Let's hope for the truth

Esther Rantzen has stage four lung cancer and has announced that she has joined Dignitas, to ensure a dignified and painless death if her treatment fails to work.

"We gave my dog a painless death -the law means I can't have the same"

Why is it that those advocating the right to euthanasia always use the example of the dog being put down as part of their justification?

Today, 21st December at 15:30 the vet will arrive to put our dog to sleep. He has a brain tumour,  shows visible distress, spends long periods of the day just going round in circles, always in a clockwise direction. But perhaps worse of all his personality has changed. A spaniel he has always loved people, he loves the fuss they give him and he has never bitten anyone, except once as a puppy.

Over the last week he has tried to bite everyone in the house, including my sister in law who has been bitten three times.

But the decision to have him put down has been a difficult one. Feelings of guilt, grief and sadness have made it a tough choice.

But it is the right choice.

So without being consulted, today our dog will be killed. And there will be tears. 

So why the guilt? Because although it is the right decision, I worry that it wasn't a completely unselfish decision. The dog is also incontinent and we are clearing up shit and piss several times a day. 

Which is unpleasant.

So is there perhaps a bit of selfishness in my decision to kill the dog, which the reality of what we are doing? Perhaps. Maybe if he wasn't incontinent I would have waited a couple more weeks?

Who knows, I feel it to be unlikely. But I feel uncomfortable about my role in the decision.

Of one thing I'm certain, there is no fundamental equivalence between this and human euthanasia. But there are many of the same dangers, with the cost being much higher for people.

Now for euthanasia to be safe, the priority must be that any decision made, must be done voluntarily, with full understanding of the facts and free from coercion. Whether that be family members worrying about their inheritance being spent on a care home, or a hospital manager looking for ways to balance the books 

Of course many will say that I'm being unnecessarily negative, that a robust approval process will protect the individual concerned.

I wonder.

Writing in the Church of Scotland magazine, Life and Work in 2008, Philosopher and Ethicist Lady Warnock seemed to suggest that dementia patients should agree to euthanasia as it would be selfish to expect family and authorities to look after them.

An elderly family friend who had to go into hospital because of a serious chest infection, became upset and agitated when she felt forced into signing the no resuscitation form.

A 2001 study in the American Journal of medicine concluded that there was strong correlation between depression AND the feeling of being a burden on their family and the patients desire for euthanasia.

Something Lady Warnock should have thought about before she made her comments.

Interestingly contrary to what Esther Rantzen seems to believe, fear of an undignified death wasn't the major issue.

You can also see opportunities for the unscrupulous family members to make use of these fears for their own benefit. Those who are dying will become targeted by those who seek to gain.

This is an interesting article by the BBC On line 

BBC News - Who can die? Canada wrestles with euthanasia for the mentally ill

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-64004329

What is interesting in the article is how quickly the demand for more categories to be allowed to request euthanasia, the mentally ill, those with degenerative deceases ( more on this later).   and the disabled and certainly with regards the disabled there is widespread disquiet with regards the way it's being implemented. So much so that three United Nations experts have warned that the disabled are at risk of being devalued, as their disability maybe negatively assessed in a comparison with the terminally ill.

Despite the often contemptuous response of euthanasia proponents , there is a slippery slope of demand in so many countries. The evidence of this is beyond argument.

However none of this addresses the main issue of euthanasia's proponents and that is people are still dying horribly (although this point itself also avoids responding to the truth that in so many cases it's no longer limited to those who will die), and this is a serious point and a real weakness in those who are anti euthanasia. 

Condemning people to die in pain and fear is not a good look.

And I don't have an easy answer. Palliative hospice care is part of the answer, but isn't all of it. And doesn't pretend to be.

I know of patients whose last hours were full of pain and fear, not because they were dying, but because of the way they were dying.

I've seen lung cancer patients die.

I know of a case, where the patient after a week of constipation, suddenly whilst standing let it all go and was left standing humiliated in a pool of their own shit.

Where is the dignity?

So what's the answer. Personally I don't know. I am concerned about simply legalising, simply because one well known 'celebrity' says we should. An understanding of human nature, our 'original sin' says that the elderly will be coerced into agreeing to euthanasia, by greedy, covetous family members.

I am concerned that whatever line is drawn will immediately be challenged and our young, mentally ill and disabled will become vulnerable. Because of parents who resent them and a society unwilling to invest in the required services.

I am concerned that the answer will leave us all worse off. Human life devalued and eventually to all intents and purposes our young and our elderly are left coerced into agreeing as much by the state as the individual. 

I am also concerned that people will cease to listen to the arguments against. Steamrollered into accepting the smooth reassurances of the proponents, down playing the problems.

Because in the parts of the world where euthanasia is happening, people are being coerced, the disabled are being devalued and more and more conditions are being included into those conditions where euthanasia is a reasonable response.

If approved for the terminally ill how long will it take before conditions like Parkinson's are included. 

How soon will a new Lady Warnock state that those who have degenerative deceases would be selfish to not accept being 'put to sleep', when their condition has progressed to a certain stage?

I hope both sides argue honestly, already I'm concerned that they are not.