euthanasia... (read inside)
- Thread starter jonas13
- 19 comments
- 478 views
Having been in a position where euthanasia could have been an option twice in the last five years (parents with terminal cancer) I believe it should be legal.
Having seen Mum go through multiple rounds of chemo and radiotherapy, and seeing what they do to cancer patients, when a person has been through all of the treatment and has nothing left in reserve and just wants it over, they should be granted that wish - these people are tired, in high levels of pain, and it is cruel on them and their families.
There are a lot of potential dangers that are associated with it (ie. to ensure it doesn't become a 'cost saving' measure), but I definitely think it should be a legal option.
Having seen Mum go through multiple rounds of chemo and radiotherapy, and seeing what they do to cancer patients, when a person has been through all of the treatment and has nothing left in reserve and just wants it over, they should be granted that wish - these people are tired, in high levels of pain, and it is cruel on them and their families.
There are a lot of potential dangers that are associated with it (ie. to ensure it doesn't become a 'cost saving' measure), but I definitely think it should be a legal option.
- 4,677
In my country it is already legal in special cases.
When the patient cannot be helped anymore, and he is in horrible pain, he can make the decision him or herself to end it by a euthanasia pill.
I agree with legalizing euthanasia, only for ppl who can't be helped otherwise.
When the patient cannot be helped anymore, and he is in horrible pain, he can make the decision him or herself to end it by a euthanasia pill.
I agree with legalizing euthanasia, only for ppl who can't be helped otherwise.
- 3,823
Originally posted by GCstyle
Um, you sure you know what it is?
From The Greek Word Euthanatos (Which I believe is also the name of an Anime title now)
Generally used in the US to describe the mercy killings of animals that are sick, and on rare occasions people. (Dr. Jack Kevorkian brought the term into the public counsciousness several years ago.
So what I meant (and what most people probably understood) is that some people are terminally stupid, and should be freed from this mortal coil, thus putting an end to their suffering, and ours.
:upsdown:
- 12,993
- USA! USA!
For certain members on this board it should be encouraged.
GilesGuthrie
Staff Emeritus
- 11,038
- Edinburgh, UK
- CMDRTheDarkLord
I knew what you meant Tom. I don't agree with you (entirely), but I have been known to say of a particularly stupid person "Gee, (s)he should be castrated for the benefit of the gene pool".
Right, I'm off to vote and comment on the euthanasia issue now...
GilesGuthrie
Staff Emeritus
- 11,038
- Edinburgh, UK
- CMDRTheDarkLord
Right Jonas13, here are my views on euthanasia:
I think, generally, that it should be legal, but that it should be controlled. I would like to see a system of pre-Will wishes, which would outline a person's wishes were they to become severely impaired but still alive. Part of me thinks that it's wrong to keep someone alive on unnatural support (i.e. a ventilator etc), because if the body can't support its primary functions, it's not really going to be able to do so well in the big wide world.
The principle problem is one of emotion. Nobody likes to see people die, and in this situation, it's difficult to say "End it" and walk away, as either a medic or a relative. (I fully understand your position, but the way vat_man, and I do agree with it). So relatives and doctors are going to try to do anything possible to keep the person alive, and in doing so, they will often override the patient's wishes. Which I think is wrong.
In general, people don't want to be a burden to others. I'm going to be 30 this year, and two years ago, I had a big shunt in my car. I'm lucky to be alive. If I had been horribly injured, but remained alive, my wife would have to care for me for the rest of my life, which may be a number of years, during which her life would be severely impaired. I don't want that to happen to her. If I'm not going to get better, put me down, like you would a terminally-ill pet. Is it right to put a dog out of its misery, but to keep a human alive? I don't think so.
So this is where we come back to the pre-Will idea. Everyone should make one according to their own wishes (which would obviously take into account religious beliefs etc). I would define a number of conditions, such as multiple limb loss, loss of brain function, loss of primary body functions (e.g. unsupported breathing, eating, waste extraction), which if I underwent them, I would no longer wish to live. I would do this in agreement with my wife, and parents (and children when they became sufficiently old to be able to deal with the concepts involved), so that all the cards were on the table.
And I would expect them to carry out my wishes before my death, in the same way as I would expect them to after it.
It's a tough old world out there, and without all my abilities, I wouldn't want to be in it.
On the issue of third-party euthanasia, it's a tough one to call. I think that if you set up my proposed pre-Will idea, it should remain illegal for a doctor or a relative to say "End it" in the absence of a pre-Will, unless the relative were a parent of the victim.
That's my opinion. I hope it helps jonas13, and I'm sorry if it upsets anyone.
I think, generally, that it should be legal, but that it should be controlled. I would like to see a system of pre-Will wishes, which would outline a person's wishes were they to become severely impaired but still alive. Part of me thinks that it's wrong to keep someone alive on unnatural support (i.e. a ventilator etc), because if the body can't support its primary functions, it's not really going to be able to do so well in the big wide world.
The principle problem is one of emotion. Nobody likes to see people die, and in this situation, it's difficult to say "End it" and walk away, as either a medic or a relative. (I fully understand your position, but the way vat_man, and I do agree with it). So relatives and doctors are going to try to do anything possible to keep the person alive, and in doing so, they will often override the patient's wishes. Which I think is wrong.
In general, people don't want to be a burden to others. I'm going to be 30 this year, and two years ago, I had a big shunt in my car. I'm lucky to be alive. If I had been horribly injured, but remained alive, my wife would have to care for me for the rest of my life, which may be a number of years, during which her life would be severely impaired. I don't want that to happen to her. If I'm not going to get better, put me down, like you would a terminally-ill pet. Is it right to put a dog out of its misery, but to keep a human alive? I don't think so.
So this is where we come back to the pre-Will idea. Everyone should make one according to their own wishes (which would obviously take into account religious beliefs etc). I would define a number of conditions, such as multiple limb loss, loss of brain function, loss of primary body functions (e.g. unsupported breathing, eating, waste extraction), which if I underwent them, I would no longer wish to live. I would do this in agreement with my wife, and parents (and children when they became sufficiently old to be able to deal with the concepts involved), so that all the cards were on the table.
And I would expect them to carry out my wishes before my death, in the same way as I would expect them to after it.
It's a tough old world out there, and without all my abilities, I wouldn't want to be in it.
On the issue of third-party euthanasia, it's a tough one to call. I think that if you set up my proposed pre-Will idea, it should remain illegal for a doctor or a relative to say "End it" in the absence of a pre-Will, unless the relative were a parent of the victim.
That's my opinion. I hope it helps jonas13, and I'm sorry if it upsets anyone.
- 9,646
- Minus955
It's wrong because it's killing. You decide it - suicide. Your family decides it - murder. But if the person is in the point of no return, ex. - braindead, then it is acceptable to end that person's suffering.
If the person has a chance to live, you must keep the person on life support.
If the person has a chance to live, you must keep the person on life support.
- 80
.
Last edited:
