Euthanasia For or Against?

[stewart38]

I guessed you were a big fat something.

I would say yes, but only because I believe in free choice.

'Free choice' for who ?

If someone was too ill to sign a form etc would you allow a relative to do it ?

I dont suggest trying to get someone heart to restart for the 6th time but what i dont like is the idea doctors and it would be down to the doctors ,should play god

-------------------------------------

UTRECHT, January 11, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Royal Dutch Medical Association has concluded, after a three-year investigation, that Dutch doctors ought to be able to kill patients who are not ill but who are judged to be "suffering through living."

The decision contradicts the Dutch Supreme Court that ruled in 2002 that patients may only request euthanasia if they have a "classifiable physical or mental condition," and not if they are merely "tired of life." The law however, does not require a medical condition, but only that a patient must be "suffering hopelessly and unbearably." Pro-life activists have warned that such ambiguous language is an open door for new interpretations that would make the law a license to kill.

----------------------------------

when is one allowed to kill and when is one not ??

[CJ]

'Free choice' for who ?

Is it not for whom?

And I meant free choice for second cousins three times removed. Who the bloody hell did you think I meant free choice to?

News flash: this is not Holland.

The choice should be with the patient and only the patient.

That said, every day Dr.s make decisions on whether or not to turn off life support machines. So, in the case of extended choice: it may not be dissimilar. However, I would prefer that people with chronic, incurable illnesses with real quality of life issues of a serious nature should be free to choose to take their own life (assisted {with protections in place} or not).

[David Bailey]

I would say yes, but only because I believe in free choice.

We're not talking about free choice, we're talking about assisted killing - basically, when the patient is unable to make a choice through incapacity, and the choice is made for them, based on what other people think they would want.

I've got no problems with people being allowed to kill themselves; I've got a big problem making it easier for other people to do it, for the reasons I stated up ^^.

Like a lot of these social issues, there's a massive grey area as to what's "right", and I like the fact that our current system recognises that this is a grey area, and that each case is different. It's complex, it's messy, but it seems to me that it strikes a reasonable balance between the two extremes.

[Lynn]

Not sure quite what 'error' there could be here....

Someone who wants to die, gets counselling, makes the final decision, signs the forms to say that they want to die, and then dies.

I'm not sure the exact process but I have heard of going on for 1000 people in one year in a European country being 'killed' who had not given 'express consent', perhaps their families made the decision for them?

And in Dutch law children between 12-15 can request euthanasia providing they get their parents consent. Can an ill child of 12 really make that decision, or how would a parent in that situation would feel if their child was asking them to give their permission for that?

And sadly not all families are loving and caring towards their relatives. So there are issues of can someone who will benefit from someone's death (by a will) be the same person who signs the consent forms for that person's death, if the person is too ill to sign the forms themselves?

Aside from all the issues, I'm against it on the simple principle that I believe taking another person's life is wrong.

[stewart38]

Is it not for whom?

And I meant free choice for second cousins three times removed. Who the bloody hell did you think I meant free choice to?

News flash: this is not Holland.

The choice should be with the patient and only the patient.

That said, every day Dr.s make decisions on whether or not to turn off life support machines. So, in the case of extended choice: it may not be dissimilar. However, I would prefer that people with chronic, incurable illnesses with real quality of life issues of a serious nature should be free to choose to take their own life (assisted {with protections in place} or not).

what 'protections' ?? Im in chronic pain please kill me, pleaseeeeeee

oh next day its not so bad please dont (too late your dead)

The law is sufficient as it is

Life and death decisons are made every day by doctors they dont need the power to play god as well

what was that case in the USA where they KILLED that women against the aprents wishes but on behalf of an ex bf who heard she wanted that way out

That was very sick and murder (its only my opinon)

Bit like the young boy where the parents have to go to court to stop the doctors giving up !

[WittyBird]

?? Im in chronic pain please kill me, pleaseeeeeee

What time shall I come over?

[CJ]

what 'protections' ?? Im in chronic pain please kill me, pleaseeeeeee
oh next day its not so bad please dont (too late your dead)

The law is sufficient as it is

Life and death decisons are made every day by doctors they dont need the power to play god as well

what was that case in the USA where they KILLED that women against the aprents wishes but on behalf of an ex bf who heard she wanted that way out

That was very sick and murder (its only my opinon)

Bit like the young boy where the parents have to go to court to stop the doctors giving up !

Firstly, the poll was do you support Euthanasia: NOT do you think we should change the laws on Euthanasia.

Secondly, if we are to have a serious discussion on law, let's not use American law as the basis for reasoned argument.

Stewart, I am not one prone to name calling so I'll desist the urge to use "half baked ignorant numbskull who can't be bothered to read the words within a post before giving an irrelevant, ill-thought out almost embarrassingly stupid reply" whilst referring to anyone posting on this thread.

May I humbly suggest you look up the word "protections" in the dictionary? See, also, "preventative" and/or "safeguard".

[stewart38]

Firstly, the poll was do you support Euthanasia: NOT do you think we should change the laws on Euthanasia.

Secondly, if we are to have a serious discussion on law, let's not use American law as the basis for reasoned argument.

Stewart, I am not one prone to name calling so I'll desist the urge to use "half baked ignorant numbskull who can't be bothered to read the words within a post before giving an irrelevant, ill-thought out almost embarrassingly stupid reply" whilst referring to anyone posting on this thread.

May I humbly suggest you look up the word "protections" in the dictionary? See, also, "preventative" and/or "safeguard".

OK we have established your for it and you will let some one else 'think' about the 'safeguards' and 'protections'.

Im against it

Now i see you have just lost your temper

Now if you were my doctor im sure you would have now pulled the plug seeing me as a ignorant numbskull not worthy of a life

I may not have much quality of life and I may not smile (I hear in Holland if you dont smile thats grounds ?) but im hanging in there. I maynot be able to spell my grammar maybe be poor but is that good enough grounds ??

I want some one to spoon feed me apple source for the last 35yrs of my life through a straw

[David Bailey]

Firstly, the poll was do you support Euthanasia: NOT do you think we should change the laws on Euthanasia.

Well, surely they're related? In that the UK laws don't currently support euthanasia, so if you do support it, it's not unreasonable to assume you want a change in the law.

Secondly, if we are to have a serious discussion on law, let's not use American law as the basis for reasoned argument.

I love to bash the USA as much as anyone - and more than most - but I believe their legal system is in many ways superior to ours.

I wish, for example, we had a decent Supreme Court in this country to slap down some or most of Blair's nutty legislation. And a bit more democratic accountability for our judges might not kill us either.

The US is interesting in this area, in that the euthanasia debate is delegated to individual states. I believe Oregon famously allows euthanasia, whereas other states don't.

From Wikipedia (of course):

Oregon Law, passed in 1997, states an individual must meet the following criteria:

1) 18 years of age or older,
2) a resident of Oregon,
3) capable of making and communicating health care decisions for him/herself, and
4) diagnosed with a terminal illness that will lead to death within six (6) months, verified by two physicians.

Note: It is up to the attending physician to determine whether these criteria have been met.

So I think it's valid to look to the US, as indeed it is to look to the Netherlands, for information - just so long as we don't treat this information as gospel.

Oh, and CJ?

"half baked ignorant numbskull who can't be bothered to read the words within a post before giving an irrelevant, ill-thought out almost embarrassingly stupid reply"

- Can I use this as my new sig please? Pretty please?

[WittyBird]

I want some one to spoon feed me apple source for the last 35yrs of my life through a straw

*gags self and returns to cupboard*

[David Bailey]

I maynot be able to spell my grammar maybe be poor but is that good enough grounds ??

:thinking about it icon:

[stewart38]

*gags self and returns to cupboard*

All joking aside

Things like this and fox hunting or bears dancing on hot coals one is never going to a have a reasoned argument

How the hell do I know how i would feel if id been in pain for years with no known cure, i might beg someone to take my life

I dont see things like this in black and white

Its a bit like the death penalty ,im against it but if someone killed my family would i change my mind ,probably

If there was 100% guarantees but there isnt

[TiggsTours]

This is such a difficult subject, there are such strong arguments both for & against. Personally, I believe in euthanasia, but whether or not I could actually "pull the plug" on someone I love? I guess you never know the answer until you are faced with it.

The one situation I do feel strongly about though is the one of prolonging someone's life, and sufferring, needlessly. I used to work in a nursing home, 15 years ago, and I don't know if things have changed since then. At that time, we were legally obliged to try to save someone if they were dying, even to bring them back if we could. These people were terminally ill and elderly anyway, they were in constant pain and when we did bring them back, they generally died within a week anyway, and didn't thank us for interfering! Why should it be the case that you have to keep bringing someone back to life just so they can live a few more days in pain, rather than just let them slip away quietly, and in a dignified manner?

I agree with the arguments of humans not playing God, but when the only thing keeping someone alive is the machines, the drugs, and the first aid administered by us, aren't we playing God anyway? Its all very well to do this for someone who will, or could, go on to live a full and happy life, but why carry on when all that faces them is a few more days of pain, and humiliation?

Sometimes we seem to treat animals better than humans.

[Lynn]

This is such a difficult subject, there are such strong arguments both for & against. Personally, I believe in euthanasia, but whether or not I could actually "pull the plug" on someone I love? I guess you never know the answer until you are faced with it.

The one situation I do feel strongly about though is the one of prolonging someone's life, and sufferring, needlessly. I used to work in a nursing home, 15 years ago, and I don't know if things have changed since then. At that time, we were legally obliged to try to save someone if they were dying, even to bring them back if we could. These people were terminally ill and elderly anyway, they were in constant pain and when we did bring them back, they generally died within a week anyway, and didn't thank us for interfering! Why should it be the case that you have to keep bringing someone back to life just so they can live a few more days in pain, rather than just let them slip away quietly, and in a dignified manner?

Though euthanasia is not really about 'pulling the plug' - turning off machines that are maintaining life, or bringing people back (people can request a DNR against this, can't they?). Its not about withdrawing medical assistance which is keeping someone alive (which I feel is a completely different issue) but about administering a drug that causes death.

[David Bailey]

I agree with the arguments of humans not playing God, but when the only thing keeping someone alive is the machines, the drugs, and the first aid administered by us, aren't we playing God anyway?

There's a difference between avoiding resuscitation and euthanasia.

I'm got no problems with "DNR" (Do Not Resuscitate) notices - and this is as it works in hospitals at the moment I believe? So if someone says "I don't want to be kept alive on a machine for 35 years - let nature decide", I'm fine with that. And we have that system at the moment.

But that's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about deliberate ending of life, when life would continue without heroic medical assistance. There's a difference between letting nature take its course, and deliberately intervening.

EDIT: Hell, Lynn types too fast, damnit... What She Said, , anyway.

[stewart38]

Though euthanasia is not really about 'pulling the plug' - turning off machines that are maintaining life, or bringing people back (people can request a DNR against this, can't they?). Its not about withdrawing medical assistance which is keeping someone alive (which I feel is a completely different issue) but about administering a drug that causes death.

Exactly !!

as I said i dont support trying to save someone who has arrested 6 times if its seen as hopeless

Im talking about killing somone

[WittyBird]

Im talking about killing somone

It's hardly killing someone now is it?

If that someone has a terminal illness that is going to eat away at them and make them lose their independence and rely on a carer for the rest of their sad pointless life. If they have asked for it to be done then its humane. Like I have said earlier 'do you watch animals suffer?'

[David Bailey]

It's hardly killing someone now is it?

Err... yes? If they're alive, you do something, and then they're dead?

Like I have said earlier 'do you watch animals suffer?'

We don't watch animals suffer because they're not people, and they don't have rights. Once our pet dogs start voting (and paying taxes to fund my early retirement), then they get rights. No representation without taxation. But that's a whole other debate...

I have every sympathy for the husband who, at his elderly wife's request, helps to ease her suffering by smothering her. It must be a terrible situation to be in, and I hope to God I'm never put in that position. But if I were, I'd do what I thought was right, I wouldn't give a monkey's what the law said, it would be no comfort to me if what I did was state-sanctioned or not. Ultimately, whatever I do is my own responsibility.

But I also think that it's completely right for the police to investigate this thoroughly as a potential crime - even though most of the time it'll come to nothing. The system is biased towards valuing life, and I prefer it that way, for my own protection if nothing else.

[Lynn]

We don't watch animals suffer because they're not people, and they don't have rights.

Well most people don't watch animals suffer because they don't want the animal to be in pain and suffer. (You've never had a pet then?) But pets are 'put down' for other reasons - cost and convenience as well as ending suffering - eg if a vet tells an owner that their pet requires an expensive operation the owner may decide its cheaper to have the animal put down, or if an owner is moving to somewhere and it isn't convenient to have a pet, they get them put down rather than bother rehoming them. And perhaps there could be the danger that cost and convenience could creep into the equation if euthanasia was a legal option?

[ducasi]

playing god

Before entering the euthanasia discussion, this phrase should be struck from one's vocabulary.

In fact, can we just ban it from the language entirely?