Euthanasia (3 Viewers)

[MiuMiu]

Originally posted by Dahvood


There is the "what if...?" thinking - where if you partook in euthanasia today, and a cure was found for thier condition tomorrow, you wouldn't be feeling all too good. also a waste of life, because that person might have gotten better and had a good life had euthanasia been illegal

I spose it depends on how old the person is. If they are in their 80's, and won't live too much longer anyway, why not let them go now.

Then there is the "Bad Doctor" thing, where people don't like the idea of doctors taking life when they should be instead doing thier best to help and make better. there is also the whole neglect thing, where if a patient dies due to mistreatment or neglect, the doctor can pass it off as euthanasia, or whatever. can't think of decent examples, but I hope the point gets across

Yeah I spose there is an issue there. Perhaps it shouldn't be left to doctors, but to family members. If a family member (who obviously doesn't want to lose a member of their family) can see that a person is in so much agony to put their own feelings aside to consider the sick person, and wants to help them end their life, maybe they should be they ones that make that final injection. Obviously there would be all the counseling and stuff to make sure that the person doesn't just wanna bump off the family member and it would have to be strictly supervised and regulated. I know this argument has plenty of flaws, so dont shoot me its just an idea

 

[Rosie]

Originally posted by YEAR11

I spose it depends on how old the person is. If they are in their 80's, and won't live too much longer anyway, why not let them go now.


Yeah I spose there is an issue there. Perhaps it shouldn't be left to doctors, but to family members. If a family member (who obviously doesn't want to lose a member of their family) can see that a person is in so much agony to put their own feelings aside to consider the sick person, and wants to help them end their life, maybe they should be they ones that make that final injection. Obviously there would be all the counseling and stuff to make sure that the person doesn't just wanna bump off the family member and it would have to be strictly supervised and regulated. I know this argument has plenty of flaws, so dont shoot me its just an idea

Imagine how hard it would be for a family member to be put in that position on having to decide as to whether or not the person lives....that would be terrible i could never do that. Plus with euthanasia in some cases the family members have been there when the person is put to rest. OMG i just can't imagine it....

 

[king a the boin]

mmm, tough issue. i think if u no longer wish to live there must be some kind of program, where u can prove to a judge (or someone) that your life isn t worth (wrong word i know) continuing. ie, u must be able to explain, through evidence of terminal illness ect, why u should be able to terminate your life. if the judge says, yes i agree, u should not have to continue suffering, then i reckon the person has a right to die. however suicide should remain illegal,
that was pretty long winded, and prolly made no sence but...shutup

and my, isn t our little forum becoming quite serious these days...

 

[MiuMiu]

Originally posted by Rosie


Imagine how hard it would be for a family member to be put in that position on having to decide as to whether or not the person lives....that would be terrible i could never do that. Plus with euthanasia in some cases the family members have been there when the person is put to rest. OMG i just can't imagine it....

oh yeah I totally agree I could never do it, I was just trying to make a point about the extent of one's suffering. If a family member thinks the person should be allowed to die, than obviously they are really suffering because no one wants to lose a family member.

 

[Dahvood]

Originally posted by king a the boin
mmm, tough issue. i think if u no longer wish to live there must be some kind of program, where u can prove to a judge (or someone) that your life isn t worth (wrong word i know) continuing. ie, u must be able to explain, through evidence of terminal illness ect, why u should be able to terminate your life. if the judge says, yes i agree, u should not have to continue suffering, then i reckon the person has a right to die.

the problem i have with that, is that if a person has the ability to do all that on thier own, are they really sick enough for euthanasia anyway? also, how long would the wait have to be for approval? knowing the legal system these days....


another issue this reminds me of, is the one of concent. what if a person is suffering so badly they aren't actually able to articulate thier wish for euthinasia? what happens then? does the doctor/family make a choice (possibly against the patient's wish?)
or does the patient go on suffering, knowing that help was at hand, if they could only ask for it

 

[king a the boin]

u ask to many questions

" 'shoot em all and let god sort em out' like a certain uncle did one fateful morn"

 

[Dahvood]

Originally posted by king a the boin
u ask to many questions

" 'shoot em all and let god sort em out' like a certain uncle did one fateful morn"

lol
i think thats why i hated school. they gave me the answers to questions i never asked

 

[timmii]

Originally posted by Dahvood


so whats the distinction between euthanasia and suicide then? (apart from the obvious thing - being assisted by medica staff, or whatever)

I don't think suicide IS legal, but there's no-one left to prosecute. Euthanasia, being "assisted" suicide, means there is still a potentially culpable party - thus facilitating all the legal fuss: there IS someone to prosecute.

Also, there is "passive" euthanasia. You may not actively kill someone (i.e inject lethal drugs), but you may inhibit their continued existence (i.e don't give life-saving drugs, don't put them on a drip, don't perform surgery etc etc...)

Ultimately it is the individual's choice however. The unfortunate thing is that although it is their choice whether they continue to suffer or not, but by choosing to die they are hurting all those who love and care about them - which they don't really have the right to do. I suppose if those ppl do love and care about them, they may not want them to suffer and therefore may condone the euthanasia....hmmm.....it goes round and round i suppose.

Perhaps legislation should allow for individual circumstances to be taken into account rather than provide a blanket, generalised judgement. Doctors don't just give generic disgnoses for conditions, so why should the courts?

 

[timmii]

On another note...

How bad would u feel if u attempted suicide - and failed....wouldn't that just reassert ur feelings of uselessness? Why would u then stop trying???

Interstingly enough (i read somewhere)...more girls than guys attempt suicide, but more guys succeed. The girls go for drugs and slashing wrist, which take longer or are done improperly, giving time for them to be found and saved.

The guys go for the more violent methods: shooting themselves hanging, jumping off buildings etc...and are thus more effective.

 

[MiuMiu]

yeah but most people who commit suicide (Im saying most, not all) don't really want to die. There have been far too many cases of a person slitting their wrists, and only then everything becomes clear and they realise that they don' actually want to die, it was just the depression talking. Its then in most cases too late.

 

[Durban]

i think it sould be legal depending on the situation!

 

[Christine]

after writing numerous rports, essays and speeches on the topic throughout high school i'm pro euthanasia - its your choice.

 

[Crazy]

I'm definately against euthanasia

always have been

always will be

 

[Lazy]

Perhaps your opinion will change if you are ever in a situation like that

 

[flyin']

Originally posted by YEAR11

Obviously there would be all the counseling and stuff to make sure that the person doesn't just wanna bump off the family member and it would have to be strictly supervised and regulated. I know this argument has plenty of flaws, so dont shoot me its just an idea

if family members were allowed to decide then people could just 'legally' kill there relative/parent/spouse for money or whatever ...

 

[MiuMiu]

please don't twist my words I hate people who do that.
You know full well what I meant.

 

[tammer]

euthanasia should only be the choice of the individual. relatives etc. should be unable to make that decision

 

[utopian731]

Originally posted by flyin'



youd be pretty hopeless if you tried and failed ... unless it was deliberate ...

I think thats a pretty harsh thing to say about a mentally ill person. Its not about being "hopeless". Things can happen, such as a sudden change of heart. Killing yourself in certain "popular" ways can actually be harder than you think.

Suicide is technically illegal, but its one of those trivial laws. Its not a crime, just a terribly sad and distressing event for everyone involved.

If you survive attempted suicide, you won't necesarily be thrown into a mental hospital at all, a) the system cant cater for all attempted siocides in this way b) its not necessarily within the state's right to do this against a patients will

 

[utopian731]

Originally posted by Dahvood

There is the "what if...?" thinking - where if you partook in euthanasia today, and a cure was found for thier condition tomorrow, you wouldn't be feeling all too good. also a waste of life, because that person might have gotten better and had a good life had euthanasia been illegal

Im definitely pro-Euthanasia. Unless you are religious, I don't see how people can really base a solid argument against it.

Thw "what if" argument is pretty unrealistic. Magical cures in modern medicine dont just "appear" one day. They take years to develop and doctors are able to see them years away. So the event of someone being allowed to die peacefully, painlessly and with dignity missing out ona magical cure is from a fantasy land.

Kinda on this train of thought...i think someone said "what if the were going to make a mircaulous recovery?". Sorry, but terminally ill people dont get better, hence the term.

Originally posted by Dahvood


Then there is the "Bad Doctor" thing, where people don't like the idea of doctors taking life when they should be instead doing thier best to help and make better. there is also the whole neglect thing, where if a patient dies due to mistreatment or neglect, the doctor can pass it off as euthanasia, or whatever. can't think of decent examples, but I hope the point gets across

Im sick of people dumping on doctors all the time as rich and arrogant or whatever (both of those particular terms are generally rubbish when applied to doctors). The people (not *necessarily but *probably* some here) who constantly bag out doctors still want their help when they get dragged into emergency ward. Please, there seems to be a new feeling that has come about in the latter part of the 20th century that a doctor owes you something and if they cant cure you for some reason, they must be negligent. Doctors dont technically owe anyone anything, they have simply decided to devote themselves to a noble profession for the sake of helping others out of the goodness of their hearts.
What kind of doctor is going to help someone to die if they can actually make them better? What a stupid thing to say, the whole point of euthanasia is and illness is at the point where this is the best thing a doctor can do. we have a lot to leran off the Europeans, especially countries such as Holland, as far as Palliative Care goes. We seem to have this misguided idea that modern medicine, because it is so amazing (which it is) should try to the death (literallly) to keep a person alive, whatver the cost in pain and dignity. Modern medicine has its limits. Plugging someone up with 25 tubes and a ventilator is astrangely futile to me.

"where if a patient dies due to mistreatment or neglect, the doctor can pass it off as euthanasia"
This is just rediculous. If euthanasia were legal, then the contraints and due process of it would make this impossible. Euthanasia (where it is currently allowed) is the chioce of the family or next of kin anyways, NOT the physician.

 

[utopian731]

Originally posted by Rosie
I'm against euthanasia for the simple reason that i believe it is playing God. The person that is sick is probably not even in the right state of mind to decide anything anyways and i think that when the time comes it will come and thats my opinion.

Thats pretty arrogant to say that you know whats better for a person simply because you're not terminally ill and they are. This is the whle point of euthanasia. Let these people die as they wish, why they are still in control of their own destiny. Dont let it get to the stage where they dont want to have a ventilator shoved down their throat in order to live for another week, but have it done anyway, simple because they cant articulate their wishes. Terminally ill people are in complete control of their minds, at least until the latter stages (of course there are probably *some* diseases where compelte cognitive function has been lost)

This bit isnt in response to Rosie in particular:

Anyone who is mildly interested in this issue, especially those strongly opposed to Euthanasia, I have another story for y'all

Nancy Cruzan and the subsequent legal battle of The Cruzan Family v. The State of Missouri and the US Supreme Court.