ar is still very real and leads to large numbers of latepresentations of illnesses that might have been cured if only the patientshad sought help earlier. To institutionalize euthanasia, howevercarefully, would undoubtedly magnify all the latent fear of doctors andhospitals harbored by the public. The inevitable result would be a rise in late presentations and, therefore, preventable deaths. "Difficulties of oversight and regulation". Both the Dutch and theCalifornia proposals list sets of precautions designed to prevent abuses.They acknowledge that such are a possibility. The history of legal"loopholes" is not a cheering one. Abuses might arise when the patient iswealthy and an inheritance is at stake, when the doctor has made mistakesin diagnosis and treatment and hopes to avoid detection, when insurancecoverage for treatment costs is about to expire, and in a host of othercircumstances. (Maguire 321) "Pressure on the Patient". Both sets of proposals seek to limit theinfluence of the patient's family on the decision, again acknowledging therisks posed by such influences. Families have all kinds of subtle ways,conscious and unconscious, of putting pressure on a patient to requesteuthanasia and relive them of the financial and social burden of care.Many patients already feel guilty for imposing burdens on those on thosewho care for them, even when the families are happy to bear the burden. Toprovide an avenue for the discharge of that guilt in a request foreuthanasia is to risk putting to death a great many patients who do notwish to die. "Conflict with aims of medicine". The pro-euthanasia movement cheerfully hands the dirty work of the actual killing to the doctors who byand large , neither seek nor welcome the responsibility. There is littleexamination of the psychological stresses imposed on those whose trainingand professional outlook are geared to the saving of lives by asking themto start taking lives on a regular ...
