If you think I see this as simple, you have dramatically misread me.

And note, I explicitly have referred to this as "voluntary". The question of making choices for other people or animals who can not make choices for themselves is a related but separate question.

However, since you mention it, why is it that we choose to provide euthanasia to our pets, but many of us feel offering the same choice to ourselves would be wrong? If it's wrong for us, isn't it more wrong for them, when they never have had the chance to direct us in their wishes? And if it's right for them, wouldn't it be more right for us, when we can make this choice voluntarily?

 

Lainey: I'd like to answer that question, and I am absolutely sure about her request. This lady trucked on for 48 years alone, after her husband died. She lived happily and economically and with great contentment. Her last request: I would like to attend Mass, take Communion, and then go to a family fish fry attended by my children, grandchilden, and nieces and nephews. No doubt about it.

Mike: OK, Mike, it's not a simple decision for you - though your view read to me as rather calculating, chilling, and let's say sanitary.
I think the pet euthanasia issue is actually a good strawman for what I see as a more complex issue. The day I left Germany after 3 1/2 years, I had dispatched 524 pets, mostly dogs. There is quite a spectrum of cause. By military regs, biters are dispatched either with or without a quarrantine period. Most were delivered to the clinic by military police. Some were just plain mean animals, and were put down immediately, efficiently, and without regret. Consider them the capital murderers getting what they deserve. As happens often, the other biters were in the wrong place at the wrong time or realistically not even at fault. Nevertheless, they had to go, however innocent. They came in stiff and anxious after their jeep ride, with the lease help me and take me home look in their eyes. I dropped them in a dignified and peaceful manner. One deep breath and 3-5 seconds - gone. They were lesser criminals. Then, the very old and infirm dog, often after protracted treatment, but at the end of their line. They were often brought in by military warriors, who would want to stay till the last second. This called for the best we could offer - no restraint, no syringe screwups, no unnecessary fanfare, serene and gentle as possible. It's tough to see grown men cry, and they do. A woman generally would not want to be in the room, but the pet got the same dignified treatment. To them this is much like bringing in a child or a mother. Then there would also be younger or healthy older pets who had become a PITA or had chronic, treatable medical issues, and this was much more a capricious owner decision. If they would allow us to place them, we would. If not, the animal got the proper dignity and the owner got to pay a fee, hold their own pet, and see the contempt in my eyes. If I didn't do it, many of these animals got to go for a ride. These are the shallow, selfish people who would make good death panel members. Next, you got the mostly young troopers who couldn't afford the 1970s fare of 900 -1200 bucks to ship these animals back home, when they left Germany. They would be sad and regretful. Most of them would let you place the animal with a new owner. Some would tie them to our fence overnight. Then not infrequently some would have the attitude of "if I can't have them then nobody can have them." These people reaped my worst contempt. I would make them pay a fee and take their pet on the back of our 5/4 truck and hold them while I dropped them. Then I would make them go with the animal tech and have THEM throw their pets into the local concrete rendering pit, to join the bloated hogs, and dairy cows. These are heartless and pathetic people who deserved no better. I would not want to be their aging parent.
I never enjoyed this. Nevertheless, animals are not humans and humans are not mere protoplasm. You ask "why" and I say we're past taking them out back and shooting them or hitting them over the head with a shovel, when they are old, infirm, or don't please us anymore.
I believe people should have choices, but we don't need an "industry" making those decisions for us.

 

I'm glad your father recovered.

The sound mind problem is what ends up limiting the discusion to the terminally ill. Sound mind and suicide are seen as inconsistent. Catch 22, if you will. Only extreme suffering serves as an "acceptable" reason for a person of sound mind to seek out suicide.

 

Not purpose, but value. Should one makes decisions based on the premise that life is sacred, even a sliver of life lived with Parkinson's, or the potential for life that rests with an embryo?

If anything, these decisions made carry a permanence to them.

If one considers life sacred, does that viewpoint I extend its reach to other areas of life, how you treat others, or how you treat animals as RC has discussed?

 

So am I. The right drugs can be lifesavers.

 

I'm a very analytical person. That's different from being an unfeeling person.

 

^^ I believe you are, Mike (on both counts). I'd have an awfully hard time making the decision as to whether a pet lives or dies based on the type of existence it appears to be living, let alone making that decision for another person. I read recently that many canines have the iq of a toddler. I sense that BB often is quite aware of what we're talking about and understands quite a large number of words that we use. I don't even want to think about her becoming ill or crippled by some sort of disease. Can you imagine discussion the euthanization of your little 3 year old openly in front of the child?

 

Look, Mike, you are insightful, articulate, and write with brevity and clarity. I really enjoy your posts and your viewpoints. As an engineer, if your were not analytical, you would not be normal. Your style is more to evoke than provoke, which is admirable. Your topic is contemporary and important. I believe there are ethical, moral and philosophical issues - like you stated - necessary to the discussion. I would not want to be insulting by calling your views either simplistic or unfeeling. If I came across that way, accept my apology.
Though most people would likely reach a personal conclusion on the topic from an ethical or moral standpoint in microseconds, philosophical viewpoints are much more complex and thought provoking. Voluntary euthanasia - as you premised - is kind of like half pregnant. Most people would likely differ in their opinion if passive euthanasia was also included in the topic. That the latter supposedly cannot be discussed because of topic political deterioration concerns, insults the adult and experienced minds of those willing to contribute to the greater debate. Whether government should have the power to decide who lives and who dies based on typically foggy criteria should not be a partisan issue. This is why I think euthanasia is a complex, rather than just a personal, issue.
When I killed all those animals during that period, I followed rules, it was considered ethical, refusal had undesirable consequences, it often defied some personal moral issues. The problem is that humans are also animals but are not expected to behave like them. Nevertheless, humans for eons have involuntarily euthanized entire societies, based on the prevailing philosophy of a few or of the times.
Don't take any of this personal.

 

If we restrict our conversation to mentally competant patients making a decision to end their own lives in the face of an unquestionably terminal condition then I would favor honoring and facilitating that personal decision.

When it comes to making such a decision for someone else, I think the current practice is about as ethical as possible, given that current law and standards of medical practice must be generalized by their nature. We are not currently allowed to euthanize another human being but we are allow to make a decision regarding denial of extrordinary life-sustaining treatment when the patient's wishes are unknown. There are certainly cases when euthanasia would be a kinder course of action but developing standards of practice that would allow euthanasia in such cases without opening the door to abuse would be nearly impossible.

While this may be inconsistant with the teachings of some religious faiths, we have a tradition of honoring the right of each individual to follow whatever religious teachings he chooses, or to follow his own conscience if he is not a person of faith. In such a case it seems morally and ethically proper to leave such a decision in the hands of the patient.

 

And +1 on RC's "review" of Mike's posts. Mike, I wish I could say so much so clearly with so few words.