Thread: The Euthanasia Debate

Roller all logical consious discussion when done maturely by those who are capable, ideally leads back to the same thing over and over again. Truth.

The right to die is a civil one that should be included with all of the others, no matter what.

Well Nirvana I've talked to you in chat many times and I like talking to you, but if you don't want to discuss this thread then I'm sure you have better things to do than to post in it.

On the other hand, if you have a viewpoint on euthanasia then I would like to hear it.

In my case I am for euthanasia. I think that as human beings we are mature enough to decide when we should be able to die, and that our wishes should be respected. In the Schaivo case it was a little different because she didn't actualy state that she wanted to die herself. I'm not 100% sure about the details of the case, but I agreed with the verdict that she should have had her life support removed. In this case I think the real cruelty is that anti-euthanasia laws in many states in different countries mean that instead of being given a quick, painless injection, Terry Schaivo had to be starved to death naturally. While she wouldn't have been able to feel or know of any of this, it is obviously much more distressing on the family.

In the case of active, voluntary euthanasia, I think that it is very worrying when a government can take away a person's right to choose when they die.

Originally posted by Shamu mu
The right to die is a civil one that should be included with all of the others, no matter what.

Exactly. I voted #1 and would go as far as endorsing a more active \"physician-assisted\" suicide program.

Originally posted by Roller
In the case of active, voluntary euthanasia, I think that it is very worrying when a government can take away a person's right to choose when they die.

In the Schaivo case it was a little different because she didn't actualy state that she wanted to die herself. I'm not 100% sure about the details of the case, but I agreed with the verdict that she should have had her life support removed.

Here in the US, the law states that if it is determined that an individual wouldn't want to continue living (in the manner Terry Schaivo was), they shouldn't be forced to. The autopsy proved that she was catastrophically brain-damaged and that her persisted vegitative state would not have ever improved. Her husband was the legal guardian and had every right to make the decision to pull the feeding tube.

Congress should have never got involved in the case. That whole debacle was another blemish on the already blighted image of our government. But what do you expect, when your dealing with the fruitcake brigade: Rich Santorum, Tom DeLay, Randall Terry, Dubya and Jeb Bush, Sean Hannity and all the other talking heads and religious wingnuts who will never be convinced that what they did was wrong.

Roller, when you say voluntary euthanasia where one has requested to be killed, then what means of death are you also speaking of? Euthanasia by action, where death is caused by performing an action, such as giving a lethal injection? Euthanasia by omission, where death is caused by not providing necessary care and/or denying food and water? Euthanasia by assisted suicide, physician assisted or otherwise? Or something else?

I'm not sure what to say, but there is such a stigma about death that makes people really aversive to it. (like our president)

I would be open to it if it's based on a thorough discussion with the patient. The more controversial cases were with non-communicable patients (as of the Terry Schiavo case)

The main reason why people dislike this option is fear that if they do it, finding out later that there WAS a way to improve the patient's health back to optimal health. I usually don't like to get involved in this, I'd likely never encounter this situation, and if I do later, I'd rather my knowledge upon it being fresh rather than sorting through my mental library of reason to do or not to do it.

Haha..ok, I don't know why I'm responding then. It's giving my fingers exercise

I think Euthanasia should be allowed but only under certain circumstances such as with degenerative diseases that are terminal and painful. But for a person to just not be happy with their life and decide that they want to die, no I don't think it should be allowed. If someone isn't happy with life or they think it is too hard for them or whatever, then they should go ahead and perpetrate the act themselves and not with the help of somone else.

Yeah you're right there Dreamscape, there are a lot of different versions of euthanasia... I guess the poll question is referring to any action taken to assist the death of a person in order to end suffering.

People should have control of their own lives, including the ability to end it when they choose to, or to pay someone to when they are unable themselves.

HOWEVER, Euthanasia should NEVER be used without the request and consent of the patient, that would be more like eugenics than mercy.

Originally posted by InTheMoment

Here in the US, the law states that if it is determined that an individual wouldn't want to continue living (in the manner Terry Schaivo was), they shouldn't be forced to. The autopsy proved that she was catastrophically brain-damaged and that her persisted vegitative state would not have ever improved. Her husband was the legal guardian and had every right to make the decision to pull the feeding tube.

Congress should have never got involved in the case. That whole debacle was another blemish on the already blighted image of our government. But what do you expect, when your dealing with the fruitcake brigade: Rich Santorum, Tom DeLay, Randall Terry, Dubya and Jeb Bush, Sean Hannity and all the other talking heads and religious wingnuts who will never be convinced that what they did was wrong.

Have you seen the south park when Kenny gets trained on a video game to command the armies of heaven, is killed by god, but accidentally put into a persistant vegitative state? Then the angels come down and get them to pull the feeding tube so Kenny can save heaven from the armies of hell.

My favorite line was:

Gabriel: There was this Japanese kid who got to level 58!
Michael: Gabriel you idiot, everyone knows Japanese people don't have souls!

They don't? I didn't know I have so many soulless friends.

I think it should be allowed.
In England, we have the opportunity to make something called a 'Living Will' which is basically a list of instructions for procedures after death.
In this paper, a person can choose to put down that if their condition becomes so bad that nothing is going to save them, they can refuse all medications, except for those which control pain.
Nurses caring for a patient of this type have a duty to administer basic palliative care, i.e. pain control, food and water (if the patient is able to take it), daily tasks such as washing and dressing, as far as possible.
i would like to see an extension to this, to say that a person would allow a qualified practitioner to give them a legal overdose of something, if they have no quality of life.
I work in a Nursing home, i see people who have lived good, long and happy lives, struggling at the time of death...
People who, instead of dying of some recognisable disease, such as cancer, are simply winding down, hanging on, dragging it out.
We've had one woman on TLC for the last TWO YEARS. She is now totally blind, can hear very little, and can barely speak. If she does speak, it's no more than a whispered 'hello' in response to our 'good morning'.
There is no quality of life there. When i see people like that, i wish it was legal.
The other question i've often asked myself with regard to this is: If i were a practitioner, able to do this, would i have the courage to actually take someone's life?
You are still killing someone, even if it is written in the documents that that is what this person wants.
I was brought up that you don't kill people, or animals.
Would i have the courage to take the life of a person i knew well, say, one of my residents, that i'd looked after for five years and developed a relationship with?
I think this is a great debate, and on the contrary, i haven't seen this debate since i joined DV, so it's new to me.
Regards Terry Schiavo...that's difficult to say...At the end of the day, i think that too many people got involved in that one...it became a bit of a media circus. It should have been left to terry and her family to sort out.

I think personally that it would be acceptable if only under certain circumstances. For example, someone suffering exceptionally bad symptons of Huntington's or a terminally fatal disease should have the right to choose whether they wish to prolong their suffering?

If anyone watches Diagnosis Murder there was an episode where a killer sent messages labelled KMIYC before his final showdown with Steve Sloan intending to get himself killed, thus the label "Kill Me If You Can". The question raised was that Sloan took all of the killers life by putting him in jail, and after he was released he was diagnosed with having a degenerative disease that would kill me only after he lost all his memory and control of his motor functions... so was it ethically right for Steve in the end to put the killer back in jail instead of letting him get his wish to die with dignity?

After the episode ended, you couldn't not feel sad for the killer in that respect and rather angry at Sloan, who didn't really seem to give a monkeys about the guy.

Although I do not advocate killing anyone, I view the US' archaic execution methods for capital punishment as downright barbaric and cruel, I do agree that if circumstances like that happened I suppose it could be acceptable and even could be included as part of the basic human rights in that respect. After all, patients can have labels for "Do Not Resusitate" and isn't that basically the same darn thing?

The right to die is a civil one that should be included with all of the others, no matter what.[/b]

But Euthanasia is not the right to die, it's the right to kill. Not the same.
Quote from \"Not Dead Yet\":

People already have the right to refuse unwanted treatment, and suicide is not illegal. What we oppose is a public policy that singles out individuals for legalized killing based on their health status. This violates the Americans With Disabilities Act, and denies us the equal protection of the law. Some bioethicists have even started to argue that intellectually disabled people are not persons under the law. That hasn’t happened since slavery was legal.[/b]

A little known fact: In the Netherlands it's legal to kill newborns with disabilities, even if they are not terminal. These are the little things the media doesn't tell you.

I was going to start a thread about euthanasia but I found an old existing one.

I have a lot of experience with euthanasia in animals. I think that even though it's sad to have to take a life, I'm so grateful that veterinary medicine has that option. I see so many terminally ill patients that are literally wasting away and suffering. It's comforting to know that their owner can make the decision to let that animal go, and end the pain. I can't imagine veterinary practice without the option of euthanasia.

Knowing my feelings toward euth in animals, I wish there was a similar public understanding of it in human medicine. I understand the argument of "no one has the right to take someone's life," but in cases where the terminally ill patient him/herself is coherent enough to make a rational decision about his/her death, I think they should be allowed to choose. If it were myself, and I was suffering and in constant pain with no chance of recovery, I would choose humane euthanasia over dying a slow, painful death any day.

I'm completely the opposite, Burns. I'd choose a slow, painful death over euthenasia any day. I'm an atheist, and believe that there is no afrerlife or reincarnation (in the strict sense, at least). Death is the end... so, I'd hang on to every last motherf^&cking thread of life I have, even if it is painful. Every second counts.

That said, what other people choose to do is their own decision. However, I strongly believe that any euthenasia should be VOLUNTARY. If a patient is in a coma or somesuch, and unable to give consent to be euthenaised (sp?) then... I don't think anyone has the right to euthenaise them. Prior consent to be euthenaised in such a situation is a trickier issue.

All that said, however, I don't think a hospital can be legally compelled to continue to provide life support to a coma patient... withdraweral of support is not, legally, the same as euthenasia.

Originally Posted by The

I'm completely the opposite, Burns. I'd choose a slow, painful death over euthenasia any day. I'm an atheist, and believe that there is no afrerlife or reincarnation (in the strict sense, at least). Death is the end... so, I'd hang on to every last motherf^&cking thread of life I have, even if it is painful. Every second counts. [/b]

Have you ever had the flu so bad that you'd rather be dead than as sick/in pain as you currently are? I've had that feeling before (though I haven't been sick in about 7 years, knock on wood), so even if there is no afterlife, sometimes not existing is better than experiencing excruitating and unrelenting pain.

Originally Posted by The

If a patient is in a coma or somesuch, and unable to give consent to be euthenaised (sp?) then... I don't think anyone has the right to euthenaise them. Prior consent to be euthenaised in such a situation is a trickier issue. [/b]

I agree with you here. I think if the patient is in their "right mind" and can make that decision on their own, it should be respected. However, if the patient is incapacitated and cannot make decision concerning their own health, either nothing is done, or if the patient has appointed someone Power of Attorney legally, the PoA can make that decision on the patient's behalf. Because it would be decided by the patient ahead of time when they were coherent that they trust their Power of Attorney to make these kinds of decisions for them.

there should be a legal document signed ahead of time preferably, stating that one wishes to have the option under certain circumstances.

this would save alot of headache if one decides to go through with it.

---
should one have the option for doctor assisted suicide if the pain is mental/emotional?

Originally Posted by Burns

Have you ever had the flu so bad that you'd rather be dead than as sick/in pain as you currently are? I've had that feeling before (though I haven't been sick in about 7 years, knock on wood), so even if there is no afterlife, sometimes not existing is better than experiencing excruitating and unrelenting pain.
[/b]

I've had plenty of pain in my life... I had chronic appendicitis, an allergic reaction that caused me to basically stop breathing (that didn't hurt per se, but I deffinitely suffered), a massive case of chickenpox that basically put me in a condition of chronic headaches, nausea, and caused me some bad-ass hallucinations...

So, I have felt so bad that (some people) might rather be dead. But, I'd rather exist that not exist. REGARDLESS of the conditions of my existance.

If you do not let people end their lives if they want to, you are taking away their right of choice, their right of freedom.

That is both against american ethics (right of freedom) and against christian ethics (people should make their own choices, like weather to accept jesus or not).

So basicly I don't know why american christians are so much against it.