Hi Kissinger,
I found this article which uses the results from the studies done recently in the British Medical Journal to explain why most people do not choose euthanasia where it is freely available.
Is the Case for Euthanasia Dying? In the studies...
Patients whose sense of self-worth was reaffirmed by good quality end of life care tended to re-evaluate their need for euthanasia. The inference we might make from Mak's work is that doctors can help make the end of their patients' lives better by providing good psychological care, attuned to the individual patient's experiences, rather than by helping the end come quickly. As Mak says, "the desire for euthanasia must not be taken at face value."
This helps explain, perhaps, why euthanasia is rarely taken up where it is available. A study in the same issue by Dutch researchers from the Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research found that only about 3 in 10,000 patients request euthanasia. The reasons for requesting euthanasia have also changed in the last 25 years. In 1977, over half the requests for euthanasia were related to pain. Since then, as pain management has gotten better, that proportion has slipped to a quarter, with fear of deterioration and a sense of hopelessness having overtaken pain as more frequently stated reasons for the request. Although the number of requests overall has tripled since 1977, the low level of take-up of euthanasia might suggest that worries that its use might increase exponentially following legalization are misplaced. Yet its very rarity might also suggest that there is not the huge unrealized demand for it that its supporters sometimes give the impression there is.
So it would seem that the will to 'hang on' can be countered substantially mostly only through the experience of pain and that the desire for euthaniasia can be reduced by 'good quality of end of life care'.
The article does mention that euthanasia is easier on the relatives of the dying person. I wonder if the proponents of euthanasia aren't perhaps more focussed on the lessening the pain of the watchers and not the watched.
Regardless, I wholeheartedly support the choice of an individual to choose the time of their departure.
--------------------
In regards to your digression, I think that 'thou shalt not kill thyself' is directly linked by extension of 'thou shalt not kill'. Although probably used as a control mechanism in cases where the removal of oneself would be contrary to the interests of state or church, I would think it more likely that it was a generalization of the 'sanctity of life' principle and is reflective of an inborn abhorrence of death. Also, the concept of only 'god can giveth life' and only 'god should taketh away' comes into play too. Now that it seems humanity might be able to 'giveth life' to some degree, the 'sanctity' of life appears to be threatened and the issues surrounding control over death are coming up as well.
I think that society might be able to learn a little more about the thorny ethical issues surrounding the manipulating of life and its' 'sanctity' through cloning and other technologies, by dealing with the issues that those already alive must face with dying and disease. I think everyone of normal genetic character has an inborn recognition that any human intervention in the life cycle of our species, at both ends, must be preceded by a deep respect for the consequences both material and otherwise.
