Euthenasia?

[Sayonara]

Go to your user control panel (menu at the top of the page), you should see the options there.

[MishMish]

Found it, thanks

[Glider]

MishMish said in post #25 :

All of those points you mention would apply as well, with minor exception (eg health care would still be more available to the rich,) seems to me, if drugs were legalized

Possibly. I think even legal drugs would be quite expensive though. I can't imagine a government not wanting to make the most of a 'captive' source of tax revenue (take cigarettes for example; ~86% of the cost of a pack is tax).

 

I maintain the laws against both drugs & euthanasia are based on extending specific concepts of morality to private decisions rather than having any basis in protecting public good

I wouldn't disagree with you in priciple. Whilst laws in each case may be based on the legal application of a moral stance, in practice the cases are very different. One denies you the right to mess with your own mind in whatever manner you see fit (and by extension, the risk of ruining an otherwise healthy body), the other attempts to deny you the right to a dignified and merciful death, regardless of the pain and suffering associated with continued life.

 

In short, whilst these laws may (or may not) be based upon specific concepts of morality, laws against drug use can be seen as an attempt to prevent suffering, or at least to avoid the suffering and detrimental physical effects of long-term use in those who wish to take drugs. Thus, it can at least be argued that anti drug laws exist for the benefit of the individual, regardless of the moral rights and wrongs of taking that decision away from them. However, laws against euthenasia have the effect of extending suffering and can in no way be argued to benefit the individual who is suffering, but only those around him/her who have not learned to cope with loss (a symptom of the growing societal belief that eternal youth is a right, and that death is an optional extra).

[MishMish]

Taxing drugs out of price range had already occurred to me, though would say you analogy to cigarettes only supports my position. Must be some reason it's referred to as a "sin tax," if jokingly or unofficially

 

And best not to get me started on the gov't protecting us from ourselves, seems simple enough to me, the way to do so is by ensuring that we have the appropriate information available, but that's another topic and far afield

 

So back to euthanasia

 

I am rather conflicted on it, the primary difficulty being how to determine what suffering, or what anything, someone who is unresponsive is or is not experienceing. I think it is very easy to conclude that since we value certain levels of awareness or cognitive abilities, and what they allow us to do, we find it difficult to accept we could live with or accept diminished levels.

 

I would not care to be maintained on life support, have doubts about chemotherapy for that matter, but that is a position I am adopting from my current perspective, and fact is I do not know what my position would be if I were in other circumstances, and I know even less what I would feel if I were unable to formulate it at all. No one does, and that's the rub.

 

I do not think it possible to say that the effect is extending the suffering of the patient, in other words.

 

I do agree the laws against euthanasia have to do with the perceptions of those surrounding the case however. Whether it is an inability to accept death as you suggest, or some inane (and I think poorly formualted or at least incocnsistently applied) concept that human life is sacrosanct on the one side or the financial, time and emotional costs of supporting someone in a vegetative state on the other.

 

I think the specific issue of suffering of the patient needs to be left out of it.

 

I use a scale of nervous development when it comes to issues such as animal rights, the greater the level of nervous development the greater the need must be before some harm can be inflicted on the cirtter when rights come in conflict.

 

I have applied that concept before to my position on abortion, and think it can be applied as well to situations such as the current.

 

The problem with my position is the door it opens to euthanasia of folks with Alzheimer's or the mentally retarded, for example, a charge which would not apply to how I apply the scale as I consider mammals certainly of sufficient nervous development that the greater need must be pretty high before we should be able to inflict harm. But I can certainly see how others would take it the opposite direction.

[Glider]

There is no way to infer suffering in a non-responsive person. This is a problem, but in general, where there is an absence of consciousness (and there are measurable indices for that), there will be an absence of suffering. The experience of pain requires the conscious interpretation of nociceptive information.

 

I think we're talking about two separate categories; persistant vegetative states, and terminal condition accompanied by intractable pain. The former cases are exremely rare on the whole (which is why they tend to make the news when they occur). However, in America, there is such a thing as a 'living will', in which a person may, as a part of their will, provide instructions to family and health care professionals in the event they end up in a persistent vegetative state. This is legal in the US., but not yet in the UK. I think the issue concerning the case of the woman in Florida is central (see the appropriate post), as prior to her coma she expressed her wish for euthenasia , which her husband has chosen to respect, but her family are fighting, calling it 'murder'.

 

The majority of cases however, pertain to individuals who are able to express their wish for euthenasia, but are denied that right. In these cases, I propose that the suffering of the patient is central to the issue, and cannot be left out of it.

 

In all cases, I propose that the wishes of the patient, whether expressed in a living will, or directly, are central to any argument concerning euthenasia. The wishes and personal morals of physicians and members of the patients' family (and government) must be subordinate to the expressed will of the patient.

[MishMish]

I agree.

 

The reason I focussed on the persistent vegetative state situation is because I think of the other more as suicide than euthanasia, even if it is assisted.

 

And am with you that in that case suffering or quality of life is a clear factor, and the patient should have the final say when his wishes on the matter have been expressed

 

The laws against suicide are definitely archaic

[Glider]

Sad, but true.

[YT2095]

So what`s wrong with the Youth in asia?

 

seriously, if it were me laying in that state, I`de hope someone out there loved me enough to "pull the plug".

not that I`de know if they did or not (I`de be in no fit state to recognise it), but if I COULD or DID, I wouldn`t want it man! just lemme go and take my chances out there!

I imagine if would especialy worse for someone that`s lead a very active and independant life too, remaining as a "vegatable" would be as horrible as anything Steven King could write

[MishMish]

Should think would depend on just how much awareness there was, and what I was trying to get at in the bit about not being able to imagine different levels of brain function

 

As for basic pain, as Glider I believe mentioned, should be little if any

 

How any sensory input is being processed, and what the patient feels about any of it, I just don't have a grip on. But I do not expect either that she is able to compare notes with previous states, so that would not be a factor

 

I take the thought of brain damage as one, not the primary but up there, deterrant to suicide. But that's also assuming I'd have enough remaining function to know the difference

 

If you don't know the difference, either congenitally or the extent of injury is severe enough that you can not access those memories or even know they exist, how can you judge what you would think about it

 

Why I think such questions should be left out of it, though they undoubtedly affect my opinion that I would not want to be maintained in such a state

[-Demosthenes-]

I put maybe:

I solely depends on the person who is affected and imeadiate family if the person cannot themselves. Only in severe cases.

[Sayonara]

Send 'em back to God.

[BeckyK]

Like I have said in other posts.. I work at a hospice care unit at the hospital and we have palliative care patient who know they are going to die and have accepted it. Many of them suffer with pain and secretions in their lungs due to their kidneys shutting down and it's horrible, others stay unconscious because of the morphine for weeks. I say if you want to die, and you are going to die anyway, it should be an option. I personally want to go with some dignity.

[ydoaPs]

If I am paralized or need to take several medications to stay alive, then I would want to be killed, so I voted yes.

[Taya!]

Me too, i wouldnt want to die slowly in agony, or make my family watch me waste away. The idea of dying quietly in a recognisable state is much more appealing.

[MolecularMan14]

yes, but I also say it should be regulated, if they were desperate, and there was absolutely no cure, or chance of a better life. Im for just about anything that stops suffering

[LucidDreamer]

Ya, I agree that euthanasia should be allowed. A friend of mine used a strange argument against euthanasia. He said that if euthanasia became legal administrators in nursing homes would get the old people to sign away their stuff to them and then get them to sign the euthanasia papers or that cruel family members would do the same thing. I think he was being a little bit paranoid, but I see his point. So I say yes with regulation.

[coquina]

Unless the terminally ill person has requested extreme measures, I think they should be kept painfree and comfortable. If this means overmedication, which ultimately leads to coma and death, I have no problem with that. As a matter of fact, it is done quite frequently, with morphine and fentanyl (sp) patches.

 

My mother got a staph infection from hip replacement surgery. She was 95, and was unable to overcome the infection. She was in so much pain that when her dressings were changed I could hear her scream all the way down the hall. She was a tough old Brit, and I had never seen her cry or lose control before.

 

Her body was rotting away, and there was nothing anyone could do to stop it. When it became obvious that she was going to die, I told the medical people in the hospital to cease all treatment. I called her family physician, and he gave her sedatives and a fentanyl patch, and she just wound down like an old watch.

 

What I'm saying is, that there is an alternative to a lethal injection that kills someone in moments. They can be allowed to "sleep away" their final days pain free.