P C Jersild argues in a response to me that there is no evidence that Oregon’s dödshjälpsmodell have flaws. He has, once again, wrong.
a year ago, asked Oregon’s health authority banned if a patient who completed a life-sustaining treatment could qualify for euthanasia. The answer was in the affirmative. It was written two articles about this in the SvD, I am one of the signatories.
In one article, ”the Dangers of euthanasia must not be neglected”, given two concrete examples of patients who received euthanasia in this way. There are certainly very many more cases, but each year’s raw data is destroyed as soon as the scanty statistics from the agency published.
to dödshjälpen in Oregon does not work is also shown by the official statistics. The first five years of euthanasia: psychiatric assessments, for 23% of the patients who received euthanasia. Then the rate has fallen. 2018 was assessed 2 percent of the patients who received euthanasia by a psychiatrist.
so get evaluated by psychiatrists is strange when the reasons for patients to have assisted suicide in Oregon usually are psychosocial. An overwhelming majority, indicates reduced autonomy, difficulties to participate in fun-filled activities and reduced dignity as the main reasons.
the Really worrying is that the proportion indicating that they are a burden for the family has increased significantly and were 64 per cent in the last year. The first five years, the figure was 37 per cent.
it is against the rules that the mentally ill would get assisted suicide in Oregon. He is wrong. The law explicitly states that psychiatric patients can have euthanasia, if they are deemed beslutskapabla.
Finally, I wish to highlight how one of our neighbouring countries handled the issue of euthanasia. 2017 dealt with a motion to the Finnish parliament that assisted suicide would be investigated. Unlike, for example, Canada, which is very weak, introduced the euthanasia 2016, was carried out in Finland, an investigation, and 34 interest groups had a say.
Before the investigation, the politicians are positive to euthanasia. After that the palliativläkare with one voice declared that they were adverse to euthanasia and wanted to palliative care could develop and become more equal, changed the politicians.
the proposal on euthanasia down. It was agreed that there should be a bet on palliative care. When it has reached a high level and become the equivalent of the whole country should take stock of if there still is any need for euthanasia.
