RE: Euthanasia

RE: Euthanasia (Full Version)

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

Message

Pyrrsefanie -> RE: Euthanasia (2/28/2008 4:54:05 PM)
If the person is of sound mind and body (i.e. not in a coma or being affected neurologically by their disease in such a way that would render them incapable of making rational decisions), and they're in a legitimate amount of pain with no good prognosis, I say it's not our place to tell them "no, sorry, suck it up." I can understand the argument that some people make that medical advances could be made within that person's lifetime to significantly improve their quality of life, but when it gets to the point as it has for the woman in the OP's article... Jesus, do you really want to gamble that way? You might live to be cured, yeah, but more likely you'll just suffer and die a horribly painful death before any help can come your way. I don't believe that it would be robbing family members of quality time spent with that person before their passing... which would be worse, helplessly watching a person you love suffer for months, even years? Or knowing that they'd be able to go quickly and quietly, putting a stop to their pain and, if you're of the spiritual persuasion, finding themselves in a better place? Of course then there's the whole can of worms that opens up with life insurance companies not paying benefits to families of suicide victims, so I suppose the legislation would have to be rewritten should assisted suicide become legal in this country, or else I can easily imagine life insurance companies utilizing that loophole to avoid having to pay up. People euthanize their dogs and cats for much less than some people have to suffer through before they die.

LotusSong -> RE: Euthanasia (2/28/2008 5:00:57 PM)
I watch my mother dwell in an immobile body of Parkinsons' for 25 years. She wanted desperately to exit. But noooooooo.. they kept her pumped with drugs enough that they caused hallucinations. Yup.. quite a graceful way to go. I'll expect the same compassion that I give my pets when their quality of life is nil.

TracyTaken -> RE: Euthanasia (2/28/2008 5:08:30 PM)
quote: 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 I don't think it would be very easy to abuse if set up correctly. I hate the thought that dying people suffer because can't we see our way clear to give their needs a higher priority than potential abuses. I don't think that's not why it's legal anyway. I think it likely has more to do with "sanctity of life" issues (read: RELIGION) imposed on the dying.

BossyShoeBitch -> RE: Euthanasia (2/28/2008 5:09:28 PM)
I watched my Mom die with cancer riddling her entire body from smoking.. She died at home, unassisted.. However, for a short time I couldn't account for one bottle of morphine the Dr. had prescribed for her and was told if I couldn't find it they would have to perform an autospy to rule out "foul play"... Thank goodness I found it but how fucked up that they would have had to cut through all the cancerous tumors to determine "cause of death" ... pfft.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Euthanasia (2/28/2008 5:19:11 PM)
quote: If the person is of sound mind and body (i.e. not in a coma or being affected neurologically by their disease in such a way that would render them incapable of making rational decisions), and they're in a legitimate amount of pain with no good prognosis, I say it's not our place to tell them "no, sorry, suck it up." Aren't those two conditions at least somewhat in conflict?

Pyrrsefanie -> RE: Euthanasia (2/28/2008 5:21:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: If the person is of sound mind and body (i.e. not in a coma or being affected neurologically by their disease in such a way that would render them incapable of making rational decisions), and they're in a legitimate amount of pain with no good prognosis, I say it's not our place to tell them "no, sorry, suck it up." Aren't those two conditions at least somewhat in conflict? I fail to see how, unless you're assuming that a person cannot be in pain and be rational at the same time. Before you respond, keep in mind that you're debating this with someone who's no stranger to chronic pain and illness.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Euthanasia (2/28/2008 5:34:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pyrrsefanie quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: If the person is of sound mind and body (i.e. not in a coma or being affected neurologically by their disease in such a way that would render them incapable of making rational decisions), and they're in a legitimate amount of pain with no good prognosis, I say it's not our place to tell them "no, sorry, suck it up." Aren't those two conditions at least somewhat in conflict? I fail to see how, unless you're assuming that a person cannot be in pain and be rational at the same time. Can we be certain that is not the case?

ownedgirlie -> RE: Euthanasia (2/28/2008 5:39:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BossyShoeBitch I watched my Mom die with cancer riddling her entire body from smoking.. She died at home, unassisted.. However, for a short time I couldn't account for one bottle of morphine the Dr. had prescribed for her and was told if I couldn't find it they would have to perform an autospy to rule out "foul play"... Thank goodness I found it but how fucked up that they would have had to cut through all the cancerous tumors to determine "cause of death" ... pfft. Wow. That would have been pretty horrible. We had bottles and bottles left over and nobody seemed to care about it. Nobody asked about them at all. I found that weird.

Pyrrsefanie -> RE: Euthanasia (2/28/2008 5:44:31 PM)
quote: Can we be certain that is not the case? In some situations it may be. But in some situations it isn't. Like one of my dear friend's mother, who died a slow and painful death from lung cancer, and when asked if she wanted her morphine drip upped to end it faster, refused, because she believed it was more honorable to die naturally than it was to take matters into her own hands. You could argue that she was insane to refuse, but I contend that she was actually pretty rational if she chose suffering over the so-called "easy way out." Not everyone suffering from a chronic, debilitating disease would pick assisted suicide... which is fine. The point is that there should be a choice. If they legalized it, I'd personally make revisions to my current living will to cover this situation so that should I ever be diagnosed with end-stage cancer or some other horrific, fatal disease, there'd be no question as to whether I'm just delirious with pain or if I really mean it when I give the final word. People deal with different degrees of pain in different ways. Some people are practically on the floor in tears at a papercut. Others deal with severe pain on a constant basis without batting an eyelash. Do I believe that someone with a lower pain tolerance could possibly be driven "mad," so to speak, with pain? Absolutely. But that's not the case for all.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Euthanasia (2/28/2008 7:39:34 PM)
quote: In some situations it may be. But in some situations it isn't. And therein lies the problem. Is there a useful criteria by which a society may plausibly and reliably deem the decision to end one's life "rational"? In a case such as that referenced in the OP, the decision may seem rational--and I certainly would not wish to argue that point in that case. Can we extrapoloate from such examples to general conditions that would justify the ending of life? I do not believe we can, precisely because of the variation in human experience you describe. Consequently, I have to argue against euthanasia. The determination of what constitutes an acceptable "quality of life" is too subjective, and too personal, for society to know with certainty whether assisting someone with ending their life is justifiable or not. In cases such as the one referenced in the OP, however, the same basic reasoning could also be applied to not interfering with a person's decision to end their own life--which would likely be my response in that circumstance. I would not oppose suicide in such cases, but neither would I assist it.

FangsNfeet -> RE: Euthanasia (2/28/2008 9:04:51 PM)
The concept of Euthanasia is fucked up. In the United States of America, we're not allowed to euthanise our family/loved ones who are to the point of begging for death. On the flip side, you can be charged with cruel and unusal punishment for not euthanizing a pet animal. Ending the life of a person suffering beyond belief is bad but ending the life of a pet suffering beyone belief is good. What a fucking double standared.

MissMorrigan -> RE: Euthanasia (2/29/2008 12:42:44 AM)
I have asked other people for their views and opinions as to how they formulated their views, Seeks. The reason I have not provided my own is b/c, as clearly stated, I am unable to make my mind up one way or the other regarding this subject. I can see strong arguments for opposing stances. Only tellin' It's a quandary I'm faced with concerning my own parents, my mother has always reaffirmed that should she ever reach the point where her quality of life is greatly diminished to the point she derives no enjoyment from her existence, then she'd take her own life, is physically able to do so, or would like ME to assist her. I've readily agreed, not really having given much thought to it, but as she advances in age and her emphysema worsens, I'm faced with the real possibility that I may have to make such a decision - and quite simply, I am torn. I'm torn for several reasons. I do not want to see her suffer, nor do I want her passing in a drug-filled haze (she doesn't want that either), I'm also angry at the lack of faciltiies available to her LEGALLY to ease her passing when it arrives, and quite simply, if I do assist her then I have committed a murderous act - although I understand the judiciary will look upon me leniently should I take that course of action, but I would still have a slur against my character. I know that when the time comes, if I am faced with that decision I will make it - and do as she wishes. I am trying to reconcile in my own mind how I can comfortably process this emotionally-speaking, and the lady's case in the OP simply highlighted this subject for me, Seeks. By the way, as for some of the elderly being devoid of anything remotely human and living as shells, I'd have to disagree with you, Seeks. I love your tenacity, you have a lot of spunk I admire, you're erudite and worldly beyond my experiences, and I have to disagree with you. My father in law has alzheimer's. I hear many people state, "there's nothing there, he doesn't know who he is, what he's done in life, he can't remember where the bathroom is to take a leak, or defecate, I wish I could end his suffering." Sure my father in law (ex father in law legally, but we're all still very close) has advanced alzheimer's and it is distressing for his wife/family to watch his decline, I have to say that I personally do not feel he is suffering at all, he's very happy in his little world where he pees on people's car tyres instead of going to the bathroom (only b/c he can't ever find the bathroom), he sometimes goes on very long walks - one occasion he made his way onto the M25 and walked for 15 miles after he wandered off during a day out. He'll sit there and blow raspberries and laugh loudly when he farts, he's resorted to picking his nose regardless of who's in the room with him but he's in NO physical pain. He sometimes gets a little scared b/c he doesn't know the faces around him and whenever I hear his family talk about 'ending his suffering', I can't help but think it's THEIR suffering they're discussing the potential of ending, and not his. As to my last comment, I can see considerable potential for many poeple to make a living will stipulating that they want to be assisted with death b/c they feel a burden to their loved ones, i.e., undue pressure. It's that which I cannot come to terms with and partly why I remain undecided. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave adding: how can you explain how opinions were formed without stating whether you are for or against Euthanasia ? Only arskin .

seeksfemslave -> RE: Euthanasia (2/29/2008 2:34:26 AM)
Well MsM first thanks for the complements. Not really deserved but gratefully received. Regarding the state people can get into with advancing old age I dont particularly want to go into details but I know what I saw with my Dad during the last two years of his life. I personally would not have been able to "euthanase" him but this is what finally happened...approaching 94 he went into hospital with severe breathing difficulties. I asked what his prospects were. The doc asked me what his quality of like was like. I told the truth which was that it was almost zero. The doc said OK if his heart fails we will not resuscitate. . Less than 24 hours later he died. Heart failure ! I was shocked but I do not think what was "not" done was wrong. Not quite the same as euthanasia I know but there comes a point when it is time to go and I think people should be given the choice. How it is done requires careful consideration to avoid abuses but the very poor state in which it is possible to survive is a form of abuse either of medical treatment or nature IMO. Hope this is not too depressing for you but it is the truth as I see it. By the way in the Midlands where I live Hospices do exist, I am surprised you claim that there aren't many/any on the South Coast adding: MsM I think we can surprise ourselves when faced with difficult situations and I also believe that in your case you will instinctively know what is the right thing to do.

LadyEllen -> RE: Euthanasia (2/29/2008 3:36:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: (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. The Hippocratic Oath is hardly outdated. With regards to questions of euthanasia, it is exactly right. Doctors should not be in the practice of deciding when life should be ended. Quite simply, the physician should have no voice in such a debate. Euthanasia is not a question of medical ethics, but of social ethics. The Hippocratic Oath, properly followed, puts physicians on the sidelines of that discussion, which is where they belong. I disagree - doctors are exactly the people who should be involved in ending a life; not only because they have the requisite knowledge to be able to say when a person is terminally ill, but also because their main motivator is to keep people alive which throws in another safeguard to unnecessary terminations. And on top of that they have access to the means of euthanasia and are trained in its use and to know what the lethal dose for a person would be. And they are usually third parties, uninvolved as possible benefactors to an estate. I see no one better placed or qualified to perform this awful function. As to the Oath - if we are to say it is not outdated, then we must concede that it requires reinterpretation, because the current understanding is that doctors must not do anything to harm and must not violate the morals of their community - that so many here have expressed no problem with euthanasia provided there are safeguards in place and it is requested by the patient, says that the morals of the community have moved on. That we now have the knowledge to know when further curative treatments are more harm than good and that the best thing is to allow peaceful death, says that the notion of harm must be looked at again. E

LadyEllen -> RE: Euthanasia (2/29/2008 3:50:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: In some situations it may be. But in some situations it isn't. And therein lies the problem. Is there a useful criteria by which a society may plausibly and reliably deem the decision to end one's life "rational"? I had a stab at this in post 6 - but really its nothing to do with "society", its the decision of an individual who is the only one who inhabits that body and experiences it. Its only the business of society in as much as society influences the law to enable euthanasia to take place. E

celticlord2112 -> RE: Euthanasia (2/29/2008 4:10:46 AM)
quote: I disagree - doctors are exactly the people who should be involved in ending a life; not only because they have the requisite knowledge to be able to say when a person is terminally ill, but also because their main motivator is to keep people alive which throws in another safeguard to unnecessary terminations. And on top of that they have access to the means of euthanasia and are trained in its use and to know what the lethal dose for a person would be. And they are usually third parties, uninvolved as possible benefactors to an estate. I see no one better placed or qualified to perform this awful function. Strictly speaking, all deliberate ending of life is unnecessary. We do not need to euthanize the terminally ill; as a society we may choose to permit or even encourage such action, but it is facetious in the extreme to posit any wilful ending of life as "necessary." Additionally, the role of the physician is to improve quality of life for the ill and the injured. Ending life may be merciful under certain circumstances, but death can not be counted as improving the quality of life; that is a contradiction in terms. Access to requisite substances for ending human life is not restricted to doctors. A few quick google searches will reveal numerous toxic substances which may be used to end human life with a minimum of pain. A few more google searches will reveal detailed instructions in their use. Finally, the only group that should weigh in on a choice to end life is the terminally/incurably ill person himself or herself. All others should bow out of the discussion--particularly those with no emotional stake in the patient's life. My life, and the quality of my life, is precious to me, and also to my slave; they are considerably less precious to you, a complete stranger. I do not want a stranger expressing a professional opinion on whether my life should continue or no. quote: As to the Oath - if we are to say it is not outdated, then we must concede that it requires reinterpretation, because the current understanding is that doctors must not do anything to harm and must not violate the morals of their community - that so many here have expressed no problem with euthanasia provided there are safeguards in place and it is requested by the patient, says that the morals of the community have moved on. That we now have the knowledge to know when further curative treatments are more harm than good and that the best thing is to allow peaceful death, says that the notion of harm must be looked at again. The Hippocratic Oath is an Oath to preserve life. The focus of the physician should properly be to preserve life. When disease outstrips the physician's art, and cure becomes impossible, it is not a violation of the Oath to provide palliative care--indeed, the Oath would mandate such care as being the best the physician could provide. If healers focus on healing, over time one would expect the number of conditions under which euthanasia seems reasonable to decline. That, to my mind, is a desirable outcome, regardless of one's stance on euthanasia itself. Let the healers heal....and let's find someone else willing to play executioner to the terminally ill.

LadyEllen -> RE: Euthanasia (2/29/2008 4:45:13 AM)
You misunderstand what I propose in post 6; it is the patient's decision, the doctors are there only to confirm that no improvement is possible and to make possible the ending of the patient's life. If similar arrangements as are in place for abortion are in place here, and these are deemed acceptable in law, then there is no reason why they should not be similarly acceptable in the case of euthanasia. The added factor I propose is that any euthanasia is investigated by coroner and police afterwards, to ensure no foul play - this ups the ante considerably and safeguards all involved. E

seeksfemslave -> RE: Euthanasia (2/29/2008 5:02:38 AM)
Another point surely is that the details eg timing/how it is to be done of the final act, should be "worked out" before hand. It should not just be a spur of the moment decision.

SultryMomma -> RE: Euthanasia (2/29/2008 5:14:57 AM)
I have to agree with you on this. Right now, my husband and I are going through this. His father has end stage terminal lung cancer. He is literally dying right in front of us at home. He wants to be home. My mother in law, bless her, looks like hell because of everything she is doing to try and help him ease the pain at least alittle. He wants to die. We want him to stop suffering. The hospice worker that comes in says she can barely hear anything when she listens to his chest. The cancer is consuming his entire body now. Basically, it is coming down to when will the cancer burst. We have been told that when this happens it will be terrible. He will be suffering even more than what he is now. He will basically bleed out of any hole. I personally don't think its right that he has to suffer like that. Why should his wife suffer and see this or his son (my husband)? It makes no sense to me at all. [:(] SM (Kris) quote: ORIGINAL: FangsNfeet The concept of Euthanasia is fucked up. In the United States of America, we're not allowed to euthanise our family/loved ones who are to the point of begging for death. On the flip side, you can be charged with cruel and unusal punishment for not euthanizing a pet animal. Ending the life of a person suffering beyond belief is bad but ending the life of a pet suffering beyone belief is good. What a fucking double standared.

TheBanshee -> RE: Euthanasia (2/29/2008 5:18:36 AM)
This is a very difficult subject - Can you visualize "Mom, you really don't want to live this way do you? You're only going to get worse and suffer. We can end it very comfortable now before you get to the point where you can't function at all, you don't want everyone to see you like that" (and you realize you'll be depleting the entire inheritance) or in a kinder motivation (Its me that can't stand to see you this way). I can see the interpretation of where the line of when its too much to tolerate getting a little fuzzy. The above scenario might seem a little calculating, but in the backs of minds of seriously ill caregivers I'm sure this thought pops up - that someone lives just long enough to lose any equity they might inherit. People in a vulnerable (sick and in a great deal of pain, not to mention stress) can probably be very manipulated, perhaps even with kindness. They are scared and the unknown of how their illness may progress for them individualy (even terminal ones) can be as bad as the illness itself. Everyone has a limit, a threshold where its too much. It'll start to become easier to lower the bar once it is legal.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875