By the way, my spelling and grammar is the pride and joy of my life, so needless to say that Liam Hehir is entirely responsible for putting the full stop within the quotation marks around "advance directive" instead of between the quotation mark and the bracket. An egregious error.
Similarly, "the sedative" ought to omit the definite article.
The BBC commentary on the watershed Dutch case indicates it was a difficult decision and based on the fact-finding that the 74 year old suffered from advanced dementia and her husband and daughter were present. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49660525
Interesting take, but at any point in a person’s life they can change such advanced directives. Therefore, they are in control until the point of which they go.
Also I have lost my father dying slowly over 10 years with dementia, I will do everything in my power not to go the same way. The right to exit your life with dignity should be a fundamental right. It’s an individual choice.
"at any point in a person’s life they can change such advanced directives." --- Doesn't emphatically saying that you do not want to be euthanised and/or physically resisting a euthanasia practitioner count as changing your advance directive? That is what happened in the Netherlands case.
This case is specifically about advance directives, not about euthanasia in general (as I was careful to explain in the article). When it comes to advance directives per se, this scenario is typical, not unusual.
It could well be that physically resisting the euthanizer was a revocation of consent. Therefore the euthanizer committed murder, plain and simple. And those family members conscripted to assist, accessories.
By the way, my spelling and grammar is the pride and joy of my life, so needless to say that Liam Hehir is entirely responsible for putting the full stop within the quotation marks around "advance directive" instead of between the quotation mark and the bracket. An egregious error.
Similarly, "the sedative" ought to omit the definite article.
More a peccadillo pehea.
The BBC commentary on the watershed Dutch case indicates it was a difficult decision and based on the fact-finding that the 74 year old suffered from advanced dementia and her husband and daughter were present. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49660525
I acknowledged that her family were present in my article. I thought that frankly made it more horrifying.
Interesting take, but at any point in a person’s life they can change such advanced directives. Therefore, they are in control until the point of which they go.
Also I have lost my father dying slowly over 10 years with dementia, I will do everything in my power not to go the same way. The right to exit your life with dignity should be a fundamental right. It’s an individual choice.
"at any point in a person’s life they can change such advanced directives." --- Doesn't emphatically saying that you do not want to be euthanised and/or physically resisting a euthanasia practitioner count as changing your advance directive? That is what happened in the Netherlands case.
True - ghastly for all concerned and exacerbated by the trials no doubt. Unusual fact situations seldom make good legal precedents
This case is specifically about advance directives, not about euthanasia in general (as I was careful to explain in the article). When it comes to advance directives per se, this scenario is typical, not unusual.
It could well be that physically resisting the euthanizer was a revocation of consent. Therefore the euthanizer committed murder, plain and simple. And those family members conscripted to assist, accessories.
Not if the advance directive signs away your agency in the event that you develop dementia.