The Australian 24thJan2022
Rise of death tech reflects fall in how West values life
Jennifer Oriel
During euthanasia debates, critics argue that legalising the procedure leads to a slippery slope that can threaten the most vulnerable groups in society, such as the elderly and people with disabilities. In some European countries, euthanasia is permitted for the mentally unwell and the elderly without terminal illnesses. As Australian society ages, the welfare cost of caring for our elders grows. Unless preventive action is taken, our ageing population could face pressure to accept their euthanasia as a public good.
The Covid pandemic exposed an ugly side to the Western world. As governments imposed restrictions to reduce the risk to vulnerable populations, resentment grew. The hashtag Boomer Remover trended on Twitter. People argued the baby boomer generation was selfish to prioritise their health over the economic wellbeing of younger generations who would be saddled with Covid debt. It was a window into the future where the young will be forced to pay for the care of millions of ageing Australians they do not know.
In a 2009 column for The Guardian, Colin Feltham wrote: “There are good reasons for arguing that a stabilisation or gradual reduction in population would be the best way to address the carbon emissions problem.” He questioned how many severely disabled or old people society can carry given their “expensive support needs”, and whether people with “terminal disease, paralysing disability, chronic mental illness or life imprisonment” should have to have the choice of “state-approved and assisted suicide”.
In a 2020 article on euthanasia, Lars Melhum et al expressed concern about the legal recognition of mental illness as grounds for the procedure. However, more Western countries are decriminalising assisted suicide or euthanasia for the mentally ill. Australian Philip Nitschke is renowned for euthanasia advocacy and recently made headlines for innovation in the field. He is on the cusp of trialling a hi-tech coffin that ticks all the boxes. It is marketed as portable, eco-friendly and, say euthanasia fanciers, “elegant”. The Sarco, as it is called, has a biodegradable pod that can be detached from the base and used as a coffin. Once activated, nitrogen is pumped into the pod and oxygen levels fall until the occupant dies. But why stop there? My other half suggested that to be truly clean and green, Sarco should be equipped with the latest autonomous vehicle technology to “propel itself toward the crematorium”.
The market in death tech could be viewed as a symbol of Western decline, or the rise of societies that deny God by measuring human life in material rather than spiritual terms. For many, passive euthanasia and the continuous sedation of people in pain with terminal illnesses is more justifiable than euthanising people for the burden of age or mental illness. But the grounds for ending life prematurely are multiplying.
The Netherlands permits euthanasia for people with dementia who prepare statements to authorise it, even if they are unable to provide consent in later stages of the illness. Several issues have been raised in relation to the reform. People can experience symptoms of dementia before diagnosis, such as confusion, withdrawal, apathy, despondency and depression. If they prepare an advance directive with undiagnosed dementia, is it truly informed by reason, rationality, choice and autonomy? What if a patient changes their mind later, but lacks the capacity to withdraw consent?
Such questions were asked in relation to the case of a Dutch woman who was euthanised without her knowledge. After being diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, she had prepared a statement indicating that she consented to be euthanised before she had to enter a care home but wanted to decide the timing. When the time came for her to be admitted into care, a doctor decided the patient should be euthanised based on her earlier statement. The doctor slipped a sedative into the woman’s coffee, but it did not kill her. After she woke up, family members restrained her while the doctor administered a lethal dose. The case was brought before the courts where Judge Mariette Renckens cleared the doctor of wrongdoing. The following year, the Dutch Supreme Court approved the euthanasia of patients with dementia who have previously authorised it in writing, even if they do not express a wish for it later.
Laws for euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide have been passed in Victoria, Western Australia, Tasmania, South Australia and Queensland. Currently, they do not recognise advance directives for the euthanasia of dementia patients. However, there is some indication of support for it.
According to Dementia Australia chair Graeme Samuel, there are an estimated half a million people living with dementia across the country. Two thousand cases are diagnosed a week. It is the leading cause of death among Australian women. The number of Australians with dementia is expected to triple by 2050. Samuel revealed that every year, dementia costs more than $6bn in healthcare and productivity loss. In a consultation paper to the Queensland Law Reform Commission, Dementia Australia recommended “people with degenerative disorders have the ability to make enduring requests for voluntary assisted dying in an advanced care plan”.
Alienation is a dangerous thing and never more so when it drifts into public sentiment and seeds the division of people into the useful and useless, the independent and dependent, the economically productive and unproductive.
The true value of human life is unquantifiable. Every person has something to teach another. No life is useless. No person is without hope. In a healthy society, every life is viewed as a divine gift to be cherished and protected. In an unhealthy one, human lives are quantified and some deemed worthless. The slippery slope of euthanasia begins when people measure the value of life in economic terms, or come to believe they can judge the worth of a human soul.
During euthanasia debates, critics argue that legalising the procedure leads to a slippery slope that can threaten the most vulnerable groups in society, such as the elderly and people with disabilities. In some European countries, euthanasia is permitted for the mentally unwell and the elderly without terminal illnesses. As Australian society ages, the welfare cost of caring for our elders grows. Unless preventive action is taken, our ageing population could face pressure to accept their euthanasia as a public good.
The Covid pandemic exposed an ugly side to the Western world. As governments imposed restrictions to reduce the risk to vulnerable populations, resentment grew. The hashtag Boomer Remover trended on Twitter. People argued the baby boomer generation was selfish to prioritise their health over the economic wellbeing of younger generations who would be saddled with Covid debt. It was a window into the future where the young will be forced to pay for the care of millions of ageing Australians they do not know.
In a 2009 column for The Guardian, Colin Feltham wrote: “There are good reasons for arguing that a stabilisation or gradual reduction in population would be the best way to address the carbon emissions problem.” He questioned how many severely disabled or old people society can carry given their “expensive support needs”, and whether people with “terminal disease, paralysing disability, chronic mental illness or life imprisonment” should have to have the choice of “state-approved and assisted suicide”.
In a 2020 article on euthanasia, Lars Melhum et al expressed concern about the legal recognition of mental illness as grounds for the procedure. However, more Western countries are decriminalising assisted suicide or euthanasia for the mentally ill. Australian Philip Nitschke is renowned for euthanasia advocacy and recently made headlines for innovation in the field. He is on the cusp of trialling a hi-tech coffin that ticks all the boxes. It is marketed as portable, eco-friendly and, say euthanasia fanciers, “elegant”. The Sarco, as it is called, has a biodegradable pod that can be detached from the base and used as a coffin. Once activated, nitrogen is pumped into the pod and oxygen levels fall until the occupant dies. But why stop there? My other half suggested that to be truly clean and green, Sarco should be equipped with the latest autonomous vehicle technology to “propel itself toward the crematorium”.
The market in death tech could be viewed as a symbol of Western decline, or the rise of societies that deny God by measuring human life in material rather than spiritual terms. For many, passive euthanasia and the continuous sedation of people in pain with terminal illnesses is more justifiable than euthanising people for the burden of age or mental illness. But the grounds for ending life prematurely are multiplying.
The Netherlands permits euthanasia for people with dementia who prepare statements to authorise it, even if they are unable to provide consent in later stages of the illness. Several issues have been raised in relation to the reform. People can experience symptoms of dementia before diagnosis, such as confusion, withdrawal, apathy, despondency and depression. If they prepare an advance directive with undiagnosed dementia, is it truly informed by reason, rationality, choice and autonomy? What if a patient changes their mind later, but lacks the capacity to withdraw consent?
Such questions were asked in relation to the case of a Dutch woman who was euthanised without her knowledge. After being diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, she had prepared a statement indicating that she consented to be euthanised before she had to enter a care home but wanted to decide the timing. When the time came for her to be admitted into care, a doctor decided the patient should be euthanised based on her earlier statement. The doctor slipped a sedative into the woman’s coffee, but it did not kill her. After she woke up, family members restrained her while the doctor administered a lethal dose. The case was brought before the courts where Judge Mariette Renckens cleared the doctor of wrongdoing. The following year, the Dutch Supreme Court approved the euthanasia of patients with dementia who have previously authorised it in writing, even if they do not express a wish for it later.
Laws for euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide have been passed in Victoria, Western Australia, Tasmania, South Australia and Queensland. Currently, they do not recognise advance directives for the euthanasia of dementia patients. However, there is some indication of support for it.
According to Dementia Australia chair Graeme Samuel, there are an estimated half a million people living with dementia across the country. Two thousand cases are diagnosed a week. It is the leading cause of death among Australian women. The number of Australians with dementia is expected to triple by 2050. Samuel revealed that every year, dementia costs more than $6bn in healthcare and productivity loss. In a consultation paper to the Queensland Law Reform Commission, Dementia Australia recommended “people with degenerative disorders have the ability to make enduring requests for voluntary assisted dying in an advanced care plan”.
Alienation is a dangerous thing and never more so when it drifts into public sentiment and seeds the division of people into the useful and useless, the independent and dependent, the economically productive and unproductive.
The true value of human life is unquantifiable. Every person has something to teach another. No life is useless. No person is without hope. In a healthy society, every life is viewed as a divine gift to be cherished and protected. In an unhealthy one, human lives are quantified and some deemed worthless. The slippery slope of euthanasia begins when people measure the value of life in economic terms, or come to believe they can judge the worth of a human soul.
