Euthanasia anyone?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-09-2011, 11:25 AM
RE: Euthanasia anyone?
@Filox

Hunter Thompson was only 67? Now, there's a guy who lived fast! I liked his work, and it would have been so much fun to see what he did with this present kerfuffle.
He was so... American!

Of course you are right about the gun. In some countries that's easy, in others, not. Some landscapes offer high cliffs over lethal rocks. Walking into the ocean may present some tactical difficulty. Favoured north American methods are suicide by car or defenestration which risk bystanders; another long-recognized method of cornered felons is suicide by police. All these methods require a certain amount of mobility and physical co-ordination. Not suitable to end-stage melanoma or a severed spinal chord - who most need an exit.

It's precisely because one is reluctant to involve relatives (who might not be emotionally equipped to carry out the deed, or might not be ready to lose the dying person at the agreed time, or who perhaps still have years of potentially happy life that ought to be free of both guilt and judicial harassment ) that we need legislation to liberate professional health-care personnel from legal constraints. A vet has rights that a physician doesn't.*
(*but maybe don't extend it to dentists)

If you pray to anything, you're prey to anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2011, 02:26 PM
 
RE: Euthanasia anyone?
(06-09-2011 11:25 AM)Peterkin Wrote:  ...we need legislation to liberate professional health-care personnel from legal constraints.

"Legislation on euthanasia in Switzerland permits assisted suicide. For example, deadly drugs may be prescribed as long as the recipient takes an active role in the drug administration. Active euthanasia (such as administering a lethal injection) is not legal.[1] For assisted suicide, the law doesn't require a physician to be involved, nor does it require the recipient to be a Swiss national. These aspects of the law are unique in the world:

See more here...
Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2011, 04:16 PM
RE: Euthanasia anyone?
Death is part of life. If we are in favor of dignity in life why not dignity in death? If we are against telling people how to live their lives why are we in favor of telling them how to die? We have no control over when and how we are born, but we can control how and when to die, so why not do it? Life has meaning only insofar as we give it meaning. If our life stops having meaning to us why not have the alternative to end it in a "clean", dignified way?

English is not my first language. If you think I am being mean, ask me. It could be just a wording problem.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2011, 04:52 PM
 
RE: Euthanasia anyone?
(06-09-2011 11:25 AM)Peterkin Wrote:  It's precisely because one is reluctant to involve relatives (who might not be emotionally equipped to carry out the deed, or might not be ready to lose the dying person at the agreed time, or who perhaps still have years of potentially happy life that ought to be free of both guilt and judicial harassment ) that we need legislation to liberate professional health-care personnel from legal constraints. A vet has rights that a physician doesn't.

I think this thread needs another chance, in view of GirlyMan's "Rational Suicide" thread.

In my view (expressed above), denying assistance to people who want to rationally end their lives is one of the most barbaric attitudes in our age.

We have a lot of new people on this Forum, since this thread expired, and I am curious how they feel about it?
Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2011, 09:54 PM (This post was last modified: 13-11-2011 09:59 PM by Mr Woof.)
RE: Euthanasia anyone?
(13-11-2011 04:52 PM)Zatamon Wrote:  
(06-09-2011 11:25 AM)Peterkin Wrote:  It's precisely because one is reluctant to involve relatives (who might not be emotionally equipped to carry out the deed, or might not be ready to lose the dying person at the agreed time, or who perhaps still have years of potentially happy life that ought to be free of both guilt and judicial harassment ) that we need legislation to liberate professional health-care personnel from legal constraints. A vet has rights that a physician doesn't.

I think this thread needs another chance, in view of GirlyMan's "Rational Suicide" thread.

In my view (expressed above), denying assistance to people who want to rationally end their lives is one of the most barbaric attitudes in our age.

We have a lot of new people on this Forum, since this thread expired, and I am curious how they feel about it?
My view have not changed since O.P.

As for suicide it can be very messy; some Australians have had to travel to Mexico to procure nembutal, a drug that works very well.

As indicated previously my major concerns are age,prognosis, and degree of suffering endured by the victim.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2011, 03:03 AM
RE: Euthanasia anyone?
I’m for it, I have said once that I wasn’t to be hooked to a machine and I’ll say it again when the time comes.
Death, far from being feared, would be a welcome relief from the years of pain and heartache suffered not only by the person but their loved ones who can only watch as the person they once knew slowly fades.

There are two options right now.
1: A quick, or relatively quick violent death by automobile, collapsing building, firearm, industrial accident or some other “wrong place, wrong time” event that prevents you from picking up milk on the way home.

2: A slower “just get on with it” death that’ll be held off by drugs, isotopes, ventilators or some other way of keeping you hanging on long after the fight is over.

The third option is not readily available as modern medicine is developed to keep us ticking for as long as possible, not as long as necessary.
And why some people can’t accept old age as a reason for death is beyond me, people get old, the batteries run down, the hard drive is full, and the “use by” date has passed.

Yes, we should be looking for a cure for cancer and AIDS and the other nasty’s that thin out our ranks, but that just means we are more likely to succumb to option one.
But right now, there is no cure.
We can, and should, fight it with every thing we have.
But, once it’s reached the point of no return then chill out, spend your time getting a few kicks in then pull the pin when the pain is too much.

Death with dignity, with my mind unscrambled and a smile on my ugly mug.
Why is it so much to ask for?

A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2011, 05:04 AM
RE: Euthanasia anyone?
There was a case a few years ago in the UK where a young and upcoming Rugby player was paralysed in training......he had his world turned upside down and he decided to travel to Switerland with his parents to end his own life.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3...ident.html

I gave this a lot of thought around that time as I could sort of empathise with the guy as he obviously saw no way out from his problem......I tried to end my life in '99 as I was extremly depressed with life and I too saw no way out of the problems I was facing.......for me it was a cry for help because I attempted to cut my wrists and as soon as I had I realised that I didnt actually want to die.

It was a snap judgement for me at the time......I wasnt really in the right state of mind to make such a decision. So I think it should boil down to what the problem is.......if it is something that will affect your life to the degree that you could still live, but have a vastly reduced quality of life then things like this should be given a lot of supported thought.....options and alternatives explored fully and THEN......if the person decides to still end there life then the choice should still be theres.

Obviously the choice to end ones life is not treated lightly, it is given a lot of thought because for me personally at that time of my life I was sad.......I didnt want to leave my family and friends yet like I mentioned before I didnt see a way out of the problems I was facing.........I needed help.

If somebody is in a lot of pain and suffering and it is quite plain to see at the end of all of it is death........with no cure on the cards.......then to me personally I dont really see any need to explore alternatives because there wont be any. If the person doesnt wish to suffer any longer then that should be there right.

I dont think the health system looks at this enough........the health systems of the world obv look to make cures, to help people....but there are times when the health system dont have answers......so it must be faced that given no choice, no way out, that people should be advised on how to leave the "stage of life". It should be offered as an alternative much like pain killers are offered as a way of easing the pain.....its obviously a decision with wide ramifications and people DO need help and support with that decision.......help that the authorites simply dont give.

Legally people can get into trouble for helping people die......so legally I think people should be helped with this decision and BEFORE they get to a stage where they can be classed as not being able to voice there choice......they should be given alternatives to write a document supported by law that states if it does get to a pre-determined stage where maybe they cannot voice there opinion nor take there lifes themselves with there own hands.

I compare this document to organ donation.........my father was a big supporter of organ donation and when he died the doctors asked us about it. We all knew that those were his wishes and he had a donor card but my eldest brother didnt want it to happen........because of religion (at the time he had recently become a catholic)

So if the choice was up to him he wouldnt of let it happen.....even though he knew that it was my fathers wishes and he would of wanted it done.....so my brother wasnt thinking about the needs or wishes of others....he was simply considering his own......which to me again just points out the importance of having a document backed by law that protects the wishes of people who cannot voice there opinion any longer.

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2011, 05:47 AM
RE: Euthanasia anyone?
Why stop there? Put all the elderly out of their misery.

80+ Well you had a good run....and besides, you cost way too much to keep alive. How many children are starving to death, and dying of curable diseases so you can cling to a pointless life?
Shouldn't the people who actually have a future be given priority?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2011, 07:52 AM
RE: Euthanasia anyone?
(14-11-2011 05:47 AM)mysticjbyrd Wrote:  Why stop there? Put all the elderly out of their misery.

80+ Well you had a good run....and besides, you cost way too much to keep alive. How many children are starving to death, and dying of curable diseases so you can cling to a pointless life?
Shouldn't the people who actually have a future be given priority?

Is that not forced euthanasia?? (if such term could exist)

Is that not bordering on the "darker" side of eugenics???

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2011, 10:43 AM (This post was last modified: 14-11-2011 10:48 AM by Peterkin.)
RE: Euthanasia anyone?
Now there are three different issues mixed in together, than need to be thought about separately, objectively and seriously.

Euthanasia by patient's choice was the original topic issue. I would like to see the legal and medical professions get real about this. Imagine being totally paralyzed, aware, but unable to move, effect anything, do anything.... maybe for years - or decades! .... and some self-righteous old fart in a comfortable oak-panelled office gets to deny you a right to be relieved of that condition. That is simply wrong.
Where people are depressed or suffer from emotional problems that may be curable or at least relievable, they need access to counseling as well as treatment, with death as an option in extreme recalcitrant cases.
Incurable illness, injury, malformation or degeneration require case-by-case assessment and discussion with the patient, family and attending physician to determine the best available alternative and time-line.

Secondly, mandated euthanasia was mentioned. This is simply the same wrong pendulum swinging over to the other extreme. If we don't tolerate outside agencies forcing us to live, why would we accept the same agencies deciding when we die?

The third matter is allocation of resources; which human life is worth how much. In the present political and economic reality, that is mere, far-fetched speculation. Nobody is putting human lives on any scale of values, except: privileged western middle-to-upper-class = must be saved as long as possible by any means possible, at any cost; all others = tough titties. When/if we can be a little more rational, let's talk.

If you pray to anything, you're prey to anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: