Should Euthanasia be legalised?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

But does that make euthanasia immoral?

[John Cuthber]

If I were a physician who felt that the ending of a patient's suffering was in their best interests, and was working in a country where euthanasia weas permitted by law then, as far as I can see, the last version of the hippocratic oath there (and the fact that there are 3 different versions is rather telling) wouldn't rule it out.

 

"That you will be loyal to the Profession of Medicine and just and generous to its members." is irrelevent.

 

"That you will lead your lives and practice your art in uprightness and honor. "

If I thought ending a life that has become a burden is morally correct, then doing so would be honourable.

"That into whatsoever house you shall enter, it shall be for the good of the sick to the utmost of your power, your holding yourselves far aloof from wrong, from corruption, from the tempting of others to vice."

So long as I think it's the right thing to do, in the patient's best interest and that I'm not doing it explicitly for money or personal gain euthanasia still looks OK.

"That you will exercise your art solely for the cure of your patients, and will give no drug, perform no operation, for a criminal purpose, even if solicited, far less suggest it. "

In the case of a terminally ill patient it's possible that all I can do is eliminate their suffering. That's only symptomatic relief rather than cure but the difference is a matter of definition. The patient will die anyway; euthanasia cures their suffering.

"That whatsoever you shall see or hear of the lives of men or women which is not fitting to be spoken, you will keep inviolably secret."

Doesn't enter into this debate.

Euthanasia is a difficult topic but that oath (which is arbitrary anyway) doesn't make much difference. The others definitions are equally troublesome; the first breeds nepotism but prevents much of what would be considered normal medicine. Most drugs are deadly. Abortion is now accepted in most societies.

[DrDNA]

your point?

i know what it is, and i'm just saying that doctors hold it in the highest esteem and euthanasia would profoundly go against it.

 

I just thought that it might be useful for everyone (including moi) to review what the "Hippocratic Oath" or the "Hippo Law" actually is, as it pertains to, and since it is being being referenced in, this debate regarding Euthanasia.

 

I thought that it was relevant to the conversation.

 

You disagree? If, so please accept my apology.

[Zaire]

no, i dont disagree, i mistakenly thought that since you said "hmmm.."

THEN posted the text of the oath, that it was somehow mocking me. so i apologize.

[DrDNA]

no, i dont disagree, i mistakenly thought that since you said "hmmm.."

THEN posted the text of the oath, that it was somehow mocking me. so i apologize.

 

Oh. No absolutely not.

Sorry.

My Hmmm....was intended to be more like....."Hmmmm....this (the oath and "law") is a little different than *I* recall"

[Mr Rayon]

Bluntly, no. Both types seem wrong.

[Psycho]

My personal opinion on the matter is that it should only be given to people who are terminally ill or with a chronic condition and that the person must be of sound mind and judgement to make the decision independent of others influences and it shouldn't be made by anyone other than the individual it concerns.

 

To further that point all known medical treatments should have been tested and have failed or have had little effect as well as with the patients permission experimental treatments which are being researched tried as well.

 

There should also be some kind of paramount on a time frame that has to have passed before the action can take place so that someone can't just wake up and have an epiphany that they want this kind of procedure done. They must make that decision and then dwell on it for a period such as 6 months, or maybe a less time frame depending on the condition, this would reduce the number of people who would have regretted it (if they could) in the future.

 

This would also mean that people who do want to go ahead with it would have a point to aim at and get their affairs in order by.

[zeropoint]

In an ideal world, we should all have the right to chose the time and possibly method of our own demise. It is as much an individual right as any other conferred under the guise of human rights and democratic choice.

 

In the real world, it would be open to so much abuse by criminals and the generally unscrupulous as to be unworkable.

 

It would create another legal gravytrain and place an excessive burden on the already beleagured forces of law and order.

 

All just in my opinion, of course.

 

The question, should youth in asia be legalized.

The answer, yes.

 

I don't agree that it would be abused by criminals if we set it up such that the process would have to be notarized, sanctified, decriminalized, homogenized, and otherwise made to confirm to all forms of paper trails of legalese.

 

Legalized weddings involve paperwork at the county level. Perhaps this sort of documenting is what can decriminalize the process. Like marriage, which involves legal papers, euthanasia would be recorded at some government level. Unlike, divorce, it would not involve as much of a gravytrain for the attorney, nor excess burden on the legal system if set up this way.

 

I believe in TOTAL freedom of the idividual in as many situations as possible where it does not deprive other people of their rights and freedoms.

[ParanoiA]

Nice posts on this subject. My only two cents at this point is to note that to deny someone's right to kill themselves, either immediately in one act, or slowly over time, is to presuppose that your end goals are the same as theirs and obligate them to fulfill them; that everyone should try to live as long as possible, always choosing quantity of life, as in time, over quality of life, as perceived by the individual.

 

This includes smoking, drugs, youth in asia, and etc.

 

Some of us don't want to live very long, but rather live very rich.

[gcol]

Paranoia:

 

I think you might have blurred the difference between suicide and euthenasia somewhat.

Anyone can do suicide, no problem, no outside assistance needed. Euthenasia requires an accomplice, a conspirator in some degree of murder. Only the state can get away with that. How about State Euthenasia Centres? Queue up, in you go, a drug induced halucinogenic haze, and hello heaven. Then recycle the body into fertiliser or pig feed. Very environmentally friendly.

 

I like the Youth In Asia gag, very droll. I understan there are many YIA's who would willingly assist the suicide of Youth In Europe/America. (Joke!)

[ParanoiA]

That's true. I don't know why that didn't register for me when I was posting, sorry.

[brainslice]

Everyone should have the ability to seeks means to there own demise without moral consequences or rebuke.

[JHAQ]

Yes ; absolutely.

[halogirl]

yes, its sad but wouldn't it be better to give terminally ill patients a choice? rather then suffering through a drawn out half-life, they could get all their things in order and then enjoy a few last luxeries, then go to sleep. like in soylent green.