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

[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.

 

[JaredJames]

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

And as my previous posts, you have not clarified what type of euthanasia. I assume it's voluntary?

 

[Gokul43201]

Over a hundred posts in, and no one knows what anyone else is talking about, except that they disagree with each other!

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

And as my previous posts, you have not clarified what type of euthanasia. I assume it's voluntary?

I mean when one person kills another. Clear?

 

[Gokul43201]

I mean when one person kills another. Clear?

I'm still a little unclear what exactly that means. I think it would help if you could say which of the following three things (copied - modulo some formatting - from an earlier post) you would say involves one person killing another (and why):

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?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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?

From a moral point of view, the first one is euthanasia, I don't see how it could be anything less. But it might be more. It depends on his compentency to determine your state of body and mind. From a legal point of view, the difference wouldn't matter. It would bring a charge of murder. Kervorkian never engaged in such a practice.

From a moral point of view, the next two are assisted suicide (assuming you die) because he can't be sure that you will actually take the dose. I don't know the law in this case, and I continue to avoid expressing my opinion on the morality of assisted suicide. I think Kervorkian's MO was along these lines except that he proposed the method of suicide, not the client.

 

[JaredJames]

I'm still waiting for a good reason why people should be made to suffer longer than they have to.

You can die today on your own terms, or you can lay in bed for a few months in excruciating pain and then die anyway.

It just doesn't make sense why anyone thinks forcing the latter is acceptable.

 

[Evo]

I'm still waiting for a good reason why people should be made to suffer longer than they have to.

You can die today on your own terms, or you can lay in bed for a few months in excruciating pain and then die anyway.

It just doesn't make sense why anyone thinks forcing the latter is acceptable.

I think a good question is, if your pet was terminally ill and in horrible unending pain, would you do the humane thing and put them to sleep, or make them suffer because *you* can't let them go.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I'm still waiting for a good reason why people should be made to suffer longer than they have to.

You can die today on your own terms, or you can lay in bed for a few months in excruciating pain and then die anyway.

It just doesn't make sense why anyone thinks forcing the latter is acceptable.

So you wanted me to specify the distinction just so you could blur it.

 

[Jack21222]

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

Morally, euthanasia = assisted suicide. Whether my grandma presses the plunger on the needle in her vein or I do it at her direction is 100% irrelevant. And neither situation involves you, who probably live a quarter of the way across the globe.

One person killing another is not always wrong. You act as if it is.

 

[Gokul43201]

From a moral point of view, the next two are assisted suicide (assuming you die) because he can't be sure that you will actually take the dose.

To clarify, I should have specified that the 'someone' was acting with explicit communication between the two of us, wherein I made it clear exactly what I intended to do with the injection. I'm not saying this negates your basis for differentiation (though I think it might - I'd have to give it more thought), but if you believe it does, it would be good to know that.

 

[JaredJames]

So you wanted me to specify the distinction just so you could blur it.

With all due respect Jimmy, I've asked you a similar question previously and you dodged it.

I asked about the whole "relative in pain" thing and you said it was too complicated to answer, despite it being a real scenario faced by many people everyday.

So far, you've simply said euthanasia is wrong, however, you haven't justified why you think making a person suffer under the circumstances I've given over and over is right.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Morally, euthanasia = assisted suicide.

How can that possibly be true? The manufacturer of morphine assists too. The driver of the delivery truck that brought the morphine assists too. There has to be a distinction between doing something and helping someone else do something. Life is too intertwined for that not to be the case.

 

[Gokul43201]

How can that possibly be true? The manufacturer of morphine assists too. The driver of the delivery truck that brought the morphine assists too. There has to be a distinction between doing something and helping someone else do something. Life is too intertwined for that not to be the case.

I think the difference is in the knowledge that each of the participants has of the act. The manufacturer does not make the morphine for the explicit purpose of me injecting myself with a lethal dose. He has no knowledge of my plans. Neither does the truck driver. But the person that prepares the dose and hands me the injection is acting with the explicitly communicated knowledge that I intend to use that injection to kill myself.

The same kind of distinction is made in charging people with aiding and abetting a criminal.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I asked about the whole "relative in pain" thing and you said it was too complicated to answer, despite it being a real scenario faced by many people everyday.

I'm pretty sure you have me confused with someone else.

So far, you've simply said euthanasia is wrong, however, you haven't justified why you think making a person suffer under the circumstances I've given over and over is right.

You go too far. I don't accept any blame for making anyone suffer. I have not spoken about all the options available to end the suffering. I have only reduced your options by one. But you take make it sound like I have taken away all of your options. That is blurring the distinction that you asked me to make.

 

[Gokul43201]

I have only reduced your options by one. But you take make it sound like I have taken away all of your options.

What if number of options available = 1? Or do you believe that is never true?

 

[JaredJames]

I'm pretty sure you have me confused with someone else.

Post number 71, is your response to a question I directly posed you regarding relatives being in pain, where you claimed my scenario was too complicated. Like I have said previously, it is a realistic scenario many people are faced with daily.

You go too far. I don't accept any blame for making anyone suffer. I have not spoken about all the options available to end the suffering. I have only reduced your options by one. But you take make it sound like I have taken away all of your options. That is blurring the distinction that you asked me to make.

In the case of the terminally ill patient given above (the same conditions under which post 71 was responded to), what other options are there to relieve the pain and prevent the suffering?

I'm still waiting on why my scenario is too complicated? Once again, it is realistic and I'm very interested in hearing the alternative options available to help people in that situation that don't involve them being allowed to terminate their lives. As per the above post, what are the other options that give you more than one to choose from?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I didn't say the scenario was complicated, I said the question was complicated. It is an either/or type question but the two choices are not complements of each other, the first choice is a negative and the second a possitive. I asked you to simplify the question, not the scenario, you did not do so.

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?

What on Earth does any part of the question have to do with euthanasia?

 

[JaredJames]

What on Earth does any part of the question have to do with euthanasia?

I'm trying to understand your reasoning. I get your "killing is bad" stance, but I don't understand why you think people should suffer under those conditions. They go together.

Again, please tell me what other options there are? You either have the person suffer until they die, or you let them end their life on their terms and not have to suffer. Euthanasia is simply a means by which to allow them to end their life. If I am deemed in sound mind and give instructions that I don't want to suffer any more and wish to end my life now instead of waiting a few more months in excruciating pain to die because of my terminal illness, why shouldn't someone be allowed to carry it out if I am incapable of doing it myself? Or should I be made to suffer for no reason other than you don't think someone should be allowed to help me?

 

[JaredJames]

I find it amazing that the death penalty is supposed to be as humane as possible, and yet we allow people to suffer so badly in cases such as the one I described above. A criminal can't be allowed to suffer, but it's perfectly fine to allow an innocent person to do so.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

What if number of options available = 1? Or do you believe that is never true?

I hope we're not talking about Terry Sciavo here. She gave no instructions and was not killed.

My mother just died in May. She went very quickly. The doctor gave her 2 weeks to a month. Her reaction on hearing this was "Can it be hurried up?" Should I have pulled a knife on her? Her intentions were clear enough and her reasons obvious. Perhaps not. I guess you mean to put some safeguards in place. I don't suppose you will ever satisfy me with them.