As usual with your posts you cover most bases though your dragnet is so wide I'm not altogether sure where you stand.
That's because I try to think about what I am saying, and I try to make thoughtful contributions to the Forum, and I dislike intellectual arrogance in general. I find that the more I think about a topic, question or subject, the more taxing it becomes. When that happens in regard to a tricky issue such as this, it is difficult to come to a definite view one way or the other. Similarly, on the matter of capital punishment: I am not an enthusiast for it, but I acknowledge that justice demands it in some cases, and I think it should be up to the courts to decide.
Dichotomies are often practically unhelpful anyway. I think issues such as this have to give way to pragmatism and messy compromises in the end. It's easy for us to say that a terminally-ill patient should endure a few more weeks' suffering so as uphold high-flown ethical or moral principle and also not upset his relatives, but our view may well be different if we find ourselves as one of the patients enduring such suffering.
For me the act of suicide is abhorrent by any means,
I should think it is abhorrent to many people. In my case, I think abhorrent is the wrong word. I am not religious and I do not see a moral dimension to it. Certainly I find it disturbing and troublesome, and I would try to talk anybody out of it, though I must also acknowledge that it is for the individual to make their own decision about it, and I also acknowledge that where a person of at least minimal mental competence decides to commit suicide for his own reasons, then it must be his right. Who am I to demand otherwise?
I would find any sort of organised system of euthanasia quite frightening in some ways, due to its deeper implications and possible ramifications. However, the fact is that authorities in the Netherlands and Switzerland allow it or condone it without any evident disruption to their societies. It would seem that uptake among the healthy who 'just want to die' is relatively tiny and restricted to desperate people, and such people face a number of obstacles before their wishes will be carried out. The obstacles may not always be difficult to surmount, but I suppose that's because the point of the system is to ensure that a person's wishes are carried out only after a responsible person has checked that they are fully-informed and know what they are doing.
Personally, I think that is a reasonable system. That doesn't mean I like it or that I'm going to be rushing to join Dignitas and book an appointment next week due to the long-term trauma inflicted on me by Adam's stubborn refusal to recognise the genius of my Crispy theory and recommend me for the CT, but it does mean I can acknowledge that other people believe this should be an option on the table for them, and there ought to be a system in place to cater for them without it obnoxiously impacting on the rest of society.
And one day I might need it.
though if it is to be undertaken I suppose it would be best committed by an individual which doesn't cause distress or inconvenience to others (for example to throw yourself in front of a Jubilee Line train might cause lasting mental anguish to the Tube driver or onlookers as well as delaying people's journey to work). If you are terminally ill and have loved ones I think you should spare them the anguish, even if it means a few extra weeks' suffering. I don't like the idea of affording doctors the power to end life, lest this should lead to another Harold Shipman case, a scandal which occurred not far from where I live.
Arguably doctors do technically have that power under double effect. What normally happens is that there's a nod and a wink between the patient or the relatives, and the doctor administers an overdose of morphine. Job done. It's just not discussed much, because it's not something that anybody really wants to discuss, and besides, it's only supposed to be done when the patient is dying anyway. Nevertheless, it won't always be done with the patient's explicit consent. The distinction with the Shipman case is that a double effect defence was not possible, and he knew this, which is why he was writing-up all the death certificates.
But euthanasia per se doesn't give the medical profession any 'power' over a patient. It's a completely different situation. Euthanasia in the sense we are referring to is strictly elective, and in virtually all cases, there will be no legal dispute over consent. Thus, a Shipman-type incident could only happen if the doctor forges the consent, and I should think that is virtually impossible because consent will not be a once-only matter, rather it will be given progressively over a long period of time as the patient consults with several doctors and non-medical people. Therefore I don't see any scope for the criminality you mention.
