The earlier article, “Clarify, not prevent, false claims”, has been removed as it has been brought to our attention that it has been published before. We apologise for the error.
Richard Woo
I am among the minority when it comes to euthanasia and/or physician assisted suicide [PAS]. It is my opinion that euthanasia and/or PAS, if only to enable patients to die peacefully and with dignity, should be made legal, notwithstanding the divergent opinions expressed as evidenced in articles published in the local newspapers.
Needless to say, the issue of euthanasia and/or PAS needs to be thoroughly discussed, with input from as many people as possible. Then, if the government is of the view that further discussion at government level is merited, it should be introduced for debate in Parliament, and only become legal when there is a consensus that the community as a whole would benefit from euthanasia and/or PAS.
The most recent article, if I am right, was contributed by Jennifer Yeo and Madan Mohan [both from the law firm of Yeo-Leong & Peh]. Dr Andy Ho [senior reporter of The ST] had written several articles, all similar in tone to that expressed by Jennifer Yeo and Madan Mohan – that euthanasia, let alone PAS, should not be legalized, for various reasons: cultivating a culture of illusionary pride, cutting health-care costs, morally or spiritually hazardous, we are living our lives for others, not only for ourselves etc.
Euthanasia can be defined as “the deliberate, intentional termination of a person’s life for the benefit of that person” or as “the intentional ending or mercy killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit”. These definitions are quite similar, except for the use of the words “mercy” and “omission” in one definition. What is specifically stated in these definitions is that euthanasia is for a benefit, the ending of a person’s life for the benefit of that person. If death is not intended, it is not an act of euthanasia.
Although euthanasia and/or PAS have also been hotly debated in other countries in recent years it is still not clear which other countries besides Belgium and Netherlands have legalized both euthanasia and assisted suicide/PAS. Switzerland prohibits euthanasia but has since 1941 allowed physician and non-physician assisted suicide. The US state of Oregon was, until recently, the only state in the US with a law, enacted in 1997, specifically allowing PAS; in Nov 2008, a similar law was passed in the state of Washington. Some form of euthanasia is also legal in the Autonomous Community of Andalusia (Spain) and Thailand. The Luxembourg parliament in Dec 2008 voted in favor of legalizing euthanasia.
Excerpts from the BBC website describing the fine distinctions when we talk about euthanasia:
Active euthanasia
In active euthanasia a person directly and deliberately causes the patient’s death. Active euthanasia is when death is brought about by an act – for example when a person is killed by being given an overdose of pain-killers.
Assisted suicide
This usually refers to cases where the person who is going to die needs help to kill themselves and asks for it. It may be something as simple as getting drugs for the person and putting those drugs within their reach.
Indirect euthanasia
This means providing treatment (usually to reduce pain) that has the foreseeable side effect of causing the patient to die sooner.
Voluntary euthanasia
This is where euthanasia is carried out at the request of the person who dies.
Involuntary euthanasia
Involuntary euthanasia occurs when the person who dies chooses life and is killed anyway. This is usually called murder, but it is possible to imagine cases where the killing would count as being for the benefit of the person who dies.
Non-voluntary euthanasia
Non-voluntary euthanasia occurs when the person is unconscious or otherwise unable (for example, a very young baby or a person of extremely low intelligence) to make a meaningful choice between living and dying, and an appropriate person takes the decision on their behalf
Non-voluntary euthanasia also includes cases where the person is a child who is mentally and emotionally able to take the decision, but is not regarded in law as old enough to take such a decision, so someone else must take it on their behalf in the eyes of the law.
Passive euthanasia
Passive euthanasia is when death is brought about by an omission – i.e. when someone lets the person die. This can be by withdrawing or withholding treatment:
If the last act, the act that caused the patient’s death, was intentionally performed by a third party, it would be euthanasia. For example, giving a patient a lethal injection or withdrawing a life-sustaining intravenous feed would be considered euthanasia. Assisted suicide refers to an individual dying or having died as a consequence of using information, guidance, and means provided by another with the intention that they would be used by the former for the purpose of suicide. Thus swallowing a lethal substance or taking an overdose of drugs provided by a doctor for the purpose of causing death is clearly a case of PAS or assisted suicide.
Irrational to opt for euthanasia?
Life can be devastating when one is suffering from paralysis or from an incurable or agonizing disease for which there is no hope of recovery or amelioration. Some people may consider it pointless to continue living if they are in such conditions and are critically dependent on others for physical assistance on a day to day basis. In such a scenario the patient can see himself/herself as a liability to others and hence can feel demoralized. Being immobile or in a vegetative state is definitely one of the worst downsides of being alive, whether one is young or old.
Is there any point in being alive or is it worth to continue, if there are no prospects of recovery?
A person is considered to be in a vegetative state in the absence of behavioral signs of consciousness. Any person may appear to look awake, for instance, with eyes open, yet would still be considered to be in a vegetative state for having failed repeatedly to follow commands or instructions such as “look in my direction” or “touch me” and showing signs of being capable only of reflexive movements. Can one avoid becoming a “vegetable”? A healthy lifestyle cannot amount to a guarantee against such a despairing fate, which must be, short of committing suicide, beyond one’s personal control. A head or spinal injury or an attack of stroke can transform one into a vegetative state, whether one is ostensibly healthy or otherwise.
A persistent vegetative state (PVS) can be considered as a condition in which coma resulting from brain damage has progressed to a state where probability of recovery has diminished and there is no evidence of any detectable awareness. A continuation of coma after one month of the brain injury is usually deemed a PVS case. Besides the emotional and physical strain that may affect family members or relatives who are providing the care-giving, the financial cost can also be a strain on the care-givers, if they have to bear the financial cost. I am not discussing a situation where prospects of recovery are positive and where financial cost for nursing care and/or medication is not an issue. If an adult has been suffering from an incurable ailment with no hope of recovery or amelioration and continuing would just mean misery and a severe drain on precious but limited financial resources, would that person be considered irrational to opt for euthanasia, or PAS, as a way out? My answer would be a resounding NO.
Must life continue on its natural course?
We all live for a time only, but to be able to die peacefully, with dignity and without pain or fuss, can be considered a life achievement. Dr Andy Ho, a senior reporter for The Straits Times made this comment in one of his articles concerning euthanasia: “My self-autonomy does not imply an absolute authority to decide my own life.” This is of course subjective. Others may think differently. Others may hold that the right to life comes with a tacit understanding that one has to die sooner or later, and with the right to die in a manner and at a time of one’s choosing, and with assistance of medical technology, if necessary, to make the exit as peaceful and hassle-free as can be deemed possible.
Some people [and I am one of them] dread living to a stage where their mentality becomes impaired [dementia or Alzheimer’s, for instance]. When a person is at this stage they would not be aware of the problems they may be causing to others. Some of us now alive today may find ourselves going through a state of anxiety and anguish before making our final exit. If continuing to live means enduring or suffering pain, physically and/or mentally, must life continue on its natural course and, if so, on what grounds? Sometimes it can be hard to die, even if you want to.
And having the financial means may not help in ending the pain or anguish. People who talk of palliative care often forget or omit to mention the financial cost involved. If money is not an issue – for example, employing domestic maids or nurses to provide full-time nursing care – then it may be a non-issue. The situation can, however, be problematic if money and manpower resources are areas of contention. Opting for an early exit through euthanasia or PAS, just to end one’s suffering, may be the preferred choice, even where the government is footing the bill for the palliative or nursing care for the patient.
Can euthanasia or PAS be considered as a solution, then?
My answer is yes, despite all the pro-life arguments about preserving life. If I were in such a condition with nothing to look forward to but misery and death I would opt for an early death. It would be difficult to provide justification for prolonging pain and suffering, including of course mental anguish. Through euthanasia or PAS my misery can be removed and I would consider it as an efficient way to go. And if someone else has to make a decision on my behalf, I would be thankful for the decision, for giving me a quick and efficient escape route. A lethal injection seems to be a far cleaner, more efficient way to go than starving oneself to death, or jumping, say, from a building if the illness is one that does not affect the patient’s mobility but nevertheless is incurable and painful to him, physically and mentally.
When an animal is perceived to be in agony, resulting say from an injury or an ailment, it would be put to “sleep” through a lethal injection to end its misery if such action is considered to be the best, in the interest of the animal or its owner, or after consultation with a veterinary clinic. But when a person, depending on country location, is in misery because of a painful or incurable illness, with no hope of amelioration, and wants help in terminating his life to end the misery, he can expect zero help if euthanasia or assisted suicide is not legal.
A recent case reported in the newspapers [The Straits Times, Mar 21, 2008] is a case in point:
A French woman suffering from an incurable and disfiguring cancer has been found dead, two days after a court rejected her request for medical assistance to help end her life. No details were immediately available on the cause of Ms Chantal Sebire’s death on Wednesday. …Ms Sebire’s doctors had said she would fall into a coma and die if she stopped taking medication to deal with the rare tumour. But she insisted on going to court to try to secure the right to an assisted suicide, which would be less painful. After her request was rejected, she said she would not appeal the decision and would find life-terminating drugs through other means.
Was her death the outcome of her having stopped her medication, or due to some other cause[s]? We do not know at this juncture.
Terri Schiavo
We have heard some people saying: “Doctors can allow death but not cause it”. If one recalls the Terri Schiavo case in the US, one would remember the controversy that arose from this incident. There was an interesting article in The Straits Times [May 9 2005] from a woman expressing her views in response to an earlier article concerning Terri Schiavo.
“It is easy to talk from the sidelines about caring for a terminally ill patient until natural death overtakes him or of the ethos of the medical profession to cure and save lives but not take away any. A slow lingering death is the worst way to die, because those who suffer most may not be the one who is dying but his close relatives who have to take care of him until his death.”
In case you are not familiar, Terri Schiavo had been in a vegetative state for 15 years before her husband, with court sanction, pulled the plug by removing her feeding tube. The earlier article was in essence a critique of the husband’s action and argued, among other things, that doctors “can allow death but not cause it”. One cannot really tell why Terri’s husband acted as he did, unless one was in his shoes for the last 15 years.
Being alive is not a big deal if you happen to be old and living by yourself; and being old and alive can become a social problem for others. We have seen press reports [in Singapore] of old people dying alone without anybody knowing anything about it until the stench from the dead body caught someone’s attention. The most recent case of death going undetected occurred in Jan 2008 and concerned a father [82 yrs] and his daughter [50 yrs], both of whom were found dead in their home after the stench from their corpses caught the attention of neighbors. When police arrived at the home, a woman [80 yrs] told them that her husband and daughter were sleeping. This is an example, a very sad one, of a severe downside of growing old. And that may precisely be the kind of situation some people dread to be in; dying sooner rather than later seems a pro-choice in such a scenario.
Through its national registration records, a government may have no difficulty ascertaining the names of oldies [say over 80 years?] still alive today. What may be more difficult is to ascertain which oldies are living alone. Probably, some of these old people need help one way or another. A brief visitation once every two or three days by a member from the government social services unit and/or a member of any volunteer group to the home of an aged person who lives alone can go a long way to ensuring that death when or where it has occurred will not remain undetected for long. On a happy note, I am glad to report that under the Neighbors Connect Group project [a community initiative launched in Marsiling, Singapore] neighbors will call on elderly residents in two blocks in this housing estate to get in touch and collect some basic personal information. The effort “aims to connect residents so that, if anything were to happen to one of them, there would always be someone who would find out and act.” This is doubtless a laudable project and it is hoped that other housing estates will launch, similarly, their own initiative.
The right to self-determination
If people are denied the right to self-determination when they are mentally capable of doing so, with the proviso that it is not harmful to others, there may come a time when self-determination is no longer feasible, in terms of their mental state, and thus they may become wholly dependent on the judgment of others, which may or may not be beneficial and may lead to complications that they would not have dreamt of in the first place.
No doubt euthanasia or PAS is appalling to some people. But euthanasia or PAS may just be the solution to pain and suffering. Opponents of euthanasia/PAS may offer their views about the “sanctity of life” or “preservation of life” and so on in their defense but they would do well to pause and then reflect on the evil of pain and suffering a person may be forced to endure. It is easy to talk from the sidelines about caring and so forth, as the woman who wrote to the media stated. One really needs to evaluate who else suffer[s] along with patients who are, say, in a vegetative state, and the financial aspect that may add damage to their family members. When we talk about suffering we cannot exclude mental anguish. What if the patient is without the financial means to employ, say, a full-time nurse or domestic maid but has two young children and a spouse who is now the sole bread winner and the spouse’s income is at a level that any talk of engaging a full-time nurse or domestic maid is out of the question? Would the government arrange all the essential care for such a patient at its own cost? If the answer is no, should the patient be left to rot to death?
———
A mass of information about euthanasia and assisted suicide can be found in Internet websites; a comprehensive question and answer version can be found in http://www.internationaltaskforce.org/faq.htm
Comprehensive information can also be found in British Broadcasting Cooperation’ website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/euthanasia/
———-
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
when people are sufferin from disability
they have the
RIGHT to DIE
i have seen my upstair neighbours
every of them
really really
want to die in their sleep
for they have caused enough inconvenience to their younger children
which is very very EXPENSIVE
to maintain
let alone their dignity
whatever left
i spoke to a neighbour middle aged UNMARRIED daughter
who was RETRENCHED
by 1 of our semi government inc…
she had to take care of her invalid mother 24/7
i asked her about this
topic thinggie
she replied
if a disable person is ^healthy^
you cannot kill her in her sleep
that is illegal
in the eyes of our pap government
die die
you must find
YOUR savin$
to keep her alive
how you do it
the pap government don’t want to know
yet the pap government is still
savin
YOUR cpf in their capacity as ^trustee^
~sigh~
I was the one who wrote the article on the Straits Times (May 9 2005). I am pleased that you referred to it in your writing. I would, however, wish to comment that you got my gender wrong.
Death is still death by any other names, and it comes as a shock to me that there are so many varied definitions for death.
It is pointed out by Richard that death (PAS or whatever name), be decided if there is ‘benefit’. This itself opens up a whole litany of debatable arguments and there can be no conclusive outcome to what is deemed ‘beneficial’.
Is it beneficial for medical reasons? For religious and spiritual reasons? For financial reasons? For pain & ‘ending the suffering’ reasons? For what other reasons that are deemed beneficial?
Medical reasons in itself is a hot topic as it calls upon the own personal disposition of the physician who makes the decision on behalf of the patient. Can he do this if he is bound by the oath he took to practice medicine?. Again it is debatable. Or, if his own religious belief does not allow him to decide for death, never mind if it is the ‘patient’s choice’.
Religious and spiritual reasons also work on the physician as well as the family of the patient; and the patient himself. Again, each will have its own opinion on what is ‘beneficial’ to the patient.
Financial reasons; will it be the deciding factor for patients or family members to make excuses to ‘end it all’? A very simple deciding factor if the family if left with a desperate decision to make, but very real and true all the same.
Will it be the plain and unbearable suffering of the patient that determines the benefit of death? At what point does the physician or patient deem the pain unbearable and death is beneficial?
So you see, there is no conclusive outcome that can be derived from such considerations. What then should be the deciding factor for one to decide to die? Who makes the decision?
Dear Richard Woo,
Can you please cite more Asian and Middle Eastern examples of where euthanasia has been accepted ?
The truth is that – here in South East Asia – the religious lobby is very powerful. We are a very religious lot. And for better or for worse – most religions prohibit euthanasia. Maybe its not rational – but organised religion itself is not rational !
So until you can make the various religions accept euthanasia – it will remain taboo in most of Asia and the Middle East.
On a side note – I want to pass a comment on the SDP web-site. They too publish all sorts of quotes from great people. But the problem is that – they are all quotes from either Americans or Europeans. Not Asians. I guess Asians are simply not great democrats !!
Best Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
I think Alwi is correct in identifying the religious lobbies as a major obstacle to euthanasia. There are always arguments for or against euthanasia in different contexts, as Woo helpfully describes in this article; those can be individually debated, but blanket objections to euthanasia on the basis of vague idea(l)s about the “sanctity of life” seem suspiciously to me to stem from religious rhetoric.
I think it is unavoidable that a lot of religious groups cannot condone euthanasia, simply because the acceptance of it makes them (at least to their view) implicated in the sin of killing, while making culpable as well the doctors who administer it. I don’t agree with them, but I see as well why they feel that they cannot compromise on this issue. I think it would only be fair for writers to be candid about their religious leanings when discussing whether or not to euthanasia should be legalised.
I think a truly secular government should just bypass the religious lobbies and decide on an objective basis (as far as it is possible…) whether euthanasia might be made legal. Certainly we’re already pissing off a lot of people with the death penalty, and I think that instance itself already shows how Singapore has always run itself on secular principles–now isn’t the time to compromise that.
http://arthurboon.blogspot.com/2008/12/euthanasia-may-get-me-murdered.html
I agree with you ArtBoon. If I have to write down my preference on how I should die when overcome by illness, it will very much be along the same line as yours.
Hi TOC, sorry for commenting here but for the past few months I have not been able to take a single poll on your site.
On the “which party you will vote for” poll I chose SDP and it said that “I had already voted for this poll”. And for the latest one I want to rate Low as “0-3 points” but it says the same thing – that I had already voted when I have not.
I’m not the only one, my friends have the problem too. Can you please check it out and replace your poll widget / poll service if possible?
for God sake
stopped usin RELIGION
as an excuse
NOT to DIE
where was God
when you are sufferin from chronic disease?
where was God
when you cannot afford medical treatment
as though singapore medical is FREE or dirt cheap
where was God when the pap government tell you
that you have enough medicsaves in your cpf
but you cannot used it @ ONCED
to cure your uncurable chronic sickness
or you sitting in a wheelchair for 24/7
when a plastic bag beside for you to urine
just because of
YOU the only disease stricken person
you let the government
CONTROLLED
your next of kin
deprivin them of their own future/worklives
is this how
YOUR GOD
want it this way
this is the year 2009
money TALKs
not GOD
as though the pap government
don’t tell you @ all
did God controlled the highway
with his magic wane?
did God tell you to top up your erp ca$h card?
Fear…fear of ‘living’ in a vegetative or painful state is the main element of those that are pro-euthanasia…perfect love cast out all fears…
Pardon me Ravi, where does one find perfect love to embrace it?
gemami #10: seek and you shall find…
Ah Ravi; just the answer I expected.
So you see, whether it’s fear or any of the other issues that goes into the decision making process of letting a life go; it will continue to return us to the same spot from where we started.
For as long as this cycle cannot be broken; a life cannot be taken away.
Other people want others to kill them, that is their business.
I just don’t want myself to be killed against my will.
The cause of the euthanasia debate is the circumstances which made people want to be terminated. You get cases of family members who pressure the sick person to die, so they get the family fortune. Or the sick person just doesn’t want to be a financial burden. Under perfect circumstances, they may decide differently. So it’s very hard for doctors to determine if a patient wanting death is genuine and not done under duress.
A more serious issue is how local hospitals are already practising ‘passive euthanasia’. If they see that your loved one has little hope of living, they try to transfer them out of the hospital into a hospice, instead of caring for the person till the end. And what about the huge financial tax in keeping the loved one alive. What about cases where they’d rather terminate a brain-dead person, so they can harvest his organs???
ArtBoon, is death so fearful to you? what was it like being unborn? was it fearful as well?
Perhaps you would have a greater appreciate for death once you find yourself trapped in your body unable to move, perhaps only being able to blink, and being fed through a tube, having to have your bowels manually evacuated by some poor soul trapped with you .
Death is a gift.
#15) Chris,
I think you’ve misjudged ArtBoon. Go take a peek at the link he provided in #5. You will see, that it is not the fear of death, but the fear, that his life be prematurely terminated, against his will, that is his concern.
ArtBoon seems to be only against non-voluntary euthanasia, as defined in the article.
p.s everyone is probably against involuntary euthanasia which is tantamount to murder, so I didn’t include it in ArtBoon’s stance.
Dear people,
Comment as much as you like. The powerful religious lobby will ensure that euthanasia is not allowed. And thats the reality you live with.
Like I said – just show me Asian and Middle Eastern nations which have allowed euthanasia. Not many. Maybe Japan and Korea perhaps ? I’m not sure.
But by and large – the religious lobby in Asia is very powerful and will not tolerate any form of euthanasia. I know that MUIS – for example – has outlawed euthanasia for Muslims.
Best Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
“… they try to transfer them out of the hospital into a hospice, instead of caring for the person till the end.”
angry_one, “caring for the person till the end” is what hospice care is all about.
Dear People,
The Church has rejected euthanasia. MUIS says euthanasia is Haram (forbidden) for Muslims.
Now – who is going to challenge the Church and MUIS ?
Which one of you ?
Best Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
@Chris
I am certainly afraid of death, because I do not know what happens after that. I have certain belief that gives me hope of what happens after death, but that is my personal bet.
I am strongly against the idea of being killed against my own will, that’s all. If you want others to kill you against your will, that is none of my business.
[i]Dr Syed Alwi on January 29th, 2009 5.48 pm Dear People,
The Church has rejected euthanasia. MUIS says euthanasia is Haram (forbidden) for Muslims.
Now – who is going to challenge the Church and MUIS ?
Which one of you ?
Best Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
[/i]
i WOULD
simply because
YOU are a normal and
HEALTHY person
you would had said
believed in the mighty God
and you shall be saved
have you seen your childhood friend sufferred and die right in your face
when he is only 44?
you know him when you were playin marbles
you were with him when he takled the most uglist girl
you attend his expensive weddin
you were even present when his son is born
till a few years back
you suddenly see him transformed into a person that looked liked aids infected
more hag and older than his survivin father
so what do you do?
prayed to GOD
where was GOD and the church
when his wife have to take so many unpaid leaves just to brin him to hospital for colon cancer treatment
where was GOD and the churches
when every single $ bill is being spent movin him around?
for the last 2 years of his remainin life
he sufferred
the pain the humilation as a father/husband
for not providin his family
with adequate earnins
he finally die
may his soul rest in peace
after his tortureous pain he felt
now
did GOD and the churches make a miracle to ease his sufferin
and the financial strain on his immediate family?
have you ever spoken to his wife and son
when he was with chronic disease
unless
you want
to GURANTEED
there is a cure for colon cancer?
see talk is cheap
preachin is even cheaper
now his survivin family?
free as a bird
the wife can carried on with her life
the son can continued to concentrate on his secondary school levels
yeah yeah
somebody mentioned hospice
as though hospic stayin is liked ntuc chalet holiday camp
go check the price
you would be SHOCKED
till than
life is hard
life is real
nothin else really matter
[i]) Dr Syed Alwi on January 29th, 2009 5.48 pm Dear People,
The Church has rejected euthanasia. MUIS says euthanasia is Haram (forbidden) for Muslims.
Now – who is going to challenge the Church and MUIS ?
Which one of you ?
Best Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
[/i]
bloomin hell
i just posted
where is my answer
GOD make it disappear again?
s h i t
want to tell you more on those friends i have who sufferred from terminal disease liked cancer blah blah blah
there was NO survivors
except our prince the prime minister
every of thos patient cost a bomb to maintain
where was GOD and the churches than?
let us prayed perhaps?
and dr syed alwi
have you ever bought 1 pill which cost you
only $8000++ nia
with no guranteed of being cured
maybe waltz over to the churches and muis collection boxes
and helped yourself to just $8000 nia?
what is that to you?
stealing or borrowing in advance
pay them back upon your death perhaps
afterall you do have more than $8000++ in your medicsaves
right?
Not referring to the article, but is all this debate going on because Singapore govt sees no other means to make money in the future and intends to go into the organ harvesting and sales business?
Euthanasia, suicide, murder have the word killing in their description. How can we be seen condoning to such acts? Part of the purpose of being put in this Earth is so that human can better the life of every other living things. We are told to preserve and hang on to life no matter how fragile it is. Now look what we have done..
Instead of encouraging the “chicken” way out why not encouraging to live life the fullest and give all the support the person need. It’s actually not that hard and the cost the least. I remember the story of Patch Adams where he said
“If you cure the disease you either win or lose but if you cure the patient you will always win.”
Love is always the best medicine for any ailments like Mr Ravi mentioned no matter how terminally ill they are. With love comes hope and then followed by determination..etc..etc..Euthanasia and any of its form is a no-go for me.
Regards..
Wow and you closed the poll on Low.. I wonder how much difference there would be if everyone who could not vote like me voted.
I have just send off my nephew on his last trip on Earth on Wednesday 28th January 2009.
My Sister-in-Law told me that her son, the Deceased, did not want to die(of cancer at the thorax section). Before the day of his demise, he wanted to offer prayer to stay alive.
This is the second time I am commenting on euthanasia at TOC, I am against it unless it is made by sick person who are 100% lucid and understands his/her request to die is not due to financial, emotional relation problems with cost of healthcare and concern of burdening the family. Another area that must be looked into, concerns the patients’ relationship with family members which may result in patient wanting to end life though the suffering may not be unbearable physically, but an emotional decision. I think this is one huge grey spot, as the wish to die now is not in reality due to the sickness/disease but the emotion at play, the feeling of being neglected and unwanted(unlove) or for being a burden financially and physically to others.
There is a Chinese Saying ‘chang ping wu xiao ze’, meaning chronic(long term) illness erodes(diminishes) filial piety which is indeed quite true in living.
May I also forward another opinion that anyone who is mobile but terminally ill(afflicted with incurable disease) and wishes to die would have found his/her own way to die without being assisted. For such patient, euthanasia should be ruled out no matter how strong and persistent the patient ask for it, there is absolutely no ground and reason to apply or grant euthanasia.
As for those immobile, there could be difficulty in committing suicide by themselves, but even so, euthanasia requests may not be easily determined. Other than kins and kiths, there are patients who have friends who are as loving of them as family members. How could anyone decide on a patients’ euthanasia request when a close relative or friend is against it ?
The worst case scenario that I could imagine will be that of a patient without kin and kith, it seems to me that such a patient will be at the mercy of the medical professional(s). Due to the Healthcare System, such kinless vegetative patient will likely be disposed off with euthanasia if it is legalized. IN VIEW OF THIS CATEGORY OF PATIENT, I AM ABSOLUTELY AGAINST LEGALIZING EUTHANASIA IN SINGAPORE.
patriot
We never got to have a say on our birth, but we should have a say on our deaths should our lives become such a physically painful burden to ourselves and the people around us (emotionally and financially). Personally, I do not want to suffer in pain til my very last breathe so if I am terminally ill, I would like to see the option of euthanasia being available to me.
With due respect to the various religious groups, as much as they disagree upon the legalising of euthanasia, I think they have also missed the point somewhat. Voluntary euthanasia should be made legal and as pious as one ‘should’ be, they should also be given a choice whether they prefer to suffer til their very last breathe or to end all the suffering with the option of euthanasia.
Also, while religious groups lobby for the non legalisation of euthanasia, they might also want to consider sparing a thought for atheists, some of who would love to have that option open to them (like myself). Afterall, one can never force a religion upon another so with this thought in mind, religious groups can voice out their thoughts but should never try to stop something such as euthanasia from being legalised. It is about the system and the way to open up the option of euthanasia.
Don’t be selfish, some people want to die with a smile on their faces and with dignity instead of grimacing in pain and I know it as I have seen my grandaunt dying in so much pain because her requests for euthanasia had been rejected again and again by doctors just because they do not want to loose their jobs. To die with painless dignity should be a personal choice. This is how I genuinely feel about it.
Dear People,
I think the PAP takes into consideration the views of the various religious groups. The situation is the same regarding the Gay-Lesbian debate. Our society in Asia is till rather conservative.
I know that the Church and MUIS is totally against both Homosexuality as well as Euthanasia.
Regarding MUIS and Islam – no serious Muslim scholar would issue a fatwa legalizing Euthanasia without first getting some kind of concensus and agreement with Muslim scholars elsewhere.
Take the Organ Donation Act (HOTA) as an example. MUIS waited till Organ Donation was given the green light by many Muslim scholars elsewhere like in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Indonesia etc etc – before allowing HOTA for Muslims. MUIS passed a fatwa in support of HOTA ONLY when prominent Muslim scholars world-wide had given their blessings to organ donation. Not before.
So I do not see Euthanasia as being acceptable to Muslims at all. I guess the situation must be the same with Christianity and the Church.
In the first place – hardly any Asian or Middle Eastern countries have legalised euthanasia. Its just not Asian to kill your sick family members !
Asian values dictate unreserved filial piety………..
Best Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
[#2 Wan Siew Kay]
My apologies, Siew Kay.
You wrote a marvellous piece and I was impressed.
It shows one cannot take for granted when deciding on the gender of a person based on the person’s name alone. Even the name ‘Alex’ can stand for a woman.
rgds
[#4 Dr Syed Alwi]
I have done a bit of on-line searching as to which countries, worldwide, are practising euthanasia but it apears there are just a few. As you have presumably noticed from my write-up, they are no more than the number of fingers on our hands.
Wikipedia is where I got the information regarding Thailand. I do not think there are any countries in SEA or Asia that officially allow euthanasia.
Vide #28, Rachel has written her views which are clearly pro-euthanasia.
I am hoping to see more of others with such mindset.
I want to be able to die with dignity. I dread living to a stage where, just for example, my mind has succumbed to Alzheimer’s and there I am, not knowing whether it is day or night and not knowing or recognising the person who is standing in front of me; and being dependent on others to do everything for me.
Worth continuing?
People who are God/god believers would do well to pray to their God/god to spare them from falling into such a pitiful state.
rgds
#20 Dr Syed Alwi
Yes I will challenge the Church and MUIS, using their texts in the best of my knowledge for I have studied both.
_____________________________________
As for involuntary euthanasia, well I won’t allow anyone to just pull the plug without my consent UNLESS I am in a coma for more than 2 weeks without showing signs of recovery or response because I know how much it will affect the lives of my family, trying to keep a ‘vegetable’ alive. I will rather cut short their worries and agony than to leave a scar (from all the hope and the medical bills too) that will remain in their lives for a rather substantial period of time.
I am also decidedly pro-euthanasia. The most important principle I adhere to on this issue is that of choice:
1) that I may make the personal decision on the conditions under which I do not wish to be sustained and hence have my life brought to an end gracefully.
2) that I may make the decision publicly and legally so no one may dispute the wish as a “living will”.
3) that I may choose to change my mind at any time as long as it is medically proven to be sound (or if a person becomes stark raving mad, the default is to keep the person alive if they “change their mind” but grant the original request for graceful termination if they do not).
As for religious groups, I’m sorry … Singapore is supposed to have a clear separation of “church” and state. If they want to insist, they can have exceptions made for members of their religions. They have no right to impose their religious views on non-believers.
One possible legal exception (that I will accept) is if I am involved in key legal disputes or under criminal investigation.
I think an euthanasia law is required to allow a person to choose the most graceful way to depart after being given sound advice about a hopeless or close to hopeless medical condition. The traditional alternatives (illegal under Singapore Law) are a messy suicide or letting life’s burdens crush your sanity and self-worth … neither of which frankly appeals to me and does not offer family a chance to be prepared for your demise.
#31 Rachel
#32 Lee Chee Wai
What you guys want, you can already do it under the living will. You can state there upfront whatever conditions that you like, to allow people to kill you.
So why ask for legalised assisted killing?
If you are suggesting that someone else can decide for me, and can kill me when they determine that my mind is no longer capable of making a sound and logical decision, without me giving a permission for assisted killing in the first place, then that is something that I will strongly object.
The moment I give up that decision making for myself and just easily let someone else decide for me on a life and death matter, then that to me is a very dangerous thing.
Lee Chee Wai,
what you have described is already enshrined by legislation; and it is called ‘Advance Medical Directives’. You get to decide how and when you want to die while you are still in a healthy state of mind to do so. Euthanasia is more than this, and the major concern is that it opens up many avenues for abuse.
As for religious groups, I’m sorry … Singapore is supposed to have a clear separation of “church” and state.: Lee Chee Wai.
I am sorry too but I think your take is flawed. Yes, I agree the statement you made is valid but when it comes to matters relating to life and death, it has to involve the individual and all that he holds dear; which may then cross the boundaries of both state and church; especially if he is one who practices his faith while at the same time serves the state. Who then can substitute his belief and speak on his behalf?
Just as Dr Syed Alwi had pointed out; this is an issue that goes to the very heart and soul of religion. Euthanasia is about the right of choice to end one’s life. Religions like Islam and Christianity preaches the opposite, which is the sustenance of life to its very end, without human interventions to shorten it. For, to purposely terminate a life prematurely, is equal to eternal damnation for the soul. That’s religion for you. It is not for you to accept this, but for you to know, that this is the food for the soul, for one who believes in the afterlife.
Non-believers have to understand this fundamental truth about religion, to fully understand where religions are coming from. If they cannot do this, the debate will only go on and on and on till the Kingdom come, to put things right.
Even the simple discourse on where God is when we need Him has its own religious explanation. Again, the non-religious would never be able to understand with the mind, why believers are so willing to embrace pain and sufferings with joy.
This is a very simplistic way of seeing why euthanasia will always remain a hot potato with no clear cut solutions. Very simply because, the state cannot meddle with religions without meddling with the people.
Choice or no choice, the stakes are far too high to take a chance with it. And Dr Alwi is perfectly correct; and I must add, that the present AMD is as far as euthanasia will ever go in Singapore.
ArtBoon, indeed I can and will allow my family members to make the decision to pull me off the machines etc, should I show no signs of recovery after a period of coma. That is with regards to involuntary euthanasia.
Besides that, I also wish to have the option of voluntary euthanasia being made available to me in the event where I am found to be terminally ill, with no hope of recovery, in conscious pain and suffering. Hence I am pro the idea of legalised voluntary euthanasia.
Gemami, I know where you are coming from and I do know where religious groups stand when it comes to such an issue. I am totally fine with them publishing their statements about it openly on websites, newspapers or in whatever means they want. However they have to take into consideration that there are atheists or rather, non believers, who do not believe in the afterlife and they should respect that. Theists call for tolerance and most of us have done more than that. They can condemn euthanasia as much as they want during their sermons to their fellow believers, I personally have no problems with that but they should never push their influence further than that. The option of euthanasia should be made available to those who want to opt for it. I don’t see what is the problem here… if a theist is so pious and follows the teachings of his/her religion, then he/ she will naturally not opt for it. Even if he/ she does, the consequences will be directly upon him/ her in the afterlife that he/ she may believe in.
It is cruel to make a terminally ill patient live a painful journey towards death, especially when they do not believe that they should suffer in that way for a faith and the concept of an afterlife.
Rachel, I do understand your point but I do not see how religions like Islam and Christianity are ever going to be ‘tolerant’ of a choice for death, whether by its faithfuls or anyone outside of them.
Religions look at life from within, the soul; while the world looks at like from the outside, the body. Everything else is relative to these points of views.
This is why there is not going to be any conclusive agreement between religious and non-religious on this topic of whether to choose life or to choose death.
Dear People,
Look at it from an anthropological view of organised religion. Early humanity fought the elements for survival. They did not ask for early death. It is NOT in the best interest of Humanity to seek some kind of suicide. Our value system and our religions – have been shaped by thousands of years of evolution.
For me – I just do not believe that you can fight the powerful religious lobby here in Asia and the Middle East. …Thats what I think,,,,,,,,,,,
Best Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
What I have described is what I would define as a legal framework for euthanasia. If the AMD covers what I have stated, then I am happy. Like Rachel, I hope it also covers authorization of family to make decisions on my behalf (outside of what was explicitly stated) were I incapacitated beyond my expectations. Mercy-killing is a grey area and really depends a lot on the participants’ intentions and the scenario. It will range from criminal to callous abuse to tragedy to human kindness. Attempting to legislate for all such scenarios is a minefield subject to human imperfections.
ArtBoon #36 – to me the most important thing is choice and it goes both ways. As much as I would demand the right to categorically state the conditions under which I find my life meaningless, I would also demand the right for others to state that under NO circumstances should they be terminated, that they would fight tooth-and-nail for every breath (on a lighter note, I hope they intend to honor the costs of keeping them alive should they somehow recover :P).
gemani #37 – Hire enough atheists. If a highly religiously pious doctor cannot in his good conscience do the job, then create enough opportunity for properly trained atheists to do it. I’m not an extremist demanding a “separation of church and state” to mean that people of faith be denied the privilege of serving the public.
I do not wish to enter into a discussion about religion, life and death. Suffice to say:
1) I understand my approximate “term limit”;
2) I would like to pass on as peacefully as I can help it;
3) I do not intend to yield easily what little life I have;
4) I marvel at my existence in this universe as much as any other; and
5) the *probable* (imho) lack of an afterlife only makes me value life, its grace and the freedom of choice even more.
Ah, Lee Chee Wai, it is a novel idea to hire more atheists. But you are only looking from the physician’s point of view. What about the patient and his family? Make them atheists too? How?
I can understand your position on this issue and I do respect your opinions. I have no problem with them.
#42 Lee Chee Wai
Again, my stand is clear. When you don’t feel like living and you want people to kill you, that is your choice. I don’t care.
But stop suggesting whatever legal framework that forces me to first tell the whole world that I don’t like being killed without my permission.
In other words, assisted killing should never be an opt out thing.
Let’s be clear on this. Because I will do everything I can to let people know that is my strong stand. And if any smart guys in the government is reading this, I am telling you that is my stand and I will fight with teeth and nail to protect this stand.
Dear gemami & ArtBoon,
Do not worry ! No one can make euthanasia an opt-out thing like HOTA. Otherwise I am sure the Vatican, Mecca etc will challenge the constitutionality of the whole thing.
Guys – it violates ALL laws – the right to live for goodness sake. It is in direct conflict with the Constitution and with the Human Rights. Since when did some medical school kid get the right to snuff out people ?
We cannot go around mercy-killing sick people. What if a cure can be found ? What if the patient changes his/her mind about PAS but is not able to articulate it ?
The default position that is consistent with all known laws – whether religious or man-made – is and will always be – to keep the patient alive……..
And gemami – this was why I said on another thread – that the religionists have one set of values – but the atheists have another different set of values. Its difficult to manage them both.
Best Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
Chee Wai,
Your idea on hiring more atheist will not work. Each atheist have their own value set which may include sanctity of life for whatever reason.
What would work would be to hire one super charismatic individual to reinterpret the scriptures. Religion is usually very top down. They don’t label it ‘the only way to get a good person to do evil’ for nothing.
Whether you hire a theist or an atheist, they should both respect an individual’s rights to choose and not employ their religious beliefs (or non) in passing an act or a decision or whatever. By the way not all atheist will agree with euthanasia due to ‘traditional values’ that some might have. While I don’t agree with the non legalisation of euthanasia, I also do not agree with euthanasia being an opt out thing. It should be left open and available for people who opts for it.
Euthanasia does not defy all laws but the laws written in religious texts. I believe in both the right to live and the right to die. Doctors carrying out voluntary euthanasia as per instructed, should not be equated to murderers because they are carrying out the wishes of their patients who choose death over painful living.
For some people who prefer living for the moment, the question of “what if” do not exist. They do not care about the “what ifs” of the future that they do not see if their organs are failing one by one, causing great miscomfort to their well being. These people just want to end it all. Respect it and judge them not.
(Sorry can’t help it but to say this… :p ) Hmm… I do wonder why people go against the legalisation of euthanasia but not against the death penalty. Isn’t it kinda like… way more cruel although the end result is literally the same (you end up with someone dead)?
[i]ArtBoon on January 30th, 2009 10.36 am #42 Lee Chee Wai
Again, my stand is clear. When you don’t feel like living and you want people to kill you, that is your choice. I don’t care.
But stop suggesting whatever legal framework that forces me to first tell the whole world that I don’t like being killed without my permission.[/i]
oh no
the relious groups will tell you
its against GODwill
the prime minister tell you its against the law
your family
tell you
i have no fund
what do you do?
wheelchair yourself to an open mrt tracks perhaps?
Please correct me if I am wrong in my understandings of the Caption ‘The right to self determination’ and Rachels’ personal wish for euthanasia(when she needs it).
Both have appeared to me to have assumed that the person asking for euthanasia is always conscious and lucid to want euthanasia which is hardly the case most of the time. Unless the wish for euthanasia is willed(how this is to be done or can be done, I don’t know) in advance, most if not all that are deemed to have no more hope of a meaningful existence, are people in vegetative and comatose state. And their insensibilities are not only caused by illnesses, they include accidents and mishaps, how are these people going to determine their rights to euthanasia? More often than not, it is their kins that have to decide.
As some have commented, there maybe complications and abuses inherent in euthanasia. As I have posted above #29, I am against legalizing euthanasia because of the latent abuses and complications.
By the way, I am an atheist.
For every argument for it, there is an argument against it. For every reason given to support it, there is a reason against it. When there is no consensus, what then, ought to be the answer? Majority wins? I don’t know. Minority wins? I too do not know.
Opposing capital punishment to opposing euthanasia, the Church never supported one or the other.
If the State is to decide to legalize euthanasia, the Church will abide by the decision but that does not mean it supports it.
It’s duty will then have to extend and include the religious education of its faithful on the dangers and pitfalls of accepting euthanasia. The choice is still free for the faithful to choose. There is no imposition; just the very strong objection to the act of killing, by whatever names.