Thread
Posts in chronological order
are you talking about euthanasia? it's considered murder, you know...
^ i was talking about the thread. :)
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.
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.
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
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="indigo"><b>friedchicken \m/ wrote: [/QUOTENAME]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 [/QUOTE]
No. 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.
No. 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.
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.
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.
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?
Euthanasia should only be legal in instances where it is impossible for the patient to commit suicide.
Thoughts?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]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? [/QUOTE]
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.
Euthanasia should only be legal in instances where it is impossible for the patient to commit suicide.
Thoughts? [/QUOTE]
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.
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 ?
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 ?
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.
@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.