Sven Román concludes his response to my letter to the editor about Oregonmodellen for active euthanasia to write, ” ... that many of the people killed on false grounds”. It is an astounding claim – provided that he can prove what he writes.
doctors can be faced with difficult considerations if a dying patient wants assistance to die is one thing; quite another to say that the doctors do not know what they are doing and that they abuse their position.
It is Románs thing to explain for the concrete case in which - as he claims - would have killed the patients wrongly. Or that the mentally ill would get assisted suicide in Oregon, which is against the rules. Where is the evidence?
speculate Román on a 20-year-old, insulin-dependent diabetic who stops taking their insulin and as a result is likely to die within six months – and who theoretically would be able to meet the requirements of euthanasia. If he is now in the position would be found to be beslutskapabel, which I doubt, we can in the name of the patient? Is he? If it is not on his mind losing it.
for euthanasia – which is different in the many countries where it is permitted – leads to, as Román says, that many patients who do not wish the aid simply murdered would euthanasia, of course, immediately banned. But the trend is the opposite.
In the 2000s, several countries and states, such as Canada and California, introduced the euthanasia. This has been done after in-depth debates and, ultimately, referenda and redress in the highest legal authority.
if this global spread of euthanasia is completely incomprehensible. However, if one keeps to the facts, it is not at all strange that it is now ten times as many citizens - over 100 million - that have access to assisted suicide than was the case in the year 2000.