Is Euthanasia the Future of End-of-Life Choices?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jackson6612
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the controversial topics of suicide and euthanasia, with participants advocating for the right to end one's life, particularly for the elderly and terminally ill. Concerns are raised about the influence of religious beliefs on the legality of euthanasia, with some arguing that personal autonomy should prevail over religious objections. The distinction between euthanasia and assisted suicide is debated, with some participants expressing support for assisted suicide under strict conditions while opposing euthanasia. There are fears of potential abuse, such as elderly individuals being pressured into euthanasia by family members. Overall, the conversation reflects a growing belief that euthanasia may become more accepted in the future, particularly in less religiously influenced regions.
  • #31
Suicide:

A person wishing to commit suicide is deemed, by definition, to not be of sound mind, and unable to act in his own best interest. Even if false, it is always better to err on the side of caution.

Euthanasia:

It is far too susceptible to abuse and slippery slope. As one example, once the deed is done, the victim is unable to testify that they really wanted it of their own free will.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
FlexGunship said:
I believe the problem is that a DNR is a document. To paint a possible scenario:

  • A good friend is over for a glass of Scotch and a cigar when he has a heart attack. You wish to help them. You call the paramedics. They arrive to find a person who has died from a heart attack. Using the few seconds available to them, the use an automatic defibrillator to revive the person. That person had signed a DNR but is now in a vegetative state. Do you kill them now?
  • A good friend is over for a glass of Scotch and a cigar when he has a heart attack. You wish to help them. You call the paramedics. They arrive to find a person who has died from a heart attack. Using the few seconds available to them, they call around to find anyone who might know who has power of attorney. After reaching the correct law firm which is closed until the following morning, the friend dies. He never signed a DNR and simple intervention would've saved his life.

My wife has epilepsy. Once when I was at work she felt the aura of a seizure coming on and called our neighbor who is a paramedic. When he got there she told him several times if she goes into a seizure, not to call an ambulance and not to take her to the hospital. As soon as she went into a seizure he called an ambulance to take her to the hospital.

Later he explained to us that when a patient is unconscious, a paramedic has her implied consent to do what he believes is best for the patient regardless of what the patient has indicated previously. I'm not sure if a DNR would be sufficient to prevent a paramedic from doing what he thinks best.
 
  • #33
skeptic2 said:
As soon as she went into a seizure he called an ambulance to take her to the hospital.
I'm cool with that. Better safe than sorry.

She may feel it's no big deal, but from his point of view, her life is in his hands.
 
  • #34
DaveC426913 said:
Just for the record: the argument is this:

They are speaking for the rights of the unborn person who cannot speeak for itself. But if it could, it would certainly want to live. No one has the right, not even the mother to end that potential life. Baby is not a possession, to be owned.

That's the argument you need to address. But not here.
No, actually the baby is a parasite on the mother, and as such the mother has the right to terminate the pregnancy.

And we're not going to start a religious discussion on this. Back on topic please.
 
  • #35
Evo said:
No, actually the baby is a parasite on the mother, and as such the mother has the right to terminate the pregnancy.

And we're not going to start a religious discussion on this.

Twas not an argument. And I was not expressing my opinion. I was answering leroy's question. Why do they feel they can do this? That's why.
 
  • #36
DaveC426913 said:
Twas not an argument. And I was not expressing my opinion. I was answering leroy's question. Why do they feel they can do this? That's why.
My bad, I see that.

<places another GOOBF card in Dave's computer>
 
  • #37
o:)10char
 
  • #38
DaveC426913 said:
I'm cool with that. Better safe than sorry.

She may feel it's no big deal, but from his point of view, her life is in his hands.

My point was that even with a DNR and even if the DNR was presented to the paramedic, there is good reason to believe the paramedic wouldn't honor it.

[The reason my wife did not want to go to the hospital is that the only thing they do is observe her. They monitor her blood pressure and pulse for about 3 hours and that's it. Even with insurance that's a hefty bill. Another time she had a seizure in a clinic about closing time. There was a group of about 7 doctors that did nothing but call an ambulance. It seemed like I knew more about what to do than they did.]
 
  • #39
skeptic2 said:
My point was that even with a DNR and even if the DNR was presented to the paramedic, there is good reason to believe the paramedic wouldn't honor it.
It's a legal document, they have to honor it. A member here is a paramedic, they won't revive someone if they're told there is a DNR.

Later he explained to us that when a patient is unconscious, a paramedic has her implied consent to do what he believes is best for the patient regardless of what the patient has indicated previously.
That's correct, unconscious but not dying.

I'm not sure if a DNR would be sufficient to prevent a paramedic from doing what he thinks best.
If the patient was dying (heart stopped, not breathing) and had a DNR, the paramedic would not be allowed to revive them, even if unconscious, which I would assume without a heart beat and not breathing, they are usually unconscious.
 
  • #40
skeptic2 said:
Even with insurance that's a hefty bill.

Got me again. I always forgot that you Americans have to pay for your healthcare.

btw, what do Americans pay for air to breathe and water to drink? :-p
 
  • #41
DaveC426913 said:
Got me again. I always forgot that you Americans have to pay for your healthcare.

btw, what do Americans pay for air to breathe and water to drink? :-p
It depends on your insurance. My ER copay went from $40 to $125, and that covers the ER tests, blood work, x-rays, Iv's, meds, stitches, casts, etc... the catch is to not get admitted, if you get admitted, then you start paying more, used to be free, now it's $150 a day for the first 4 days, then it's free again.
 
  • #42
what you might also want to do is grant a power of attorney to a trusted family member
 
  • #43
DaveC426913 said:
btw, what do Americans pay for air to breathe

I'm sure someone somewhere in the states is working on a way to charge for this.

Okay then, can someone who is against euthanasia simply because we shouldn't help people die / don't agree with suicide (not because of potential abuse etc), answer me this:

Why do you feel a terminally ill patient should suffer (potentially in a lot of pain) for months longer than they need to when the end result is the same? Does that extra few months of suffering achieve anything? Does the person deserve it? (Please don't take a WBC view on that last one :rolleyes:)
 
  • #44
So far as DNR goes, I thought the only thing needed to prevent that happening was you wear a bracelet or necklace with "DNR" or "Do Not Resuscitate" inscribed on on it?
 
  • #45
jarednjames said:
Why do you feel a terminally ill patient should suffer (potentially in a lot of pain) for months longer than they need to when the end result is the same? Does that extra few months of suffering achieve anything? Does the person deserve it? (Please don't take a WBC view on that last one :rolleyes:)
What if I'm in the middle of robbing a bank and the teller is slow in handing over the loot. Perhaps they are suffering from arthritis. Should I help out by putting them out of their misery? The fact that it puts them out of my misery too is just an added perq. What if it's my poor mother? Last week she dropped a bundle in Atlantic city and has been just miserable since. I hate to see her suffer so while there's so much to be gained by disbursing her funds according to her will. And delay will only diminish the take since she plans to go again next week.
 
  • #46
Jimmy Snyder said:
What if I'm in the middle of robbing a bank and the teller is slow in handing over the loot. Perhaps they are suffering from arthritis. Should I help out by putting them out of their misery? The fact that it puts them out of my misery too is just an added perq. What if it's my poor mother? Last week she dropped a bundle in Atlantic city and has been just miserable since. I hate to see her suffer so while there's so much to be gained by disbursing her funds according to her will. And delay will only diminish the take since she plans to go again next week.

This post is just a load of nonsense. It has nothing to do with my question.

Perhaps you should read again and check keywords such as "terminally ill".

The 'misery' from arthritis is not equivalent to being terminally ill.

Your entire post is centred on assisting suicide on the basis of someone suffering, you are leaving out the key qualifier of being terminally ill (in other words you have only a short time left to live and are facing your own mortality, potentially whilst in a lot of pain).

And before anyone does, please don't bring the whole "no one knows when they'll die / what's around the corner" and "we're all technically terminally ill" b******s. It isn't relevant here.

EDIT: I'd also add that I'm leaving out the elderly here for now. Want to keep things separated even if they are very similar.
 
  • #47
jarednjames said:
And before anyone does, please don't bring the whole "no one knows when they'll die / what's around the corner" and "we're all technically terminally ill" b******s. It isn't relevant here.
Why? Because it would show your argument to be the call for murder that it is?
 
  • #48
Jimmy Snyder said:
What if I'm in the middle of robbing a bank and the teller is slow in handing over the loot. Perhaps they are suffering from arthritis. Should I help out by putting them out of their misery? The fact that it puts them out of my misery too is just an added perq. What if it's my poor mother? Last week she dropped a bundle in Atlantic city and has been just miserable since. I hate to see her suffer so while there's so much to be gained by diAsbursing her funds according to her will. And delay will only diminish the take since she plans to go again next week.

Having had two grandparents die from cancer, this flippamt response irritates the **** out of me. Comparing someone who is a bit upset to someone who spent three months of his life in too much pain to talk even after being given diamorphine because morphine isn't strong enough, but can't be given any more. vomiting back what litle food you give them through a tube. Shitting and pissing blood so that the nurses regulally have to come and give you a top up.

The above doesn't even come close to adequately describing the last three months of my grandads life. All I can say is I'm thankful my nana died quickly.
 
  • #49
Jimmy Snyder said:
Why? Because it would show your argument to be the call for murder that it is?

No, because I'm asking a question with very specific parameters. I want to know why people against euthanasia (for reasons outlined above) believe people should suffer for a few extra months when the final result is the same.

Why is it murder? If I give you a needle with enough morphine to overdose and you take it, does that mean I've killed you? No. The person would take it voluntarily themselves (as per current requirements in the countries that offer this in the EU). If you want to bring this sort of rubbish into the equation, then you can claim the gun suppliers are responsible for murder. That the car makers are responsible for deaths due to dangerous driving. There is a difference between providing the means to do something (whether it be a car, a gun, a knife or a drug) and actually performing the act.

I can't remember which country, but one that does offer it requires you are video taped saying you want to do it and you must take the tablets yourself. Nobody kills you, and you can't murder yourself.

Your arguments are ridiculous and you're comparing apples to oranges.
 
  • #50
xxChrisxx said:
Having had two grandparents die from cancer, this flippamt response irritates the **** out of me. Comparing someone who is a bit upset to someone who spent three months of his life in too much pain to talk even after being given diamorphine because morphine isn't strong enough, but can't be given any more. vomiting back what litle food you give them through a tube. Shitting and pissing blood so that the nurses regulally have to come and give you a top up.

The above doesn't even come close to adequately describing the last three months of my grandads life. All I can say is I'm thankful my nana died quickly.
Would you have killed her without her permission?
 
  • #51
Jimmy Snyder said:
Would you have killed her without her permission?

I don't think anyone here has ever advocated doing that. I don't know why you feel anyone has.

We're not talking about simply killing someone because we feel they should die. We're discussing should someone be allowed to commit suicide or utilise voluntary euthanasia.

There are different categories of euthanasia and no person in this thread as advocated (or even discussed as far as I'm aware) non-voluntary euthanasia. It appears you are only focussing on one form of euthanasia and are oblivious to the others.

I'm also going to add in response to a previous post, that killing is only murder when it's illegal.
 
Last edited:
  • #52
Jimmy Snyder said:
Would you have killed her without her permission?

My nana didn't ask, but my grandad did a few times before he became so bad he just communicated with groans.

You have clearly never experienced a loved one taking months to die or you wouldn't be so flippant. Its so upsetting knowing you can't help them stop their suffering legally.
 
  • #53
jarednjames said:
voluntary euthanasia.
This is an oxymoron. In suicide, you kill yourself, in euthanasia you kill someone else. My argument is that the govt should not give anyone the right to kill someone else. My family has been through that too back in Europe. That murder wasn't murder either since it was all legal and aboveboard.
 
  • #54
xxChrisxx said:
Its so upsetting knowing you can't help them stop their suffering legally.
Is that all that stopped you? I'm not talking about pulling the plug, I'm talking about pulling the trigger. Would you have done it?
 
  • #55
How does it contradict itself?

In voluntary euthanasia, you give permission for someone to end your life to "relieve pain and suffering".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia

Non-voluntary is when someone chooses for you, voluntary is when you decide.

You are confusing two different things here.

The answer you gave to my question referred to euthanasia (non-voluntary) not suicide, which is what I was aiming it at.

The question is, does the government give a person the right to choose if they want to endure the pain and suffering. If not, should they be allowed to end their lives - their own choice, their actions cause the death (e.g. by taking an overdose)? And then a separate issue, should the government allow someone to help you end your life? (Conditions the same as the former - can someone help you by giving the overdose if you are incapable of doing so.)

Even in the countries where it is legal, the doctor isn't simply "given the right to end a life". They are on a fine edge and they must make sure they satisfy all of the requirements. Two of the main ones are: the patient must take time to decide / think about it (I believe it's a few months), the patient must be taped agreeing to and taking the drugs.
 
  • #56
Euthenasia is when you kill someone. I don't see how you can get around that so easily. How can I be sure that when granny says she wants to go, she wasn't made to see the benefits of doing so by impatient heirs. Or by doctors who have more lucrative patients who could fill the bed. I have a solution to the problem but it seems to be a minority position. Don't kill people. What a concept.
 
  • #57
Jimmy Snyder said:
Euthenasia is when you kill someone. I don't see how you can get around that so easily. How can I be sure that when granny says she wants to go, she wasn't made to see the benefits of doing so by impatient heirs. Or by doctors who have more lucrative patients who could fill the bed. I have a solution to the problem but it seems to be a minority position. Don't kill people. What a concept.

Jimmy, you are seeing it black and white. A terminally ill patient (i mean cancer patients) has to go through months of agony and suffering with no chance of cure. How do you in such cases determine his/ her outcome - Allow them to continue to suffer for a further few months or give them the option of euthanasia ?
 
  • #58
DaveC426913 said:
btw, what do Americans pay for air to breathe and water to drink? :-p

We already pay for our water through fee and taxes to local and state governments. Furthermore, some of us elect to purchase water in bottles from the store. I pay about $280 in taxes for municpal water each year plus some tiny amount "per cubic foot" on top of that. Additionally, for covenience, I sometimes buy bottled water at the store; maybe $2 per month.

If I had to guess, I might spend $350/yr on water.

Air? Hmm, my air conditioning takes quite a beating in the summer. Its about 1800 watts to run (which is about $0.28 per hour here) plus filters. It doesn't run constantly, though. Call it $5 a day to breathe cool dry air in the summer. Maybe $900 a year? I run a humidifier in the winter, but at 180 watts, its negligible.

I'm sure my employer pays quite a bit for air conditioning, too. Which means that he doesn't have that money to pay out in wages. I wouldn't know how to estimate that value though.

Where are you from Dave? How much do you pay?

In America, I can get rid of city water or local electricty if I find a cheaper way to get my water or air. How about you?
 
  • #59
FlexGunship said:
In America, I can get rid of city water or local electricty if I find a cheaper way to get my water or air. How about you?

As far as I'm aware, you can do that wherever you are in the world. You don't have to be hooked up to the grid, whether for electric, water or gas.

You can certainly do it in the UK.
 
  • #60
thorium1010 said:
Jimmy, you are seeing it black and white.
Yes. Matters of life and death often are black and white aren't they?

thorium1010 said:
Allow them to continue to suffer for a further few months or give them the option of euthanasia?
If you put it that way, the choice is clear as crystal. No euthanasia.
 

Similar threads

MHB My Failed University Life: Addictions, Depression, and Uncertain Future
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
When is Assisted Suicide Justified?
  • · Replies 107 ·
4
Replies
107
Views
37K
Should physician-assisted death be legalized in all countries?
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
Is Refusing All Medical Care A Rational Choice For End-Of-Life Planning?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Is it Rational to Skip Health Insurance if You're Young and Healthy?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Thought Experiment: Should Atheists End all Metabolism in Their Brain?
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
Human evolution - From sperm to ape
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
How Can a Digital Photo Frame Revive Old Memories and Connections?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Exploring Mental Blocks in Mathematics: A Personal Perspective
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
What is the future of mathematics in understanding the universe?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K