Very Brief Scenerio:

A man is out hiking in nearby woods with his father. There is a large, firey explosion and the father is killed instantly, but the son is alive, burned and asking the rescuers to let him die.
He is transported to the hospital and over the following months, treated against his will. Suffice it to say that the burn treatment he recieved was unbearably painful. All this time he was asking to be discharged from the hospital,to be allowed to go home, and to be kept comfortable at home while he died. He was not allowed this.
The man recovers from his injuries and goes on to be a successful attorney, living a full life but maintains that he should have been allowed to die.

What is your opinion?

Here is the link to read more of the case:

Dax's Story

This is a complicated issue, I will try to simplify it to what's important to me, so forgive me if I ignore the religious angle since I couldn't care less about religion.

First of all, I don't believe in doing "good" to people against their wishes, especially when it comes to medical care which should be a personal thing and personal decision (what's more personal than you own body?) So, from this point of view things are clear to me, if somebody wishes to die they should be let to die even if if they don't suffer pain at all.

The only debatable situation is when the person is temporarily unable to think for himself (e.g. person gets drunk or drugged and refuse treatment) Legally and morally doctors are not forced to follow the wishes of somebody who is mentally incompetent, but in this case the guy was found competent by the hospital psychologist, and by the way he was also denied to see his lawyer -- that kind of shows that doctors and his mother had a clear idea of what is "right" and they denied him the right to take a decision about his own person.

So, if something like this would happen to me I would like to be able to take the decision if not from "zero point in time" at least from the point where the situation would have been clearly explained to me in order to be able to take an informed decision, I would also not deny this right to any person who is mentally competent.

I don't know what it is like over there where you are, but over here there is an organization that you can become a member of, for voluntary euthanasia, which basically registers and allows you to follow your wish to terminate your life at unneccesary suffering. This also includes painless suffering like being in a coma, or being, well.. a vegetable basically.

People have the right to decide for themselves, and even without reading the article and going SOLELY on what Adrian just said "denied seeing his lawyer", makes me see they did the wrong thing in my eyes.

I've always had an intense displeasure towards people that think they can decide for you that they know better what's good for you.

This reminds me that in some cultures (not sure if this is/was true for US or not) people that were terminally ill were "protected" by doctors and friends and they were not informed about their conditions in the idea that they would either fall into a depression or they would go mad... actually nothing would make me happier to know the date (or at least year) of my death, that would allow for perfect planning (financial and otherwise).

Good idea!! *starts a new topic on that one*

No...we don't have any form of euthanasia here. I think that makes so much sense to have it though. I remember reading about the dutch euthanasia program and thinking that, once again, dutchies are very practical ,intelligent and humane!

This happened years before there were laws here to protect patient rights. Now, this would not have happened at all.

But it brings to light the question of potential. The man is a very happy, successful man now. He is a champion of patient rights and has been very instrumental in the change in the laws for patient rights and the right to die. Many have benefitted from his work. So, what of that?

Could you elaborate a bit on that one, I don't exactly know the direction you are taking with it


Had he died, people would not have had the above, but.. maybe someone else would have stood up and taken a stand (err.. yeah) though, that we will never know.

Good! Potential is the argument that a lot of right to lifers use to argue against abortion. They argue in favor of who and what the embryo has the potential to be ("It is a person"). It is an Authoriative stance. I am playing devil's advocate here Dax's case is a related right to life issue, only this time it involves an adult who wants to "abort" his own life. The person to be aborted is thinking, feeling, mentally competant, and uses his intellect deciding for himself to end his life. Yet he is denied this by Authority figures (his mother, doctors, the hospital staff on all levels). They argued (by the virtue that he was a thinking, intelligent human), that he had Potential. He could continue to live, with their intervention.
Dax, it can be said, actually makes the case for Authority (vs. Autocracy, the opposing argument) by the example of his life after he recovered. But Dax champions for Autocracy (self control of one's life) by becoming a successful lawyer, continuing to fight for patient's right to die (which is now legal in America...just not euthanasia) and by his own admission is living a very happy and successful life.

So it comes down to a basic Authority vs. Autocracy philosophical argument.

But then it would boil down to something simple:

(in my eyes anyway and I hope I am wording the following correctly)

When legally adult, and declared mentally sane by AT LEAST two phsychologists, of which ONE should be the person's own choosing, one should be declared autocrat of one's life.

Add to that the following: when one has clearly defined and registered their wishes regarding life at an official body (notary, lawyer, that sort of thing), then those wishes of autocracy should be followed, even when one at a certain time later on is no longer able to make a decision on one's own.

That's the key of the issue. People should also be allowed to make mistakes and do whatever they want with their life: ruin it or take it, if they wish so.

And the argument that now he's a happy person is weak, how many people have been unnecessarily kept in pain and they are not able to come from the grave and say "you morons, I suffered only because your @#^!@# stupidity", it's convenient for "pro-life" people that the witnesses against them are dead and cannot say anything.

Yes Yes Yes! Give me autocracy any day! Fortunately, (without getting into political and religious fields here) civilization seems to be moving away from Authority to Autocracy.

Exactly! Potential is a pathetically weak argument here. It is a 50/50 crapshoot. Dax could just have easily become an addict/alcoholic/PTSD/Depressive casuality. Disabled and unable to find a job (the man was a pilot, now blind and without fingers. There is not much of a job market for blind pilots), he could easily have become a non- productive burden to family and the state.