[Guest]

What are your opinions about euthanasia? I have to write a persuasive essay about it, and I haven't completely decided whether I'm for or against it, but I'm leaning towards against. Do you think it should be legalized? Why or why not? I'm not asking this just because I have to write a report; I am genuinely interested in what you have to say.

[akaslickster]

What are your opinions about euthanasia? I have to write a persuasive essay about it, and I haven't completely decided whether I'm for or against it, but I'm leaning towards against. Do you think it should be legalized? Why or why not? I'm not asking this just because I have to write a report; I am genuinely interested in what you have to say.

I am only for it to dismiss any harsh suffering, with mutual consent from the sufferer. Something should be on paper to document the clauses and acknowledgements of the process. Don't hand this in or you'll flunk. Edited November 17, 2008 by akaslickster

[Guest]

I can see both sides of the arguament, I'm unsure of what to think at the moment. But I also think its really unfair for a person to ask someone to end their life for them, because then that person would have that on their conscience, that they had killed someone. Or I know I would anyway. But then I think that if the person really couldnt bear being alive ...urgh, i dont know. But i think, like you, I am more against it.

Theres also different types of euthanasia isnt there? Voluntary, non-voluntary, unvoluntary..there are others i think.

sorry that wasnt very helpful.

Edited November 17, 2008 by Violent pedestrian

[akaslickster]

I can see both sides of the arguament, I'm unsure of what to think at the moment. But I also think its really unfair for a person to ask someone to end their life for them, because then that person would have that on their conscience, that they had killed someone. Or I know I would anyway. But then I think that if the person really couldnt bear being alive ...urgh, i dont know. But i think, like you, I am more against it.

Theres also different types of euthanasia isnt there? Voluntary, non-voluntary, unvoluntary..there are others i think.

sorry that wasnt very helpful.

I see, that is only human emotion. If I am in a state of incurable pain and will need to live with it, and it's is critical. I want an overdose of morphine, after I sign the waiver.

[peace*out]

Am i the only human who doesn't know what euthanasia is? Wanna tell me??

[Guest]

Maybe the only reason that some want to legalize euthanasia is to justify an "easy" way out for "hopeless" patients that will make the "burden" of "treating" them "legally" disappear. If one wants to "check out" because they can't bear it any longer then there are plenty of ways that are "illegal" but once a subject seizes to live wouldn't it be the moment when he/she seizes to be subject to the "LAW" that makes euthanasia "illegal" ... and why then those who remain alive (i.e. doctors, insurance companies, etc) should be concerned about the "legality" or "illegality" thereof? ... just a thought...

Edited November 17, 2008 by mnemo7

[akaslickster]

Am i the only human who doesn't know what euthanasia is? Wanna tell me??

A putting of life to rest forever, usually animals. They use lethal injection in most cases. My dog had a bunch of tumors and old and in pain so she is better off in doggie heaven I suppose.

[Guest]

Am i the only human who doesn't know what euthanasia is? Wanna tell me??

Well no, i had no idea what it was.

And i am for it... To make an animal suffer is cruel. If it's going to die either way, why prolong it?

[unreality]

They are talking about human euthanasia, not animals. Animal euthanasia is legal... and since humans are animals too, I'm not exactly sure where the line is drawn jk. But really. I think, that if someone wants to end suffering, why not. It's their life. I mean c'mon. Who really cares <- not to sound mean at all, but basically I was saying that it's no reason for it to be a big issue. So I'm for OR against it lol

[Guest]

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.

[itachi-san]

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.

[unreality]

I agree Go nature! ;D

[Guest]

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

[andromeda]

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

[itachi-san]

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?"

[andromeda]

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?

We should ask PG...

Edited November 18, 2008 by andromeda

[unreality]

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 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

[Guest]

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

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?

[Guest]

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 November 19, 2008 by UKJon

[Guest]

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?

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.

[Guest]

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.

Thanks for pointing this out. I forgot to include the patient should also have a BIG say in these meetings.

Edit: This also stops anybody wanting to commit suicide an easy get out. There are some strange people in this world.

Edited November 19, 2008 by UKJon

[Guest]

This is probably not really the topic to go into the authenticity of the bible or of Jesus. If you want to talk about that, I would suggest starting another form, to which I would be more than happy to reply to. More to the topic at hand, my personal opinion is that euthanasia should not be allowed. Apart from all the things so far mentioned, in other countries where euthanasia is legal, it is often abused, people are killed who did not really want to die. Also, sometimes in a moment of pain the patient thinks he wants to die, but later, he is glad that the others around did not listen to him pleading for death. You shouldn't allow someone to make a big decision when they are suffering severely, because then momentary emotions play a large part in the decision.

[unreality]

Blade has it down good Although bocinki raises a good point too - which is why, as Blade suggested, someone else should be involved in the decision

[Guest]

I can assure you that it is the cancer that kills the patients.

Different cases of cancer obviously require different treatment, though I'm reliably informed that a cumulatively lethal dose of medication is the real cause of death in some cases. Naturally the nature and prognosis of the cancer, and the wishes of the patient and the patient's family, would be taken into consideration. And officially it doesn't happen at all (but that's what I was questioning).

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.

I didn't mean to suggest that a patient's lifespan is affected significantly by the drugs, if you have 2 months to live nobody's going to give you a lethal dose of medication today. The painkillers only help to finish you off kindly at the point where the cancer is doing that anyway, so the exact cause of death is a technicality, and an indistinct one at that.

In general I feel that euthanasia is best avoided in cases where there is even the tiniest chance of recovery. But I do feel that it ought to be decided in clear terms, requiring:

a) consent of patient

b) consent of responsible medical professional (clearly identified and audited to prevent abuse)

c) consent of patient's family and closest loved ones

Where all three of the above are not available (such as the patient being unable to give consent, or having no family, or a family in disagreement) euthanasia may be the best course of action in some cases but extreme caution needs to be taken and the case should at least be examined at a higher level and in great detail.

This places the responsibility ultimately with the medical profession (and perhaps governing bodies) as a whole, where it is best dealt with. At the moment I feel that we fail to deal with it, and since it is a real issue this sometimes forces people to take their own measures in an ad hoc manner.

[Guest]

I didn't mean to suggest that a patient's lifespan is affected significantly by the drugs, if you have 2 months to live nobody's going to give you a lethal dose of medication today. The painkillers only help to finish you off kindly at the point where the cancer is doing that anyway, so the exact cause of death is a technicality, and an indistinct one at that.

My comment was not a rebuttal for your comment. Sorry for not making the distinction. I was trying to add that to the general discussion.

In general I feel that euthanasia is best avoided in cases where there is even the tiniest chance of recovery. But I do feel that it ought to be decided in clear terms, requiring:

a) consent of patient

b) consent of responsible medical professional (clearly identified and audited to prevent abuse)

c) consent of patient's family and closest loved ones

Where all three of the above are not available (such as the patient being unable to give consent, or having no family, or a family in disagreement) euthanasia may be the best course of action in some cases but extreme caution needs to be taken and the case should at least be examined at a higher level and in great detail.

This places the responsibility ultimately with the medical profession (and perhaps governing bodies) as a whole, where it is best dealt with. At the moment I feel that we fail to deal with it, and since it is a real issue this sometimes forces people to take their own measures in an ad hoc manner.

I agree fully. However, if there is a change in law then I think that the professionals involved should get emotional support and I fear that this may be overlooked.

I now eager to read Jane's essay!

Edited November 20, 2008 by UKJon

[Guest]

I agree fully. However, if there is a change in law then I think that the professionals involved should get emotional support and I fear that this may be overlooked.

I suspect that in practice many medical professionals are willing and able to take that decision, since they are fully aware of the pros and cons and also quite accustomed to dealing with life and death in a responsible but detached manner. But also if there was a system in which euthanasia was practiced, the emotional impact would be lessened by the fact that the actions taken have the explicit legal and moral backing of the public at large, and without the need for secrecy, euthanasia could be carried out in whatever way makes it most palatable for all concerned.

(Reading that, it sounds like I'm all for euthanasia. Anyone else reading it please bear in mind it's only a thing I'd advocate in extreme circumstances, but extreme circumstances do happen.)