Euthanasia

Euthanasia (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

MissMorrigan -> Euthanasia (2/28/2008 3:21:25 AM)
Yesterday, in a British tabloid, a woman pleads for her suffering to end. She has a rare disease, esthesioneuroblastoma, which has left her severely disfigured and in considerable bouts of pain. The woman lives in France and where assisted deaths are illegal, as is the case in the UK and US. Yet in the Netherlands and Belgium, she would be able to receive a dignified end to her suffering by opting for euthanasia. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article852585.ece I'm torn on this issue. On the one hand I want the world to be rosy and people to have dignified deaths, even if that means assisting them to do so. On the other hand, I can see the potential to abuse such a system should it become legalised, as with the Terri Schiavo case, whose end was neither just nor dignified. Clearly it is a controversial subject and I have no doubt there will be a diversity of opinons regarding the moral dilemmas. I'm not looking for either for/against comments, although will likely get them, I would like to see this debated, with explanations as to why such opinions either way were formulated. At present, I cannot make up my mind, I'll be honest about that.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Euthanasia (2/28/2008 3:32:44 AM)
I would say that it should be impossible to deny a person in such a condition her wish. I do not believe that euthanasia should be illegal. Extreme old age for example can bring people to a condition where everything remotely human has gone and only a shell that has the minimum capacity to maintain survival remains. adding: how can you explain how opinions were formed without stating whether you are for or against Euthanasia ? Only arskin .

LadyEllen -> RE: Euthanasia (2/28/2008 3:46:53 AM)
There are five main inputs here I think 1) personal rights over one's body and life - whether one is possessed of such rights, or whether these rights are the domain of the state or other parties 2) laws preventing one consenting to or soliciting an offence - in this case murder 3) laws forbidding suicide 4) the Hippocratic oath sworn by physicians 5) the very obvious suffering of a person who is terminally ill or whose suffering is so great that quality of life is unacceptably low (1) and (3) are ideas mainly derived from Church and Bible - we are not our own but property of God, and hence of the Church, and suicide is expressly forbidden in the Bible. As such these are outdated inputs since we live in a multi-cultural society where it would be wholly inappropriate to enforce Christian values on everyone. We need also note in mentioning the Christian influence the strong value attached to suffering by this religion. (2) is a tricky one, because we have to have such limitations in order to protect us from those who might abuse the situation in the absence of such law. (4) is again an outdated and outmanouevered ethic in the light of the developments of modern medicine and could just as easily be interpreted to support euthanasia as it is often interpreted to forbid it. (5) represents where we are as everyday human beings who bereft of such notions as Christianity and Hippocratic oaths can see that it is the most moral and merciful thing to do, to allow someone in such extreme circumstances, to die without suffering and so to reduce their suffering. E

Rule -> RE: Euthanasia (2/28/2008 4:00:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen (1) and (3) are ideas mainly derived from Church and Bible - we are not our own but property of God, and hence of the Church, and suicide is expressly forbidden in the Bible. Its foremost beneficial effect was to stop christians from trying to become martyrs in order to get into "heaven". quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen (2) is a tricky one, because we have to have such limitations in order to protect us from those who might abuse the situation in the absence of such law. A conscientious minion of Satan will hopefully nevertheless respond to such a request. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen (4) is again an outdated and outmanouevered ethic in the light of the developments of modern medicine and could just as easily be interpreted to support euthanasia as it is often interpreted to forbid it. That oath serves primarily to protect physicians, not their prey. A lot of physicians are psychopaths in any case. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen (5) represents where we are as everyday human beings who bereft of such notions as Christianity and Hippocratic oaths can see that it is the most moral and merciful thing to do, to allow someone in such extreme circumstances, to die without suffering and so to reduce their suffering. Unfortunately the minions of Satan are forsaking their duty to end suffering.

MissMorrigan -> RE: Euthanasia (2/28/2008 4:10:47 AM)
Lady Ellen, It's a very tricky subject, it would be interesting to find out statistics for the Netherlands/Belgium insofar as successful law suits arising from misuse of euthanasia. You're so right regarding 4 being an outdated and outmanoeuvred ethic (not that you aren't on any of the others) given the various cases of 'switched off' comatose patients in countries which do not legally support assisted deaths. Edited to add: I can see a real concern regarding people making such life-ending decisions under pressure especially when various factors have to be taken into consideration such as financial and social burden. Although I can also see the inclusion of the pecuniary issues being used in favour of voluntary euthanasia. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen 4) the Hippocratic oath sworn by physicians

LadyEllen -> RE: Euthanasia (2/28/2008 4:42:46 AM)
I can see the danger of elderly relatives being pressured to end their lives because someone wants their inheritance - but really, there are simple safeguards against such instances which can be put in place. Firstly, the patient must request euthanasia. This brings in the issue of competent decision making - however by introducing statutory living wills for all (with the default position being as now, to maintain life at all efforts if no other wishes have been recorded). Where there is a living will, this must be followed unless the patient is able at the time to make a request independent of it. The living will must be a proper legal document lodged with relevant bodies and witnessed by independent witnesses - not family or friends or other possible benefactors of an estate. Secondly euthanasia must be restricted to those deemed terminally ill by two independent physicians and to those who in the opinion of two independent physicians, are not necessarily terminally ill, but are in such a degree of continuing and perpetual suffering that there is no hope of relieving that suffering other than by the death of the patient. In the absence of a request by way of living will or at the time by the patient, euthanasia is ruled out. Thirdly, all cases where euthanasia has been provided must be investigated by the coroner and police to ensure that no pressure was brought to bear and that the patient's wishes were his own and carried out properly. The charges and penalties for any wrongdoing should be akin to those of murder and abetting murder, so that the act of euthanasia is treated for the awful decision and act which it is. There was a debate on all this at Parliament a while back - my nurse friend went with one of her patients (she works privately now) who has muscular dystrophy (or similar) and was fighting for the right. They were invited to a committee meeting to testiify on the subject - and this meeting was disrupted and taken over by religious nuts who took all the time available in order to prevent patients and interested parties from speaking. Absolutely disgusting - presumably when they are dying in abject pain over a few months, they will be thanking their Lord for the experience? E

MissMorrigan -> RE: Euthanasia (2/28/2008 4:56:46 AM)
I can see many more reasons in favour of granting people the respect of personal choice, than those against it and I think my concerns would be alleviated provided strict regulations were in place to not only protect people's rights, also to protect them from undue pressure when choosing such an option. Tell me something, Lady E, why is it that religion is always a defining factor when ethics/morals are concerned in any kind of judicial case? I think I remember the case you refer to, with the MD sufferer desperately afraid of suffocating to death. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

LadyEllen -> RE: Euthanasia (2/28/2008 5:17:13 AM)
Christianity (rather than religion per se) has been the primary cultural influence over our society for 1400 years MsM - almost every law and custom we have is produced from it, informed by it or coopted into it. And especially morals and ethics have been so influenced - no, more than that, controlled by it. But this must no longer be the case, for if we are to propose a multi-cultural society then we must concede that no single source can be used to determine such matters and no single view may have influence either. Yet we continue with the Church of England as an integral part of the State - and this provides it with a platform by which to interfere with all manner of matters from euthanasia through to gay rights. Of course, it does make life simpler if we adopt a single source and view - but it does not necessarily follow that the decisions made on those bases will be any more correct or even sensible, than the source and view used. And ultimately, the Church even if we included all the various denominations and versions of it, speaks for no more than 10-15% of the population, its source and view having been dismissed by the majority of indigenous peoples - it therefore has no business becoming involved in such matters. But we must also consider the other religions present in our society - and those philosophies which do not describe themselves as religions and which yet contain a certain moral and ethical function. We either must have all voices represented in such matters, or none. Having all voices represented would perhaps be a good thing, but we must understand that such a situation will not be helpful - after all, I could create my own religion or resurrect an ancient one and demand a voice on that basis. There is also the problem related to that and indeed to the current range of views we have now, that we would be without any single source or influence to guide us and little agreement could be reached. On the other hand, if we choose to have no religious or philosophical guidance then we risk producing solutions to matters which are purely practically minded and may therefore cause more social and psychological damage even than religiously or philosophically informed solutions. In the case of euthanasia, many religions would oppose it - perhaps also some philosophies. But if we discard these influences entirely, such that euthanasia becomes purely a matter of convenience, I suggest we would have a far worse problem than we have now. E

Lashra -> RE: Euthanasia (2/28/2008 5:43:03 AM)
I believe a person has a right to decide what to do with their own life. I do not think that any government or religious group has the right to decide for them. I believe in euthanasia as a way to end unbearable suffering and to allow their soul to move on. Does anyone really want to live out their days in agonizing pain day in and day out? I do not think so. ~Lashra

Chloelicious -> RE: Euthanasia (2/28/2008 6:00:27 AM)
First of all in Belgium the law on the euthanasia was voted but to these days I have never heard about " assisted suicide" / euthanasia realised in Belgium. I do not know well the 'Terry Schiavo'subject thus I would not make comments. In the case of this lady, I think that it would be necessary to allow her to die in peace, in any case the results will be the same,she is condemned. I think that if I was afflicted with this kind of disease, I would like to die in dignity and I would ask has my closest relations to hep me commit suicide. I agree with the fact that we cannot euthanize all the persons incurably hill especially if they cannot give their opinion. But if a person is conscious of what happends to him/her, it is necessary to listen to him/her What is the view of the USa government about Euthansia? What would you do if this woman was one of your friends, a family member or You? Chloé

MissMorrigan -> RE: Euthanasia (2/28/2008 6:12:29 AM)
Hi Lashra, thank you for your view, which I wholeheartedly agree with. I'm just trying to get my head around the process of ensuring a person's wishes are adhered to and protected, and that no foul means can be a factor when a person is making their decision. In this day of medical advancement, it's absurb that people still suffer undignified deaths as a result of terminal/long-term illness and it's truly heartbreaking. quote: ORIGINAL: Lashra I believe a person has a right to decide what to do with their own life. I do not think that any government or religious group has the right to decide for them. I believe in euthanasia as a way to end unbearable suffering and to allow their soul to move on. Does anyone really want to live out their days in agonizing pain day in and day out? I do not think so. ~Lashra

Jeffff -> RE: Euthanasia (2/28/2008 6:17:54 AM)
I would hate to be asked to help a loved one commit suicide. Personally, I would stock up on some killer(pun intended) meds. Hopefully I would not need much, if any help at all. As far as the law goes, it is pretty difficult to prosecute a successful suicide. Jeff

LadyEllen -> RE: Euthanasia (2/28/2008 6:21:24 AM)
Not sure if you directed your response to me directly Chloe, but still; My belief is that it is my choice as to what I do to others generally since it is I alone who must answer the consequences of my actions - whether one believes in some religious notion of consequences and/or the reactions of others to what I do. I also do not believe that there is any such thing as clearly defined, universally applicable morals such as might be ascribed to determine simply, this instance, nor do I believe in the efficacy of any form of vicarious forgiveness which might remove the consequences of my actions - I may make reparations if I feel I have acted wrongly, but thats as far as it goes and the outcome of those reparations depends for its efficacy in avoiding the consequences of any wrong action only insofar as it satisfies those I may have wronged. So yes, I would have no problem whatever in ending the hopeless misery of another - if it were someone dear to me then I would grieve as one might expect, but my grieving would be informed that I had acted, on their request, in true love to end their suffering. As for myself, I would certainly not expect anyone who did not have the same view as I to perform a euthanasia on me. But I would hope that no one would object to and prevent the fulfillment of, my desire to die with dignity at a time of my own choosing. And that there are plenty of people in the world who might perform this mercy for me with a true understanding of love. E

LadyEllen -> RE: Euthanasia (2/28/2008 6:29:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lashra Does anyone really want to live out their days in agonizing pain day in and day out? I do not think so. ~Lashra The problem we have is that Christianity is a religion founded on the idea of excruciating pain and suffering being a redemptive, atoning force. Combine this with the idea that the evil will suffer either on this Earth or forever in the next life, and it becomes clear that it is better for one to suffer now in this life and enter paradise than to not suffer here and now and spend eternity in hell. Such thinking is what perpetuated the suffering of slaves and serfs in earlier times and the peasants and workers up until fairly modern times, is what justified extreme cruelty and what now justifies the terminally ill dying in agony or at least prejudices any argument for merciful euthanasia. E

MissMorrigan -> RE: Euthanasia (2/28/2008 6:31:55 AM)
I think the C of E's grasp remains firm in matters of politics, education, the judiciary, etc... Coming slightly off topic for a moment, did I read somewhere that a catholic priest was deterring men in Africa from using condoms b/c he said they were 'the devil's tool', directly against the efforts of missionaries working there attempting to teach locals infection/disease control (namely aids)? quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Christianity (rather than religion per se) has been the primary cultural influence over our society for 1400 years MsM - almost every law and custom we have is produced from it, informed by it or coopted into it. And especially morals and ethics have been so influenced - no, more than that, controlled by it. A platform to be heard, I agree with, but one in which is considered a voice for us all, that I cannot see either beneficial nor informed given that I find it personally insulting that people are considered less moralistic/low on principle if they don't subscribe to a religion as many philosophies show us. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen But this must no longer be the case, for if we are to propose a multi-cultural society then we must concede that no single source can be used to determine such matters and no single view may have influence either. Yet we continue with the Church of England as an integral part of the State - and this provides it with a platform by which to interfere with all manner of matters from euthanasia through to gay rights.

MissMorrigan -> RE: Euthanasia (2/28/2008 6:36:49 AM)
Yes, me too, Jeff. I have a pact with my mother that should the time come when she is incapacitated to the point she's no longer capable of doing the 'deed' herself insofar as opening bottles etc.., I would assist her. I have no problem with that, although draw the line at injecting a noxious substance into her body. I hope she goes in her sleep and I never have to actually do such a thing as I know that's going to seriously mess with my head for quite a few years thereafter. She's let the rest of the family know her wishes and that she wants me there with her at the end, and despite the fact I have told her to get to a solicitor's and make a living will, she won't follow through (mainly due to her hermit type existence) and the fact she gets terrified everytime she goes out. quote: ORIGINAL: Jeffff I would hate to be asked to help a loved one commit suicide. Personally, I would stock up on some killer(pun intended) meds. Hopefully I would not need much, if any help at all. As far as the law goes, it is pretty difficult to prosecute a successful suicide. Jeff

LadyEllen -> RE: Euthanasia (2/28/2008 6:42:33 AM)
The only realistic way forward in terms of State and Government MsM, is to remove all religious representatives from Parliament and to revoke the status of the CofE as State Religion. Prince Charles has made noises about this I believe in this statement that he would prefer to be head of all religions, and not to be head of the CofE when he becomes king. And he received widespread criticism in the media for his trouble - but he is along the right lines if we really do want a multi-cultural society (which incidentally we dont really have now, and not just because of the status of the CofE) The problem then though becomes that our elected representatives each have their own religions or philosophies, and it is impractical and pointless to request or even demand that they leave these at the door of the House, because even with the best will in the world, our religious/philosophical world view is what informs their views in debate. What we must avoid is to create religious/philosophical grounds for the selection of MPs (ie "I will only vote for a (insert religion of choice) MP), which I feel will lead to greater division and poor choices, and also lead to the creation of religious political parties, or parties which at least cater to certain religions for electoral advantage, such as I observe is the case in the US. By removing religious representatives from the upper House, we may only achieve the exact opposite of what we intended, and with consequences more dire than the current situation. E

Rule -> RE: Euthanasia (2/28/2008 6:47:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen The problem we have is that Christianity is a religion founded on the idea of excruciating pain and suffering being a redemptive, atoning force. Combine this with the idea that the evil will suffer either on this Earth or forever in the next life, and it becomes clear that it is better for one to suffer now in this life and enter paradise than to not suffer here and now and spend eternity in hell. Which is odd, considering that the message of christianity has always been that Jesus already did all the suffering and that people therefore need no longer suffer for their own sins themselves.

Chloelicious -> RE: Euthanasia (2/28/2008 6:50:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Not sure if you directed your response to me directly Chloe. Lady Ellen the question was not directed to you personaly but I agree with your thoughts and I'm happy that you responded. Chloé

Rule -> RE: Euthanasia (2/28/2008 6:51:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MissMorrigan I read somewhere that a catholic priest was deterring men in Africa from using condoms b/c he said they were 'the devil's tool' HIV is a biological weapon of mass destruction and the Catholic church is doing its utmost for this weapon to make as many victims as possible. Satan and his minions are in charge of the Catholic church - as well as of most other religions.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875