Euthenasia

[blike]

This topic is frequenting the news more and more. Just recently I saw an australian company that marketed air-tight bags to place over your head to assist in suicide.

 

Interestingly, alot of medical students change their views on this issue after medical school when they've seen first hand people who are living in hell. What do you guys think?

[aman]

I've been blessed with only seen peaceful passings or painful but fighting to beat Mr. Death till the end. I don't begrudge anybody who reaches the point in a terminal situation the right to pass with dignity. Life is moving forward. If the person can't move forward but only backward and is in pain I think ist's OK.

Is it right to keep a person alive for the comfort of the living? Some of us don't want to say goodbye. Do family members actually move forward because the person remains alive?

Is it a "sin" due to our particular religious beliefs?

It's a tough question.

Just aman

[fafalone]

I believe mentally competant people people should have the right to die any time they want. We shouldn't force people to live, the decision should be made by the individual.

[Guest Unregistered]

it's interesting how the different religions view finality. Generally speaking western religion abbhors the final event, namely death, and hence attributes an afterlife. I guess this thus leads to the general opinion that suicide, and so euthanasia, is a bad thing. As an atheist, through and through, I feel that the end is the end, and though it is often a painful thing, must be accepted for what it is. If someone has a terminal illness, then help them all we can, but if they feel that enough is enough, then help them with it. of course this raises the question as to what we think if a cure is found within that person's potential lifespan (that has now been cut short), but, for that person at least, their life is over, and they ended it how they would have wished. That is all I can hope for in life - to live it how I like, and to end it how I like, so I feel that anyone who wants that, should have it.

[Radical Edward]

unregistered up there is me, I forgot to log in again :/

[aman]

What if you have a genious son or daughter who says I think the world sucks and I want to die now?

Just aman

[Radical Edward]

I had a suspicion that someone would point out that the world is not black and white. Your example for instance, and say, people with mental illness.....

 

I don't know.... I couldn't say. I guess people with terminal and often painful conditions are easy to categorise, since they are going to die soon and both you and they know it. but someone who is just fed up of life in general.... well lets hope that is something that none of us have to live with.

[kenel]

Playing God is terrible, when you're supposed to die, you die...other people are not supposed to make that decision for you.

 

People with extreeme cases of pain, I could possibly deal with; The killing of criminals, I could possibly deal with (though that would be hypocracy on our part).

 

I'd assume you're right blike, when people actually see what "hell" is like (not that they feel, or experience it themselves), and how much pain individuals go through, why not end the suffering? Seeing as how I'm partially religious though, I cannot agree fully with Euthenasia.

[fafalone]

What kind of god would want us to suffer in pain in a vegetative state from which we will never awake?

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by kenel

Playing God is terrible, when you're supposed to die, you die...other people are not supposed to make that decision for you.

 

People with extreeme cases of pain, I could possibly deal with; The killing of criminals, I could possibly deal with (though that would be hypocracy on our part).

 

I'd assume you're right blike, when people actually see what "hell" is like (not that they feel, or experience it themselves), and how much pain individuals go through, why not end the suffering? Seeing as how I'm partially religious though, I cannot agree fully with Euthenasia.

 

right, so playing God is terrible, people have to suffer with terminal illness, but you condone murdering criminals?

there's an interesting contradiction (you may guess I am against the Death penalty) Wasn't one of God's commandments 'thou shall not kill'?

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by fafalone

What kind of god would want us to suffer in pain in a vegetative state from which we will never awake?

 

I thought the point of a vegetative state was that your brain wasn't working, somewhat easing the suffering....

[aman]

It's easy to be swayed by our early teachings of religious dogma but I am glad to see so many well thought through reasoned arguments.

I don't think we can really learn anything and advance in our humanity in a dungeon body being tortured, and from which there is no escape. Seems less than pointless. Open the cell.

Just aman

[Scorpio]

If you let your religion rule your life, you will be 30 years old before you have any sexual contact with another person. You can not kill anything. You must forgive the man that killed your father. The fact is it is your life, if you want to die then nothing should ever restrict you from doing so. It would be better to have a doctor inject you with a lethal dose than to jump off a bridge onto the busy freeway below you. You must concider that if a person really wants to die for any reason, be it that they are terminally ill or that their depression is cronic, they should be allowed to die in a way that will never affect another person's life. True, the family will be affected but at least the 8 year old walking his dog didn't need to find your dead carcass in the water after 36 hours of decay.

[blike]

Originally posted by Scorpio

If you let your religion rule your life, you will be 30 years old before you have any sexual contact with another person. You can not kill anything. You must forgive the man that killed your father.

 

For some there is no problem for the aforementioned.

[Scorpio]

It is true for some that life is acceptable. I believe that if death is what you want you should be able to be dead. Everyone knows that death is forever. So once it happens it is over with. If there should be any rule, there should be counciling for anyone who wants to die. If they still want to die after the counciling kill them. So they dont hurt the rest of us.

[Glider]

Originally posted by kenel

Playing God is terrible, when you're supposed to die, you die...other people are not supposed to make that decision for you.

 

And yet we provide heart/lung transplants, liver transplants, dialysis for those with renal failure. We ventilate those who cannot breathe unaided and transfuse those who have lost too much blood to live. Isn't this interfering with the principle "when you're supposed to die, you die"?

 

The basic tenet of medicine is "First, do no harm" (an adaptation of one of the writings of Hippocrates). However, in many ways, I think medicine has lost its way, and has conceptualised death as 'the enemy'. This is foolish. Death is inevitable. Moreover, it is necessary. Consider the situation if we ever managed to defeat it...immortality would be catastrophic! If we could prevent death in all cases, we would also have to prevent birth!

 

No. Death is not the enemy. The true enemy is suffering. In cases of severe and intractable suffering, especially as a result of a terminal condition, isn't denying that person an easy and dignified death causing harm? Do we have the right to say "no...I'm sorry you are suffering so badly, but you must live with it, because it's against our principles to help you"?

[blike]

No. Death is not the enemy. The true enemy is suffering.

 

great line.

[fafalone]

Immortality would not be catastrophic. First of all, I'm sure we would have the sense to limit the birth rate, and second of all, if all the geniuses of the ages were continued to live, we'd be much better able to handle it.

[Glider]

Whilst I admire your faith in humanity, I do not share it. "We would have the sense to limit the birth rate"? To whom? who chooses who is allowed children and who isn't? Is it likely that those denied the right to children would simply accept it? Have you seen what happens to thousands of 'illegal' births (usually female) in China? How could it be done, that anybody could issue a directive denying huge sections of the population the right to have children? What would happen if your government tried to do that?

 

There are over six-billion people on the planet now. Throughout history, how many geniuses have there been? Comparatively few. I wonder though, if they were still alive, in what way could they help us cope with the reality of immortality?

 

To achieve true immortality, we would have to eliminate ageing. In effect, the population would have to enter a kind of 'social stasis' (a posh term for stagnation). For example. those in less desirable occupations could expect to be doing them for ever. Those in more desirable occupations could reasonable expect to become the targets of ever increasing levels of resentment. I would expect social breakdown to occur relatively quickly. Civil unrest and ultimately, violence. We may eliminate ageing and disease, but I think it may be quite difficult to find a cure for multiple gun-shot wounds.

[fafalone]

Believe me, we'd learn to limit it. Resources would run out and a large number of people would die; and the future generations would realize the importance. Since most people wouldn't want to live forever, suicide would be an option. Also, time would allow those in undesirable positions to improve their skills and move up.

If our greatest minds had continued to work for many more years, we would already be colonizing other worlds, which would obviously help with overpopulation and supply shortage.

[Glider]

Originally posted by fafalone

Believe me, we'd learn to limit it. Resources would run out and a large number of people would die; and the future generations would realize the importance. Since most people wouldn't want to live forever, suicide would be an option. Also, time would allow those in undesirable positions to improve their skills and move up.

 

Starvation and suicide. A utopian vision indeed. Something to look forward to Remind me, why is it that immortality wouldn't be catastrophic again?

 

Time would allow those in undesirable positions to move up....to where? The people occupying the desirable positions are likely to be those who can best afford the last of the dwindling resources, be the least discontented and therefore the least likely to suicide. Would they step aside if asked nicely? And if those in the least desirable jobs do, by some chance, move up, who does the job they were doing?

 

An unfortunate reality seems to be that the least desirable jobs are often the most necessary (this is not a meritocracy...shame). Remove all sanitation workers and remove all lawyers...let's see where the biggest problems occur...."I have cholera, diphtheria and amoebic dysentary, but I really feel a need to sue somebody?"

[sepultallica]

here are my thoughts on the matter, just in case anyone was going to ask me. like i said in another thread, the government should control all aspects of the medical field including this one. sure legalize it. but make it available to those that could no longer enjoy life. how can we determine that? i don't know. the best thing to do is to have a team of doctors, psychiatrists and experts on stuff and above all else, completely government controlled.

[sepultallica]

besides, there has to be a million way to end someone's life that is cost effective.

 

also would we allow this for criminals that are incarcerated? their quality of life has been significantly reduced. should we ease our burden of having to house these people or if they wanted to be killed then do it?

 

another one of those premature thoughts. not much thought went into these.

[Kettle]

This is something that I felt quite strongly against until I became aware of the case of Diane Pretty - she had motor neurone disease and went to court here in the UK to make sure that, if her husband assisted her suicide, he wouldn't be prosecuted.

 

She carefully explained that she faced a, possibly very protracted, future in which her body would be completely unresponsive, although her mind would remain essentially normal.

 

Several disability and human rights groups attacked her decision - but when I really sat down and thought about it and put myself in her position would I really want to live out the rest of my life, immobile, incapable of expressing myself or interacting with my family and loved ones to even the smallest degree whilst they feed my through a tube, and go about all the other unpleasant details of palliative care? No. I don't think that the right-to-die is necessarily right or moral but I do believe that people should be give the choice - there's nothing wrong with not wanting to fight anymore when faced with that inevitability.

 

 

Edit - that Australian company with the airbags though is just sick imo.

[Glider]

Originally posted by Kettle

Several disability and human rights groups attacked her decision -

Funny how human rights movements are prepared to fight for human rights, until it's one they don't thing a human should have. Makes you wonder who really decides what constitutes a 'human right', and whether it's something that can be awarded or withheld.