Capital Punishment and Voluntary Euthanasia

Off-topic
1

A curious situation has come to my attention:

In the US, many states perform capital punishment; that is, executing convicted criminals of certain horrible crimes. Although in some cases laws still exist on the books for other options, these executions are carried out by lethal injection. If the state were to execute these prisoners by starving them to death, withholding medical treatment, or some similar slow demise, it would largely be considered inhumane.

Law forbids (WA and OR excluded) voluntary euthanasia. That is, the purposeful termination of a terminal, suffering patient’s life, with their expressed consent. It is illegal for physicians to administer a lethal injection, or allow the patient to do the same. Interestingly, though, it is quite legal for a patient to deny treatment that will lead to his or her slow death (such as a feeding tube, simple surgery, medication, etc).

Thus, we have a situation where it is illegal to give a lethal injection to a suffering patient but it is ok to let them starve to death, and where criminals are legally given a lethal injection and it is illegal and considered inhumane to allow them to starve to death.

In this case, it seems that when the state forcibly kills someone, it is quick and painless; when and individual patient wants to die, they must suffer to death. We, as a society, seem to assuage our collective conscience by offering our victims of execution a painless death; yet we are so uncomfortable with death ourselves that we restrict non-criminal patients from the same painless death.

It’s been deemed OK to forcibly kill someone else humanely, but not OK to voluntarily kill yourself humanely; you must suffer to death.

This seems, to me, to be a moral discrepancy in the US. I’m curious to know what others think, especially any arguments that support the way things are now.

2

I love the fact that since im in washington if there was something wrong with me and i was going to die I could do it in a quick and painless way. I feel bad for anyone else that has to die slowly.

I have never seen it put forward in this light.
Its crazy we can kill people for doing wrong but we cant help people die when they have done nothing wrong.
Death comes to us all in our own way. We should have the right to choose how and when. Not that i feel suicide is right, but sometimes death is the only escape we have from the pain in life. It would make sense to give the same rights to normal citizens that we give to criminals.

Plus, population is too high anyway. The more people we kill the better off we are :slight_smile:

CRAZY

3

Is lethal injection really so quick and painless? Who can we ask?

4

I would imagine much less painful than hanging or electric chair.
Its also a lot better than sitting in a bed for months unable to die when you want to i bet.

5

In the case of cancers and other gradual deaths, often in the end the patient gets higher and higher doses of morphine or similar pain medication, to the point of no longer being conscious. This is how it works for people who don’t want to die, up until that point where the pain exceeds the willingness to be alive anymore.

Where’s Dr. Kevorkian when you need him? Is he in prison somewhere?

I think the problem with legal euthanasia is that it’s a giant oil storage tank of worms (not a can) from a legal standpoint. It goes against the hippocratic oath, the “golden rule” for physicians. But at the same time physicians understand the problem for people with terminal problems that they can’t fix.

So if we let terminally ill people choose to be euthanized (which I believe we should), where exactly must we draw the line? How bad off must they be? What amount of pain must they be constantly stuck with? What about people who are not quite so bad off? What about people who just don’t want to live any more? What about people who are having an exceptionally bad day?

What would the Catholic Church (and other religious groups who consider suicide a sin) think about this?

6

Wait, Asian young are volunteering to test capital punishment?

7

They’re against it, obviously.

But I don’t really see how that’s germane to a discussion of the legality/morality of euthanasia. The dark ages are over; we don’t need papal permission to set our own mores anymore.

8

Euthanasia is not just a big topic in the states. You have Dr. Kevorkian, We have Robert Latimer.

In the case of Latimer (who killed his severely disabled daughter) I have no problem with him being convicted of murder but I also believe that he should have his chance of parole before his mandatory 10 years. He is not a danger to society, he will not re-offend, there is no reason why he should be in jail.

9

Bad comparison. While Kevorkian works (worked?) with adults who clearly wanted to end their lives due to medical reasons, what Latimer did was clearly murder, however dire his daughter’s condition was.

Of course it’s way more complicated than that. I read the Wikipedia article about him to get a basic overview of the history of that case. His daughters problems were layered one on top of the other, very difficult. The daughter had no language, and was a minor. Basically two barriers on her even being able to tell people she didn’t want to live anymore. It’s one thing if an adult decides they don’t want to go on living, what if it’s a kid with such a tough life? At the very least, both parents should agree on what to do, which is part of what makes Latimer guilty of murder.

Though I agree he is not likely to re-offend, he also still believes he made the right choice, which is why he was not paroled earlier. Thanks for bring it up Eric, it was a fascinating read.

I’m looking at a picture on my desk of a woman with CP who takes seizure meds (among others), has very limited control of her movements, and who has extreme difficulty making herself understood by anyone but her friends and personal attendants. She has gone back and forth on the need for a feeding tube, as she constantly struggles with difficulty eating and swallowing. It’s a tough life for her, but her disabilities are only physical.

If someone in her situation wanted to stop living, would/should it be okay? She has friends, she makes people happy, she has attended college classes. Thanks to government assistance, she is no longer a prisoner in a developmental center or care home where she had little control over her life. She lives in her own apartment and was even able to save up and qualify for her own van with a wheelchair lift. She needs someone to drive it of course, and to help her do almost everything.

And if it’s not okay for someone in that situation to want to stop living, where do we draw the line? This is not something we worry about at STEP, because we’re too busy trying to protect the rights of people with disabilities, helping them live their lives, and fighting for funding in a bad, bad state economy.

10

You are right, there are huge differences between the cases of Kevorkian and Latimer. Kevorkian was a doctor providing a service to patients who wished to die, while Latimer was a father who (as he saw it) put an end to his daughters suffering.

As I see it Kevorkian would be guilty of “conspiracy to commit a crime (suicide)” or something like that but since he was doing it as the wish of his patient I don’t think it should be considered murder.

In Latimers case there is no question that it was murder but does he deserve 10 to life considering his situation and motives behind the killing? Once you consider that there is that slippery slope again.

11

The Dignitas Clinic in Switzerland has been assisting with suicides for some years now. Many people from all over the world visit and I believe there is a long waiting list.

What’s going to happen to that chap who killed all those people at Fort Hood?
If he’s put on trial after he recovers and is found guilty, will he face the death penalty?

12

I don’t think he’s been accused of murder (by the legal system anyway), but I’m not up on his current situation. For Latimer (based only on what I read in the Wikipedia article) I belive he deserves the full sentence, but lenience on the parole if he comes around to admitting that what he did was not the right thing. I can’t go for it being the right thing unless he knew this was his daughter’s wish. Unfortunately that will be impossible to prove either way. But even then, both parents should have been involved in his decision. By him not involving the mother, in a way he admitted to wrongdoing by protecting her from it (while at the same time taking away her daughter).
[/QUOTE]

Depends on his psychological state. Regardless of his religious issues, everything about that shooting seems to sound like a psychotic break. Like the majority of similar seemingly random, public shootings. If that’s the case, he’s guilty of going koo-koo, but probably not of being a terrorist. Where it gets complicated is if it’s a combination of both.

Either way, being in a psychotic break does not remove your responsibility for causing of all those deaths and injuries, it only changes the intent. If it was a psychotic break, it might not be considered murder; at least not first degree. If it turns out he was mentally in control the whole time, then he’s a pretty sure candidate for a death penalty in any state that has it. And Texas definitely has it.

Oh, but that’s civilian law. Not sure what happens if it’s a military court type of thing.

13

If someone asks you to help end their suffering through assisted suicide because pain meds no longer do the trick, it’s illegal.

But is it wrong?

14

Hi John Foss

An individual may be held not responsible for their crimes on grounds of mental disorder. It has long been recognized that some people do not have control over or understanding of their actions and the issue of criminal responsibility has been a subject of debate since ancient times. A landmark case occurred in 1843, when Daniel M’Naghten shot and killed the secretary to Britain’s Prime Minister Robert Peel. The medical evidence found M’Naghten to be insane. This led to the famous M’Naghten Rule where someone could evade criminal responsibility if it could be proved that they did not understand the “nature and quality” of the act they were committing. Equally, they were not held responsible if they did understand what they were doing, but did not appreciate that it was wrong.

Even if the jury doesn’t decide he is NGRI (not guilty by reason of insanity) the mental illness should be introduced at sentencing for diminished capacity, thus no death penalty.

15

I had to look up Kevorkian just like you had to look up Latimer but since he lived in Saskatchewan (and not that much newsworthy happens in my “little” province) his case was extensively covered by our media. It seemed like there was another interview, news article, or opinion piece about Robert, Tracy, or the trial every week for about three years. Opinions get pretty set after being exposed to the subject so many times.

According to their respective wiki articles both Latimer and Kevorkian were convicted of second degree murder. Kevorkian served 8 years of a 10-25 year sentence and was released on good behaviour. Latemer is currently serving a life sentence with a chance of parole in just over a year (after 10 years of incarceration)

I would be surprised if Latimer ever admits wrong doing and would think that he would actually be a bigger threat to society if he did. Deciding to kill your daughter out of compassion is not something that you just do out of the blue. I am sure that he thought about the decision for a long time before acting on it. By not involving his wife he was probably doing what he though was best for his family by shielding them from the burden of the decision.

If he goes back on his decision now it would show that he acted while still doubting weather it was the right course of action. No mentally sound person would kill another in such a fashion if they deeply cared for them and doubted that they were doing the right thing.

I understand your position and logically it is probably the more defendable one. This is one of the cases for me though that I just have to say that I sympathize with him and think that I might have done the same thing in his position (lets hope none of us ever have to find out). I guess it is the conflict between morals and the law.

But this thread is about assisted suicide not mercy killing. I don’t really want this to turn into “Sasky defending mercy-killing thread” it is just that the word euthanasia immediately made me think of the Latimer case.

Back to the original subject:

When reading about Kevorkian I clicked on the link for Philip Nitschke which was an interesting read. Apparently doctor assisted suicide was actually legal for a short time in Australias Northern Territory.

I also believe that doctor assisted suicide should be permissible and that our societies fear of death is unnatural and unhealthy. Everything dies eventually why not be able to make it as humane as possible.

16

I thought it may be necessary to make some distinctions:

Physician-Assisted Suicide: a physician sets up the necessary conditions to allow the patient to end their life, such as providing the necessary drugs/equipment.

Voluntary Euthanasia: a doctor ends the life of a willing, consenting patient who suffering to death from a terminal disease

Non-Voluntary Euthanasia: the patient is mentally incapacitated, and his/her wishes are not known; the patient is suffering, and the decision is made to end their life

Involuntary Euthanasia: the patient is suffering, but wishes NOT to die; the doctor ends their life anyway

To me, involuntary euthanasia is just plain wrong: murder. Physician-assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia are, in my opinion, morally allowed. I don’t believe the state has the right to tell people how their lives are to end, in the same way that I don’t believe the state has the right to tell people how to live their lives. Regardless of what I would do with my own life, I think each individual needs to be able to make this decision for themself.

The waters get real muddy with non-voluntary euthanasia; others are making a decision to end someone else’s life. In such cases, I’m inclined toward ‘playing it safe’ and not allowing treatment to be withheld/withdrawn, or lethal injection administered. Each individual has the right to make decisions about their own life and death; allowing others to make that decision, even close family members, opens up the very real possibility of murdering for money (insurance claim), even by close family and friends.

17

I have a DNR (do not resuscitate) section in my will, which includes information such as what to do if “heroic measures” are needed to revive me in a medical situation. I don’t have the exact wording but it allows for a person to indicate they do not want to be revived beyond a certain point. This point is generally when all other options have been exhausted, there is little or no likelihood of any quality of life if I’m revived, etc.

This can be a good bit of documentation to have, if you end up in a situation like Terry Schiavo a few years ago. She had been in a persistant vegitative state for many years, and it was believed by (at least some) physicians that there was little of her brain left other than the stem, which controls autonomic functions. There was a huge battle over whether her husband (or anyone else) could decide to remove her feeding tube. I think this boiled down to a battle between him and Terry’s parents, who didn’t want to do it. But one would think it should be up to the Next of Kin in these situations… Maybe the problem was that she didn’t officially have one if she didn’t have a will.

At least her insurance company was on apparently board (no Death Panels). :stuck_out_tongue:

Anyway, Terry didn’t have this living will stuff documented, and she eventually became a political football, and the story became a ridiculous media circus with all these people prying into what should have been a private, family decision. I think her case comes under the Non-Voluntary Euthanasia on SqueakyOnion’s list.

Pretty much. Happens way too often in the developmentally disabled community. Not just in the past, but right now. People get poor medical care in highly respected hospitals. Physicians with doctorate degrees sometimes still aren’t convinced a disabled person can feel/understand pain. People get neglected, overlooked, ignored, and often they die as a result.

18

A will is the WRONG place to keep a DNR order.

Your will won’t become effective until you die. It is subject to revision until you die. They won’t read your will until you die, after years hooked up to machines.

19

I think if you want to die you should be able to go for it. There is nothing wrong with death. Church/State shouldnt be able to tell me that its wrong to die.

I think John said something about the girl who still made people happy and what not, but isnt she going to die someday anyway? Am i supposed to wait to die until there is no one to be hurt by it?

Animals with no will left to live go off to die by themselves. Am I so special that I can no longer do this? Why do we find it alright to euthanize our pets but we cant do it to our family

Is death really that scary? Is it really that bad?
All that lives was born to die.

Is it so really wrong to die before you hit what humans call an average life span?

20

A very interesting comparison.

I have very mixed feelings about capital punishment. In a small number of cases, a person is convicted of two or more completely separate crimes of horrendous brutality, and there can be absolutely no doubt about their guilt in respect of each one. (A UK example is Fred West. The bodies were found buried in his cellar, where he had lived since long before the first murder.) In such cases, I can’t help feeling that I would “pull the trigger myself”.

However, when you look in more detail at the figures, you see that different racial groups are over-represented on death row in the USA. Many convicted murderers have themselves been life-long victims of brutality which has gone unpunished, and many are mentally ill, or at least mentally disturbed and unstable. And I also think it is better to let a guilty man survive than to execute an innocent man. A posthumous pardon helps no one.

Finally, there is a philosophical point: by killing someone, do we condone the action that we are punishing. Only the context is different. And many murderers may feel that they are “punishing” their victims for perceived injustices.

But all that said, if a state is going to execute criminals, then surely civilised standards require that it be done quickly and humanely.

Lethal injection is not quick, and not painless. There was a recent case in the USA where the doctor spent about an hour trying to find a suitable vein to put the needle into - despite the condemned man apparently doing his honest best to help. The man was then led back to his cell.

Turning then to euthanasia, we have two categories of reason for not wanting assisted suicide to be legal:

  1. Religious/philosophical positions, based on the “sanctity of life”. Well, I don’t think I should be kept alive in pain, or forced to choose a lingering painful death, just because of someone else’s religious/philosophical position.

  2. The fear of exploitation: by definition, someone who is considering assisted suicide is vulnerable. They are one or more of: very old, very infirm, terminally ill, in chronic pain, suffering a degenerative disease, depressed, afraid, and so on. They may feel they are a burden to their carers. In some cases, it may suit a carer or family member for the person to choose suicide, and they may therefore apply “undue influence”.

But if a person is sane, rational and makes an informed choice, I believe they should be allowed to die quickly and with dignity. We need a mechanism to ensure that the choice is made in an informed and rational way.