| deleted user 14.12.2006 18:25 |
Well, it's not really a new topic, but I saw a little blurb-thingumy in the paper about Kevorkian and parole - and I thought about how someone did a thesis paper on the topic, and realised I didn't really have any strong (or as you'll see, particularly interesting) views on the topic. I know, great start - that should REALLY get people interested in discussing. So far, I think it should be legal - but the receiving person should be in stable mental health - though suicidal thoughts by some would be considered "unstable". Then again, I'm sure some people think ANYONE who asks for a lethal injection or something should be applicable (though a little hesitation for the mentally handicapped might be in order...) - young or old. It just seems like those in old age - suffering from a terminal disease (...life...it gets everyone in the end...) have been around long enough to make the choice - if their quality of life is so low and it's near the end anyway. Though perhaps some would consider the disease a stress that would make them think things they normally would not. I'm just trying to think from all angles at this point. I would like to hear opinions from other people. It's something I don't really know about and would like to hear some different sides. :) |
| Micrówave 14.12.2006 18:31 |
Killing should NOT be legal, whether it's yourself or someone else. Now if you're really sick and a real Doctor can see no hope, then I'm sure something can be arranged. |
| sparrow 21754 14.12.2006 21:04 |
well personally i think its wrong that they keep people barely alive (vegtables) on machines for years when god wanted them home in the first place. if there isnt viable life, or unbearable incurable suffering i think its up to them whether they want to keep going or not, and as charles said, if theyre in the state of mind or not to decide, or as i think, are functional human beings. thats doesnt make me sound like an ass does it? :-/ |
| thomasquinn 32989 15.12.2006 08:54 |
Anyone has the right to die if they wish. So, if they are either capable of making it known themselves, OR they have A WRITTEN, SIGNED DECLARATION that they wish to die should certain circumstances arrive, yes, they should be allowed to. If neither is the case, then there may be no assisted suicide. |
| Sherwood Forest 15.12.2006 14:15 |
no one has the right to take any other person's life without proper premission |
| deleted user 15.12.2006 15:33 |
There's so many things to consider when it comes to euthanasia (sic probably sorry). For example why does this victim want to kill themselves and more importantly do they want help? Chances are, if they want their life to end, but have asked someone to do it for them because they can't, then it's the kind of life no-one wants to live. Their have been many stories about seriously ill people who want it 'all to end.' Anyway the fact that it's illegal in some countries doesn't stop assisted suicide altogether. A few years ago an elderly man was arrested after coming back from Poland where euthanasia is legal, he'd killed his terminally ill wife, whom he said had asked him too. If he was telling the truth personally I think that's a show of ultimate love and friendship, it's perfectly portrayed in the novel 'Of Mice and Men' when George is forced to kill Lennie and end the close friendship they have to save Lennie from a surely much worse fate. To end the suffering ofthe person you care most about, even though it causes you grief and pain, is a true display of friendship. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 15.12.2006 16:16 |
I had a dog once. When she turned 16, she was diagnosed with lung cancer and was given 3 months to live. The first 10 weeks of that time were okay, but during the last two, she showed definite signs of decline. One day, I realized her coping had turned to suffering. As brutally painful as it was for me, I, fortunately, was able to free her from that suffering. I had to do the same thing just weeks ago for another beloved pet. I could not, however, do the same thing when my darling grandfather was suffering the agonies of stomach cancer. Instead, months went by with him moaning, crying and saying these exact words, "When will I be free of life?" Should assisted suicide be allowed? Damn straight it should be allowed. We should all tell our loved ones what our wishes are, write them down, get them notarized, whatever it takes should our minds/bodies ever be so compromised that euthanasia is the best option. |
| Carol! the Musical 15.12.2006 16:53 |
Magicalfreddiemercury... your story was very sad, and it summed up my thoughts on this matter. If anybody suffers from an incurable and agonizing disease, why live? What's the reason in it? The person in a stable condition can easily say that there might still be hope, but then again, euthanasia wouldn't be a serious option unless the case was virtually hopeless. If it was them, would they still want to live each day in pain, waiting for a cure? But in the case of depression, I don't think it should be permitted. Depression CAN be cured! It can be very, very difficult, but it can be cured with willpower. But the other people don't have a choice. Note: not that it can be avoided... |
| AspiringPhilosophe 15.12.2006 17:12 |
It should definately be legal. I mean, I personally think it's the ultimate form of torture and cruelty to insist on keeping someone who is terminally ill and suffering alive. I definatly want to have that option if I ever get sick like that. If people have a directive that says they want that if the circumstances are met, then ok. I personally think anyone who is diagnosed with any disease like cancer or Parkinsons or something like that should be asked to sign a directive in case things like that happen. Why keep them alive if they are terminal and want to die? They are adults, they can make their own decisions. All you are doing by keeping them alive is prolonging the suffering of themselves and their families, and adding to the huge pile of medical bills that will be coming at the end when the person finally does die. It's definatly not something that should be forced on anyone, but they should have that option. |
| user name 16.12.2006 23:49 |
Here's a random thought I had: If someone foregoes suicide in favor of euthanasia, wouldn't it mean that they still have the will to live? How many people jump off a tall building, and half way down realize they made a mistake? We may never know this, but I consider euthanasia to be a very similar matter. As far as giving my opinion, of course euthanasia should be legal. The government has no right or duty to keep you from your own willful death. It's not a governmental matter, it's an individual one. The government should only protect your rights, not your choices - be they good or bad. |
| The prophet's song 17.12.2006 04:22 |
Over here there was a really high profile case about a nurse who's elderly mother who was loosing the battle with cancer and who was in a lot of pain asked her daughter to up her morphine dose so she could pass away and be relieved of her pain. She did this and her mother died, just like she had asked, but the daughter was arrested. When her story got out the whole country got behind her and supported her, you could see plain as day she was not a malicious killer, she was a daughter who was upset by the fact her mother was in an incredible ammount of pain and unable to do anything execpt lie in bed. Her life had lost all quality and she only lived to be in pain. Her mother wasn't going to get any better, only increase in pain as they days went on and in a way it's cruel to make someone go through that, just delaying them from the inevitable. |
| Sonia Doris 17.12.2006 04:50 |
I agree with Caspie on this one. I mean, if you really want to die, it's your right to do so. |
| deleted user 17.12.2006 05:39 |
Imagine watching someone you love that much in so much pain... Still in a secondary school-style debate the 'cons' of allowing euthanasia is that, there's no victim to testify if the death was in fact euthanasia, suicide or murder. A lot of grey areas to cover... |
| magicalfreddiemercury 17.12.2006 08:49 |
<font color=BrianJM>RollingZepBowieQueen wrote: Still in a secondary school-style debate the 'cons' of allowing euthanasia is that, there's no victim to testify if the death was in fact euthanasia, suicide or murder. A lot of grey areas to cover...If a person's medical records show the extent of their illness, and it's clear they were going to die a slow and painful death (as is the case in many fatal diseases), and there has not been a case of abuse committed against the patient in the past, then there is no gray area. It's mercy killing. We can spare our pets the agony of a slow death, but we have to watch our mother, father, or other loved one suffer needlessly? I just don't see the difference between deciding how far to take treatment when people cannot speak for themselves and carrying out their wishes to die when they ask directly. Even lethal injections for convicted criminals (whether you're for or against the death penalty) have to be 'merciful'. A man who murdered someone is spared pain, and his dignity, as it were, remains in tact. Yet a law-abiding citizen is not permitted the same consideration. Instead, they're sentenced to die after disease has stripped them of the ability to fend for themselves. Often, they need help moving around. As the disease progresses, they need someone to feed them, wipe their chin. They can no longer bathe and so must have someone else tend to that. The disease rips away every last shred of dignity from them when, in the end, they can no longer relieve themselves or clean up after, instead, just like Freddie, they need to be assisted with that as well. You're a woman. You're a man. Picture someone you love - your adult child, perhaps - having to care for you in this way. You both know you're going to die. It's just a matter of time - a long, drawn out, painful and humiliating time. What would you want for yourself? For them? And why should any 'law' prevent you from acquiring that? Why? |
| AspiringPhilosophe 17.12.2006 11:46 |
Excellent Post, MagicalFreddieMercury. It's easy for people to sit there and say "It's murder" when it's never happend to them or to anyone they care about. My guess is that a lot of those people are the ones who will be begging for it when they are faced with that situation, or when a loved one is, they'll understand. You can't truly understand the amount of pain these people are in unless you've seen it. I know, that's all Hospice Workers deal with. I think it's a violation of their constitutional rights against cruel and unusual punishment to make people suffer like that when they can spare themselves the pain, just because some righteous prick on the outside of the situation who has never seen it decides that it's immoral. |
| Donna13 18.12.2006 06:38 |
|
| eenaweena 18.12.2006 06:41 |
are you talking about euthanasia? it's considered murder, you know... |
| Donna13 18.12.2006 06:44 |
|
| eenaweena 18.12.2006 07:20 |
^ i was talking about the thread. :) |
| AspiringPhilosophe 18.12.2006 09:01 |
Yes, euthenasia is considered murder right now...but why should it be? That's my question. Yes, techinically someone is killing someone else, but if it's at that patient's request, then it's merely assissted suicide. It's mercy killing as far as I'm concerned, and a decesion that should only be decided between the patient and doctor, with close family involved only when needed. I know what you mean about suicide being selfish, Donna. However, someone who is depressed and kills themselves when they are perfectly healthy is one thing...someone who is suffering through so much pain that they can't function as a human anymore (can't eat, swallow, or control their bowels anymore for example) should be allowed to escape that pain if they make the decision to do so. Why in the world would you be selfish enough to make them suffer through it, just to put off the inevitable, so you can selfishly have the person around longer? Yes, they do give you very strong medication when you have terminal cancer (my mother is an ER nurse and has worked Hospice Care for a number of years) but that doesn't end the suffering. The problem is, they can only give you so much of that medication, and all of these medications are things you can and do develop a phsyical tolerance to. Well, once you've hit that tolerance, the medication won't control your pain anymore, and they have to keep giving you more and more and more. But eventually you will hit the point where the doctors can't give you any more or it will be fatal. That's when they have to just let you suffer, in indescribable pain and indignity, because they can't do the humane thing and end your suffering. So the medications work, but only for a very short time. I see a great distinction to be made between murder and euthenasia, and even a great distinction to be made between plain suicide and euthenasia. |
| eenaweena 18.12.2006 09:13 |
why should it be considered murder? because... you're taking someone's life, and we all know that a supreme being or death himself should be the one to take away the life of someone suffering. think of it this way: it's like taking matters into your own hands, when you want to murder someone. catch my drift? :S |
| Donna13 18.12.2006 09:37 |
|
| magicalfreddiemercury 18.12.2006 10:34 |
<font color="indigo"><b>friedchicken \m/ wrote: why should it be considered murder? because... you're taking someone's life, and we all know that a supreme being or death himself should be the one to take away the life of someone suffering. think of it this way: it's like taking matters into your own hands, when you want to murder someone. catch my drift? :SNo. I, for one, do not. If you want to go with the 'supreme being' or 'death himself' idea, think of it this way - if either chooses to be uncooperative, the patient simply will not die. Sorry if that sounds absurd, but the idea of waiting for some invisible entity to make a decision sounds absurd as well. As for taking matters into your own hands - what about pain control? What about medications that extend life? What about surgery to remove a cancerous tumor? Is all that not taking matters into your own hands? When someone is suffering on the way to death, anything less than seeing to their wishes - whatever they may be - is barbaric and inhumane. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 18.12.2006 16:19 |
Agreed, MagicalFreddieMercury. The arguement about letting the Supreme being handle death sounds dangerously close to those people who never get any medical proceedures done because it isn't "His way". If your surpeme being commands that you suffer what could be easily fixed with alittle medicine, then I'm glad he's your surpreme being and not mine. (don't they ever think that maybe the fact that we have all of this medical technology could be "the supreme being"'s ok to use it?). All I know is that I have free will, I get to decide what happens to me for myself, and not for anyone else, existant or not. I know biologically what happens to the body as it nears death, and it has nothing to do with some magical force taking you away to a brighter place...it has everything to do with your organs slowly shutting down and tissue dying, toxins building up in your system, and the mental exhaustion that comes with trying to make your body work. If I, or someone I love, is in that kind of pain and indignity, then I will respect their choice, either to end their lives or to keep suffering, it's up to them. As for me, I think assisted suicide should be a legal option. @ Donna...I'm sorry if I offended you. It wasn't my intent, and if I did I hope you will accept my apologies. |
| user name 18.12.2006 17:09 |
Random thought on a restriction on Euthanasia: Euthanasia should only be legal in instances where it is impossible for the patient to commit suicide. Thoughts? |
| magicalfreddiemercury 18.12.2006 17:24 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Random thought on a restriction on Euthanasia: Euthanasia should only be legal in instances where it is impossible for the patient to commit suicide. Thoughts?Impossible? That's a tough one, and unless you're talking about complete paralysis of the patient, 'impossible' is hard to quantify. Personally speaking, it would be impossible for me to commit suicide. Why? Because I would be too afraid I'd mess up and then I'd be worse off than I was to begin with. Beyond that, euthanasia is painless - or so they say. For pets, they are sedated and then they're given something that stops their heart. No suffering, just going to sleep and not waking up. If a person wanted to die, they could take care of step number one... but then what? A trusted loved one should be by their side as we are for our pets, and a qualified, caring physician should carry out the procedure to end the suffering. Bottom line is it's a personal choice. There is no across the board right or wrong. Unless you count laws against it. That, IMO, it is unequivocally wrong. |
| Donna13 18.12.2006 17:27 |
|
| deleted user 18.12.2006 17:42 |
To add to that random thought - I read about groups that teach people who would have chosen "assisted suicide" how to overdose on their medication or to starve. I'm not sure who these people were, or their conditions. It seems to me that most people with a will to die would be able to commit suicide. Then again - if starving added to a great pain that was already there, that might deter someone (for good or bad). "Euthanasia" has always meant to me like when you "put down" an ailing animal that cannot make the choice itself. I think this is a different issue than "assisted suicide" - where the person is mentally sound and making their own choice. I would think "euthanasia" for humans would only apply to "vegetables". Also, if a person with a terminal illness has a "diminished" mental capacity - any number of things, and is functioning - but unable to understand their position (that the disease will only get worse), is it "right" to take them off medication without their consent ? I suppose if none of their medication is having any effect... I don't know. How can you judge the quality of life a person is living at that point ? How would anyone know what their day-to-day experiences are ? |
| AspiringPhilosophe 18.12.2006 19:41 |
That's why people need to spell out, in writing, while they are still mentally capable, what they want to happen, should the worst happen. Like my idea earlier with signing an advanced directive the day you are diagnosed with a disease that could leave you in a condition where you may want to exercise the option of euthenasia. Some would say that's horrible and setting up a negative situation for the person, whom science has proven needs to stay positive in order to best respond to treatment. I call it being prepared and avoiding all of this Terri Schaivo crap that happend @Donna....glad you didn't take offense to what I said. :-) @MusicMan...everyone is physically capable of committing suicide...all they have to do is stop eating and have no one force feed them or IV drip them nutrients. As far as physically capable, that would eliminate about 90 percent of the cases where patients might need the option, since the end stages of many of these diseases result in things like complete paralysis, loss of muscle control if it remains, or a total loss of brain function like Alzheimers disease. |