euthanasia should have its place in the light of day. Highly regulated and controlled, but legal.
I agree about the light of day and the legal, but I'm not sure about the regulated and controlled part. In the first place, I'm way too skeptical about government intrusion into such private matters just on general principles. The same reason I'm pro-choice. In the second place, I can't imaging writing the regulations on euthanasia any more than writing the regulations on fetus personhood.
IMO, these things should be handled on a case by case basis, preferably informally. People of good will can figure out the best thing to do. People not of good will, of course, are always a risk, but they're a risk every day--muggers, rapists, drunk drivers. I'd rather take my chances with them than with government regulation, I think.
Rather than regulation, we could, perhaps, get protection by requiring consultation with a special ombudsmen who could review any advance directives and check out the beneficiaries on our behalf.
One of the criteria they tend to want to put in the regulations is the nearness of death. I don't think that should be relevant. I'd rather draw up my own advance directive.
The best way, if one is competent, IMO would be to complain with a wink to the doctor about pain until the pain medication reached fatal level.
Karen
edit--I'm so grateful that Dr. K is doing what he's doing. To bad he doesn't have a more charismatic persona. |
