35 replies to this topic

[andromeda]

Since when did I become the authority on Christianity for this forum? However, I am very pleased that many of you acknowledge my faith in Christ...that means I must be doing a decent job evangelizing!

Nah... thank God I'm immune!!

Hahahahaha... I just wanted to hear your perspective, because you're God's public relations spokesman around here!

Edited by andromeda, 24 November 2008 - 07:01 PM.

[Lost in space]

Anyhow, my battery's about to die. I'll revisit this topic later when I have some scripture in hand.

Was that a DNR on the battery ??
GOd or no god .. its my choice when my battery is giving out, not suicide, just natures way pls - if that means letting me go with an overdose to save the 'suffering' then here is where I admit to being afraid of pain.. but I'm not afraid to die
Old one of mine - I'll take an overdose of furniture polish - horrible way to go, but a beautiful finnish!

[Blade]

Was that a DNR on the battery ??
GOd or no god .. its my choice when my battery is giving out, not suicide, just natures way pls - if that means letting me go with an overdose to save the 'suffering' then here is where I admit to being afraid of pain.. but I'm not afraid to die
Old one of mine - I'll take an overdose of furniture polish - horrible way to go, but a beautiful finnish!

hahahahaha!!!....... wait, i dont get it o.O

[ADParker]

Euthanasia huh?
For or against? Absolutely FOR! With provisos of course. I jave writtem a fair amount on it in the past (even a Philosophy paper or two.)
So here is something I prepared earlier:


The first thing to do is define the word.
Basically I see that 2 Criteria must be met for an act of killing (of self or an other):
1: It must be the best thing for the 'patient'
2: it must be preformed for the good of the patient.

To explain:
1: This means to my mind that the patient's condition must be that of having a 'Quality of Life' below what is tolerable, and no hope of it becoming so.
In other words their life must "be not worth living" or "Cessation of life would be preferable to continuing in this state", AND it is "beyond reasonable doubt" (to use legal jargon) that is ever likely to become so.
2: Whoever preforms the act of euthanising the patient must be doing it for, and only for patient's benefit, or at least would still do it even without any other existing reasons that may be present (e.g. insurance, cost of continued care).
I realise that my explanation aims at explaining why someone (e.g. you as their doctor should or should not do it), but it can be extended beyond this. If this were the rule of law the point would be that only the needs etc. of the patient should be considered in judging for or against euthanasia.

In my opinion, the slippery slope arguments, the questions of what specific cases would count as such and so on are irrelevant to the general point that Euthanasia (as I specify it to mean) should be legal.
More strongly, Euthanasia is not immoral (the only true reason for illegal status), nor is it amoral (neither moral or immoral), but the moral thing to do.
I've heard arguments, that some people may kill 'patients' too readily (for their life insurance or whatever) and claim that it was actually for their own good, therefore Euthanasia should not be legal. Rubbish, it simply becomes the courts job to judge if each case was actually euthanasia or murder. I freely admit that this would often be a difficult task, but something should not be made illegal because it is difficult to differentiate from evil acts, especially if it is a morally right one.
I am reminded of a recent case that reveals some of the absurdity I see:
A young woman had been in a coma for some years, kept alive by a feeding tube down her throat (not requiring ventilators etc.). It was finally mostly agreed that she would never recover, had no quality of life, and 'ending it' would be for the best for her (I.E. meets my criteria as an euthanasia candidate).
It hit the media. But strangely the only arguments/solutions on offer seemed to be:
1: Remove her feeding tube, and let her starve to death
2: Keep her in her current state indefinitely, mostly because the starving thing seemed too cruel.
The absurdity is that the obvious best solution (assuming the case was exactly as I described) would seem to be to end her life quickly, that is euthanasia. This would be better for everyone - no added or prolonging of her suffering (if she had any - coma remember), let family finally grieve and move on and the like.
BUT it never once came up, due I suspect to an unquestioning/unthinking assumption that euthanasia is wrong.
I also find it strange that we 'Put down' our cherished pets purely for their own good, and see this as a good thing, as it ends their suffering. Even though the decision can be hard to face, most come to agree that it is the best for all involved. Yet these same people can't see that this extends to humans as well.
Quite frankly this is beyond me, it makes no sense at all. Perhaps it is tied in with the same irrational fears of death that lead us to wish for and come to believe so fully in life after death, anything to avoid thoughts of our own mortality.


By the way that post was in a thread with a poll, the results of which were:

Euthanasia, current law notwithstanding - yes or no?
Yes - given the correct circumstances (e.g. as outlined below) and if someone is of sound mind_____95%___[ 79 ]
No - it's never right to take someone's life, not even in these extraordinary circumstances__________4%___[ _4 ]
No - but only because I don't want to be the one to do it - I'd ask someone else to do it for me______0%___[ _0 ]

[SarahJhane]

Im Pro-euthanasia.

It's just a battle of natural death and artificial life --choose!

[Lost in space]

Im Pro-euthanasia.

It's just a battle of natural death and artificial life --choose!

That is also a battle of semantics and I am sure the circumstances and nature of the problem will have an effect.

A thought....
If you are well enough to choose- that in three months time you will be dead after a step by step rise in pain and loosing faculties, at what time are you capable or incapable of a 'compos mentis' decision... you can decide now if it is happening soon, but what if it is going to be longer - a span of 6-18mths, maybe a break through in medicine comes just after you decided and just after you had real and full understanding of the breakthrough due to your painfully mentally worsening condition allowed you too or the law says you are allowed to change your mind
Interesting scenario if someone wants to get their hands on your money, you have passed the point of legally deciding for yourself and your previous decision stands coz you had all/enough of your senses and mental faculties at the time -Tough one! Requires the help of 'sensible and best medical practice' (for the patient)

Good luck on this - there are so many scenarios that are hard to cater for with a 'catch all' law/decision

edit - noticing i duplicate some of ADP's notes, but stand back from the beloved pets issue as this is not a fare comparison; on the basis that pets/animals have long been accepted as a release from unneccessary and unnatural suffering - well you all know the issues I am sure - plus its pretty much accepted as not illegal or inhuman or the cause of death other than for what it is. Though I am sure that there are a consideral amount that are decided on cost an care giving issues to animals

Personally I dont care if I am eating by worms/fungus/animal or even humans once I'm on my natural way as opposed to unatural and artificially unnecessary sustaing of existance
LIS out

Edited by Lost in space, 27 November 2008 - 12:25 PM.