PDA

View Full Version : euthanasia



novacain
05-28-2002, 03:52 AM
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?

ygfperson
05-28-2002, 05:01 AM
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.

Fordy
05-28-2002, 07:08 AM
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

stevey
05-28-2002, 10:38 AM
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 ???

Clyde
05-28-2002, 11:24 AM
"i'm in total agreement with it."

ditto.

Barjor
05-28-2002, 12:32 PM
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.

Shiro
05-28-2002, 01:07 PM
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.

lightatdawn
05-28-2002, 02:33 PM
>>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?

Aran
05-28-2002, 05:00 PM
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.

stevey
05-28-2002, 07:21 PM
well i must admit, i've got one eye on my inheritance...the longer they live the more of it they'll be spending.......

Dual-Catfish
05-28-2002, 08:01 PM
I'm 100% in favor of it.

novacain
05-28-2002, 10:36 PM
>>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.

Vicious
05-29-2002, 12:15 AM
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...)

Clyde
05-29-2002, 04:45 AM
"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.

face_master
05-29-2002, 05:29 AM
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.

stevey
05-29-2002, 09:14 AM
Originally posted by novacain
>>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.

oh mebe i'm not so dumb after all !! :) it seems reasonable. obviously you need to make very very sure there is no abuse of the 'right to die'.
people are often 'switched off ' life support when its felt its hopeless, so euthanasia is pretty similar. in fact its often carried out on the sly by with-holding treatment.
midwifes many years ago did not bother slapping and getting a baby to breathe when the baby was beyond hope or was really badly disfigured etc. i think it can be crueller to preserve life at all costs. trouble is it can be a subjective thing.

novacain
05-29-2002, 08:25 PM
We get a tiny octopus here called the 'blue ringed octopus'. They are the size of a ping pong ball with legs. Normally brown they go yellow with very bright blue/purple rings when angry (they are very pretty when angry). If they bite you within minutes you are compleatly paralised. No breathing or heart beat, can't even blink, but you can hear and see. (someone survived for over 2 hours after being bitten on a crayfishing boat as they got CPR constantly until they reached a hospital)



What if you were in a coma like that and someone wanted to pull the plug?

stevey
05-29-2002, 08:43 PM
you aren't in that type of coma for years though are you ??

more worrying is the cases of people who come out of coma's after years. but these people are not 'brain dead', just incapable of resussitation for some reason. if you are brain dead then you are beyond hope - pull the plug.

novacain
05-30-2002, 09:38 PM
>>This is almost exactly the law one state introduced. The federal govt over-ruled it before anyone could use the laws.

Futher research shows four people did use the law before it was over ruled.

stevey
05-31-2002, 06:12 PM
anyone seen the film 'Awakenings'.....first film to make me shed a tear in years......

the subject of coma's and deep regressions may be a tricky one as far as euthanasia is concerned. i wonder whats the longest someones been in a coma, and come out of it ???

Fordy
06-01-2002, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by stevey
anyone seen the film 'Awakenings'.....first film to make me shed a tear in years......

the subject of coma's and deep regressions may be a tricky one as far as euthanasia is concerned. i wonder whats the longest someones been in a coma, and come out of it ???

Hmm.. I remember reading somewhere that the charactor that De Niro played was altered from what he was like in real life.....supposedly, after "awakening" this person constantly abused the staff and was the most antisocial psycho imaginable......

Read that years ago though...not sure how accurate it really was....

tyler
06-01-2002, 11:08 AM
I don't like the idea of euthanasia.

It is degrading to human life. It promotes death, over life. What if the person commit suicide, and then, 2 days later, they found a cure for the disease? The person just killed themselves for nothing. Eventually, if euthanasia was to be legalized, laws would become more and more liberal. What if they started considering depression a reason to commit suicide? Then anyone feeling down on themselves for a day or so would just kill themselves! It would bring suicide rates to an all time high.

I understand that people suffer, but this issue is just too degrading to human life to be a good thing.

Fordy
06-01-2002, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by tyler

What if the person commit suicide, and then, 2 days later, they found a cure for the disease? The person just killed themselves for nothing.

The likelihood of that pales into insignificance compared to the millions of people who will carry on suffering without getting that "miracle cure" in time.


Originally posted by tyler
What if they started considering depression a reason to commit suicide? Then anyone feeling down on themselves for a day or so would just kill themselves! It would bring suicide rates to an all time high.

I dont think the avarage suicidal manic depressive is too concerened with the legality of suicide. If he/she wants to kill themselves, I doubt they would need the state to help.

Adjusting a law to reflect changes in society does not mean things must spiral out of control.....

novacain
06-01-2002, 11:42 AM
tyler
I share your concerns about the 'abuse' of any law s created to deal with euthanasia.

>>It promotes death, over life.
Here is where we differ. I think it promotes quality of life over quantity.





If you are not terminaly ill but in constant pain would is that reson enough to be able to commit suicide?

(Is 'legal' suicide termed euthanasia? Do you commit suicide or euthanasia?)