There has been some debate here over euthanasia.
A woman, Nancy Crick committed suicide with drugs she bought over the 'net. She was diagnosed with terminal cancer and her bowel had been removed. She had tried hospital care / pain management but decided that her quality of life was not good enough.
Turns out she did not have more cancer, only an in-operable twisted bowel. (she had lost extreme amounts of weight and would have been in pain for the rest of her life)
In my home town someone commited suicide by rolling their wheelchair off the end of a public jetty. They had tried a few times before and had been refused the drugs needed.
It is well known in medical circles that fatal doses of medications are often given to paitents by medico's. It is just not talked about.
Another woman is asking to be allowed to commit suicide as she has motor neurone disease and soon will not be able to self administer. (In Australia not stopping someone commiting suicide is pretty much the same crime as manslaughter)
I have taken my pets, one that I grew up with for 15+ years, to the vet and had them put down. I did it because they could not 'enjoy' their life anymore. As much as it hurt me I could not see them suffer.
If we give this relief to a pet, why not the people we love?
on one side, it's suicide
on the other side, it's relief
i guess it depends on your background. that kind of thing really can't be decided on a national level.
Its your own personal choice......if someone has a moral or religious conviction that euthanasia is wrong then that's there view, but I dont see why it should impact on someone else's decision to be put out of their misery......
So yeah....I'm in favour
i'm in total agreement with it.
3 separate independant doctors could inspect a patient. if they all think its a good thing to prevent needless suffering, if the patient, patient's spouse, patient's children all agree, then what right does a state have to interfere ???
"i'm in total agreement with it."
I am all for
Why does the state think they should control what I do with my body/life? It is all mine and no ones busnies if I want to shut it of.
In the Netherlands euthanasia is legal. I've experienced that it is not the state that controls what we do with our bodies, but it is ourselves. If most people don't want it, then politics decide that it to be illegal. In the Netherlands, most people voted yes when asked if euthanasia should be legal, so it is legal now. I also voted yes. If the pain of someone is too much, or if someone doesn't see better times and says that he/she doesn't want to live any longer, then in my opinion I don't have the right to say: you stay alive.
Though there are still a lot of people who disagree with it. Mainly because of their religion. They say: when euthanasia is legal then we people are going to decide about live and dead, but it is god who decides about that. I have no religion, but I respect the meaning of those people.
The main big problem here was: who decided to apply euthanasia? Assume a person has so much pain, can't think anymore and can't communicate anymore. than such person can't tell if he/she doesn't want to live any longer. Or assume someone is in coma for many many years. Euthanasia is legal, so a doctor may apply it, but who decides that it is to be done?
In Belgium they are even further with euthanasia. There they are talking about a law which makes it legal for a doctor to decide to apply euthanasia.
>>Why does the state think they should control what I do with my body/life?
>>It is all mine and no ones busnies if I want to shut it of.
Exactly. Control I guess. I dont really know. Taking the next logical step, why not make it illegal to hurt yourself? Then define 'hurting yourself'. Couldnt it then be illegal to perform activities that are likely to result in pain? (Biking, skating, _snowboarding_?)
It appears to be on of those many 'hangover' laws that havent been keeping up with the times (like abortion). If we dont have control over our own selves then what _do_ we have?
my thoughts on euthenasia:
it's your body, do what you are like. The only tyme that the govt(cheez) can/should intervene is when the person is mentally unfit to make the decision.
well i must admit, i've got one eye on my inheritance...the longer they live the more of it they'll be spending.......
>>3 separate independant doctors could inspect a patient. if they all think its a good thing to prevent needless suffering, if the patient, patient's spouse, patient's children all agree, then what right does a state have to interfere ???
This is almost exactly the law one state introduced. The federal govt over-ruled it before anyone could use the laws.
This topic is soooo sensitive and complicated.
Is it really as simple as saying "I agree" or "I disagree"?
(IM not going to get to deep into this... I think the mods deleted a thread cause of me once...)
"Is it really as simple as saying "I agree" or "I disagree"?"
Yup, whilst there are complicated situations that arise if the individual no longer has the faculties to decide for themselves, the question whether or not someone should have the right to terminate their own life is a simple one.
I think that people should be able to make their own choices about if they live or die, but I voted 'no' becuase this could be used by people who wanted to simply 'get rid of' they're elderly parents or relations in order to get their inheritance or something, though, you'd have to be quite a sick person to do so.
I remember seeing something the other day when some guy on TV said "There should be euthanasia-asisting drugs avaliable for those who want to use them in your local supermarket..." but that would be abust so much it isn't funny.