Dutch mobile euthanasia units to make house calls

[Typhoon]

Holland is a "left wing" nation?

Is it a right wing nation?

I'll make the radical suggestion that it's a nation of the Dutch.

Public debt as % of GDP

United States: 102%

Holland: 64.5%

Well we did elect a boat load of Democrats in 2008. Still recovering.

And Republicrats and Demopublicans and Republicrats and Demopublicans and . . .

[Mr. Perfect]

I'll make the radical suggestion that it's a nation of the Dutch.

A nation free of a political ideology then?

And Republicrats and Demopublicans and Republicrats and Demopublicans and . . .

All the GOP entities, congress/POTUS candidates have plans on the table to balance the budget.

Democrats do not. It's been years since a Democrat entity passed their own budget even.

[Ibrahim]

There's a lot of money to be made extending the last agonies of life at great expense. Special interests generally get their way in our system.

That may be part of it. Another is probably the fear of litigation - being sued for not having tried everything to prolong life, even if in reality any such extension may have been only for a few days.

The money, in both cases, is what makes decisions between the terminally ill and their doctors a political issue at all. There's nothing inherently political about it otherwise, and claiming it as a social issue is thin cover for the financial interests.

[Simple Minded]

I'm wondering if it's a profit driven company?

Not particularly likely. There wouldn't be much repeat business.

True enough, but look at desire of service... people are literally dying to be euthanized....

[monster_gardener]

Holland is a "left wing" nation?

Is it a right wing nation?

I'll make the radical suggestion that it's a nation of the Dutch.

Public debt as % of GDP

United States: 102%

Holland: 64.5%

Well we did elect a boat load of Democrats in 2008. Still recovering.

And Republicrats and Demopublicans and Republicrats and Demopublicans and . . .

Thank you Very Much for your post, Typhoon.

And Republicrats and Demopublicans and Republicrats and Demopublicans

You are much too polite to our misleaders........

Andy Jackson was a Democrat... the Klowns in charge of the SeNut and the White Horse Saloon are DemonRats ... with a few honorable exceptions such as Rand Paul*.....

Abraham Lincoln was a Republican......... The Klowns in charge of the House of Ill Repute ........ are ReThuglicans with a few honorable exceptions such as Ron Paul........

I will allow that some of the Klowns may be RepublicRATS and DEMONpublicans ................

*Not in charge but he is there..........

[Typhoon]

I'll make the radical suggestion that it's a nation of the Dutch.

A nation free of a political ideology then?

If only

Another nation to which parochial US labels of right and left don't apply well if at all.

[Enki]

I'll make the radical suggestion that it's a nation of the Dutch.

A nation free of a political ideology then?

If only

Another nation to which parochial US labels of right and left don't apply well if at all.

Those modes of Left/Right don't accurately describe America, the land for which they were crafted. They fit like a well-tailored snuggy.

[Azrael]

I'm wondering if it's a profit driven company?

Not particularly likely. There wouldn't be much repeat business.

True enough, but look at desire of service... people are literally dying to be euthanized....

But only once. Holland isn't India.

[Typhoon]

I'm wondering if it's a profit driven company?

Not particularly likely. There wouldn't be much repeat business.

True enough, but look at desire of service... people are literally dying to be euthanized....

But only once. Holland isn't India.

Hinduism and Buddhism are very environmentally conscious religions as they practice spiritual recycling.

[Sparky]

Damned big gubmint sissy liberals. Trying to tell rugged individualists and hoekje moms how to live. You can take their lethal injections from their cold, dead hands!

[Enki]

Damned big gubmint sissy liberals. Trying to tell rugged individualists and hoekje moms how to live. You can take their lethal injections from their cold, dead hands!

[Hoosiernorm]

I'm wondering if it's a profit driven company? What are it's motives?

Like all of Western Europe, Canada, Australia, NZ, etc. the Dutch have a state healthcare system. It is not a "for profit company," but a service offered by the medical system to terminally ill citizens who have elected to die in their homes rather than a hospital.


Generally speaking and not directed at anyone, I can never understand why American conservatives are so opposed to euthanasia. I understand it less than opposition to abortion or support for the death penalty. What is so important about preventing some 84 year old woman wracked by agony from stomach cancer from electing to die a few weeks or months early to escape pain completely escapes me.

I'm just usually confused by the logic that tells me that I can't be free until I embrace drugs and death, but hey man that's just me. I also can't figure out why the people who tell me that it is a personal decision don't just either hang themselves, set in the garage with the car running or some other sort of do it yourself method of obtaining their goal. You don't need an advocacy group if you simply off yourself and no one is going to arrest you after you are done. No hearings to get the testimony of the recently deceased and all of the other great fan fare of the euthanasia movement. I realize that they are doing the peoples work here and trying as hard as they can to accomplish a non political non ethical supra legal form of non medical non procedural natural existence, it's just that it if it is really that big of a non deal then why is it such a big deal.

[Ibrahim]

I'm wondering if it's a profit driven company? What are it's motives?

Like all of Western Europe, Canada, Australia, NZ, etc. the Dutch have a state healthcare system. It is not a "for profit company," but a service offered by the medical system to terminally ill citizens who have elected to die in their homes rather than a hospital.


Generally speaking and not directed at anyone, I can never understand why American conservatives are so opposed to euthanasia. I understand it less than opposition to abortion or support for the death penalty. What is so important about preventing some 84 year old woman wracked by agony from stomach cancer from electing to die a few weeks or months early to escape pain completely escapes me.

I'm just usually confused by the logic that tells me that I can't be free until I embrace drugs and death, but hey man that's just me.

It's not about what you do, it's about what you impose on others. What is "left wing" or "right wing" about telling some old person wracked with agony what they can't ask their doctor to do for them? Why do you want to make this decision for other people?

I also can't figure out why the people who tell me that it is a personal decision don't just either hang themselves, set in the garage with the car running or some other sort of do it yourself method of obtaining their goal.

Because typically the people in question have very limited capacity to do anything. I also don't understand why you think the seriously ill should try to kill themselves and possibly make a mess of it rather than receive the assistance of a trained physician just because it makes some third party (e.g. you) uncomfortable.

You don't need an advocacy group if you simply off yourself and no one is going to arrest you after you are done. No hearings to get the testimony of the recently deceased and all of the other great fan fare of the euthanasia movement. I realize that they are doing the peoples work here and trying as hard as they can to accomplish a non political non ethical supra legal form of non medical non procedural natural existence, it's just that it if it is really that big of a non deal then why is it such a big deal.

Because the people looking to end their lives medically to escape the suffering that accompanies the end stages of terminal illness need and want help and are asking for it. If a doctor is willing to help them why do you want to prevent that? Why would you prefer that they sit in the garage with the car on or try to hang themselves?

[Parodite]

People in a painful process of dying just don't want it be prolonged longer than necessary with drugs and medical technology. Passive euthanasia is the least violent maybe; you just stop a treatment and disconnect all gadgets that prevent you from dying when in fact you are dying. I believe every patient here is allowed to refuse a treatment or end it half way, go home and die. They researched the issue finding that terminally ill people who knew they could pull the plug actively and with help of others anytime, were also more relaxed and able to endure longer the irreversible downhill process.

[Enki]

Just get yourself a hotshot of heroin. I guess if there is a mobile unit disposal of the body is simpler.

[planctom]

I agree with Hoosier and Parodite.
We should avoid what we call distanasia, wich can be broadly defined as artificially prolonging the life of terminal patients. This is legal here in Brazil and is very different from euthanasia.
I'm a clinical oncologist and I've been dealing with terminal patients for the last 15 years; I think that good medical care is the best solution.
I'm totally against euthanasia( and abortion and death penalty) for two reasons:

-No government or person should be allowed to take the life of another human being, in the long run things can get pretty ugly.

-I'm catholic , life is sacred, God gives life, God takes life.

By the way, I can't understand why american conservatives are not against death penalty.

[Enki]

-I'm catholic , life is sacred, God gives life, God takes life.

This can be applied to all medicine equally. God also gives medicine and the reason to use it.

[Ibrahim]

This is why I don't get. Why should I apply my opinion of what God wants or doesn't want to some other guy dying in agony? It's one thing to say what I would do in those circumstances in the light of my convictions, but an entirely different thing to impose that on others. E.g. why should some atheist with terminal cancer suffer longer just because of my beliefs?

[Hoosiernorm]

This is why I don't get. Why should I apply my opinion of what God wants or doesn't want to some other guy dying in agony? It's one thing to say what I would do in those circumstances in the light of my convictions, but an entirely different thing to impose that on others. E.g. why should some atheist with terminal cancer suffer longer just because of my beliefs?

When you alter the law it isn't just the law which is affected. The entire structure of a society is being asked to conform with this law not simply the atheist. What is a life worth? When does it become worthless? Is a patient in an altered mental state being objective about the use of medically practiced murder? What are all of the implications of changing the definitions of both life and medicine? This is not as simple as just allowing those in pain to end their lives.

[Ibrahim]

This is why I don't get. Why should I apply my opinion of what God wants or doesn't want to some other guy dying in agony? It's one thing to say what I would do in those circumstances in the light of my convictions, but an entirely different thing to impose that on others. E.g. why should some atheist with terminal cancer suffer longer just because of my beliefs?

When you alter the law it isn't just the law which is affected. The entire structure of a society is being asked to conform with this law not simply the atheist.

Not so. It is voluntary, those who don't agree with euthanasia don't have to do it (should the circumstances arise).

What is a life worth? When does it become worthless? Is a patient in an altered mental state being objective about the use of medically practiced murder? What are all of the implications of changing the definitions of both life and medicine? This is not as simple as just allowing those in pain to end their lives.

Well it is that simple, and it has nothing to do with "worth." A person may decide to end suffering at the end stages of a terminal illness without considering their life to be "worthless." Nor does the definition of life or medicine change. This is only even relevant to a small number of people in particularly terrible medical circumstances.

There are reams of legal statute and precedent (as well as medical expertise) on how to determine mental competency, so that's not a problem either.

[Torchwood]

Trust Mr. Perfect to convert a serious moral quandary into cheap political point scoring.

Obviously I (and more importantly my wife) have a stake in this debate, given her brain tumour. It is wider than that, because we live to unprecedented ages, having got rid of infectious diseases and even heart disease is in steep decline - so most of us will die from degenerative conditions where the end is generally slow and not nice. Conventional morality was not set up for this.

Apparently half the NHS's expenditure is on the last year of life, yet there are areas which are chronically underfunded, such as stroke rehabilitation and mental health.

If it gets to the point (as we may do) where death is inevitable but nothing but pain and suffering before it happens, then what is the objection?

[Enki]

This is why I don't get. Why should I apply my opinion of what God wants or doesn't want to some other guy dying in agony? It's one thing to say what I would do in those circumstances in the light of my convictions, but an entirely different thing to impose that on others. E.g. why should some atheist with terminal cancer suffer longer just because of my beliefs?

One of my favorite jokes is:

A priest out by the Mississippi Delta during hurricane season is at his church.
The water rises to the steps, some guys in a rowboat come by.
"Jump in Father, we've got room for one more."
"No, The Lord will protect me."
An outboard sport boat comes by. It's up to the second floor.
"Hop in Father, we've got plenty of room."
"Thank you, but the Lord is protecting me."
Finally, he is up in the tower soaking wet and shivering. Another boat comes by.
"Father, it looks like it will keep rising."
"Don't worry, the lord is protecting me."
He dies.
At the pearly gates he asks St. Peter, "Why didn't the lord protect me?"
St. Peter replies, "Well, he did send three boats."

[monster_gardener]

Trust Mr. Perfect to convert a serious moral quandary into cheap political point scoring.

Obviously I (and more importantly my wife) have a stake in this debate, given her brain tumour. It is wider than that, because we live to unprecedented ages, having got rid of infectious diseases and even heart disease is in steep decline - so most of us will die from degenerative conditions where the end is generally slow and not nice. Conventional morality was not set up for this.

Apparently half the NHS's expenditure is on the last year of life, yet there are areas which are chronically underfunded, such as stroke rehabilitation and mental health.

If it gets to the point (as we may do) where death is inevitable but nothing but pain and suffering before it happens, then what is the objection?

Thank you Very Much for your post, Torchwood.

Well wishes and prayers for your wife.....

The Double Effect Principle* may have the solution.........

If death is a side-effect of the palliative care RATHER than its object, there should not be a problem.

That is if it is necessary to keep raising the dose of pain killer, at the patient's request, to the point that it is a lethal dose......
Then it's not suicide or whatever the offensive term is........

Another example: Samson in the Temple, his primary aim was kill as many of his/Israel's Phillistine enemies as possible not to end his own life though he was quite willing to pay that price......

*Learned about this from a Catholic source

[planctom]

This is why I don't get. Why should I apply my opinion of what God wants or doesn't want to some other guy dying in agony? It's one thing to say what I would do in those circumstances in the light of my convictions, but an entirely different thing to impose that on others. E.g. why should some atheist with terminal cancer suffer longer just because of my beliefs?

When you alter the law it isn't just the law which is affected. The entire structure of a society is being asked to conform with this law not simply the atheist.

Not so. It is voluntary, those who don't agree with euthanasia don't have to do it (should the circumstances arise).

What is a life worth? When does it become worthless? Is a patient in an altered mental state being objective about the use of medically practiced murder? What are all of the implications of changing the definitions of both life and medicine? This is not as simple as just allowing those in pain to end their lives.

Well it is that simple, and it has nothing to do with "worth." A person may decide to end suffering at the end stages of a terminal illness without considering their life to be "worthless." Nor does the definition of life or medicine change. This is only even relevant to a small number of people in particularly terrible medical circumstances.

There are reams of legal statute and precedent (as well as medical expertise) on how to determine mental competency, so that's not a problem either.

Ibrahim, the moral aspect of a medical act is very important, that´s why I would never perform an euthanasia- the same goes for abortion and death penalty- even if it becomes legalized; like you said before, the patient would have to find another doctor.
I would like you to notice that I don´t have this position only because of my religious beliefs, I think that a civilized society
should never give permission to the State( or any professional/religious/political group) to kill its citizens; we should protect life from conception to the natural end of it, otherwise life becomes cheap and dispensable.

[planctom]

Continuing from my last post.
When human life becomes cheap and dispensable , almost an obstacle to our daily pleasures, that ´s the kind of thing we should expect to happen: the permission for killing a new born baby.
For me it´s unbelieveable that a respected medical journal like the British Medical Journal prints this kind of lavender:

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/0 ... 00411.full