PDA

View Full Version : euthanesia


danielf
19-09-2003, 01:53
Since we seem to be discussing some of the bigger issues (as usual), what are your thoughts about this.

Personally, I feel that if someone is terminally ill, suffers to such an extent that the person feels he/she would rather go with dignity rather than have things run it's (inevitable) course, that person should have the right to do so (go with dignity), and a qualified doctor should be allowed (but not obliged) to aid in this.

Apologies to anyone who feels this topic is inappropriate at this moment in their life.

Jerrek
19-09-2003, 02:05
Turn off livesupport if the person whats that? Yes.

Help someone that wants to commit suicide do so by commiting an act of murder? No.

danielf
19-09-2003, 02:12
Originally posted by Jerrek
Turn off livesupport if the person whats that? Yes.

Help someone that wants to commit suicide do so by commiting an act of murder? No.

There's other options. You could set up a laptop, and have the 'victim' press a sequence of keys that will lead to the lethal injection. Obviously, someone will have to set it up...

Edit: Remember, I am going on the premise of terminally ill people who feel their life is no longer dignified here.

Bifta
19-09-2003, 02:37
Originally posted by danielf
There's other options. You could set up a laptop, and have the 'victim' press a sequence of keys that will lead to the lethal injection. Obviously, someone will have to set it up...

Accessory to commit murder ... bad plan.

kronas
19-09-2003, 03:33
my view on this is clear and simple if you are alive then you should enjoy life and live it until you naturally die if you are living by the aid of machines you should still live if you dont value life you should never have been born

Lord Nikon
19-09-2003, 05:00
and if you are suffering from a terminal illness, which cannot be treated, and will give you a long lingering painful death as your faculties are slowly stripped from you?

kronas
19-09-2003, 15:32
Originally posted by Lord Nikon
and if you are suffering from a terminal illness, which cannot be treated, and will give you a long lingering painful death as your faculties are slowly stripped from you?

its ultimately the individuals right but i still wouldnt let myself 'go' i want to live for as long as i can even if it means being in pain

*note im in pain anyway sometimes(quite regularly) doesent mean i want to die

Nemesis
19-09-2003, 15:48
Originally posted by kronas
its ultimately the individuals right but i still wouldnt let myself 'go' i want to live for as long as i can even if it means being in pain

*note im in pain anyway sometimes(quite regularly) doesent mean i want to die

Appreciated and understood, but your young and have things to live for ...

kronas
19-09-2003, 15:51
Originally posted by Nemesis
Appreciated and understood, but your young and have things to live for ...

i have nothing to live for i try and do something it blows up in my face every single time

whats that young BS age doesent mean a thing to me except if its related to certain age requiarement activites its about the person inside there understanding maturity etc :rolleyes:

Nemesis
19-09-2003, 15:59
Originally posted by kronas
i have nothing to live for i try and do something it blows up in my face every single time[/B]

Happens to us all mate, in many ways, welcome to life.

whats that young BS age doesent mean a thing to me except if its related to certain age requiarement activites its about the person inside there understanding maturity etc :rolleyes:

There will come a reality as you get older. Decisions will become harder and responsibility grows considerably. Knowledge of your own mortality dwells at times.

I personally would not want to be a burden to the state or my children. If I was terminally ill, or with Alzheimers/Parkinsons/Dementure I wouldn't be able to make concious decisions myself anyway. My personal view has been made now, so that my children do not have to make any difficult decisions themselves.

orangebird
19-09-2003, 16:02
Originally posted by Nemesis
Appreciated and understood, but your young and have things to live for ...

My friend did at 19 after an undiagnosed appendix burst. However, before she actually died, she got septisemia (sp?), two heart attacks, haemorraged twice and if she had come out of this coma, would've been brain damaged and blind. I didn't want her to live, and neither did her mother - does that make us bad people who don't deserve to be born?

kronas
19-09-2003, 16:09
Originally posted by Nemesis

My personal view has been made now, so that my children do not have to make any difficult decisions themselves.

and i have made my choice and stick by it


Originally posted by orangebird
I didn't want her to live, and neither did her mother

its sad to hear that story...but i care about human life if i was in a position where i had a wife or someone in my family in a very unfortunate position healthwise i would do everything to help them if it means helping them live longer

Originally posted by orangebird

does that make us bad people who don't deserve to be born?


im my eye yes i cant believe you can end someones life just like that you may say its not an easy decision but to terminate someones life like that is totally disgusting

Nemesis
19-09-2003, 16:09
Originally posted by orangebird
My friend did at 19 after an undiagnosed appendix burst. However, before she actually died, she got septisemia (sp?), two heart attacks, haemorraged twice and if she had come out of this coma, would've been brain damaged and blind. I didn't want her to live, and neither did her mother - does that make us bad people who don't deserve to be born?

Very sorry to hear that.

No, not in my opinion. Her quality of life needs to be taken into consideration, more than how you may be feeling. If there is no quality of life, is there a life to live ?

Nemesis
19-09-2003, 16:11
Originally posted by kronas
and i have made my choice and stick by it

and I acknowledge and respect your decision.

kronas
19-09-2003, 16:12
Originally posted by Nemesis

No, not in my opinion. Her quality of life needs to be taken into consideration, more than how you may be feeling. If there is no quality of life, is there a life to live ?

again everyone has a freedom of choice they can choose to do what they want but if i was put in a position where i had to choose/carry it out i would catigorically refuse

Originally posted by Nemesis
and I acknowledge and respect your decision.

same here just trying put my point across as you are
:)

Nemesis
19-09-2003, 16:13
Originally posted by kronas
im my eye yes i cant believe you can end someones life just like that you may say its not an easy decision but to terminate someones life like that is totally disgusting

Kronie, please be careful on this one, you have a real possibility of upsetting some more than you can imagine.

I hear what your saying loud and clear, but some sensitivity please.

danielf
19-09-2003, 16:13
Originally posted by kronas
and i have made my choice and stick by it

its sad to hear that story...but i care about human life if i was in a position where i had a wife or someone in my family in a very unfortunate position healthwise i would do everything to help them if it means helping them live longer

im my eye yes i cant believe you can end someones life just like that you may say its not an easy decision but to terminate someones life like that is totally disgusting

But the issue being discussed is whether the person who is ill should have the choice. Not the relatives. Obviously assuming that the person is capable of choosing.

Nemesis
19-09-2003, 16:15
Originally posted by danielf
But the issue being discussed is whether the person who is ill should have the choice. Not the relatives. Obviously assuming that the person is capable of choosing.

Yes, absolutely. If all the facts are placed before them, it;s their life after all. The decision is hard, but each to their own. There has to be respect for this kind of decision, whether you agree or disagree.

paulyoung666
19-09-2003, 16:25
well i reckon if an individual can make an informed decision then it should be there choice to end there life if they want to and feel the need to , i wouldnt like to think i became a burden on people just to stay alive a few years longer

Xaccers
19-09-2003, 16:29
We put animals out of their misery for less, so why should we be forced to suffer?

danielf
19-09-2003, 16:37
So should physicians be allowed to aid in this without being charged with murder. Assuming all checks are in place to ensure the 'vicitim' really wants this?

paulyoung666
19-09-2003, 16:37
Originally posted by Xaccers
We put animals out of their misery for less, so why should we be forced to suffer?

here here

Dave Stones
19-09-2003, 16:39
Originally posted by Xaccers
We put animals out of their misery for less, so why should we be forced to suffer?

i read this post and before you posted that, this popped up in my mind with a big red ! over it. that starts the whole debate about humans being able to make the decisions and animals not etc... its a philosophical minefiled in which i dont dare tread...:erm:

nighthawk
19-09-2003, 17:29
Originally posted by danielf
So should physicians be allowed to aid in this without being charged with murder. Assuming all checks are in place to ensure the 'vicitim' really wants this?

To be honest i think this is the problem. If a normal (sorry to use this but i couldent think of a better word)person decides to end his life they can do so.

But if a terminally ill / Physically dead but mentally alive/ etc... persondecides he no longer whats to live, they are not fit to do it..... If a doctor helps the person then he is Guilty of Murder / Assisted Murder , i dont know how you would get around that.


BTW My personal view is that if someone is Mentally Capable of making a decision then it should be respected.

Russ
19-09-2003, 18:44
*Russ thinks he'll stay out of this one..... :angel:

Lord Nikon
19-09-2003, 18:47
I think it boils down to the hippocratic oath vs the law.

The hippocratic oath states "To do no harm"
The law states "no killing"

is keeping someone who is in constant pain, has no hope of recovery yet can sustain their life without life support machines alive for 6 months, maybe less, despite their desire to end their pain, knowing that they will die eventually from it anyway really a crime?

"To do No Harm" would empower the doctor to assist the person in self termination, as keeping them alive against their wishes in constant pain would harm them emotionally and psychologically, yet the law, deeming that suicide is a crime, would prosecute the doctor as an accessory to murder / manslaughter, if not deeming them a murderer directly.

The doctor's role should be to preserve the QUALITY of life, when that quality has gone, and the person involved is doomed to live out their last days in excruciating pain, despite medication, then where is the problem with a doctor assisting them, at their own request, in at least dying with whatever dignity they have left, in tact.

As has been said, we do that for pets we own, to "end their suffering" yet we do not bestow sentience upon them, we do it as an act of kindness. Yet when we ourselves, who we DO bestow sentience upon, are in similar, or even worse condition, we do not have the same kindness available to us.

We have the ability to choose our actions within our lives, we also have the ability to plan for what happens after we die, whether we become organ donors, how our funerals are planned, we should also be able to choose to die with dignity when there is nothing else we can do.

danielf
19-09-2003, 18:49
Originally posted by Russ D
*Russ thinks he'll stay out of this one..... :angel:

:D Yes, Russ, I think we can figure where you stand on this one;)

danielf
19-09-2003, 19:05
Well put Lord Nikon,

It's the dignity that matters. I saw a Dutch documentary on the subject a couple of years ago. There was this couple where the man was seriously ill, and decided to end it with the help of a doctor. However, horrible the situation, it was heart warming to see the relief in this couple that he was allowed to go with dignity and in peace. Both felt that prolonging the situation would only bring them more suffering. This way, they got to say goodbye (and she remember him) while he still had all his faculties, rather than see him slowly whither away.

kronas
19-09-2003, 19:31
Originally posted by danielf
But the issue being discussed is whether the person who is ill should have the choice. Not the relatives. Obviously assuming that the person is capable of choosing.

if you have read my previous posts i said its the individuals decision but i am against it edgeways

kronas
19-09-2003, 19:49
Originally posted by danielf

It's the dignity that matters.

its not about dignity at all for me if it was my loved one in that position or if i was likewise i would want to live for as long as i can i value life even if others dont i wouldnt be burdening my family vice versa......

Graham
19-09-2003, 23:30
I'd point out here that we *do* effectively have a limited (perhaps "passive") version of euthanasia available.

When my grandmother was in hospital after her third heart attack she told the doctors that she didn't want "extreme measures" taken to save her, also known as a DNR or "Do not resuscitate" order.

Now yes, this (ie declining treatment) isn't the same as someone *actively* ending their life, but I don't think that people should be forced to endure intolerable pain or having their mental faculties slowly decay until they're a drooling incontinent vegetable simply because someone's religion says that suicide is a sin.

carlingman
20-09-2003, 04:04
Originally posted by Graham I'd point out here that we *do* effectively have a limited (perhaps "passive") version of euthanasia available.

When my grandmother was in hospital after her third heart attack she told the doctors that she didn't want "extreme measures" taken to save her, also known as a DNR or "Do not resuscitate" order.

Now yes, this (ie declining treatment) isn't the same as someone *actively* ending their life, but I don't think that people should be forced to endure intolerable pain or having their mental faculties slowly decay until they're a drooling incontinent vegetable simply because someone's religion says that suicide is a sin.

There is one of hell of a difference between Euthanasia and a Do Not Resuscitate Order.

Firstly the DNR is only given as an option in specific circumstances.

In my own personal experience was offered to myself for my Father that if they were to perform CPR and heart massage in attempt to restore life his ribcage would have collapsed and would have been a high risk on puncturing his lungs depriving oxygen to the brain.

Fortunately or unfortunately this never came into play as he died peacefully in his sleep with me at the bedside.

Having watched and nursed my father turn from a 65 year old fit man and then lapse into a 69 year old confined to one room for 3 years and then turn into in a 69 year old skeleton of his former self and fight for every breath Euthanasia was never an option.

COAD (Chronic Obstructive Airways Disease) was the eventual cause and would never wish this to be seen or endured by anyone and unbelievable to think it was first diagnosed by a scan after my Father coughed that hard that during the coughing fit he broke three ribs.

As someone has already mentioned in the thread this is very dodgy ground and will no doubt invoke some personal and in depth comments from others like myself and anyone personally involved in such cases

:angel:

Graham
20-09-2003, 15:21
Originally posted by carlingman
There is one of hell of a difference between Euthanasia and a Do Not Resuscitate Order.

Yes, there is a difference, but I don't think it's as great as you imply. (I'll address this further below).

Firstly the DNR is only given as an option in specific circumstances.

Provided the patient is sane and lucid, any patient can, at any time, refuse any medical treatment. Only if they are deemed to be not in full possession of their mental faculties can they be given treatment against their wishes.

Now, as to the difference between a DNR and Euthanasia, yes the first is a "passive" act (ie don't do anything to save me) rather than being "active" (ie causing their own death), but the point is that both allow the person to make up their own mind as to whether they wish to continue living.

I should clarify here, I'm not talking about "assisted suicide" at this point or "putting someone down", I'm talking about someone who *has* the capability to a) make the decision cogently and rationally, and then b) having the ability to carry the wish out.

If someone wishes to do this then there should be a period where they are given appropriate counselling and can review all the options and if, at the end of that period, they still wish to continue, be given the methodology to carry out the act.

As regards "assisted suicide", this is, of course, a much more difficult issue and I think that very great care should be taken to ensure that it is the "last possible option". It would need IMO to require, for example, agreement of a couple of doctors that there was no chance of remission or recover, consent of their partner or family etc, just as happens in the case of organ donation or switching off a "life support" machine.

If all these precautions are taken then, and only then, I think the procedure should be allowed to continue.

Bex
21-09-2003, 16:07
Originally posted by Graham
Provided the patient is sane and lucid, any patient can, at any time, refuse any medical treatment. Only if they are deemed to be not in full possession of their mental faculties can they be given treatment against their wishes.

Now, as to the difference between a DNR and Euthanasia, yes the first is a "passive" act (ie don't do anything to save me) rather than being "active" (ie causing their own death), but the point is that both allow the person to make up their own mind as to whether they wish to continue living.

I should clarify here, I'm not talking about "assisted suicide" at this point or "putting someone down", I'm talking about someone who *has* the capability to a) make the decision cogently and rationally, and then b) having the ability to carry the wish out.

If someone wishes to do this then there should be a period where they are given appropriate counselling and can review all the options and if, at the end of that period, they still wish to continue, be given the methodology to carry out the act.

As regards "assisted suicide", this is, of course, a much more difficult issue and I think that very great care should be taken to ensure that it is the "last possible option". It would need IMO to require, for example, agreement of a couple of doctors that there was no chance of remission or recover, consent of their partner or family etc, just as happens in the case of organ donation or switching off a "life support" machine.

If all these precautions are taken then, and only then, I think the procedure should be allowed to continue.

surely the living will is exactly that?.........the person has to show that they are "of sound mind" and from what i remember it needs to be witnessed by two doctors....................


my personal opinion is that, in some cases passive euthanasia is the type that sound be used.....i.e. having an agreement that if ever on life support to turn it off, however i do think that active euthanasia....i.e the assisted suicide type thing, has some sound arguments to back it up................however it can lead to a slippery slope, such as involuntary active euthanasia.

Leah betts, was in full possession of her mental faculties and she found out what her illness would do to her, and she then appeal to the court for her husband to be able to help her die with dignity......she fought for ages over it, however she unforuntantly got refused and died..................................

i think the arguments can be taken down to its primary premises......do you believe in quality of life or sanctity of life?

Stuart
21-09-2003, 17:05
Originally posted by kronas
its not about dignity at all for me if it was my loved one in that position or if i was likewise i would want to live for as long as i can i value life even if others dont i wouldnt be burdening my family vice versa......

Trouble is, the issue is not Black and White.

My nan died as a result of cancer years ago. We had to watch while she slowly lost the ability to do things (things you and I take for granted, such as walking unaided and going to the toilet) for herself. She wanted to die, but the hospital kept her alive for 6 months. She was in extreme pain, and the pain killers did not always work. She eventually died of a heart attack.

What I am saying is, I believe we may all come to a point where we would choose to die, and would be better off.

kronas
22-09-2003, 02:02
Originally posted by scastle

What I am saying is, I believe we may all come to a point where we would choose to die, and would be better off.

i understand but i still believe in living till your actually dead via natural or in some cases extreme cases ie cancer

homealone
22-09-2003, 02:13
Originally posted by scastle
Trouble is, the issue is not Black and White.

My nan died as a result of cancer years ago. We had to watch while she slowly lost the ability to do things (things you and I take for granted, such as walking unaided and going to the toilet) for herself. She wanted to die, but the hospital kept her alive for 6 months. She was in extreme pain, and the pain killers did not always work. She eventually died of a heart attack.

What I am saying is, I believe we may all come to a point where we would choose to die, and would be better off.

I agree with that stu - the minute someone else needs to wipe my bum I'm off.:shrug:

I don't mean that to sound flippant - I mean I think your nan should have had her choice. I would want the same?

kronas
22-09-2003, 02:17
Originally posted by homealone
I agree with that stu - the minute someone else needs to wipe my bum I'm off.:shrug:


suppose you could say until you have been in that position you cant fully asses the situation but if it was a family member of mine i would make damn sure they lived till they naturally went

as for me the same......

Lord Nikon
22-09-2003, 02:22
Originally posted by kronas
suppose you could say until you have been in that position you cant fully asses the situation but if it was a family member of mine i would make damn sure they lived till they naturally went


Would you be so adamant watching the person you loved disappear? leaving behind a shell which looked like them, but was no longer them? and listening to them beg to be allowed to die while they were in constant pain?

kronas
22-09-2003, 02:24
Originally posted by Lord Nikon
Would you be so adamant watching the person you loved disappear? leaving behind a shell which looked like them, but was no longer them? and listening to them beg to be allowed to die while they were in constant pain?

thats what i mean until you have been there you just dont know if you loved them so much you want to be with them for every second yet see them in excruciating pain........

Lord Nikon
22-09-2003, 02:25
sometimes the hardest part of loving someone is having to let them go.

homealone
22-09-2003, 02:36
Originally posted by kronas
suppose you could say until you have been in that position you cant fully asses the situation but if it was a family member of mine i would make damn sure they lived till they naturally went

as for me the same......

I'm not dissin' your view kronas, just stating mine - you are nearly 18 - I am 50, I accept, that doesn't make my opinion "better" than yours.

My opinion on this relates only to me - , but, wait and see how you feel when you get to my age?

kronas
22-09-2003, 02:55
Originally posted by homealone
I'm not dissin' your view kronas, just stating mine - you are nearly 18 - I am 50, I accept, that doesn't make my opinion "better" than yours.


i respect a good opinion age is not a boundry for me but others like to hide behind it as 'your just too young etc' and it gets up my nose............sorry went OT there

Originally posted by homealone

My opinion on this relates only to me - , but, wait and see how you feel when you get to my age?

as we grow our views change mine havent changed too much i have a better understanding of certain issues then i maybe didnt have about 5 years ago

i respect anyones view as long as they can accept and respect the other persons view

Graham
22-09-2003, 03:29
Originally posted by bexy i think the arguments can be taken down to its primary premises......do you believe in quality of life or sanctity of life?

Hmm, a concise summary that and one I wish I'd thought of!

If you asked me, I would say quality of life wins out over sanctity of life. Maybe you should start a vote on it?

Bex
22-09-2003, 13:50
Originally posted by Graham
Hmm, a concise summary that and one I wish I'd thought of!

If you asked me, I would say quality of life wins out over sanctity of life. Maybe you should start a vote on it?

remember i'm a philosopher and have had to write numerous essays on this subject, and also teach bits of it also :p

yes maybe we should..............................i think that when it comes to patients that have the ability to reason about their own life then quality of life is the most fundamental of the two.........

orangebird
22-09-2003, 14:08
Originally posted by kronas
thats what i mean until you have been there you just dont know if you loved them so much you want to be with them for every second yet see them in excruciating pain........

Have you been there Kronas?

Graham
22-09-2003, 14:13
Originally posted by bexy
[B]remember i'm a philosopher

#include std.monty.python.bruce.jokes :D

Bex
22-09-2003, 14:14
Originally posted by Graham
#include std.monty.python.bruce.jokes :D


lolololololololololol :D :p

Bex
22-09-2003, 14:42
if people want to know more about what a "living will" is, and about it, search on google.....i was going to post an example of one here, but since there are people under the age of 18 on this forum, i legally can't.........but i think it's interesting to find out about them

paulyoung666
22-09-2003, 18:44
did anyone see the recent programme about about the bloke who went to switzerland to die , very brave man who could do that , but , he knew he had no choice , when my time comes i hope i can have that choice , either that or i dont need to make that choice , quick and sudden must be the best , but you dont get time to say goodbye , to end it yourself gives you the time while you still can , a mate of mine's dad withered away with alzheimers and according to my mate it was absoloutely destroying for his family to see it and not to be able to communicate with him in his final days , euthanasia gets my vote :tu:

kronas
23-09-2003, 12:44
Originally posted by orangebird
Have you been there Kronas?

if your talking about being in the unfortunate position then no and i dont want to be but maybe later on i will be

in excruciating pain yes regularly.........

kronas
27-09-2003, 15:26
ok so its happend.........

A 22-year-old quadriplegic man, mute and blind, died a day after his mother put an unidentified substance into his feeding machinery. The man, Vincent Humbert, had made his wish to die well known via the French media.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/09/26/france.euthanasia.ap/index.html

danielf
27-09-2003, 15:46
So, this woman faces a prison sentence for something that some (including the victim) might consider an act of mercy.

paulyoung666
27-09-2003, 16:25
Originally posted by danielf
So, this woman faces a prison sentence for something that some (including the victim) might consider an act of mercy.


exactly , as far as i am concerned she did the best thing for him she could

kronas
27-09-2003, 16:32
Originally posted by paulyoung666
exactly , as far as i am concerned she did the best thing for him she could

well shes going to go down for murder and thats what she should get because it is simple as that

paulyoung666
27-09-2003, 16:50
Originally posted by kronas
well shes going to go down for murder and thats what she should get because it is simple as that


in your opinion and the laws or just the laws opinion :confused:
remember we can all have our opinion ;)

kronas
27-09-2003, 17:43
Originally posted by paulyoung666
in your opinion and the laws or just the laws opinion :confused:
remember we can all have our opinion ;)

my opinion remember i dont believe in ending your life if you want to die by all means do it you shouldnt have been born but thats just me.........

paulyoung666
27-09-2003, 18:18
fair plat my mate , but if you were in a state where you could see but couldnt feed yourself or do anything else for yourself and were destined to be like that for the rest of your natural then do you honestly think you could cope being like that ?????????
just asking that is all :)

timewarrior2001
27-09-2003, 18:45
Or screaming.....and I do mean SCREAMING in agony, a pain thats so powerfull not even Morphine can stop it.


I think nearly all of us would choose to die.

Lord Nikon
27-09-2003, 22:54
Put yourself in his place kronas....

Vincent Humbert, 22, a quadriplegic who was unable to speak or see, died at the hospital where he was being treated, his father, Francis Humbert, said.



you can't move, you can't speak, you can't see, all you can do is hear. where is the QUALITY of life?

he was 22, could you face another 50 years where all you can do is hear? fed by machines, unable to experience life, the only way you can communicate perhaps is through blinking, which relies on someone looking at you, except you can't tell when that is happening because you can't see... the last thing you remember seeing is the accident that left you in this state....

I think that if you could end things at this point, you would... and I doubt there would be many people who wouldn't