[Selenay]

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

I believe the sole role of such a committee should be to assess whether or not the decision is influenced by families, doctors or other outside forces. However, I don't believe the ability of the patient to make a so-called cognizant decision, to me, should affect the outcome. I think it leaves room for a lot of abuse, especially when we get into who is deemed in possession of their full mental faculties and who is not, and how members of the committee, who should technically be unbiased persons, sway the decision.

I also find it odd to judge a person's right to take their life according to how cognizant they are. Say a patient requesting euthanasia is not found to be "aware" enough, or not mentally healthy enough to make the decision. However, said person has an advanced form of cancer with only a slim chance of recovery, yet the doctors deny him/her the right to die because he/she has been deemed not capable of making a cognizant decision. Or let's say that someone who is fully mentally aware and completely capable of reason has been diagnosed with cancer, and decides that they no longer wish to go through treatment, even if there is decent chance of recovery. To them the treatment has become excruciatingly painful both physically and mentally, and while there is a decent chance of survival, they do not like the prospects of what their life will be life after treatment (especially, when treatment has required the removal of a limb). It also seems as though we are simultaneously placing increased value on one person's pain over another's pain according to so-called mental awareness.

Both should have the right to end their own life, and neither government, nor doctor, nor family member should have the right to deny them that, in my books.

I do agree on the creation of such documents, however.

We have people in place to evaluate whether or not people are competent enough to stand trial, we have people to evaluate whether or not parents are fit to raise their children... all of these institutions are subjective, but are guided by overarching concepts of what determines competency.

As to the example of a patient not being deemed aware enough with the advanced form of cancer... No. I do not support euthanasia in this case because if they are not mentally competent to make a medical decision about themselves, then how can we be sure it is not something said in the throes of mood? If a patient determines that they do not wish to go through treatment, they can deny it, and once it is in the stages of decline, they can request to be euthanized.

I am not placing value on anyone over another, merely saying that... Well. Here's an example back to you:

Patient X has end stage pancreatic cancer and has stated, when previously asked, that they do not wish to be euthanized. Patient X is now in excruciating pain, slipping in and out of consciousness, talking about how she wishes for them to just kill her. Do we euthanize her?

How do we know that her request made from a conscious choice to refuse treatment or if it is a fever raving made from a wish for the PAIN to stop, not the LIFE? How can we be sure that Patient X truly wants to die, if she is not mentally sound to make that decision?

Should terminal children be euthanized solely on their parents say-so? Someone who is mentally impaired?