When is it ok to kill?

[imatfaal]

I'm at risk of sending my own thread off topic here but, in the UK the NHS's biggest drain is, the "ethical" need to keep people alive (for the sake of life). If, along with the "Donor Card" a "Living Will Card" could be kept about ones person many, many millions could be saved, here, at least, in the UK.

 

 

 

Do you have any backup to that? The NHS is there to keep people fit, healthy and alive granted - but your message implies that one of the largest drains on the NHS is the resuscitation and life-support of those who should/could be allowed to die. This strikes me as highly controversial and factually very flawed - I would love to see some evidence.

[iNow]

The point is that since it's centrally funded healthcare they seek to avoid paying for treatments that have a low likelihood of success. If the person is considered too far gone, they're not likely to pony up the cash to cover the treatments from the government level. This is where private insurance as a supplement comes in. If people want care even when the likelihood of success from that care is minimal, they are welcome to go get it, but they'd have to pay for it themselves as the state simply won't.

[HGrimston]

The point is that since it's centrally funded healthcare they seek to avoid paying for treatments that have a low likelihood of success. If the person is considered too far gone, they're not likely to pony up the cash to cover the treatments from the government level. This is where private insurance as a supplement comes in. If people want care even when the likelihood of success from that care is minimal, they are welcome to go get it, but they'd have to pay for it themselves as the state simply won't.

 

Sounds an awful lot like "death panels" to me

[iNow]

I know you're being cheeky... but just to clarify a serious point... Nobody is putting anyone to death. They are saying that the treatment being requested is so unlikely to work that they're not going to risk public money to cover it. If you want it, super. Go do it, but you cover it either with your own private insurance or out of pocket. The state will not reimburse it.

 

The level of ignorance that is required to seriously believe that's equivalent to a "death panel" is a bit astounding. I understand this is not you, though.

[HGrimston]

I know you're being cheeky... but just to clarify a serious point... Nobody is putting anyone to death. They are saying that the treatment being requested is so unlikely to work that they're not going to risk public money to cover it. If you want it, super. Go do it, but you cover it either with your own private insurance or out of pocket. The state will not reimburse it.

 

The level of ignorance that is required to seriously believe that's equivalent to a "death panel" is a bit astounding. I understand this is not you, though.

 

Thank you for catching the sarcasm. I actually tend to think that the system you just described is, in a word, desirable.

[Dr. Maybe]

Each person should be able to 'determine" if they do or do not desire to live anymore. And if someone is "unable" to rationally make this judgement, then I'm open to suggestions.

[Severian]

I think it is never "OK to kill". It may be the lesser of two evils, so ultimately be something that society decides to do, but it is never "OK".

[zapatos]

I think it is never "OK to kill". It may be the lesser of two evils, so ultimately be something that society decides to do, but it is never "OK".

Using words like "never" will "always" get you in trouble.

 

I can easily come up with scenarios where killing someone is not only OK, but is the right thing to do. I don't know why people have enough compassion to end the suffering of a dog but won't offer the end of suffering to a person.

 

edit - My last comment was not meant to apply to you or anyone specific.

Edited July 17, 2012 by zapatos

[D H]

Would assisted suicide make life insurance benefits null and void? Should it?

+1 rep for such a nasty question. It's the nasty questions that test things.

 

I think the answer is "it depends". If I go out and buy life insurance today, only to commit suicide tomorrow (or in most states, within two years), the life insurance company can dispute the claim. The same applies to my dying of cancer tomorrow. The life insurance company can still dispute the claim on the grounds that I withheld key information from them. On the other hand, if the life insurance policy has been in place for more than two or three years (depending on jurisdiction), even plain ordinary suicide is a covered death. How does assisted suicide change this equation?

[Moontanman]

I remember a scene from an old movie, a guy had crashed a light airplane and was trapped inside and during the crash he had become soaked with gasoline. His buddy was trying desperately to get him out of the plane but it was impossible and the guy went nuts as he saw the flame approaching and begged to be killed before he burned to death, his buddy took a large board ad killed him before he could burn to death...

 

Was the guys friend being immoral? Was the killing justified?

 

Could this be extrapolated to justify killing anyone who was in pain and had no hope of recovery?

 

I lean toward the killing being justified but I can't equate it with non time critical mercy killing either...

[Severian]

Using words like "never" will "always" get you in trouble.

 

I can easily come up with scenarios where killing someone is not only OK, but is the right thing to do. I don't know why people have enough compassion to end the suffering of a dog but won't offer the end of suffering to a person.

 

edit - My last comment was not meant to apply to you or anyone specific.

 

You entirely missed the point.

[zapatos]

You entirely missed the point.

When you said...

I think it is never "OK to kill". It may be the lesser of two evils, so ultimately be something that society decides to do, but it is never "OK".

...I thought that your point was that it is never 'ok to kill', but as the lesser of two evils, society may choose to do so anyway.

 

Since I entirely got that wrong, can you tell me what your point actually was?

[Severian]

Since I entirely got that wrong, can you tell me what your point actually was?

 

You went wrong at the point where you said "I can easily come up with scenarios where killing someone is not only OK, but is the right thing to do." You seem to assume that an action is automatically "OK" because it is the "right thing to do". I disagree.

[zapatos]

You went wrong at the point where you said "I can easily come up with scenarios where killing someone is not only OK, but is the right thing to do." You seem to assume that an action is automatically "OK" because it is the "right thing to do". I disagree.

Right. Not only OK, but the right thing to do. Those two can go together. I did not say if it is the right thing to do then it is automatically OK. You are saying that killing is never OK, even when it is the right thing to do. I disagree with your position and was saying so. I understood completely, I just disagreed. You make it sound as if the only reason to disagree with you is if one does not understand you.

[Severian]

You make it sound as if the only reason to disagree with you is if one does not understand you.

 

Well, at least you understood some part of it.

[zapatos]

Well, at least you understood some part of it.

I'm having a hard time coming up with a response. I've never met anyone so condescending and pompous before. How do you have a discussion with someone who feels that only he is capable of being right?

[fresh]

Life is a sexually transmitted disease: it has a 100 % mortality rate.

 

 

why u say Life is a sexually transmitted disease ?? seems life sucks as hell. if it is, mercy killing is very necessary. people having right to survive is the same as having the right to end his life.

[dimreepr]

why u say Life is a sexually transmitted disease ??

 

Without medical intervention, no sex = no offspring.

 

 

seems life sucks as hell.

 

 

Life sucks when you let it suck.

 

if it is, mercy killing is very necessary. people having right to survive is the same as having the right to end his life.

 

 

The point of this thread is to establish the conditions when the act of killing is considered lawful.

[random]

Before I post I must honestly claim this is here say but I can verify it comes directly from those in the frontlines of the medical profession.

Assisted suicide or "murder" is routinely carried out in hospitals already the method used is morphine provided in increasingly larger doses until the patient succumbs. It can of course be argued the patient requires increasingly larger doses to control pain which provides a convenient "out" but coming directly from nurses who have seen it first hand (and also have knowledge on appropriate dosing) quite often it is a compassionate gesture by the doctor. Everyone knows its happening and why but everyone keeps their mouth shut because its the humane thing to do.

 

Again I have to say it's here say and I have no desire to get in an endless debate about it

[zapatos]

Before I post I must honestly claim this is here say but I can verify it comes directly from those in the frontlines of the medical profession.

Assisted suicide or "murder" is routinely carried out in hospitals already the method used is morphine provided in increasingly larger doses until the patient succumbs. It can of course be argued the patient requires increasingly larger doses to control pain which provides a convenient "out" but coming directly from nurses who have seen it first hand (and also have knowledge on appropriate dosing) quite often it is a compassionate gesture by the doctor. Everyone knows its happening and why but everyone keeps their mouth shut because its the humane thing to do.

 

Again I have to say it's here say and I have no desire to get in an endless debate about it

I can confirm from personal experience that this occurs, and believe that not only is it justified, but that in many cases it would be immoral not to do so.

[namisthebabe]

It depends. morals are subjective.

 

Most persons think it's wrong to kill. However, distinctions are commonly made for self-defence, ritual, competition, or war.

 

Arbitrary killing is deemed wrong in most cultures. However, the Aztecs practiced human sacrifice. The Romans practiced gladiatorialism.

 

Anything goes in life.

[menageriemanor]

To see someone suffering, desperately wanting death... if it was done as gently and kindly as my vet PTS's my animals, it is an act of gentle kindness. My dogs are eating roast chicken, happily, as they get their needle. They die literally, in mid chew. Not a moment of suffering shown.

 

If that person, in that suffering, WANTING death, costing thousands of pounds per week to keep alive, is given those resources, someone, somewhere else, WANTING life, needing treatment, is held up, in the public system, NOT getting the care they need because the funds/beds are not there. Many of these people are in the public system, often having not worked, with illness or injury. So those believing they are fighting for every life are in fantasy land. You are in effect, CHOOSING life for one, and so denying help to those who die, who desperately want life, because they can't get into the system, or who live in great suffering, because the op to help cannot be justified, when budget constraints mean those with less likelihood of survival, are denied, because that is the reality of budgets in hospitals, and that person, wanting death, is within the system, using a lot of funds. The reality of the health system is NOT PRETTY.

 

To argue this, is without understanding that in refusing to help someone end their suffering, you also often block someone from the gift of life they are desperate for. the quality of life they could have, but for funds. The hospital system is not funded by a fountain of money, directed wherever needed. I DON'T use this to push for the poor to be PTS. The wealthy may have the money to pay for an extended life, but if they don't want it, with their quality of life, their wealth may be seen as an unending open cheque by a private hospital.

 

I find it madness that many who screech at the sanctity of life, often don't care enough to fight to save whole species of healthy animals, that are hunted, slaughtered for recreation and thuggish pleasure, whittled in numbers to extinction, whilst bleating that great grandpa, now a wasted, ,suffering, rarely conscious poo and urine machine, has another 6 months of life dragged out, with the use of multimillion dollar equipment, against his will, when rational.

 

There are NO UNLIMITED funds for hospitals. Machines keep people alive when in reality, they would be long dead. If that is what they want, that they fight for every breath, fine. If they are begging to be let go, it is extremely cruel and cowardly, to refuse them. No one sane takes pleasure in killing, but as every vet will tell you, when it is time, when there is no more to be done, and suffering will simply increase. To not help, would, I am sure, haunt doctors FAR MORE. I must say, I am not in the health system. but have lost family, who declared loudly and repeatedly, if I am bedridden, if I am a helpless, undignified mess, tell every doctor, no feeding, no drawn out life. Lots of painkiller and keep upping the dose. Luckily, my mother dropped dead in a chemist's shop. I know she would have been pleased with that, tho FURIOUS she had just spent a packet on dental care.

 

Similarly, tho I am left wing/intellectual/compassionate in leaning, there are cases where particularly sick murderers, in clear cases, I think could well be PTS, not as punishment, but as you would PTS a rabied dog. Like that Finnish?chap. He will cost a fortune to keep in isolation, his health, his guards. That same money would save the lives/improve the lives of kindly, loved and loving people who can't afford private health care. Every year, more people could have had the help they needed, to live or to return to mainstream life. He killed so many, he's identified, the case is open/shut, he admits it, and he is quite happy to die. That money could be used, for decades of his potential life, saving/helping people suffering/dying now. Or spend it on saving an endangered species.

Edited April 9, 2013 by menageriemanor

[arc]

WHEN IS IT OK TO KILL?

 

When you find the piece of #$@% who's dumping the Michael Kor spam on here.

[Roers]

The only time killing someone is when death is a better, real choice then living.

You don't think about the thought though.

It's when both people know what the best real option is then why not let nature just happen?

Killing in any emotions not like that seems to be very, uneasy. I think there is too much biased in emotional thinking(obviously, ha!)and if someone wants to be the Alpha they'll have to kill the other.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Roers

[ewmon]

To understand what someone with locked-in syndrome might experience, I suggest reading The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, the relatively short, yet amazing autobiography of Jean-Dominique Bauby, chief editor of the French magazine Elle, who suffered from it (and died). He spelled out every word in his book by blinking his one usable eye. In literature, a character with locked-in syndrome appears in the novel The Count of Monte Cristo, which seems to be the first mention of this condition in fiction or non-fiction.

 

In America, if a doctor says you need this med or that therapy, the patient can sign an AMA form (Against Medical Advice) and then go do whatever they want to do. Just because a doctor says something doesn't mean that the patient must abide by it. I knew an old woman with lymphatic cancer, who simply stopped the chemo treatment, stopped taking nourishment, eventually became unresponsive, and expired at home a few days later surrounded by loved ones. She took the natural course.

 

What you need to do is press the "mute" button on doctors who insist on prolonging one's life no matter what. It's like the dentists who think everyone should die with all their natural teeth in their heads. Of course they do, that's how they make their living. As the saying goes, "Never ask a barber if you need a haircut". First it's fillings, then it's crowns, then it's root canals, then it's implants, and finally it's dentures. Stop paying for their in-ground pools or their around-the-world cruises. I knew a kid in middle school with a full set of dentures. Who cares?

 

I wouldn't doubt that doctors have given patients the option of death for many years now. For patients with cancer or other painful diseases, they might prescribe an opiate for the pain and warn the patient that it might be fatal if they "took too much" and then proceed to tell then how much is too much. So, one day, when the patient can't bear the pain anymore, s/he takes "too much" medication and dies. The funeral announcement would state that the person died from complications caused by their cancer, and their death certificate would state opiate overdose as the cause of death with advanced stage cancer present. No mystery there. At the wake, the word would go around in whispers, heads would nod knowingly, etc. Why prolong the suffering?

 

Funeral announcements have used code words for as long as I can remember regarding suicide from depression. If the person suffered depression for years before killing him/herself, the funeral announcement would say that s/he died from a "chronic illness". If the person suffered acute depression (such as the sudden loss of a loved one) before killing him/herself, the announcement would say that s/he died from a "recent illness". The point is, people have been committing suicide for many years now, it's just not that obvious.