Euthanasia: There is no valid argument against it.
Welcome to Alan Charman's view of life, the universe & everything.
Warning: content will disturb political conservatives, the religious and the terminally stupid.
The subject of euthanasia has again reared its head, with the death of Brittany Maynard, who despite living in religious-right USA was able to take the path of euthanasia on her own terms, while Philip Broderick, who lives in liberal NZ, cannot do that, but wishes he could.
Let's look at some facts before we get to discussion:
Cancer Cachexia
At least a third of terminally-ill cancer patients die of cancer cachexia rather than cancer, and in the case of gastro-intestinal cancer patients, over three-quarters of them will die of it.
Cancer cachexia is a polite name for "starvation caused by cancer". It is that simple: when a person is terminally ill with cancer - and many other diseases also - they often cannot eat. This unsurprisingly, causes the patient to starve to death before the cancer or other disease can kill them,
Pain Management
The idea that the medical industry can cure the pain associated with terminal cancer is a myth. We have known for hundreds of years that humans develop resistance to pain medication very quickly, and there are simply insufficient types of pain medication to enable a pain-free, conscious, end of life in many, many cases.
Sentience
It's all very well for the comatose cancer patient - they are presumably unaware of what is going on, but what quality of life is there lying in a bed unconscious and wasting away to death?
Surely, if use brain death as a qualifier for recording death of the human, we must acknowledge that in terminal cancer, a terminal coma is dead to all intents and purposes.
In the case of Alzheimer's patients, they will always get to a stage where they are incapable of thinking, eating, cleaning or doing anything for themselves. We keep those people alive, knowing for certain they will die and that we are in reality, keeping a human vegetable alive.
What for? Their quality of life is zero. They may not be experiencing pain, but neither are they experiencing pleasure or indeed, any emotion or thought.
Best of all, as Alzheimer's does not actually kill the patient, we keep them alive until something does - usually a bacterial or viral infection.
Appearance
Terminal cancer patients, especially if they have cachexia, look bloody horrible. My own father was so light - for a bloke who was 5' 11 and 89 kg at his peak - that I carried his body and the stretcher it was on to the hearse on my own. I reckon he weighed under 40 kg when he died - I could not believe how light he was.
A friend who also died of cancer cachexia was so awful-looking during the last three weeks of his life he refused to let his young children visit him. He wanted them not to have nightmares at recalling the nightmare that he had become.
Terminal illness is not pretty and it sure as hell is not dignified.
Arguments against Euthanasia
Almost all of the anti-euthanasia brigade are that way inclined because they own a book written several thousand years ago that claims their sky-daddy will cry if a person kills himself.
I am happy to dismiss every religious argument as complete nonsense. Religion and the idea of a sky-daddy is illogical and stupid, and if people want to continue a fairytale from ancient Israel, then go ahead - but keep your morals to yourself alone. If you wish to take the pain, good for you, but don't you dare try to enforce your idiotic rules on anyone else.
The anti-euthanasia brigade are so bereft of reasons why they are against it was widened today to include this gem: "If a person is suffering and is not getting palliative care then the solution is not to offer assisted suicide, it's to change the doctor."
I wonder if the idiot is looking for a new Tui ad - some bloke who is terminally ill and can't even get out of bed is somehow going to find a new doctor who will cure his pain?
Yeah, right.
Like I said, take away the religion - which is nothing - and they have nothing.
Note in that same article the NZ Medical Association's opposition. It is important to note that their official position is that they do not support doctor-assisted euthanasia, because they feel doctors should not be prescribing death. That's all very well and Hippocratic, but it ignores a thousand years of medical history that doctors ought to be aware of. It seems a lot more unethical to me that someone suffer for no good reason that prescribe then something to give a clean, quick death.
The slippery slope - this is where opponents say that if legalised, euthanasia will become compulsory. This is complete nonsense, because it can only be driven by the self. If a person does not leave instructions for their possible comatose state, they will not be euthanised. If a family puts pressure on a terminal ill family member to take the Exit Bag way out, that is the family's dysfunction and cannot be used to stop the vast majority.
Alternatives
They are, alas, few & far between, because anyone helping a person commit euthanasia is liable to criminal prosecution and will be sent to jail if caught.
The only answer is to prepare. I have given instructions on how to make one's own Exit Bag from materials easily bought in NZ, so if you have a need, go and read them.
Dignity
There is much talk of dying with dignity in the euthanasia debate because many people feel like me - that dying in an adult nappy full of one's own shit, while starving to death in unbearable pain is not very dignified. By choosing euthanasia, we reserve the right to die while still in control of our faculties.
Morality
As I am so tired of saying, if you have a dog and let it starve to death, you will be prosecuted and possibly jailed.
While at the same time, our archaic religious-based laws demand that humans be starved to death.
Copyright © Alan Charman