Jump to content


Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum

Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum. Like most online communities you must register to post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process. To be a part of BrainDen Forums you may create a new account or sign in if you already have an account.
As a member you could start new topics, reply to others, subscribe to topics/forums to get automatic updates, get your own profile and make new friends.

Of course, you can also enjoy our collection of amazing optical illusions and cool math games.

If you like our site, you may support us by simply clicking Google "+1" or Facebook "Like" buttons at the top.
If you have a website, we would appreciate a little link to BrainDen.

Thanks and enjoy the Den :-)
Guest Message by DevFuse
 

Photo
- - - - -


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#11 itachi-san

itachi-san

    Senior Member

  • VIP
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3620 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 November 2008 - 10:35 PM

My opinion is that I don't see the point in living, as a human, if there is no medical possibility to be able to enjoy life anymore. If a person is brain dead with no possible recovery, or if they are very old/very sick and want to die I think that that is their choice and that it is fine. We all will die, so why suffer horribly for a few months/years before we do?

If this comes down to an ideology of any kind (whether it be religious or naturally based), I think that keeping people alive via machines who have no recovery hope and/or have asked to die is going against what God and nature intends. So by keeping them alive we are only satisfying ourselves. If unplugged, we allow God, nature and the person who is asking to die to have their way. By keeping them plugged in against their will, I think we are being selfish and ignorant as to how much that person must be suffering.
  • 0

#12 unreality

unreality

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6370 posts

Posted 17 November 2008 - 11:07 PM

I agree :D Go nature! ;D
  • 0

#13 Lost in space

Lost in space

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4009 posts

Posted 17 November 2008 - 11:43 PM

My only note on this subject is that when your dog gets old, and is living in pain, and is relying entirely on medication and treatments to survive then it is considered "humane" to put the dog down.

To do the same thing to a human is murder.

To keep someone alive and in severe pain is NOT natural or humane - it's torture in IMOP

In general, to those that are not for it, have it your way and let the medical and legal proffession 'extend' your life and agony if you wish - that's your right, mine is to have my right - no to interferance for extension and plenty of inteference to avoid a long agonising undignified death

btw - in countries where it is not legal, it is practised, but usually right at the end wher the legal dose of morphine has no chance! As told to me by a doctor in the UK and apparently more common in the Netherlands according to my wife
  • 0

#14 andromeda

andromeda

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3699 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Serbia

Posted 17 November 2008 - 11:51 PM

My opinion is that I don't see the point in living, as a human, if there is no medical possibility to be able to enjoy life anymore. If a person is brain dead with no possible recovery, or if they are very old/very sick and want to die I think that that is their choice and that it is fine. We all will die, so why suffer horribly for a few months/years before we do?

If this comes down to an ideology of any kind (whether it be religious or naturally based), I think that keeping people alive via machines who have no recovery hope and/or have asked to die is going against what God and nature intends. So by keeping them alive we are only satisfying ourselves. If unplugged, we allow God, nature and the person who is asking to die to have their way. By keeping them plugged in against their will, I think we are being selfish and ignorant as to how much that person must be suffering.


I don't want turn this into a religious debate, but this is what I'm thinking... (I'm not talking about people that can't decide for themselves). If you sign a paper that says that you are allowing doctors to kill you, isn't that technically suicide?? Or if you intentionally provoke a police officer to put a bullet in you (for whatever reason, you are terminally ill, or you're just tired of life) that is also a suicide. It doesn't matter who pulls the trigger or inserts the lethal amount of morphine, if you are willingly doing that it's suicide and it's a mortal sin (I'm talking about theists), I'm an agnostic btw, but I'm still not sure what I would decide.

I'm asking this nicely ;)
  • 0

#15 itachi-san

itachi-san

    Senior Member

  • VIP
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3620 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 November 2008 - 12:19 AM

I don't want turn this into a religious debate, but this is what I'm thinking... (I'm not talking about people that can't decide for themselves). If you sign a paper that says that you are allowing doctors to kill you, isn't that technically suicide?? Or if you intentionally provoke a police officer to put a bullet in you (for whatever reason, you are terminally ill, or you're just tired of life) that is also a suicide. It doesn't matter who pulls the trigger or inserts the lethal amount of morphine, if you are willingly doing that it's suicide and it's a mortal sin (I'm talking about theists), I'm an agnostic btw, but I'm still not sure what I would decide.

I'm asking this nicely ;)

But is pulling the cords out of a machine that is keeping you alive suicide? It's an interesting question. The person would live with them, but in a natural sense, they would die without them. Therefore, I say it isn't suicide. If one were to get shot by police on purpose, it means they would live otherwise (at least for a little while). But in the euthanasia cases we're discussing, the people would die naturally without assistance. I would pose this question to religious-minded people who have mortal sins on their mind: "Isn't keeping the machine on going against God's wishes? We invented these machines, they are not part of his design. We are keeping Him from taking the person's life, are we not?"
  • 0

#16 andromeda

andromeda

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3699 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Serbia

Posted 18 November 2008 - 01:03 AM

But is pulling the cords out of a machine that is keeping you alive suicide? It's an interesting question. The person would live with them, but in a natural sense, they would die without them. Therefore, I say it isn't suicide. If one were to get shot by police on purpose, it means they would live otherwise (at least for a little while). But in the euthanasia cases we're discussing, the people would die naturally without assistance. I would pose this question to religious-minded people who have mortal sins on their mind: "Isn't keeping the machine on going against God's wishes? We invented these machines, they are not part of his design. We are keeping Him from taking the person's life, are we not?"


Yeah I agree on what you said because I've only mentioned willingly telling to a doctor to insert a lethal dose of painkillers, and I just remembered the case of an American woman that was in coma for years, there was a lot of controversy. Religious groups were against unplugging the machines and the family wanted to put her to rest. In the end they have unplugged the machines that were keeping her alive (I'm sure you've heard about this case) and the woman died of starvation a week later which I find unacceptable (unacceptable because she was starving not because she was unplugged) even though she could never regain consciousness again.

So... if you sign a paper which states that you don't want doctors to keep you alive if you fall into a deep coma with no theoretical chances of waking up, or you end up in a state of constant pain with no possibility of recovery I agree, it's not suicide. But if you don't sign any papers and if something happens to you and you need to make that decision while you're still lucid, how does it qualifies than? :huh:

We should ask PG... :)

Edited by andromeda, 18 November 2008 - 01:04 AM.

  • 0

#17 unreality

unreality

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6370 posts

Posted 18 November 2008 - 01:35 AM

The "no-suicide" rule in religions was only constructed to prevent fervent followers from killing themselves to go to heaven. Without that little clause, all members of the religion would die and the religion as a whole would die out :D Thus it's kind of a slippery slope about what is considered "suicide". You would have to go to the heart of the matter and find out why your religion is against it (which I already explained in the first sentence but I don't think religious people would accept that reason ;D) and then from there see what would count as suicide or not
  • 0

#18 octopuppy

octopuppy

    Senior Member

  • VIP
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1303 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 November 2008 - 11:48 AM

The "no-suicide" rule in religions was only constructed to prevent fervent followers from killing themselves to go to heaven. Without that little clause, all members of the religion would die and the religion as a whole would die out :D

Nice application of meme theory! Suicide cults tend not to catch on long term, lol. An unfavourable mutation.

On a serious note, it would seem from this discussion that euthanasia is generally accepted to some degree. But in practice it gets swept under the carpet. I wonder if that is the right thing to do?

For example terminal cancer patients are often treated with increasing doses of pain killers to deal with their symptoms. In the end, it's the drugs that kill you, not the cancer. Nobody makes a fuss about it because it's the kindest thing to do, and besides, it's impossible to draw a distinction between the palliative care and the euthanasia element. You could call it slow euthanasia. It's done quietly so as not to upset the religious.

I expect a lot more euthanasia goes on than we are really aware of. We keep it in the closet, but by protecting ourselves from the truth, we technically place the moral and legal responsibility in the hands of those who administer the treatment. Is that fair?
  • 0

#19 UKJon

UKJon

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 92 posts

Posted 19 November 2008 - 03:40 PM

For example terminal cancer patients are often treated with increasing doses of pain killers to deal with their symptoms. In the end, it's the drugs that kill you, not the cancer. Nobody makes a fuss about it because it's the kindest thing to do, and besides, it's impossible to draw a distinction between the palliative care and the euthanasia element. You could call it slow euthanasia. It's done quietly so as not to upset the religious.


I can assure you that it is the cancer that kills the patients. I admit, however, that a lot of the drugs used do have an adverse effect on the liver and kidneys (and some on the lungs). I could go into details but I don’t think it is appropriate, especially for a school report. If you really want to know, PM me and be sure you have a strong stomach.

Many cancer patients are happy for a further 2 months even if that means the constant monitoring by health professionals and an increasing amount of time spent at hospitals. I do not know how much pain they are enduring during those last few months but they feel they have something to live for.

Something to throw into the mix: Where does a ‘Do Not Resuscitate’ form fit into all of this? Is this almost a suicide note?

Patients have, on odd occasions, woken up from a coma lasting many months or even years. For the supporters of euthanasia: When would you have pulled the plug?

Just so you know, I have not decided about euthanasia, I just like playing devil’s advocate. I feel that there are too many factors to consider for a just law to be written. Each case should be held before either a judge or jury / committee.


Edit: If you are writing against it then Violet Pedestrian has raised an often ignored topic of the 'killers'. The psycological impact of taking someone's life is not something that's easily dealt with.

Edited by UKJon, 19 November 2008 - 03:45 PM.

  • 0

#20 Blade

Blade

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 329 posts

Posted 19 November 2008 - 04:08 PM

But is pulling the cords out of a machine that is keeping you alive suicide? It's an interesting question. The person would live with them, but in a natural sense, they would die without them. Therefore, I say it isn't suicide. If one were to get shot by police on purpose, it means they would live otherwise (at least for a little while). But in the euthanasia cases we're discussing, the people would die naturally without assistance. I would pose this question to religious-minded people who have mortal sins on their mind: "Isn't keeping the machine on going against God's wishes? We invented these machines, they are not part of his design. We are keeping Him from taking the person's life, are we not?"


In this I totally agree. Why prolong the suffering of an individual? To me it's cruel and very unhumane. Do humans take pleasure in seeing someone die? I think not... if it were me and if it was someone i loved and there was NO chance at all that they would wake up, then i would leave th em to god's will. But if there was a chance i would keep them. I am not talking about a hopeless chance, actually some scientific evidence that they will wake up.

Yeah I agree on what you said because I've only mentioned willingly telling to a doctor to insert a lethal dose of painkillers, and I just remembered the case of an American woman that was in coma for years, there was a lot of controversy. Religious groups were against unplugging the machines and the family wanted to put her to rest. In the end they have unplugged the machines that were keeping her alive (I'm sure you've heard about this case) and the woman died of starvation a week later which I find unacceptable (unacceptable because she was starving not because she was unplugged) even though she could never regain consciousness again.

So... if you sign a paper which states that you don't want doctors to keep you alive if you fall into a deep coma with no theoretical chances of waking up, or you end up in a state of constant pain with no possibility of recovery I agree, it's not suicide. But if you don't sign any papers and if something happens to you and you need to make that decision while you're still lucid, how does it qualifies than? :huh:

We should ask PG... :)


Well PG doesnt look like she is intrested in this. Religion is a huge factor in this world today. This is what bothers me the most....... I am all for religion, believe me, but there is no proof. Look at jesus for example, why dont we have another one of him walking around today? Why is there no real proof of him being on this earth? From science we know how the earth was created, we know how the many universes were created. Well... they have theory's. The only real proof we have is the bible, in which there are many versions, very very very old, and it's been altered many times because of the various kings and rulers of worlds. I highly doubt thats the original translation from the very first bible, and all it composes of are stories of individuals and their heroic deeds. Acts of god if you will. To me this should be a very topic of it's own, but then again there is the religion side and thats going to turn out to one big mess.


I can assure you that it is the cancer that kills the patients. I admit, however, that a lot of the drugs used do have an adverse effect on the liver and kidneys (and some on the lungs). I could go into details but I don’t think it is appropriate, especially for a school report. If you really want to know, PM me and be sure you have a strong stomach.

Many cancer patients are happy for a further 2 months even if that means the constant monitoring by health professionals and an increasing amount of time spent at hospitals. I do not know how much pain they are enduring during those last few months but they feel they have something to live for.

Something to throw into the mix: Where does a ‘Do Not Resuscitate’ form fit into all of this? Is this almost a suicide note?

Patients have, on odd occasions, woken up from a coma lasting many months or even years. For the supporters of euthanasia: When would you have pulled the plug?

Just so you know, I have not decided about euthanasia, I just like playing devil’s advocate. I feel that there are too many factors to consider for a just law to be written. Each case should be held before either a judge or jury / committee.


Edit: If you are writing against it then Violet Pedestrian has raised an often ignored topic of the 'killers'. The psycological impact of taking someone's life is not something that's easily dealt with.



Well, for one i have a strong stomach and i am interested what happens.

The thing i want to comment most on is weather or not to let a judge/jury/ or committee decide your fate. Just like in this topic there are people who are for in and against it. It's going to be the same with the committee as well. I believe it should be someone you trust beyond all else, like a very close friend. Not family because they would want to keep you alive, but someone who could make the choice and live with it.

If it were I in a coma, then i would want to die. To be hooked up to machines, to me it's a bit un-natural. I would want it to be natural, if i were to die, then let it be so. If i were to suffer in the last few months/years of my life... well for one it would depend on my suffering, but for granted i would want to die without suffering till my last ragged breath.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users