Anne TootillEuthenasia Plea Rejected
March 17th 2008 22:26
If ever there was a case for Euthenasia, this is it. This poor woman Chantal Sebire's appeal to a French court to end her life has been rejected.
A mother of three who lives in the Bourgogne region of eastern France, Ms Sebire drew a strong outpour of sympathy when she appealed in a television interview last month for the right to "depart peacefully''.
Ms Sebire learnt in 2002 that she had developed an esthesioneuroblastoma, an uncommon malignant tumour in the nasal cavity, which she said has led to "atrocious'' suffering.
In 2000 she lost her sense of smell and taste and also lost her sight in October 2007
The bottom line is that doctors are not allowed to prescribe lethal drugs. We wouldn't let an animal suffer like this. This decision is cruel and so unfair.
| 153 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Wooderbeen
The Daily Sydney
The State Of The Game
Comment by Louie
Climate Forum
Climate Red
randomthoughts
Phil's Wellness Tips
they had a doco on a few weeks ago about people going to mexico and legally buing the drug they use to put down dogs.
disturbing post.
Comment by Sara Dobson
Parents Precinct
The Travel Map
My Turn
I agree she should be alloed to end her life if she chooses. She does have a family though and I think she should have their support before she does it
Comment by Kim L
Diving About
I am torn between the warring perspectives.
Should we allow children access to lethal drugs?
Should they be able to make their own decision?
If not then who should be allowed to make it for them? Is people's judgement clouded by their ill health?
I agree with euthanasia in principle, but find the line difficult to draw.
Kim
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
I think she should overdose on her legal medication. I hope her children love her enough to put her out of her misery.
Comment by Wooderbeen
The Daily Sydney
The State Of The Game
Of course children shouldn't be allowed to make a decision as earth shattering as this one, but as Ruby points out, this is a grown woman, well aware of the consequences of her actions. This isn't a whim!
Comment by Nomad
Awesome Food
Nomad (awesome dude)
www.awesomefood.com.au
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Comment by Tracy
Movies and Life
Comment by Michaelie
Flick Wit
Michaelie
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by Lara M
Love Speaks
Perhaps there's a need for some sort of universal *checklist* to assess the individuals and circumstances...
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Doctor take a hypo-critic oath knowing that cases like this will crop up.
There is nothing new about this case except that it is being used as a test case.
Doctors cannot start being administers of death and the protectors of life at the same time.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
She wants to die. Her life is a shell of what it once was. I am stunned that a bunch of people who have never met her and have absolutely no inkling of what she is going through, can think they know what it best for her.
Comment by Nomad
Awesome Food
Nomad (awesome dude0
Comment by Wayne F
Bucket Movies
Now I do feel sorry for this poor woman I wouldn't wish this on my enemy but, no offense, there are people out in the world who are in way worse positions than her. If she feels that she can no longer go on being blind or unable to smell or smell she should just take her own life and not ask permission to do so.
Euthanasia is a difficult subject but in my opinion the only people who should be begging to end their lives are those who are know there is absolutely no help for them and are currently going though a slow, painful death. Being blind is not the end of the world but if Ms. Sebire wants to die that badly let her take her own life herself instead of asking the same doctor's trying to fix this condition to end it for her.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
I am serious and I make no apology for taking such a position.
The hypocratic oath is very specific in its wording.
Though the lady does look terrible, there are many cases that look far worse.
Despite the ugliness of this infliction, if it is going to be the yard stick for euthanasia then it is very low indeed.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
It's not just about the way the lady looks. It's about her desires. The day to day reality of her life. I take her at her word when she states she is in terrible pain.
Doctors decide when to pull the plug in a hospital, they decide when to stop attempting to resuscitate a patient. This woman does not have a good prognosis. She will not survive this condition. She is never going to get better.
I don't see how there is even an argument. I really don't.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Reword the hypocratic oath? Ouch!
Do so at your own risk.
Do want to reword the part about having sex with your patients too or is just limited to killing them?
The orgy of euthanasia in Nazi Germany started from a single letter sent to Hitler by a farmer pleading for permission to kill his severely disabled son. That set the precedent and the rest became history.
I do not subscribe to the viewpoint that everything is relative to changing social norms.
This looks to me to be case that is being driven by an agenda that is beyond just this one woman's desires.
The cases of pulling the plug or not resuscitating are fundamentally different in one key respect. They require artificial means of support to prolong the life.
This case will require someone to take the premeditated action of killing her. Artificial means of shortening a life.
Comment by Michaelie
Flick Wit
Damo, I believe in the basic principle of the Hypocratic Oath, but there is plenty in there that has had to be taken as symbolic as the centuries have passed. What are your views on abortion?
Comment by Lilla
Enviro Warrior
An Extra Ordinary Life
Dream Herald
You know, the ignorance shown in Annonymous' comment, and Damo's astounds me.
What hypocratic oath does a doctor take to voluntarily allow endless torture and pain of someone?
People may not realise this but euthenasia is very common in Australia, only it is not known that way. It is about quietly upping the morphine to such a level - in order to combat the pain and suffering - that the person can slip away peacefully... I know for a fact first hand that small district hospitals nudge the doses up more often than not for the terminally ill (cancer) and the old and infirm.
AND WHY NOT?
You would have to be some sort of barbaric alien with no heart or feelings not to realise that you have the right to live a quality of life that is pain free (and that it was individual choice between you and your maker and your beliefs) ... one would have to argue with Anonymous or Damo, as to what constitutes cruelty in standing there and allowing someone to writhe in pain until either their eye's popped out, their brain blew up, or they could take no more pain and went mad ... especially when they are terminal! Gosh, grow a brain, even the Animal Rescue people wouldn;t stand by and allow that to happen to a dog... are you kidding me?
It;s not like a healthy 17 year old who is just wallowing in self pity, we're talking someone with no choices left... in this case Euthenasia returns the CHOICE to them. That state of being that the creator meant for us to have... A CHOICE ... (Gosh, now I am angry again, I am using CAPITALS) ... it's almost as bad as our penal system wher every day lived is about the biggest mistake you ever made... how is that helpful in those truly repentant, or guilty of no more than a crime of passion in the heat of the moment?
The point is, this poor woman has a right to a CHOICE and QUALITY of life, like any of us - who abuse life daily, by legally choosing death with our diets, alcohol and drug consumption - and really, the level of suffering wouldn't be allowed for an animal, would it?
I know it is only the bigger city hopsitals that tend to allow patients to suffer so the doctors can practice their hypocratic oath trials through new procedures and drugs and endless suffering for their terminal patients. As I said, the smaller district hospitals tend to up the morphine in cases like this and just get on with the day to day things of living and dying.
Rulings like this ... well they leave me incredulous.
I hope that heaven has sent her to help change these stoopid Victorian ideals and Draconian 'one-size-fits-all' rulings... I say, give the woman back her dignity for God's sake - let her make the call to be a lab rat or not.
A great post Anne,
Lilla ...
Comment by Anne Tootill
The Female View
Funny Stuff
Comment by Wooderbeen
The Daily Sydney
The State Of The Game
Damo, I appreciate your historical reference, but surely the case of a farmer killing his son in Nazi Germany and this one, cannot be seriously compared?
I think it's a basic human right to be allowed to decide your own fate and as long as the decision is made with the utmost thought and consideration, I don't think that the state should have the right to interfere.
Let's also remember that the illegality of euthanasia is historically linked to the religious belief that suicide (and that's what is - not murder) is a sin. As long as the person involved has made their own peace with that, then anybody opposing it on religious grounds is responsible of zealotry of the highest order.
Comment by Nomad
Awesome Food
Nomad.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Secondly, Wooderbeen is right. Our attitudes to suicide have changed and in a secular society, to frown on Euthanasia as a violation of God's principles is outdated. And still the most vociferous opposition to this issue comes from the religious Right who claim that all life is precious. How odd that these are the same factions that most vehemently support the Death Penalty and the righteousness of war.
Comment by Wayne F
Bucket Movies
I don't know why everyone is jumping at Damo's throat with knives here. He is making the point that it is a Doctor's oath to do whatever they can to save someone's life. My family have been in positions where doctors have tried everything they could to save someone's life but couldn't and gave us their opinion that nothing else could be done. That is the key word, opinion. If these doctors think there's a chance that they can save this woman's life perhaps that is why they are allowing her to live.
Again there's people out there who have had it way worse than her, even in times before all of our medical advances, so I don't see why she should want to her have life ended. If she wants to end it so bad she can get one of her relatives to help her out instead of getting a doctor, who's job it is to try and save people's life, to end it. The doctors did not agree to kill her so she can still kill herself with the aid of someone else.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Michelle
Many Doctors do oppose euthanasia on the grounds that it directly conflicts with the oath. This not my opinion but that of professionals in medicine. Why take an oath that is meaningless?
If you wish to extend this debate to the question of abortions then I have written enough about that on Orble 2 years ago. Since it would take too long to fully explain my how I reach my position I will merely state my position and let the chips fall where they may. I am opposed to the killing of all humans whether they are born or not.
What inferences or prejudices you wish to apply to my opinion is beyond my control. I have little interest in changing the subject of this post which is about this particular person.
Lilla
I wish I had time to write several hundred words to reply to what you have written but I don't and it is unlikely anyone would bother reading it. So I will try to be brief and target what I see as my key concerns about your response.
a- It would be a very big mistake to assume that I am ignorant. To disagree with you is not ignorance.
b- You seem to be putting the same value on a sick person as you would a sick animal. I do see a difference between the two.
c- you seem to equate suicide with dignity. I do not.
d- The use of CAPITAL letters is no exchange for rational explanations.
e- The word CHOICE even written in capitals does not negate the ramifications of what would occur if this test case was successful.
f- the details of this case are still limited to what was explained in this post. So we have little understanding of why the courts made their decision.
Now let us look closely at the person in the photograph.
She is sitting up and posing with her hand in a thoughtful position. This does not look like a person in her last days and totally incapacitated. I do not see a monster that the world must be rid of, rather I see a person with an ailment demanding that doctors do the opposite of what their profession dictates.
Wooderbeen
The difference between this lady and the doctor is one of passive verses aggressive. The lady can sit passively passing the blame of her death to the person who has to aggressively bring it about.
It is fine to talk about basic human rights but where is it written that killing your self is a human right.
Most reference I have seen to suicide refer to it as self murder. The state interferes with suicidal people all the time. That is why we have life line and some people committed to institutions. To prevent them from committing suicide.
Your argument that suicide is an exclusive religious question when we know that atheist ideologies like communism disapproved of it. The logic fall apart even more of you try to pin the issue on Christianity - what about Buddhists and Hindus? The origins of the hostile anti religious euthanasia ideology comes from nihilism. Nietzche's Superman has much to answer for. He was after a zealots Zealot.
Ruby
You have a right to disagree, just as the courts had a right to disagree with this woman arguments and rejected her case.
Yet you are confusing conservatism with objectivism.
You have not even address what I wrote. My issue is with moral relativism as opposed to objective truths. To start talking about gun laws indicates that you were assuming that my position was purely subjective conservatism.
BTW I also oppose the death penalty. So bang goes that theory.
Sorry missed one person
Wayne
You write a lot sense.
Even though I do not support the notion of suicide either.
The emotion of the issue tends blind people and force them to retreat to ideological bunkers.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
The second half of my last comment was not really directed at you at all. I'm sorry that you took it that way.
But I thought I did address the issues you brought up?? ie the hypocratic oath and suffering? Yes? No?
Please understand that it is not because I think that this woman looks ugly that I want to "rid the world of her". It is that looking at her ailment, I can tell that it obviously causes her great pain and she is aware that she can never have her old life back.
I also don't think that life, as in simply being alive is itself precious. It's the quality of life that matters. Personally, I would rather be dead than live in imprisonment and I would rather be dead than be in pain.
That is what this woman is telling us and that is what we are ignoring.
Comment by Wooderbeen
The Daily Sydney
The State Of The Game
Many thanks for your response but you seem to be getting a bit lost in your own words. Your comment that the lady sits 'passively passing' blame to her 'aggressive' exectuor is overstating the whole scenario a touch, no? She's not blaming anyone now and she certainly won't once she dies.
She's in pain, mate! There's nothing passive about cancer! I don't think that Chantal is sat at home scheming and finding a way to destroy the career of some unexpecting young Doctor?
And you can throw Nietzche and Nihilism at me all you want, but it makes no difference. Ultimately this is the most personal issue of all. She wants to end her own life... she's not murdering anyone.
Self murder? For someone who is obviously educated and extremely articulate, you must see the contradiction in those words?
So what is the real issue here? Come out from behind the words, the political theories, the philosophical ramblings and let us know why YOU think she should not be allowed to die?
I hope this post didn't come across as aggressive, it certainly wasn't meant that way, but I'm genuinely interested in what your reasons would be.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Ruby
The confusion arose when you mentioned the Religious Right in your response. You also took the Historical Progressive (social evolutionary) view point..
The question of the woman's degree of suffering cannot be determined accurately from the image. Nor can it be objectively be compared to the suffering other patients with disfigurements. Such cases are very common.
You may rather be dead than in prison but very few people would seriously agree with that viewpoint.
My position is that the hypocratic oath does not mince words. Doctors should not kill patients.
Wooderbeen
Thanks for responding.
Firstly let me state that the issue of euthanasia is not going to be settled over a blog post, nor is it likely that anyone will change their viewpoint due to a few words. That being said, I can only articulate my point of view and how I read others.
I'll with the basic semantics first: Aggressive and passive are term used in many relational discussion they can also mean active and passive. I chose the word 'blame' but I could have used other term to mean the same thing: Guilt, responsibility, actions etc. It is the person who does the action that is responsible for what they do. No space to elaborate and semantics does bore me.
You mentioned that the historical objection to euthanasia (and suicide) was religious and only objected to because it was a sin. Yet such an answer does not prove or disprove anything. Just because stealing is defined by some religions as a sin does it mean that it was done so out of pure religious zealotry? Hardly. You would have to assume that the Israelites were happily stealing from each other before Moses handed over the 10 commandments and then the party was over.
Yet the problem I have with taking your historical context to justify euthanasia is that it ignores the historical origins of euthanasia in the west. Nihilism is relevant because it is directly connected to the justifications for eugenics and euthanasia. If you want talk history I am happy to do so, but that may take too long.
Self murder is not a term I invented. Yet find another term to describe suicide. Self killing, self execution, self retirement, or self deluded that there is nothing wrong with it?
Now we get down to the crux of what is going on here. This particular woman.
q- Is this woman terminal?
a- I did a little research and found out a few interesting facts.
No she is not terminal.
This is a disfiguring chronic illness but it she not terminal.
She is suffering but she is not terminal.
This changes the entire argument about this woman.
This moves the argument to a whole new level:
The question is no longer about whether a terminally ill suffering patient should be allowed to shorten her suffer before she dies.
Instead it is about whether chronic patients who are disfigured should be allowed to use the medical profession to assist them in committing suicide.
As such I fully and without hesitation support the courts decision.
Comment by Wooderbeen
The Daily Sydney
The State Of The Game
Comment by Wayne F
Bucket Movies
She killed herself.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
In answer to your request for clarification.
I guess the question is now academic since Wayne has indicated that she is already dead.
So rather than exploit the situation I will give a generic answer.
The answer always get back to whether you think that suicide is wrong. Depression and chronic illness is common but to use those as excuses for suicide is a very extreme viewpoint. Otherwise any suicide prevention body is wasting their time.
Comment by Anonymous
And one last thing, lets not compare humans to animals and doctors to vets. This is plain ignorance.
REMEMBER WE ARE NOT GOD!!!!!!!!
Comment by Michaelie
Flick Wit
I was basically just wondering if those views were consistent, and it seems they are. Although my personal views are in opposition, I do understand where you are coming from, and respect your opinion.
Wayne,
From what I read it was a lot more than being blind and ugly. Those things alone would never justify this in my mind. I assume the pain, disability and other effects of the tumour diminished her quality of life and choices for her future intolerably.
Comment by Lilla
Enviro Warrior
An Extra Ordinary Life
Dream Herald
I have given my answer and opinion... and it was final... unlike you Damo, I do not have hour after hour to twist someone's words into submission to my point of view... and Anonymous, I would be the last person to think that I was assuming she thought she was God, or that I think I am ... but I do believe that no one has the right to tell you or anyone how to either (a) see their maker, or (b) live their life. That would make Hitler right if it were true... does making anything a popular view carried by the masses, mean it should become a foistable-commodity peddled onto the general public... does one size fit all?
Endless debate here for us all (no dounts) but with little time for such luxuries and certainly not by keyboard, text or SMS... these are the kind of 'debates' that are best reserved for a good bottle of wine, a fine meal and some good conversation amongst friends ... I therefore reserve my right to counter that we have the right to disagree, agreeably, or to agreeably disagree ... and call it a day at that. Rome will not be lost as a result of us disagreeing on this one.
The people reading this will take up their own view from the comments made. I am often concerned about your inability to see yourself in various situations Damo and your arguments are often totally off centre to me ... and I wonder why Anonymous, a person with obvious integrity and wit should skulk around under a cloak of anonyminity.
Thank you both for taking the time to reply to my opinion, I am surprised it struck such a nerve in both of you to have someone disagre with you with equal passion to your own ... it happens and regardless of your comments, I still DO NOT AGREE with the courts ruling?
Lilla ...
Comment by Anonymous
Life is a gift, lets not throw it away.
Have a good one.
Comment by Lilla
Enviro Warrior
An Extra Ordinary Life
Dream Herald
She took her own life and committed suicide, two days after the court ruling and our silly argument.
I wish to God I could have seen a solution, found some middle ground - a bit like I could in the abortion debate - sown a good seed, lobbied the government with it ... * swallowing hard* I am happy for her, but very sad at the same time.
We all lost, sorry.
Lilla ...
I have been at suicides door, but chose life, so I understand you.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
The woman is dead. The case is closed as far as I am concerned.
Comment by Lilla
Enviro Warrior
An Extra Ordinary Life
Dream Herald
Were you arguing as Anonymous and Damo, or just Damo?
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
I always comment under my own login.
I have no idea who anon is.
Comment by Anonymous
...... It's time to take down a red, this is all too depressing.
Comment by Lilla
Enviro Warrior
An Extra Ordinary Life
Dream Herald
Yes you are right on all three counts. This one had no middle ground; these debates do form the petrie dish for answers to be found, and it is depressing... the consolation, I guess is that she did make the final choice anyway, and perhaps that was my point.
RIP Chantel, it is time to light another candle.
Lilla ...
Comment by Lilla
Enviro Warrior
An Extra Ordinary Life
Dream Herald
Lilla ...