Euthanasia - What's the go?

This came up a while ago, it'll come up again and again until its legalised in Australia. Yes I think it will eventually be legalised but that's not a view based on my opinion of what's right or wrong. Well not directly anyway, I think it'll be legalised because there's a growing number of people wanting to support it. Not all things good are popular, not all popular things are good. I think it'll eventually get passed into legislation irrespective of whether its genuinely right or wrong (good & popular).

Now that out of the way, might as well jump over to some of the murky grey areas that come up regularly. If you oppose it, you may have been guilty of saying that its ok to euthanize your old, decrepit. blind dying dog so it should be ok for one self to allow end pain, suffering, indignity & halt the drain on society.

I think with a closer look the comparison with a companion animal is entirely invalid and untenable. Which is not to say that even if my argument is 100% correct some folk won't still oppose it ;-)
Lets switch to numbered dot points as to why it might not be a tenable argument

1. Animals don't decide for themselves that life is slowly draining or that they're a burden on society and they wish to have dignity in death by deciding their fate or more importantly the timing of it. They just don't. We, along with the advice of Vet Doctors, decide the animal cannot be returned to full fitness, they're in pain and suffering and its not something that can be repaired nor can they recover from. Which is not to say there isn't pain relief. We can easily keep an animal sedated or fairly pain free if we need to, but there's no dignity (nor lack thereof) involved. We cannot practically keep them alive and pain free so its the owners of the dog/cat/pet that decide to "end the suffering" and snuff out its light. Generally though, the pet is sedated under less than cheap pain relief. Its not suffering, its not in pain, it just has no future like its past. We decide to end its life. This is deftly overlooked and swept past when using the ending a pet's suffering and human euthanasia connection. Do we then decide that the patient we're related to, looking at, is by all reasonable assessments "stuffed" and its time snuff out their light? An animal being put down argument cannot be used to support euthanasia because the dog doesn't decide (nor the vet) the owner does. In the humane parallel we do not have a situation were the patient doesn't decide (nor does the doctor) but someone close by does. The argument doesn't transfer from animal to humans.
2. Animals and humans are different. There is distinct differences. We own animals, we are stewards of animals and with those positions there are rights and responsibilities. Companion animals, indeed all animals have different rights & responsibilities because they have a different role on this planet. The lion that kills the antelope is not charged with murder. The cat that isn't hungry isn't charged with murder for killing the mouse it doesn't eat because its full. If I have a dying pet and put it down I'm not charged with murder. Even the snake that bites me and causes my death isn't charged with murder. Humans are distinctive from humans. Animal rights are completely different from human rights. I can legally buy a rifle and legally go hunting and I am not charged with murder for killing the wild pig, wild dog, the rabbit, the fox or any other feral. I might kill ferals that kill or threaten native species and primary production animals, but its not murder. It is not unlawful. On the other hand were I to kill a human possibly best described as a "feral" who is well below my idea of a dignified life, who's refusing to work or help their fellow man, who's a drain on society...I'd quite rightly be classed as a murder and be charged accordingly. What happens to animals is not transferable to humans, so again the argument doesn't transfer from animal to humans.
3. Religious Interference. Apparently religion is by some thinking the main obstacle that stops euthanasia being reasonably accepted as being reasonable and lawful. I'm still looking for evidence of any society that has spent the last say 1000 years as entirely secular. Euthanasia would be legal in that mythical country by that reasoning and allowing (human) euthanasia just as putting down a pet would be legal. There have been secular countries in the world, but never last for all that long. Stalin banned religion as have other communist based countries, none have lasted and ironically the country with the fastest growing Christian numbers is actually, currently, China. Why is "RELIGION" even being mention in relation to the animal angle? Ahh because some folk have gone onto to saying the closeness of animals to humans, the close correlation is not what divides us but what we have in common. Animals its then said are sentient beings, capable of consciousness, thought, action, reaction, expression, understanding, fear, pain and the list goes on. This is then said to be held up, as opposed to plants which its said are non sentient beings. Why the link between religion and sentient under this animal angle? Ahh easy. The whole notion of sentient beings is from eastern religions. It is a large part of Buddhism. In fact Eastern religions including Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and Jainism recognize non-humans as sentient beings. So if you're going to have the "Keep Religion Out Of It" rule, then the sentient being angle is just pitched out. In any case, when ever you remove the religion its replaced by another, or a cult. Its an interesting notion to say leave religion out, but if religion is out we cannot cherry pick aspects from eastern religions and mysticism and say religion is out.

 

Which leave the 3 other big topics in favour of Euthanasia.

Pain.

Suffering

Dignity.

I think both side of the debate might be furthered if they avoided the "Animal" analogy and stuck with the remaining big three. Personally I would only remove the animal thing because there's no rational connection between animal scenario and the human scenario. I'd include religion also but many anti religion folk would not want a word on it. Sometimes, even those who claim to be non religious/anti-religious have a religion but don't recognise it as such. In any case sticking with the big three Pain, Suffering, Dignity on the table we'd actually see proper rational progress.

On the topic of pain, we have to stop thinking of what we feel looking on. We need to research what pain there is in palliative care. In researching, here's one page, I'm sure there are others of a similar vein or fully opposing. Its a good place to start when looking at pain and suffering. http://www.hospicefoundation.org/painmyths

One of the worrisome things that might be an unhelpful by-product is that being old and decrepit with few moments left in life, society were to create a mind set that such people in such a state are without dignity, without reason to be kept on, have become a drain on society and thus inferred that if they have dignity within them they will crease and fold their life straight away to maintain dignity. It may not be the action of a person if they're feeling obliged by a wrongful standard of society.

Just a thought. The issue is layered and complex, I expect it to have passionate followers and opponents of all the various stripes with no clear empirical found outcome. Legalised or not