Daily Archives: April 14, 2017

The Twittersphere went into momentary meltdown on Monday night after a spat on ABCs Q&A between bioethics professor Margaret Somerville and 81-year-old audience member Patricia Fellows.

Somerville defended, at some length, her opposition to euthanasia. Fellows responded to Somervilles academic exposition with one word: bullshit!.

For many, this was the highlight of the episode. Yet I was more intrigued to see Tony Jones suspicion of Somervilles so-called slippery slope argument against legalising assisted dying. As Somerville discussed the steady liberalisation of euthanasia laws in the Netherlands, Jones himself called bullshit (albeit in a more intellectual, sophisticated way).

Are you making a slippery slope argument, Margo?, he interjected.

The background to the sort of question Jones asked, and widespread community suspicion of arguments about so-called euthanasia creep, is that these sorts of claims rely on what in ethics and philosophy we call the slippery slope fallacy.

They assume that event A will necessarily be followed by event B, even when there is no demonstrated causal or probable relationship between event A and B. As philosophers are at pains to point out, there is a need for empirical evidence or sound inferential reasoning to support the claim that event B will necessarily (or probably) follow on from event A.

Without this evidence, the argument is invalid. I cant just claim, for example, that the legalisation of medicinal marijuana leads to the legalisation of ice I need to show some empirical or logical connection between the two.

But (and its a big but) there is such a thing as a good and valid slippery slope argument. A good slippery slope argument demonstrates a causal or probable relationship between event A and B, such that event B can legitimately be expected to occur if event A is allowed to occur.

In the context of the euthanasia debate, it is in the interest of intellectual honesty as well as prudent policy deliberation that we clearly distinguish good slippery slope claims from the bad ones.

There is certainly no shortage of dubious slippery slope arguments. Examples are the apocalyptic warnings of Nazi Germany-style euthanasia if we legalise assisted dying.

In last years euthanasia debate in South Australia, for example, the Liberal MP Adrian Pederick made precisely this comparison when he said:

This is the sort of thing that was done in the 40s in Nazi Germany I just feel that comments like that lead us down a slippery slope.

As it stands, this is an invalid slippery slope argument. What Pederick didnt show, and needs to show, is some sort of causal or logical relationship between a concern for the allocation of scarce health care resources and the mass, involuntary killing of tens of thousands of disabled, sick and elderly members of the community.

Maybe evidence can be provided but the claim is not self-evident, as his comment seems to suggest.

There are, nevertheless, compelling empirical and logical slippery slope arguments available to defend more modest claims about the normalisation of assisted dying.

Critics of assisted dying often argue euthanasia rates will increase with each year following legalisation. For example, in the Victorian parliaments Inquiry into End of Life Choices, Daniel Mulino MLC warned of a progressive increase in assisted dying if it were legalised in Victoria:

Once legalised, euthanasia and assisted suicide are increasingly taken for granted and seen to be unexceptional both within the medical profession and more broadly within society.

There is significant evidence from the Benelux countries (Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg), as well as the US and Canada, to support this claim. Around 3.7% of all deaths in the Netherlands in 2015 were by virtue of euthanasia or assisted suicide, up from 1.3% when the procedure was legalised in 2002.

And while Dutch legislation changed several times during that period, the steady rate of increase continued even in years when there was no legislative change. Similar figures are available in Belgium and alarming initial figures have just been released for Quebec.

It is true Australian legislatures may adopt an Oregon model of assisted dying legislation, rather than a Benelux model.

Yet there has been a similar documented increase of assisted suicide deaths in Oregon. In fact, the increase has actually been greater, from 16 deaths in 1998 to 132 in 2015.

All of which is to say, there is significant evidence to suggest that, if we do legalise assisted dying in Australia jurisdictions, the practice will be normalised and we will see a steady but significant increase in deaths by such means.

It is true social dynamics are complex and there are a variety of factors that could affect how euthanasia legislation is received in Australian society.

And claims about euthanasia creep dont constitute an argument against euthanasia as such. They are only claims about what might happen when we do legalise assisted dying. Indeed, some proponents of assisted dying might see normalisation as a positive development.

But, by the same token, we shouldnt dismiss such arguments as manifestly false or logically invalid. No one profits from impolitic policy and it would be a monumental blunder to ignore the experience of other countries in our deliberation on this issue.

So, returning to the catalyst of this discussion, was Somervilles argument bullshit?

I dont think it would be fair to critique her views based solely on what was said on Mondays program. Q&A panellists rarely have the opportunity to discuss their views at length and Monday nights episode was no exception.

But, rather than offering a glib and emotional dismissal of the arguments, we need to review the hard facts about euthanasia creep and the social costs of assisted dying. Anything less than this would be, well, bullshit.

This article was originally published on the Conversation.

Read this article:

When it comes to euthanasia, not all slippery slope arguments are ... - The Guardian

Euthanasia and assisted dying is a controversialissue, with passionate campaigners on each side of the argument

THE debate around euthanasia and assisted dying in the UK is a controversial and complicated one.

Some say choosing when to die is to die with dignity, while others say it undermines the value of human life.

Getty Images

So what is euthanasia and assisted suicide and what is the debate surrounding this issue?

The Sun is here to explain the details surrounding this sensitive and divisive subject.

Euthanasia, sometimes known as mercy killing, is the practice of intentionally ending someones life to relieve their pain and suffering.

Assistedsuicide is deliberately helping or encouraging someone to take their own life, for example by providingthem with medicine to do so.

The term comes from an ancient Greek phrase meaning good death.

Both are illegal in the UK with euthanasia carrying a maximum penalty of life in jail, and assisted suicide 14 years. The only exception is passive euthanasia, which is where treatment that might extend someones life is withdrawn such as a life machine being turned off.

The only alternatives for terminally ill patients in the UK arehospice care or refusing treatment, which mentally capable patientshave the right to do.

As a result, some terminally ill people decide to travel abroad to die.In Switzerland, where assisted suicide is legal (but euthanasia is not), you do not have to be a Swiss citizen to use a clinic.However, it is not cheap assisted suicide non-profit Dignitas charges patients 3,380 for its services.

Reuters

Euthanasia anddying is a controversialissue with passionate campaigners on each side of the argument.

People who agree with euthanasia often argue that people should be allowed to die with dignity and they should be able to decide when and how they die, and potentially save their loved ones the pain of seeing them suffer.

Some also believe death is private, and its not the states place to interfere if a person wants to die.

Meanwhile, those in favour of euthanasia also point out that we euthanise our pets as an act of kindness and resources could be put towards people who want to live, or whose conditions are curable.

However, there are concerns that allowing euthanasia would give doctors too much power, and might even worsencare for the terminally ill and research into their illnesses.

Some also believe it goes against the job description of doctors and nurses and undermines the value of human life.

Others also worry about the possibility of someone potentially recovering, or changing their mind when its already too late. Some have even suggestedit could lead to people feeling pressured into asking to die, as they dont want to be a burden upon those around them.

Many religious people are opposed to euthanasia and assisted dying too, as they believe God decides when we die.

Right now, despite fierce campaigning from organisations such as Dignity in Dying, the law is showing no signs of changing in the UK.

In September 2015MPs debated the issue for the first time in almost 20 years but the Assisted Dying Bill was rejected by 330 votes to 118, leading to reformers branding MPs ridiculously out of touch.

Motor neurone disease sufferer Noel Conway is one of the latest to try and challenge UK law on assisted dying.

The retired college lecturer took his case to the Court of Appeal after he was refused permission to bring a judicial review over the blanket ban on providing a person with assistance to die.

His lawyers said when he has less than six months to live and retains the mental capacity to make the decision, he would wish to be able to enlist assistance to bring about a peaceful and dignified death.

He claims the Suicide Act 1961 is incompatible with Article 8, which relates to respect for private and family life, and Article 14, which protects from discrimination.

Sun columnist Lorraine Kelly agreed, saying it was cruel for the state to deny him a peaceful death.

Lord Justice McFarlane and Lord Justice Beatsondecided in his favour on April 12, 2017, granting him the right to bring a High Court legal challenge.

Earlier this year a Belgian Paralympian caused controversy when she told reporters in Rioshe signed euthanasia papers in 2008 but is not ready to go through with it yet.

Marieke Vervoort, 37,suffers from an incurable degenerative muscle disease andpicked up the silver medal in the 400m T52 final.

Getty Images

Read more from the original source:

What is euthanasia and assisted suicide and what is the law in the ... - The Sun

Hospice and euthanasia are all about timing. Dr. Mary Gardner offers to guide clients through the process of their final gift to their petsaying goodbye.

You've seen the seemingly happy hospice dog bound into your clinic, and you're surprised when the client says, "We're ready to say goodbye." The part you missed: the pooch's frantic pacing and whining at 2 a.m. You've seen the obviously painful pet that needs to be let gobut the pet parents have their denial goggles firmly in place. How do you answer these tough situations when the pet and the pet parent are both feeling pain?

First, offer education. The veterinary team is in a perfect position to help families whose pets have entered hospice, says CVC educator Mary Gardner, DVM. You have to make sure you educate the owner about the disease the pet is facing and the progress that the disease is going to present to the family and to the pet. And you must make sure that they have all of their questions answered," she says.

Next, offer nonjudgmental support. What does that look and sound like? Dr. Gardner explains here:

"Once a pet is in hospice let the family know that at any time during this phase when they're ready to say goodbye you support that decision," Dr. Gardner says. "Because when their Lab was up at 2 o'clock in the morning pacing and panting and they call you at 8 a.m., they dont really want to be judged that they had a really bad night and tonight's the night [to euthanize the pet]. That Lab may come in to your clinic looking kind of good, but you weren't there all day. So make sure you understand what the family is going through, because the family may be suffering even if the pet is not."

Remember clients are experiencing an emotional, stressful decision. Answer their questions and give them the tools they need to make the best decisions. Then support them through the whole process.

Finally, advocate the pet's perspective with quality-of-life exercises.

"I've often helped families where I look at the pet and I think, 'Oh my goodness, this pet is suffering, and we need to intervene.' But I'll have one or more family members who aren't ready and they may not be seeing what I'm seeing. And I call that denial goggles," Dr. Gardner says. "I think we can all appreciate as pet parents, you don't ever want to say goodbye. And I understand when pet owners put those goggles on."

So when you see a pet not doing well and you need to help the family, Dr. Gardner suggests doing quality-of-life scales with the owner. "Don't just tell them, 'You'll know when it's time,' or 'Call me when they give you that look,'" she says. "And don't say, 'Call me when he stops eating.' Because we all know that 70-pound Lab that has arthritis is still going to eat till the very end and still wag his tail."

She says the goal is to give pet owners many different tools they can use, and there are many quality-of-life scales available. (For example, Dr. Alice Villalobos' Quality of Life Scale, this client handout from the Argus Institute or the coin jar exercise.) The critical point: Do them with the owner. Because sometimes pet owners may cheat a little bit and give their pets a better score than reality.

And if the pet parents still aren't ready, Dr. Gardner suggests talking about euthanasia. Many pet owners don't even know the process, and they may think it's painful. Or maybe they had a bad experience before and they're nervous about this time.

"So if you explain up front about when to say goodbye and how they can make that appointmentso it doesn't need to be scary, then maybe they'll be a little bit more comfortable when that decision needs to be made," she says.

Read more:

Euthanasia: Too soon? Not soon enough? - dvm360

Bhatia Hospital death puts spotlight on euthanasia law - The Hindu The Hindu Mumbai: On March 31, 67-year-old Ramesh Nathwani died at Tardeo's Bhatia Hospital following a cardiac arrest. He was in the hospital's intensive care unit ... and more »

View original post here:

Bhatia Hospital death puts spotlight on euthanasia law - The Hindu - The Hindu