You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
5

[–] feral-toes 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Reading the article with great care, it turns out that we are not discussing the governments opinion that "Death is better.". We are discussing the woman's own opinion that "Death is better.".

The patient was given fatal doses of drugs despite some indications she might have changed her mind since declaring in writing that she wanted euthanasia.

I get the appeal of stern laws and harsh punishments. Maybe we do want to say that it is each person's duty to put it in writing that they want euthanasia if they become demented. Maybe we want to lay down the following punishment for failing to do your duty: that you will be "cared for" and kept alive to suffer a slow and terrible death, full of horrors beyond the imagining of the intact brain.

I do believe that stern laws and harsh punishments should be advocated openly. Those who think that a slow and lingering death is a suitable punishment for the crime of failing to write an advance directive should argue for this honestly, boasting their sternness and justifying their cruelty. Don't combine "keep them alive until their brain deteriorates so much that they cannot swallow and they inhale food and get pneumonia and then treat the pneumonia to keep them alive a few weeks more." and "I'm kind, gentle, and nice, and I'm totally not trying to get revenge for a shitty childhood."