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

[JaredJames]

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.

 

[xxChrisxx]

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.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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?

 

[JaredJames]

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.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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.

 

[thorium1010]

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 ?

 

[FlexGunship]

btw, what do Americans pay for air to breathe and water to drink?

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?

 

[JaredJames]

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.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Jimmy, you are seeing it black and white.

Yes. Matters of life and death often are black and white aren't they?

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.

 

[JaredJames]

Jimmy, as per thorium above, your view is very much black and white.

Why can't you answer the question regarding terminal patients? Why can't there be a distinction between assisted suicide with a terminal patient and old people?

For me, the question regarding old people and assisted suicide is a difficult one, but terminally ill is not so. Until you can make such a distinction then I see your viewpoint is akin to a religious one, it lacks flexibility and thought,

I would like you to answer this question, don't add to it, don't change it, just answer for the scenario laid out:
You have a family member who is a terminally ill, they are in terrible pain and don't want to suffer for the next three months, after which they will die. Do you think they shouldn't have a choice and should be made to endure it until their coming death or do you think they should be allowed to commit suicide?

Once again, I recommend you learn the distinctions between the different forms of euthanasia. You aren't doing so and are viewing forced (non-voluntary) euthanasia in the same light as voluntary.

 

[thorium1010]

If you put it that way, the choice is clear as crystal. No euthanasia.

It finally is a individual choice. Some see the benefits in ending the suffering, others do not

 

[xxChrisxx]

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?

Yes.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

It finally is a individual choice. Some see the benefits in ending the suffering, some others do not

It is by no means an individual choice. Euthanasia takes two.

 

[JaredJames]

It finally is a individual choice. Some see the benefits in ending the suffering, some others do not

I'm curious if those who preach people don't have the right to end their suffering (again I refer to terminal patients), would still hold that opinion if they were in the position of months of excruciating pain and an inevitable death?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Yes.

And the only reason you didn't is the law. Why do some people allow others to suffer so? Just for their own comfort I guess.

 

[JaredJames]

It is by no means an individual choice. Euthanasia takes two.

Euthanasia is only required if the person wanting to die (again voluntary euthanasia) isn't capable of doing so themselves.

Once more, I see a distinction between euthanasia in this sense and simply allowing someone to commit suicide.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I'm curious if those who preach people don't have the right to end their suffering (again I refer to terminal patients), would still hold that opinion if they were in the position of months of excruciating pain and an inevitable death?

I suppose they would do the same thing they did during their lives. Do nothing to help themselves, and blame others for the result.

 

[Jack21222]

Euthenasia is when you kill someone.

Wrong. There's more to the definition than that, and you know it.

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.

Completely irrelevant. If granny wants to die, she should be allowed to die, and it really doesn't matter what her reasons are. Furthermore, she should be allowed to die in the most peaceful, humane way possible. In many cases, the patient is too weak to go home and use a gun, and hospital windows are difficult to smash open to jump out of.

As long as certain safeguards are in place (doctor's approval, signed document witnessed by a notary public, maybe a 3 day right to rescission, etc) there is very little room for abuse.

I have a solution to the problem but it seems to be a minority position. Don't kill people. What a concept.

That is tantamount to torturing people for months until they die on their own. That's no solution, that's monstrous.

 

[xxChrisxx]

And the only reason you didn't is the law. Why do some people allow others to suffer so? Just for their own comfort I guess.

I've had enough of talking about this now.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I would like you to answer this question, don't add to it, don't change it, just answer for the scenario laid out:
You have a family member who is a terminally ill, they are in terrible pain and don't want to suffer for the next three months, after which they will die. Do you think they shouldn't have a choice and should be made to endure it until their coming death or do you think they should be allowed to commit suicide?

After having prevented me from changing the question, you went and asked a complicated one. Simplify it and I will answer it.

 

[JaredJames]

After having prevented me from changing the question, you went and asked a complicated one. Simplify it and I will answer it.

Why is it complicated? It's a simple and realistic scenario faced by many people every single day. In what way would you like it simplified?

 

[thorium1010]

I suppose they would do the same thing they did during their lives. Do nothing to help themselves, and blame others for the result.

This is neither helpful nor good for the individual . By blaming others the individual is only going to delay accepting reality.

 

[cobalt124]

In the U.K. people go to Switzerland for assisted suicide, and there is at least one case where it was chosen because the person was "not prepared to live what he felt was a second-class existence".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hereford/worcs/7675745.stm

There seems to be a "tacit agreement" that family members will not be prosecuted for this, as none ever have been, if the police are happy it was the dead persons wish. An attempt was made to clarify the law on this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7698636.stm

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I've had enough of talking about this now.

Man I pressed a button there didn't I. It's not just the law after all.

 

[Evo]

I am all for assisted suicide. I do not want to suffer needlessly and I have made this very clear to everyone that knows me. If i have to move to a state where it's legal, I'll do that. Hopefully, before I hit that point people will wise up and it will be legal everywhere. I am tired of living my life according to the irrational fears and religious beliefs of others. Don't want to let me die? Ok, let's hook you up to a machine that inflicts the same level of pain I'm enduring and see what you think, oh and you'll not be able to stop the pain until I die. What, you say that's cruel and inhuman to make someone suffer like that?

 

[DaveC426913]

I am tired of living my life according to the irrational fears and religious beliefs of others.

Again, the arguments against assisted suicide have nothing to do with religion. To blame it on religion is a form of ad hominem.

 

[Jack21222]

Again, the arguments against assisted suicide have nothing to do with religion. To blame it on religion is a form of ad hominem.

Not every argument has to do with religion, but some do. The Catholic church campaigned against the 1994 Oregon law. Some googling will take you to the appropriate newspaper clippings.

Actually, to save you some of the trouble, I found this.

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40B1FF63B5C0C7B8EDDA90994D1494D81

The Oregon law was first approved in 1994, 51 percent to 49 percent, but was promptly put on hold amid great legal dispute, with the Roman Catholic Church leading the opposition. In 1997, the state's voters backed the law again, this time by 60 percent to 40 percent.

A little more googling on your part, though, will find many Christian websites in opposition of laws legalizing euthanasia.

 

[DaveC426913]

Not every argument has to do with religion, but some do. The Catholic church campaigned against the 1994 Oregon law. Some googling will take you to the appropriate newspaper clippings.

Actually, to save you some of the trouble, I found this.

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40B1FF63B5C0C7B8EDDA90994D1494D81



A little more googling on your part, though, will find many Christian websites in opposition of laws legalizing euthanasia.

Just because a group is Christian does not mean their opposition is based on specifically religious grounds (though it might be).

I didn't see anything in that article that was a religious argument. What I saw was:

...opposed abortion and assisted suicide because of ''our concern for the vulnerable and powerless -- in one case, unborn children; in the other case, people with disabilities, older people, poor people, people at the margins of society, who are at risk of being coerced into euthanasia.''

 

[xxChrisxx]

Man I pressed a button there didn't I. It's not just the law after all.

It's still tremendously upsetting thinking (more that i would have anticipated) about it, so I am stopping.

 

[Evo]

Just because a group is Christian does not mean their opposition is based on specifically religious grounds (though it might be).

I didn't cite any specific religions. Many religions hold life sacred and killing yourself or assisting someone is considered a sin. So for a lot of people, it's against their religion. I'm not going to start a discussion on it, but you can easily google it and finds tons about religious views against suicide and euthanasia.

Here is just a listing of religious views so as not to specify just one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_suicide

 

[DaveC426913]

I didn't cite any specific religions. Many religions hold life sacred and killing yourself or assisting someone is considered a sin. So for a lot of people, it's against their religion. I'm not going to start a discussion on it, but you can easily google it and finds tons about religious views against suicide and euthanasia.

Here is just a listing of religious views so as not to specify just one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_suicide

Agreed. All of which we can agree to dismiss, since we have religious freedom, without further debate - leaving us holding a much smaller subset of rationales that claim to stand on their own.

 

[Evo]

Agreed. All of which we can agree to dismiss, since we have religious freedom, without further debate - leaving us holding a much smaller subset of rationales that claim to stand on their own.

You can't dimiss them when they vote.

 

[Jack21222]

You can't dimiss them when they vote.

Exactly.

 

[Gokul43201]

It is by no means an individual choice. Euthanasia takes two.

So does assisted suicide. But if I understand your earlier posts, you consider euthanasia immoral, but not assisted suicide.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

So does assisted suicide. But if I understand your earlier posts, you consider euthanasia immoral, but not assisted suicide.

I don't recall ever saying that assisted suicide isn't immoral. Can you link to it? My objection to euthanasia is not based on the number of people involved. For instance, I see nothing immoral in dancing the tango which also, I am informed, takes two.

My objection to allowing one person to kill another is by no means unusual, nor is it confined to religious dogma. It is the overwhelming choice by law and by practice in all countries and has been so at all times in history. Anyone here who thinks they are going to get my OK to off grandma is delusional.

 

[DaveC426913]

So does assisted suicide. But if I understand your earlier posts, you consider euthanasia immoral, but not assisted suicide.

In the case of the latter one is making the decision for oneself, whereas in the former, one is making the decision for someone else.

But of course that didn't need to be reiterated...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't recall ever saying that assisted suicide isn't immoral. Can you link to it? My objection to euthanasia is not based on the number of people involved. For instance, I see nothing immoral in dancing the tango which also, I am informed, takes two.

My objection to allowing one person to kill another is by no means unusual, nor is it confined to religious dogma. It is the overwhelming choice by law and by practice in all countries and has been so at all times in history. Anyone here who thinks they are going to get my OK to off grandma is delusional.

And what if Grandma is the one who pushes the button starting the flow of lethal drugs? This is how assisted suicide is normally done. The point of assisted suicide is to provide the means for Grandma to make her own choice.

You seem to be equating assisted suicide with euthanasia.

I'm glad to say that I live in the State of Oregon, which has chosen not to force people to suffer terribly, with no hope of relief, against their will.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

You seem to be equating assisted suicide with euthanasia.

I think I have done 180 degrees the opposite. I would prefer that you quote me having done so rather than just putting those words in my mouth. As far as I know, I have confined my comments to euthanasia and I have made it abundantly clear that what I mean is one person killing another.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't recall ever saying that assisted suicide isn't immoral.

I think I have done 180 degrees the opposite. I would prefer that you quote me having done so rather than just putting those words in my mouth. As far as I know, I have confined my comments to euthanasia and I have made it abundantly clear that what I mean is one person killing another.

So are you saying assisted suicide is immoral, or not?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

So are you saying assisted suicide is immoral, or not?

To the best of my knowledge I have not said one way or the other.

 

[JaredJames]

In the case of the latter one is making the decision for oneself, whereas in the former, one is making the decision for someone else.

But of course that didn't need to be reiterated...

Can we please stop making things up.

There is voluntary euthanasia and non-voluntary.

You are only 'forced' into one of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia#Voluntary_euthanasia

Euthanasia conducted with the consent of the patient is termed voluntary euthanasia.

So to say euthanasia is done without consent or you don't "make the decision" is complete crap..

 

[Gokul43201]

I don't recall ever saying that assisted suicide isn't immoral. Can you link to it?

I don't know if you've said it explicitly, but it's what I thought you implied in post #9.

That's assisted suicide. He [Kevorkian] made very sure not to engage in euthanasia. To the extent that euthanasia means taking positive measures to end someone else's life, I am against it and I hope that it will not become legal.

In the case of the latter one is making the decision for oneself, whereas in the former, one is making the decision for someone else.

But of course that didn't need to be reiterated...

I think it is good you reiterated it, because I can't easily tell the difference between the terms (and as is often the case, and as seen from post #92, I fear we may be suffering from a clash of definitions, even as far as 6 pages into the thread).

If I ask someone to stick a lethal injection into me and he does it, is that euthanasia or assisted suicide? If I ask him to prepare the dose for me, and I stick myself, what is it? If I prepare the injection, and ask him to fetch it from my medicine cabinet, following which I stick myself with a fatal dose what is it then?

Do you [Dave, Jimmy, others] have an objection to any of these actions? Which one? If not, where on this extended spectrum - feel free to extrapolate in some reasonable manner - would you first start to have an objection to the actions of the 'someone'?

 

[Jack21222]

I don't recall ever saying that assisted suicide isn't immoral. Can you link to it? My objection to euthanasia is not based on the number of people involved. For instance, I see nothing immoral in dancing the tango which also, I am informed, takes two.

My objection to allowing one person to kill another is by no means unusual, nor is it confined to religious dogma. It is the overwhelming choice by law and by practice in all countries and has been so at all times in history. Anyone here who thinks they are going to get my OK to off grandma is delusional.

It's even more delusional for you to think you should be allowed to have any say in whether or not I get to help my grandma off herself. Who do you think you are, anyway?

 

[JaredJames]

The key difference between euthanasia and assisted suicide is who performs the act of ending a life.

However, assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia both have the consent of the person dying, non-voluntary euthanasia doesn't.

Can we please stop using euthanasia broadly to mean "it is forced upon you without consent", as many here are implying.

I'm also curious about whether or not people who don't support assisted suicide / voluntary euthanasia also support the death penalty. The death penalty is killing someone, generally without their consent. Not euthanasia, but you are giving someone the right to kill another for far less a reason than the arguments for assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia.

 

[Gokul43201]

To the best of my knowledge I have not said one way or the other.

Would you care to express on opinion now, or do you prefer not to?

 

[Our choice]

They should have signed a DNR (Do not resuscitate).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_not_resuscitate

They were in their own home and having a DNR, doesn't mean a thing, as they had attempted suicide

 

[Evo]

They were in their own home and having a DNR, doesn't mean a thing, as they had attempted suicide

Please explain.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Would you care to express on opinion now, or do you prefer not to?

I prefer not to. I consider that I am going after low-hanging fruit just now.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

It's even more delusional for you to think you should be allowed to have any say in whether or not I get to help my grandma off herself. Who do you think you are, anyway?

I have been talking about euthanasia, not assisted suicide. Read my posts before you get angry at them.