News from Italy ( Ansa )
TERMINALLY ILL MAN'S APPEAL SPARKS EUTHANASIA ROW :
http://www.lifeinitaly.com/news/news-detailed.asp?newsid=3112

Comments ?
Paolo

Euthanasia is a very controversial subject. My expertise is in "brain death" which has many arguments related to the euthanasia issue. The arguments I have against pro-euthanaisa are many. It is not that I am against patient autonomy, but that I am very concerned about the misuse of laws should euthanasia ever become legal. I also think that many 'consent' arguments I hear are weak. Also, the utilitarian rationale that often is advanced in arguing FOR euthanasia is I think not strong enough either. Euthanasia is a scary thing to think about and of course we have to realize how the Nazi's used it extensively among many peoples; we have to learn from history; this is why euthanasia should never become legal or permitted. I also think that medical doctors should NOT be put into such complex situations: like being a healer in one instance and then ending life in another instance. Most doctors when confronted don't want to do euthanasia; no doctor should be forced to do so either. I heard of a case in the Netherlands where a doctor was arrested because he refused to euthanize! I have strong arguments for supporting the Hippocratic oath, yet I also respect patient autonomy, although these can directly conflict with each other. It is a dilemma, and a painful one at that. But usually the argument is reduced down to something very critical in order to make a decision: what is a person? Some would think that is an easy question to answer, but it is not. It is very complicated and recent medical evidence has proven (Terry Sciavo case and the Terry Wallis case) that the medical science does not know everything it thinks it does about consciousness. There is NO consensus on the definition of 'person' in the medical community and certainly not among philosophers and bioethicists. It is being hotly debated. Also, in the USA euthanasia and "brain death" are not as controversial and as hotly debated as they are in Europe (here in Europe debate has been going on for many, many years). I could go on and on about this, but I will spare you.

Regardless of all the sticky points, I think a person always should have the right to choose the matter and time of his/her own death, particularly in a case of terminal illness where a person wants to choose to die with dignity and not be kept alive with machines and be taken care of by others. In fact, I would go so far as to say that this choice is the most fundamental and important of all of them.

Euthanasia - in terms of a doctor helping a person die - is a bit more convoluted but I think each doctor should be able to choose to help in this or not. They each have their reason, their demons, their choices. Honoring those is important, and the ones who don't want to assist in a death should not ever be forced to. On the other hand, those who believe that people/patients can make their own choices about their own deaths, should be able to help if they decide to.

Where I'm not so sure about any of this is when it come down to a person choosing whether or not another person should live or die. In the recent cases cited in another post, there were huge questions about the rights of the patients, their actual states of being, their quality of life, and so on. That's where it gets trickey for me, and I don't feel qualified to make a judgment in those cases.

Teresa

In response to:

“Regardless of all the sticky points, I think a person always should have the right to choose the matter and time of his/her own death, particularly in a case of terminal illness where a person wants to choose to die with dignity and not be kept alive with machines and be taken care of by others. In fact, I would go so far as to say that this choice is the most fundamental and important of all of them.”


What is meant by “most fundamental and important”? I don’t think that individual choice is necessarily the most important or fundamental when talking in the context of euthanasia. What I see as being fundamental is preventing future abuses against those persons and /or patients, who are especially weak and vulnerable in our society from ever be killed (euthanized) against their will, whether they are unconscious, or not rational (First of all note that person and patient are not one and the same necessarily.) But how is this all related to whether or not a terminally ill individual should have the right to choose voluntary euthanasia? Once a form of euthanasia is legally permitted, it will only be a matter of time when another form will be legalized, and that is where the risk is presented. One could say that this is just another slippery slope argument, but the fact of the matter is that there is evidence that abuses have taken place in those countries where voluntary euthanasia is currently legal. The only way to make certain that persons and patients would never be victims of euthanasia, is to not legalize any forms of euthanasia in the first place. There is also the risk of persons being manipulated into having their lives ended, for all sorts of reasons from economic, insurance companies, financial burden on the family, to being a physical burden on relatives, pain, embarrassment, etc. The danger is that a society’s attitudes could gradually be changed to accept other forms of euthanasia once one form has already been legalized. Just look what happened in Nazi Germany. Those members of society who were considered as unproductive and /or a burden were killed (euthanized), i.e. the terminally ill, the cognitively impaired, the physically handicapped, those suffering from dementia, etc. We should learn from history. Today, Germany is the one country--along with Italy--in the EU that has taken a very strong stand against all forms of euthanasia and with good reason. To safeguard against abuses is to make certain that the doorway for abuse has not been opened in the first place. History is a valuable lesson and should not be forgotten. The “sticky points” are the heart of the matter, not the side issues.

kfscala

Indeed.

What I know is that if I were lying in a bed with no ability to move my arms and legs, to sit up, swallow, talk, communicate with others, feel physical contact from others, laugh, cry... in other words, live my life.... if I were unable to do anything other than lie there with a tube feeding me and a tube taking out the wastes, and my loved ones were spending their lives and their life savings keeping my body alive, maybe not marrying or not enjoying their own lives to the fullest, it would be my very first fundamental and important right to make a choice NOT to be alive if that is what I wanted.

And since this is supposed to be a Forum discussing Italy and culture and food and wine and art... and yes controversial subjects but not, I think, to the extent I went into, I just deleted everything else I wrote because it was devolving into a discussion about euthanasia itself. I think this is one of those subjects that people have an opinion about and that is that. I could present my ideas, others could present theirs, we would each believe we were right and the others had points but were ultimately wrong, and I'd rather set aside the right/wrong thing and watch what happens with this issue in the Italian Parliament and what they decide.

I think that with the seat of the Catholic church there, it has layers we can't begin to understand here in the U.S.

Teresa

Teresa

You keep up with the news Paolo! I just read an article about a man named Pietro Lanzoni..did you read it? Do you have any idea if he died? If not I have a natural suggestion to make for him that just may work...to cure him not to assist his suicide! But, I did read about this lethal vitamin.
I still am indifferent about it, it's hard to judge until you've felt pain like his though. He has had MS for 25 years, parylized completely, then he became blind some years later, he suffered incredibly--he never could engage in sports that he loved, or partecipate with his friends. He was restrained to his bed for 5 straight years... I don't know if this is the same man that is in your news.

Teresa wrote: "I'd rather set aside the right/wrong thing and watch what happens with this issue in the Italian Parliament and what they decide. "

It is very dangerous for society to allow politicians to decide life and death issues. Euthanasia is an issue that must be debated by medical doctors, philosophers, and theologians, but certainly not politicians.

One more thing, the Catholic Church actually takes a very scientific analysis to all of this; their arguments are not based so much on theology, but on the scientific method itself. As a philosopher
(I am a secular philosopher) who works in medical ethics , I am very impressed with the Catholic Church's analyses.

My comment, as quoted, of "I'd rather set aside the right/wrong thing and watch what happens with this issue in the Italian Parliament and what they decide" was not to say that I thought this issue needed to be decided by politicians. I in fact did not say that.

My comment, as quoted, was to say that I thought it would be worthwhile to watch what the Italian Parliamant decided, and talk about that

I do not believe that only "medical doctors, philosophers, and theologians" get to debate about these issues, as kfscala suggests. I think it is necessary for all of us to debate about it, and politicians get just as much right as any other human being to have an opinion and debate about issues they feel are important.

By the same token, I agree: politicians deciding life and death issues is frightening. As is having the Catholic Church decide on life and death issues... or the local Jewish synagogue, or Methodist Church, or the doctor down the street, or any philosopher I've ever read. Or, really, anyone who doesn't agree with whatever opinion one holds. I'd rather be able to make those life and death decisions on my own. Which brings me right back to my point, interestingly enough.

So, really, who gets to make those decisions? Medical doctors, theologians, ethicists, philosophers?

This seems to be suggesting that the average person doesn't have the ability to make those decisons... that others must decide for them... that others who know more get to decide. That's a dangerous, slippery slope in itself, isn't it? Where does that lead? Others who know more have made some of the most dangerous and ugly decisions in history.

In essence I think all of us must debate and think and talk and decide about these issues for ourselves. Being educated about the issue is a basis from which to begin the debate, certainly, but having a philosophic, theologic or medical background isn't the only criteria.

Great to hear about the Catholic Church and their scientific analyses. As I said, layers we don't have here.

t

People will always have control over their own lives, if we decide to end our life, we wouldn't have to wait for the politicians, theologist nor philosophers to make up there minds and go through their routines & analysis. There are many herbs on the market that can take the place of Euthanasia, poisons, gas, pills. It's great that they experiment for our benefit, but we do not always have to look to them for everything- we know ourselves and what we need-- I trust myself before I'd ever trust a politician, and many would agree, at least if we make a mistake ourselves, we did not follow after law and order.

Here is another news
http://www.lifeinitaly.com/news/admin/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3307

Here is a piece of the news :

Keeping a person alive at all costs is just being obstinate, it's not conserving life," he said.
"If a person is living only thanks to machines and, in full possession of their faculties, they ask to be unplugged, doing so can be an act of love, a Christian act. It's not euthanasia".


Personally speaking - If I had to be kept alive by some sort of machine and unable to move I will surely welcome a solution if I decided to pull the plug...
I think people should have control of their own life - Karin said there is a risk of abuse, I would be willing to take that risk. Anyway Karin what the nazi did was 'mass killing' NOT euthanasia the way for example Dr Kavorkian did. I strongly believe that Dr Kavorkian was acting to ease the suffering of the people while the nazi most probably even enjoyed the suffering and torture of other human being.

Anuyone should choose for himslf / herself: People should fill up legal documents while in good health stating what should be done in case of extreme situations.
I would choose that if I became paralized completely I would not want to be kept alive by a machine ... in any case it would be better to use that money / resources to help other people.

Paolo

Paolo,

I have many things to say.
First, I disagree with you. People should have control over their life, but not at the expense of others. I do not share a utilitarian way of thinking when it comes to human lives and decisions about whether to make laws to justify killing in our society--that some bad is justified for the sake of achieving some good.

Second, there are different forms of euthanasia: active (e.g. killing with a drug) and passive (e.g. starving to death), voluntary (mercy killing) and nonvoluntary (i.e. forced; no choice). Many times these become conflated, and this is when abuse can happen.

Third, when I say "abuse", I am referring to other members in society being subjected to something against their will: being killed when they did not want to die or even being talked-into-it by someone who thought it might be a good idea if they subjected themselves to voluntary euthanasia. This has happened and still happens. If even voluntary euthanasia became legal, it would surely open the door to our society later accepting other forms of legal killing and / or thinking that a duty-to-die-ethic is justified. This is already happening. Just look at how elderly Americans get treated in America, as compared to Italy. Italian elderly people have a better quality of life I think because of the care ethic so deeply engrained in the culture here.

Fourth, yes, the Nazi's committed mass murder (extermination) of the Jewish people. We all know that and hope that humanity has learned from it. However, in my previous comments I was referring to the euthanasia performed on German people. (Maybe some people don't know this ) But more specifically I was referring to how the Nazis also killed the ethnic Germans, i.e their own people through euthanasia. Probably that is why you and others did not understand what I meant when I used the Nazi's as an example of how euthanasia laws can go wrong. History is an important lesson.

The Nazis euthanized thousands of German children, from infants up to the teen years because they were either cognitively and /or phsyically disabled. Yes, that did happen. The Nazis also euthanized adult German people, those who were cognitively disabled and/or physically disabled, also those elderly people suffering from dementia and terminal illnesses. All of them were actively and non-voluntarily euthanized and this already started in the early 1930's. It was legal. Horrible to think about, isn't it? Moreover, the Nazi's murdered/executed Feminists who spoke out and protested, homosexuals and lesbians, executed many Lutheran priests, and other Germans who resisted the regime, took German political prisoners who were later executed and many more. The Nazi's did not only murder the Jewish people, they murdered the majority of the Gypsies in Europe at the time. And, the list goes on and on. Did you know that?

I can recommend serious reading material to anyone who is interested (scholarly books, academic papers).

The final thing I have to say is this: laws have positive and negative implications. One has to think about those people in society, the weak ones , the impoverished, the sensitive, the homeless, who might be killed by euthanasia protocols that were not respected. History is our witness. History always repeats itself. Because, that is the human condition.

kfscala

Karin,

Let's see... Nazis... assisted suicide... the same... different? Hmmm.

You know, this seems to be a pretty easy distinction to make. To suggest that anyone on this Forum who has agreed that assisted suicide should be a choice would conflate that with what the Nazis did is simply to believe that most people are idiots.

You seem to be assuming that the average person can't understand subtle differences (that you must therefore explain to all of us), that the average person can't make his/her own choices about life and death, that "other, more intelligent people," people who have had lots of schooling and of course read a lot more books, are much better equipped to handle these tough choices. Who exactly WOULD you leave life and death decisions to, about your own or a loved one's death, if you or he/she were in a coma and hadn't had brain activity for five years? Who do you think is qualified to make those choices? Does one need an advanced degree to understand choosing to die? From what university? From what authority?

Yes, decisions have consequences, and yes, laws need to be examined for both good and bad and everything in between, BUT... if you chase down everything to its 'slippery slope' conclusions, as you have done with this assisted suicide question, you'd spend your life arguing that the masses need to be protected from themselves and governed by "people who know better" about what they need and what choices they're allowed to make about their lives. As far as I can tell, that is exactly the point of view most dictators take.

Not one of us in this Forum has suggested anything like what you're talking about, and not one of us believes, I'm willing to bet, that the Nazis were practicing anything close to assisted suicide. You are, as far as I can tell, the only one who is conflating the two.

(See above for an answer to the inevitable question of what happens when things are taken to their extremes, and laws made without thinking about them.)

Teresa

Kfscala,

I read your letter and agree with you completely. In fact, I once saw a depressed man who didn't want to die and his psychiatrist or psychologist (I can't remember) on a TV program who thought that he should want to die! This was quite horrifying, I thought. I don't believe in unnecessarily prolonging life, but there are many valid arguments against euthanasia.

This is rather frivolous, but I have a friend who says: "Oh, what's happening with the youth-in-Asia? I didn't know that they were causing trouble?" whenever I mention it. His little joke!

Best Regards,

Lisa

www.webwritereditor.com
www.bookaddiction.blogspot.com

There is a wealth of information available for reading at:

http://www.euthanasia.com/page4.html

It provides links to numerous articles about the history of euthanasia, the disability rights movement, as well as, the arguments both 'for' and 'against' euthanasia.

Maybe the issue is the difference between euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Euthanasia - where someone else determines who lives and dies based on some outside criteria set up by some panel of doctors, lawyers, politicians, etc. - is a bad idea.

Assisted suicide, where a person him/herself decides - say in the case of a terminal illness that will result in sure death - to choose the manner of his/her own death... that I believe is a right we all should have.

Teresa

This is the latest Ansa Article
http://www.lifeinitaly.com/news/news-detailed.asp?newsid=3660

Paolo,

That article really illustrates the tragedy behind not being able to choose the manner of one's own death. I do agree that this is a touchy subject regardless of which side of the issue one sits, but in a case like the one illustrated in that article... I can't see how a person with any degree of empathy could truly say that this situation isn't cut and dried.

Piergiorgio Welby should be able to make his own choice, and he should have resources that can help him die with dignity.

Teresa

Until Italy's main priority remains that of Catholicism which influences all the the decisions the country has to make, problems like this will never be resolved. I don't disagree with religion, I just reckon that Catholicism should either be updated or have less influence on Italy's political choices.
Religious laws made over 2000 years ago and never changed cannot be applied to modern day laws. Catholicism is against euthanasia but in the times when this law was made life support machines and technology didn't exist and people would've survived the suffering for a lot less time before dying. Today this almost barbaric suffering is prolonged to sometimes decades.
In my opinion I think the decision should be that of the family.
The majority of Italy is for euthanasia but as always the country has to conform to vatican preachings.. :mad:

I'll put this in a new post in the general Culture section, too, but my question here is... how much does the Vatican really influence daily life in Italy?

I have heard that the average Italian doesn't go to church much, and an Italian friend told me that the membership of Italian Catholic churches is going down dramatically.

However, I also assume that when laws are made, they reflect Catholic teachings... which seems to run counter to the daily life of Italians....

Thought on this?

Teresa

The story continues, ANSA has the latest for us:

http://www.lifeinitaly.com/news/news-detailed.asp?newsid=3813

Apparently more than a few people are in favor of Mr. Welby's request. I cannot come to a conclusion myself on this issue, I keep jumping back and forth myself.

I'm back in Italy... have been in the U.K. doing work for my doctorate (which is also dealing with medical ethics).

I noted some recent comments and this is what I have to say. The mistake that most people make is that they "assume" that anyone, who is arguing against euthanasia is always using a Catholic religious base and this is simply not true. In fact most arguments against euthanasia are non-religious based. Their arguments are based in "rights" dialogue, logic, moral theory, a care ethic, and history itself. If you have not studied philosophy then of course you would never know this.

Euthanasia is nothing new; it was practiced already over 2000 years ago, but then humankind moved in another direction embracing the Hippocratic traditions (also drawing on Pythagorean philosophy, who were based in what is known today as southern Italy). Again the tide is changing, swinging back to the way people were thinking in ancient times. If this is good, I don't know. We modern humans need to reflect and reconsider both sides of the issue and what it means for human dignity and the value of human life itself. This is why it is so important to have studied philosophy and have knowledge of the human condition.

kfscala

Welcome back to Italy, Karin! Wish I were in the country myself... I am sitting in cold New Mexico, USA.

I think you're right in that the study of philosophy and the human condition helps us understand the WHY and HOW of the rights/wrongs and good/bad of this issue.

And I also agree that many people are not coming at this from a Catholic point of view... although most people (I would think....!?) are certainly coming at this from a moral (i.e., possibly some kind of right/wrong) p.o.v., and this is often based in a religious view of the cosmos...

And when laws are coming into play that involve making this decision for others, this is a big deal. When people make choices that impact my life or the lives of others than themselves, all of this needs to be taken into account.

I still think, though, that when individuals are making choices for themselves - as in the article Paolo recently posted - then what matters is not so much the laws in place, or the rights and wrongs of somebody else's moral view of the world, but the quality of one's own life and the choices each person has for his/her future.

I still stick with the opinion that each person should be allowed to make the choice to end his/her own life at a time of his/her choosing. I think the dicey part of this comes in when it comes to making the choice for others... then it gets murky.

Teresa

Hello Teresa,

I am back in Italy, but was in Rome most of last week too, attending yet another conference. Rome is a nice place to go and do things, isn't it?
In my free time I really like to walk around and enjoy the sights and sounds of the city and the people who are there to enjoy it. Rome was so warm these past few days, temperatures ranging from 13 -18 C. Can you believe it? Many people were running around with colds--understandable with the swinging temperatures. When I left Milan it was -2 C and when I arrived at mid-day it was 14 C. Crazy, but lovely to see the sunshine!

Now, I am settled here in "very" cold Milan again.
But it must be cold over by you too there in new Mexico. I have been to New Mexico it is really a beautiful place!

Teresa the next time you come to Italy we have to meet up for coffee or lunch.
Regards,
Karin

Karin,

Coffee or a glass of wine would be great! Bet we'd have some great discussions. :)
And no matter the temperature, I would love to be in Italy! That would just mean more great scarves and gloves and coats to wear. New Mexico today is gorgeous; snow for two days, now the sky is blue blue again, with white snow everywhere on all the trees and buildings, glistening in the sun.

So... did you hear that that man with muscular dystrophy (earlier post from Paolo) was allowed to die? One of his doctors disconnected him, despite rulings by judges and so on. Now there's controversy about whether the doctor will go to jail.

And here in the USA, Dr. Kavorkian was just released from prison.

Teresa

The refuse of the church to give Welby a funeral as wrong as can be.
It is not what the 10 command say.
JC sad He was for sinners....
Than JC committed suicide him self! He knew He was gooing to die when he continues the way he does.
How many early Christians went to the colosseum, knowing to die? Suicide to.
Why has Welby to live and die like an animal?
Church shame of you!