64 replies to this topic

[generalgsus]

I think that if people feel like they no longer want to live or suffer on this Earth that they should be allowed to end their lives with Euthanasia. I mean, it is their life after all.

[jcrdude]

Recently watched a movie called "You Don't Know Jack" from HBO. It was about Jack Kevorkian. It was an interesting tale about an interesting man.

Al Pacino as Jack Kevorkian
Susan Sarandon as one of Jack's friends.
John Goodman as a medical supplier that is one of Jack's close friends.

Everyone did a great job and the movie held my attention the entire time.

If you don't have HBO, you should know where to look for this movie

[NeoVix]

I agree with it as long as the person actually wants it...though this could be pretty hard to find out. they could be under pressure from family etc.

If they are in pain and WANT to end it, why not? Suicide isnt illegal (that would be pretty pointless though, lol) so why should it be illegal to help someone who CANT commit suicide...

Bit of a dark subject

[DragonX]

::My view::

People should have the right to end their lives when the chose.
I am a Christian and think God doesn't want people to needlessly suffer and he would understand why a person chose euthanasia. Most arguments to the contrary put up by conservatives focus on obscure passages in the Old Testament, which is full of obscure laws that aren't followed anymore.

There are ways of ensuring that people can chose when they want to die and that loopholes allowing relatives to chose are closed. And if healthcare reform happened in the US then insurance companies would be barred from making such offers.

I think terminal illness is a really broad term. Honestly, some mental illnesses can cause such a compromise in quality of life and such intolerable suffering, I wonder if those people could chose when they want to die too (instead of being classified as incapacitated to make such a decision).

We have liberty in almost any other way, why not choosing if we live or not?

I am a Christian as well and I think there is a fine line between "relieving misery" and "playing God".

For one, there would be, inevitably, many "grey" lines in policy making. If a person is really so ill, chances are that they are also severely impaired. If that's the case, will euthanasia be permitted for the patient? Who makes the decision? How do you know what the patient is really feeling?

Moreover, even if the patient isn't impaired, illness/disease is something that takes time to accept. I've worked at a hospital for awhile and I can tell you that every patient has good and bad days. Some days, many patients may feel like life is not worth living. Others, they are really glad they still have the chance to live. Where do you draw the line of accepting a patient's will to die? For instance, the day someone learns they have cancer, they may feel like life is no longer worth living and endevour euthanasia. If their wish is not granted, however, the patient will adapt, and very often, will appreciate the fact that they are not dead. If this were not the case, patients would not chose chemotherapy.

[BuckFutter]

For instance, the day someone learns they have cancer, they may feel like life is no longer worth living and endevour euthanasia. If their wish is not granted, however, the patient will adapt, and very often, will appreciate the fact that they are not dead. If this were not the case, patients would not chose chemotherapy.

I see where you're going here, but I don't really agree all the way. I believe for the most part, we as humans try to avoid pain as much as we can, unless the endurance of said pain leads to a greater reward. A young person diagnosed with cancer may opt for chemotherapy to have a chance at decades more of their life, but what if a 90 year old patient is diagnosed with cancer, yet they wish not to have chemotherapy because they believe "hell, i'm 90 years old. if the cancer doesn't kill me, the chemotherapy process will". I think this passive euthanasia is actually very common, and more consistent with optimistic, older individuals who are acceptive of death. And it is legal to refuse treatment, btw. At least in the US.

Edited by BuckFutter, 16 May 2010 - 10:19 PM.

[ArticTheTiger]

I am for euthanasia on medical level yes, it should be carried out for people without hope of ever being able to live a normal painless life, if they lose the will to fight.

This decision might be heartcrushing for their loved ones (hell I broke down when we put our 18 year old cat down) but in the end its exactly the same; you don't want to see the person suffer, so you have to allow them to pass on.

I am not christian, catholic or whatever is out there, but I believe that they are better off with whatever is beyond that line than with what they get for living here.

[DragonX]

This decision might be heartcrushing for their loved ones (hell I broke down when we put our 18 year old cat down) but in the end its exactly the same; you don't want to see the person suffer, so you have to allow them to pass on.

I am not christian, catholic or whatever is out there, but I believe that they are better off with whatever is beyond that line than with what they get for living here.

That's the thing though. Suffering does not necessarily mean that life is not worth living. There are some special needs people who have many many difficulties with every day tasks and suffer seizures. I'm sure they are suffering...does that mean they shouldn't live?

To whom will the power to make the call that person's life is no longer worth living lie with? How does that person really know what the patient is feeling? You won't really know unless you're in thier situation. Even then, its probably different for everyone.

I see where you're going here, but I don't really agree all the way. I believe for the most part, we as humans try to avoid pain as much as we can, unless the endurance of said pain leads to a greater reward. A young person diagnosed with cancer may opt for chemotherapy to have a chance at decades more of their life, but what if a 90 year old patient is diagnosed with cancer, yet they wish not to have chemotherapy because they believe "hell, i'm 90 years old. if the cancer doesn't kill me, the chemotherapy process will". I think this passive euthanasia is actually very common, and more consistent with optimistic, older individuals who are acceptive of death. And it is legal to refuse treatment, btw. At least in the US.

The same is for Canada. There is a difference between refusing treatment and adminstering euthanasia.

"hell, i'm 90 years old. if the cancer doesn't kill me, the chemotherapy process will".
^That's not always true. There are many reasons one could refuse treatment. Sometimes, they just want to enjoy the rest of their life that's left without all the hassles of chemotherapy and accept the affects of cancer.

[BuckFutter]

The same is for Canada. There is a difference between refusing treatment and adminstering euthanasia.

"hell, i'm 90 years old. if the cancer doesn't kill me, the chemotherapy process will".
^That's not always true. There are many reasons one could refuse treatment. Sometimes, they just want to enjoy the rest of their life that's left without all the hassles of chemotherapy and accept the affects of cancer.

Regarding the quote, I was just pointing out a possible thought in a hypothetical individual that may lead them to this passive euthanasia, not that all individuals in such a situation share that thought.

[DragonX]

Regarding the quote, I was just pointing out a possible thought in a hypothetical individual that may lead them to this passive euthanasia, not that all individuals in such a situation share that thought.

Yes, one of the blockades to legalizing euthanasia would be an accurate method of identifying the difference Indeed, family members, and many times the patient themself, may not even know.

[laraboots]

I always lulz when people say 'legalize suicide' . I don't think the fact the suicide is illegal has actually stopped anyone from committing suicide. More so the purpose of the law isn't really to stop people from committing suicide, it's to stop people from thinking it's acceptable to commit suicide, in turn stopping anyone else from making it easier to help someone commit suicide for their own advantage.

As for Euthanasia, people pull your head out of your arse. Euthanasia isn't wrong because it's immoral or against christian standards. It's wrong because to legalize it would have so many consequences.

1. Who's decision would it be exactly to euthanize?
2. If you rest it solely with the person, how are you sure they aren't suffering duress?
3. Who do you sue, when the Doctor makes a mistake?
4. Doctors make mistakes, I read a study years ago on Euthanasia and something like 1/5 of the people who had volunteered to be euthanized because they were diagonised terminal at a certain date, had recovered and in some cases fully recovered or their life expectancy had been much longer then anticipated.
5. If people want to Euthanise themselves, that's there choice they'll be dead, there aren't going to be any consequences from this. However to legalise it, would mean people can help out those people and in short people can't be trusted.
6. I read some other study years ago into euthanasia and people who had volunteered because they were terminal a number (don't know which number) of people were either under duress or did it for their families rather than for themselves.
7. You might say 'yeah but you don't have to do it until they are seriously dying', fair enough but do you think people who are seriously dying have the mental capacity to make this decision.
8. It's been made legal in some countries, I'd be interested to find out how that's going.
9. Not to mention hospital pressure to clear out beds making room for other patients, fuck if Euthanasia was legal it'd be a minefield.

If people weren't selfish, untrustworthy and it was a magical land full of faeries and meepits it might actually work. It's unfortunate that people have to suffer, it really is.

[jcrdude]

1. Who's decision would it be exactly to euthanize?
2. If you rest it solely with the person, how are you sure they aren't suffering duress?
3. Who do you sue, when the Doctor makes a mistake?
4. Doctors make mistakes, I read a study years ago on Euthanasia and something like 1/5 of the people who had volunteered to be euthanized because they were diagonised terminal at a certain date, had recovered and in some cases fully recovered or their life expectancy had been much longer then anticipated.
5. If people want to Euthanise themselves, that's there choice they'll be dead, there aren't going to be any consequences from this. However to legalise it, would mean people can help out those people and in short people can't be trusted.
6. I read some other study years ago into euthanasia and people who had volunteered because they were terminal a number (don't know which number) of people were either under duress or did it for their families rather than for themselves.
7. You might say 'yeah but you don't have to do it until they are seriously dying', fair enough but do you think people who are seriously dying have the mental capacity to make this decision.
8. It's been made legal in some countries, I'd be interested to find out how that's going.
9. Not to mention hospital pressure to clear out beds making room for other patients, fuck if Euthanasia was legal it'd be a minefield.

1. It is always the sufferer's decision. If the person is unable to communicate their wishes, then this gets deferred to the "pull the plug" debate.
2. Second opinions. When a patient consults with multiple doctors, and multiple doctors come to the same conclusion, it reinforces the solidity of the diagnosis.
3. Which doctor is making the mistake? The diagnosing doctor, or the doctor assisting the suicide?
4. Recoveries would fall under #2. When multiple doctors make a diagnosis on a disease that has a 99% mortality rate, it's the sufferer's decision on whether that 1% gamble is worth it.
5. Who are you saying can't be trusted? The person administering the lethal medications?
6. Doing it for the families is a part of doing it for yourself. Tell me "I've lost complete control of my body to a point where I literally cannot feed myself, and I'm shitting all over myself and my family has to clean it up" isn't a semi-viable justification.
7. Yes. Their bodies are affected, not necessarily their brains (with some exceptions like extreme cases of Alzheimer's)
8. Not sure. Haven't looked into it.
9. The hospital would not be in charge of administering the treatment in my best case scenario. It would be handled by a third party OUTSIDE of the hospital so that pressure cannot be exerted on the decision.

If you find yourself with a little bit of time, "You Don't Know Jack" is an interesting movie about Jack Kevorkian's life. It was aired on HBO, but if you know where to look, you can find it. If DDL is preferred, I can provide links.

[Redemptionist]

really doesn't matter to me

[Sweeney]

really doesn't matter to me

I'm so glad I know that, now. I can die happy.

[luvsmyncis]

I'm so glad I know that, now. I can die happy.

Sorry. You're not on the list of people to be euthanized. 

[Jiraiya]

Sorry. You're not on the list of people to be euthanized.

1. It is always the sufferer's decision.

He can join the list if he wants to..

[devil669988]

euthanasia should be legal only when there is no cure available or theres a severe injury causing unbearable pain

[emerkeng]

It should definitely be legalized it has its uses and as long as it is not forced euthanasia and the person has their choice to undergo the process or not I don't see why it should be illegalized if they're in pain and suffering they should be allowed to end their suffering peacefully.

[Unseen]

You can kill yourself if you have a logical reason? Hell if someone is serious why not let them kill themselves whenever

[wtfints]

i'm a yes for euthanasia.

[Sweeney]

You can kill yourself if you have a logical reason? Hell if someone is serious why not let them kill themselves whenever

The discussion is over euthanisation of people who are physically unable to commit suicide.

Do please try to follow the conversation before posting inane drivel.

[Powerrrr]

It should be legalised. If you were bedridden, you can't do much and be a burden to your family, you should be allowed to choose to die.

[Faval]

We do it for cats/dogs/birds/etc, I don't see why we can't do it for humans. Double standard society...

Edited by Faval, 01 September 2010 - 11:33 AM.

[Ziz]

We do it for cats/dogs/birds/etc, I don't see why we can't do it for humans. Double standard society...

-
Yes, but thats only correct in critical situations.
I think that could create another debate.

Both human and animal euthanasia should only be allowed under certain situatins, but almost sometimes the limits are so thin that we cant tell whats correct and whats not.
I guess we'd have to only trust the person is completely sure and have reasons for doing it...

[Lallard]

1. It is always the sufferer's decision. If the person is unable to communicate their wishes, then this gets deferred to the "pull the plug" debate.

Good call putting that one up. So assuming that the person has been in coma for such a long time, would value reason over that slim hope that your love one would survive. Anyways that's definitely worth debating for on another thread.

Now considering whether the person should have the legal right to choose to end their life, I'd have to say that I'm totally be in for that. If they decide that it's time to call the shots (under the grounds that they're not suicidal, and sane of course) then go for it. If everything it's rather sad how people appear to have been forced by family members to live, when clearly they're hinting that with the pain that they have to go through is just beyond repair.

[Faval]

-
Yes, but thats only correct in critical situations.
I think that could create another debate.

Both human and animal euthanasia should only be allowed under certain situatins, but almost sometimes the limits are so thin that we cant tell whats correct and whats not.
I guess we'd have to only trust the person is completely sure and have reasons for doing it...

I'm basing what I'm saying on the first medical definition of enthanasia.

"1. The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment.

The American Heritage® Medical Dictionary Copyright © 2007, 2004 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved."

Based on the definition, I believe that counts as a critical situation.

Edited by Faval, 02 September 2010 - 06:48 AM.