to be able to see how it is arrived at.
In Holland the majority of people are in favour of the legislation. As with anti-euthanasia websites, the majority of oppostion seems to be focused around religious belief more than anything else.
Of course, such people are entitled to their opinion, but I don't see why an opinion something that seems to be so belief related should be enforced on people who don't have those beliefs.
As for the figures;
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/335/22/1699
Results Among the deaths studied, 2.3 percent of those in the interview study and 2.4 percent of those in the death-certificate study were estimated to have resulted from euthanasia, and 0.4 percent and 0.2 percent, respectively, resulted from physician-assisted suicide. In 0.7 percent of cases, life was ended without the explicit, concurrent request of the patient.
As far as enforcing opinions, obviously it's far more important to make sure that real world cases of physicians enforcing their opinions regarding patient termination are prevented as much as is possible. That is FAR more important than assiting the imposition of religiously motivated opinion on people that don't hold it.
What the Dutch system does is lost sight of. What it does is nothing new. It is the codification of previous practise to prevent problems; Dutch pragmaticsim at its best.
In other words, "It's happening anyway, let's create a sensible legislative framework". This seems to work;
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/335/22/1699
Euthanasia seems to have increased in incidence since 1990, and the ending of life without the patient's explicit request seems to have decreased slightly.
Now, if you like, you can believe that doctors in the UK and USA say, are fundamentally different, and never assist with a patient's death. You can ignore the fact that such deaths take place (except in cases like Oregon) without ANY check or balance. But even if you want to ignore those facts Yeru, I can't see how you can ignore the ill-thought out nature of this sentence;
If someone wants to off themselves, go at it.
You don't seem to have even thought about people who are so ill they don't have the physical competence to end their lives, even though they may be mentally competent and wish to.
I'd be very interested to hear what you think of euthanasia and assisted suicide from a human-rights point of view (that of the patient). Obviously, any system is open to abuse, but it seems unreasonable to deny someone the right to die, as well as being a bit like King Canute trying to stop the tide... like those old laws that made commiting suicide a criminal offense!!!
If you inolve the medical system insurance companies will start to offer premiums and bennies for those who kill themselves (or are killed) as oppossed to a lenghty recovery/hospital stay/surgery.
Well, I do think that bonuses paid to medical personel for such activities should be banned, and circumvention of these rules should result in life terms. But I see nothing unreasonable about someone who has 18 months of pain and expensive care with a certain outcome making a deal with his medical insurance company to have a lump sum for their family or their final few months if they decide to euthanise.