In
2002, Belgium passed a law that legalized euthanasia for people who suffers
from agonizing pain. This law granted euthanasia to many patients with
personality disorders such as schizophrenia or chronic depression.
In
2012, a patient requested for euthanasia and received it because she had
chronic depression. The patient's son found out after his mom died, and surprisingly,
he was not involved in the decision making. He was simply not told about it until
after the event had happened.
We
have to ask the question: should he be informed that his mother is requesting
for euthanasia? Imagine that you are the man, and how would you feel if you
hear from the doctors that your mother has died because she had requested it? We
also have to consider whether it's his mother's choice to not tell him this
news. If she really wanted to die, she may be hesitant to tell her son for he
will most likely disagree with her, and try everything he can to stop it.
The
law required that the choice of euthanasia is made from free choice. I don't think
that consulting with one's son would change the fact that the choice is still free.
It would be nice if there is someone that can change your mind if you are
thinking about dying. People should really talk about their feelings before
considering such extreme measures as to end their lives.
Furthermore,
I think the son has the right to know, even though that may violate some
patient-doctor confidentiality rules. Isn't it a greater violation of one's
dignity to end it through euthanasia? The patient should still have the
ultimately decision regarding euthanasia, but I believe that it has to be well
thought-out, which includes informing the other family members.
Another
issue that is raised up by the son: "Can a mentally ill person make a 'free
choice'?" Since the law of euthanasia depended on someone's "free
choice", we really have to decide whether someone is in the right mental
state to make that choice. A patient with a severe depression might think
negatively about his life, wanting to end it through euthanasia. Even though depressions
often diminish with time, the patient may not have the patience to wait, and
would be euthanased before the depression ended. By consulting with family
members, the patient can then avoid making hasty decisions, and perhaps, the
consultation will save an innocent life.
Sources
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/how_my_mother_died
4 comments:
It’s easy to imagine how horrified you would be to find out that your mom chose to be euthanized without even letting you know. I, like the son (Tom Mortier) in this article, would be shocked, apalled, confused, and full of questions. However, unlike Mortier, I am in regular contact with my mom.
Two years ago, Mortier’s mother broke off all contact with him. While this article does not elaborate on the circumstances or details of this separation, the author does not provide any indication that he attempted to reach his mother and reconcile his relationship with her. It seems to me that mother and son had unfortunately grown apart, and thus it did not make sense for her to try and contact him before being euthanized. Of course, there are countless reasons why this parting could have occurred. However, if Mortier truly cared about his mother—especially considering that she was chronically depressed—I would expect him to have tried to contact her at some point within the two years they had been out of touch.
When Mortier’s mother chose to be euthanized in April 2012, for whatever reason, she had not talked to her son in two years. In his report, Mortier expresses dismay that “We are rapidly changing into a society of absolute loneliness where we don’t want to take care of each other anymore.” This seems rather hypocritical considering that he does not mention any attempt he made to alleviate the loneliness his mother was likely experiencing. Her son’s distance may have even exacerbated her depression and contributed to her desire to end her life. While I don’t know enough about her condition to judge whether or not euthanasia was an appropriate decision, I doubt her son did either. Thus I think it is wrong to assume that Mortier’s mother made a hasty decision and did not think thoroughly about what she was doing. She may have talked with other family members, friends, or perhaps a psychiatrist. In any case, if Mortier really wanted to prevent this from happening, he probably should have tried to contact his mother years ago.
With that being said, it is truly terrible that Mortier’s mother ended up seeking death as a relief to her depression. Assisted suicide should never be taken lightly, and I think often physicians and individuals are not prudent in deciding what qualifies as “unbearable suffering” and what is merely a serious, but not unendurable, ailment. When a mentally ill individual like Mortier’s mother is contemplating euthanasia, physicians must be particularly meticulous in giving their consent to go through with the procedure. While ultimately the individual seeking death may have “free choice,” it is physicians who are responsible for deciding whether or not a condition is “unbearable.” Euthanasia should always be a last resort.
While Ben addressed in much detail whether or not the son deserved to be informed of his mother’s decision, he quickly glossed over the fact that euthanasia is legal in Belgium. In the United States, in contrast, there are no federal laws on euthanasia or assisted suicide. In Oregon and Washington, physician assisted suicide is legal if the individual has 6 months or less to live, is at least 18 years or old, and has sought permission twice orally (at least 15 days apart) and once written from the doctor. In Montana, it is also legal, and these other requirements are not factors. In all three states, residency is required. In all other states, assisted suicide and euthanasia are either illegal or, in a few, the legality is not clear. In several of these states, assisted suicide is punishable as felony or manslaughter.
I think that when the patient clearly has less than 6 months to live, physician assisted euthanasia is permissible. Many of these patients are in pain, have had sufficient time to prepare for and accept death, and have said goodbye to loved ones. They may have been suffering for months, completely at a loss for control, and once it is clear that their time is nearly over, there is no reason to continue to deny them some control over all that they have left: the way that they die. Continuing on for those last few months can be painful for the patient, expensive in terms of healthcare, and difficult for the family as they are not sure whether each moment could be their last. Choosing how and when to die, once it is established that death is inevitably in the near future, allows the patient and the family less pain and more control as they face this end. Terminal patients can die at home rather than waste away in a hospital, if they choose, and euthanasia extends upon this existing concept. Furthermore, there are sometimes cases of family members or doctors who assist a terminally ill patient to end their life. The patient may have begged extensively and been in terrible pain, and the loved one is put in the terrible position of having to risk breaking the law and facing potential punishment in order to grant the person their final wish and put them out of what seems unnecessary misery. Allowing euthanasia in these cases eliminates this moral and legal dilemma and perhaps merely legalizes some assisted suicides that were already occurring.
In contrast, the Belgian woman’s case seems less ethical and not clearly justified. While the woman is suffering, she is not terminally ill. Furthermore, she is suffering from depression, which is likely to affect her mindset about what life has left for her. In choosing euthanasia, she is not only reacting to pain, but also to her skewed perception of her own value in the world and in the lives of others, since her thought process has been affected by her disease. Thus, I do not feel euthanasia should necessarily be legal in her case. After all, we do not counsel suicide as the cure to non-terminal physical or mental pain, so how can we legalize it?
http://euthanasia.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000132
Two points that Ben raised in the blog post that especially caught my attention were the claim that the mother's son Tom Mortier had a right to know about his mother's plans and the suggestion that someone with mental illness may not always qualify to be euthanaized.
Assuming that euthanasia is a permissible practice (though this has been questioned), it is difficult to see why the first claim is true. As Clara explained earlier, it is not even clear if he was in regular contact with his mother to begin with. But that aside, I think there is a deeper issue here that needs to be addressed. Though you state in the blog post, Ben, that consulting Mortier would not have made his mother's decision any less free, it seems to me that this is false. What, after all, is necessary for someone to make a free choice?
Chiefly, making a free choice involves not to be coerced into taking a certain action. This is not only part of the legal definition of consent, but also part of our intuitive, moral understanding of freedom of choice. Analyzing the concept of coercion reveals that coercion can arise from a number of different sources, including non-physical coercion. For instance, one can be coerced to do certain acts through psychological manipulation as well as deceit and the withholding of information. Once we realize this, however, it becomes unclear whether or not the son should have been informed against the mother's wishes. For if we include non-physical manipulation under coercion, this raises huge questions regarding potential manipulation by Mortier of his mother. Given the strained relationship between the two, it is not at all clear that Mortier would not have attempted to non-physically coerce her mother to refrain from euthanasia. Such attempts plausibly could cause her further mental distress such that she would not be able to make a free choice either way. So, I do not think that it can be established that Mortier had a right to know about his mother against her consent, at least if one accepts the legitimacy of euthanasia.
Your comments regarding the second claim interested me because they hint at what I perceive to be a certain kind of arbitrariness involved in many euthanasia cases. Typically, what is assumed to be necessary to make euthanizing a patient permissible is (i) the patient's consent to be euthanized and (ii) the patient's having a very low quality of life, with negligible chances of recovering in the future. But, we might responsibly ask, what exactly constitutes a very low quality of life? As you suggested, having severe but temporary depression does not qualify as making someone's life low in quality. Other ways of determining one's quality of life seem to have this same problem as well. Alyssa said that the patient's having less than six months to live makes physician-assisted euthanasia permissible, which I assume is based off of the idea that having less than six months to live lowers one's quality of life to such an extent that it fulfills condition (ii). But why six months? Why not five or seven? Unlike other types of distinctions that have some sort of scientific grounding (such as the line between childhood and adulthood), the distinctions involved in quality of life considerations are far more likely to be subjective in nature. Unless some plausible distinctions are proposed, should we not be very cautious before deciding to perform any euthanasia?
Considerations like these highlight the complexities involved in evaluating the ethics of euthanasia. If what I have argued above is correct, though, then Mortier's not being informed about his mother's decision, though sad, did not involve anything unethical if one accepts the moral legitimacy of euthanasia. On the other hand, the tenuous definitions for what constitutes a low quality of life cast doubt not only on the morality behind the euthanasia of Mortier's mother, but also the morality behind countless other cases of euthanasia as well. At the very least, these observations about this tragic event should give one pause before deciding to support the practice of euthanasia.
Post a Comment