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

[jackson6612]

Why aren't practices like suicide and euthanasia encouraged? Shouldn't one have right to end one's own life? I need you opinions on this. I believe in next 50 years euthanasia will become an acceptable form to end elderly and terminally ill persons.

 

[lisab]

Some people have objections to it for religious reasons.

 

[jackson6612]

Yes, Lisab, I understand this. What other reasons besides religious ones?

 

[Jack21222]

Some people have objections to it for religious reasons.

Why should somebody else's religion affect whether or not I'm allowed to end my life?

 

[skeptic2]

Yes I believe a person should have the right to take his or her own life and in euthanasia with qualifications. I have seen someone go in and out of severe depression and who while depressed cannot think of anything else but taking her life but while not depressed, wouldn't dream of it. Should a person like that be permitted to take her life while depressed? Should a mentally ill person be allowed to make that decision for himself or herself? Nevertheless I would have no objection to a person who has a condition that can only get worse and who will grow increasingly dependent on others from opting out.

I have much the same sentiments for euthanasia except that I am sure that if permitted, there would be many cases of an older person who is receiving care in a nursing home or hospice and who doesn't really want to die, being pressured into it by relatives seeing their inheritance disappearing.

 

[lisab]

Why should somebody else's religion affect whether or not I'm allowed to end my life?

Where I live, this issue was recently settled by election. Fortunately (understatement) I don't live in a place that is heavily influenced by religious thinking, and the measure passed. Euthanasia is legal in Washington State. I think they call it the "death with dignity act." I voted for it.

But in a state that has a high percentage of people who are religious, the arguments against euthanasia would likely be on religious grounds. It would probably not pass.

So if you lived there, someone else's religious views would affect whether or not you're allowed to end your life. Such is life in a democracy.

Same goes for abortion or other issues that people have objections to, for religious reasons.

 

[dlgoff]

I believe in next 50 years euthanasia will become an acceptable form to end elderly and terminally ill persons.

You have heard of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Kevorkian" haven't you?

 

[Gokul43201]

You have heard of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Kevorkian" haven't you?

I have. But I don't get your point.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

You have heard of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Kevorkian" haven't you?

That's assisted suicide. He 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.

 

[Jack21222]

That's assisted suicide. He 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.

What's the difference between euthanasia and assisted suicide? Aren't they the same thing? Don't you take positive measures to end somebody's life in assisted suicide?

 

[lisab]

What's the difference between euthanasia and assisted suicide? Aren't they the same thing? Don't you take positive measures to end somebody's life in assisted suicide?

I've not distinguished between the two, either.

 

[Evo]

We are kind and loving enough to put a terminally ill pet to sleep that is suffering, yet we do not extend the same humane treatment to humans (except for a couple of sane states, like lisab mentioned).

 

[waht]

Almost all religiously dominated US states voted for death penalty. But those are the same people who voted against euthanasia.

 

[Upisoft]

I'm pro assisted suicide, with psycho test and diagnosis showing the person is sane and terminally ill.

No third party shall decide to use euthanasia for whatever reason.

 

[Evo]

I'm pro assisted suicide, with psycho test and diagnosis showing the person is sane and terminally ill.

No third party shall decide to use euthanasia for whatever reason.

This is where a living will comes into place. You can create a legal document that states the criteria for when you want the plug pulled. If you don't trust your relatives, have copies filed with your attorney, your doctor, etc...

My problem is that I signed a "do not revive" and my daughter threw it away. She said she's not going to let me die.

 

[Upisoft]

My problem is that I signed a "do not revive" and my daughter threw it away. She said she's not going to let me die.

I would not let you die also, but I'm no one to make that decision for you. I'm sorry you had to make such a decision and sign this kind of paper.

As long as there is someone who loves me I'm sure I'll not kill myself without their agreement. My pain is my pain. My child is my child. I'm responsible for this child. I'll never put my pain on my child by killing myself against his will.

Yet I still don't want my fate to be decided by some more distant relatives.

I wish you understanding between you and your daughter.

 

[Evo]

I wish you understanding between you and your daughter.

I hope if I am suffering and terminal that she does the right thing and put me to sleep. She should realize that it's selfish to keep me suffering. Of course if it was her, I would want to keep clinging to hope, so I can't blame her.

My hope would be to have someone named to carry out my wishes and my daughter would believe it to be natural, and not have to carry that burden.

 

[rootX]

I recall a thread about it .. particularly few of the Turbo's opinions in that thread

 

[JaredJames]

Surely it's something of a legal nightmare.

First you have to prove, without doubt that the person in question agrees to suicide/euthanasia.

You need to prove they are of sound mind and also that they aren't being forced into the decision.

There are a few European countries that offer the service of assisted suicide. Terminally ill people from Britain travel there to use them. However, it is a nightmare for any relatives involved. They have to be extremely careful, one wrong move and the moment they arrive in the UK and they can end up being arrested and charged for helping with the act.

Personally, I agree with euthanasia and suicide when it comes to specific cases, terminally ill patients and the like. But suicide for no valid reason (you just want to do it, you are depressed, you are lonely, you are stressed etc) I don't agree with. It is selfish and causes harm to people you leave behind. To me, it's taking the easy way out.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

What's the difference between euthanasia and assisted suicide? Aren't they the same thing? Don't you take positive measures to end somebody's life in assisted suicide?

No. Kevorkian was insistant on this point. He provided the patient with the means to commit suicide, but did not apply them himself.

 

[jackson6612]

The below text is not a result of coherent thought. It consists of random pieces. I'm sure you would be able to connect them.

If there is absolute religious system, then it's won't too much exaggeration to say that I live in a far too religious atmosphere where almost every individual takes religion into whatever one does. Why they cling to religion in every matter, it could be anything except religious reasons. It could be for reasons of ego, personal selfish means, etc. But they try cover it with sweet candy they call religion to get acceptability.

Anything is modern or advanced which hasn't been there before and others are going to follow, adopt, like, etc., sooner or later. Well, where I live a lot of people dislike Western culture, specifically USA culture for that matter. I don't know why they do this because most of the Western practices which their ancestors disliked 100 years ago are now being followed by them. Which would simply mean that American/Western culture is more advanced because others like us are going to follow it at some point in future, there would be gradual acceptance. When it comes to such matters they mostly involve religion in their talks, debates. Is there really any religion or absolute system of religious thought. I don't think there is. I'm not saying if there is any God or not. I'm sure there is but it's only that these days I'm not talking to Him! A man doesn't follow any religion. In a way religion is a blanket to hide your own selfish and narrow mindedness because it connects you with other people of your community so easily. Religion has a lot to do with social taboos. LGBT is relatively a new phenomenon and it is gradually getting acceptance in the West. It will take at least 100 more years to get the process started here in most Asian countries. You can have it written in your law but societal attitudes take years to change and no one can sue you for despising something. Obviously many of you would be more tolerant towards LGBT (by the way, even if you aren't, it wouldn't make any difference!) these days but what about those religious persons who died almost 100 years ago and simply loathed such things. Now you think about them and simply laugh. What about those persons who incriminated many others into being witches etc and burned them alive. Where was religion involved, where was Jesus involved? I think no where. Humans know how to twist religious tenets into their own advantage. As Humpty Dumpty said: The question is, which is to be master, that's all.

How are social taboos born and how do they get broken? Could you please give me an example of a social taboo which was previously considered a normal social practice and what thing did change it? And social taboos do vary from culture to culture. I think in Thailand they butcher dogs but it's disgusting even to think of doing it to man's best friend in many other countries.

Some years ago when I was in my 10s I had a very different view point of the world - humanity, religions, relationships, human values, ethics, etc. Now it has all collapsed, the fact is now I have no fixed view point at all. I firmly believe there is some higher authority yet I don't believe in any religion. The words like "civilized human" really make me laugh. A civilized man only know how to create fuss in a civilized way.

 

[Jack21222]

No. Kevorkian was insistant on this point. He provided the patient with the means to commit suicide, but did not apply them himself.

I understand there might be a legal difference, but is there a moral difference? Plus, in some cases, wouldn't it be kinder for the doctor to do it? Let's say you have a late stage cancer patient who also has Parkinson's. Do you really want the the guy Parkinson's trying to find a vein?

 

[JaredJames]

I don't see a problem morally. The reason being, I find the moral approach to a terminally ill (and possibly sufferring person) to be to give them the choice in ending their life on their own terms. By withholding the right to do that, you are forcing them to suffer. That in my opinion is immoral.

Anything I could do to help them, with their full consent, I would deem a moral and ethical action by myself.

 

[Our choice]

Why aren't practices like suicide and euthanasia encouraged? Shouldn't one have right to end one's own life? I need you opinions on this. I believe in next 50 years euthanasia will become an acceptable form to end elderly and terminally ill persons.

Hi Jackson,
I totally believe that it should be encouraged. I believe elderly people should have the right to choose when they want to end their life. My parents were resussitated at the age of 86 and 80 after choosing they had lived and enjoyed their life with quality, but they chose to bring them back to the life that they were leaving for..The Law needs to listen to the elderly and terminally ill, this is their life and their choice. They now have mental health asking them if they are happy to be alive! We need a medical team of terminally ill and elderly people to get this needed law passed...

 

[FlexGunship]

Yes, Lisab, I understand this. What other reasons besides religious ones?

You will find that most inexplicable things are best explained by religion. Religion is the mechanism by which society justifies the crimes it chooses to commit against itself.

Withholding death is one of those crimes.

 

[Evo]

Hi Jackson,
I totally believe that it should be encouraged. I believe elderly people should have the right to choose when they want to end their life. My parents were resussitated at the age of 86 and 80 after choosing they had lived and enjoyed their life with quality, but they chose to bring them back to the life that they were leaving for..The Law needs to listen to the elderly and terminally ill, this is their life and their choice. They now have mental health asking them if they are happy to be alive! We need a medical team of terminally ill and elderly people to get this needed law passed...

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

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

 

[FlexGunship]

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

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

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.

Can't win! People need to allowed to die actively.

 

[Evo]

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.

Can't win! People need to allowed to die actively.

Carry a copy with you.

 

[leroyjenkens]

I don't understand religious people trying so hard to make laws abide by their religious beliefs.
They want abortion illegal because they think god doesn't want them to do it. That's fine, THEY don't have to abort anything, but why do they want to force everyone else to never abort anything? I want to abort some stuff.
If THEY don't want to euthanize themselves, then THEY don't have to.

They must think the law requires them to euthanize themselves, otherwise they wouldn't be so adamant against it, right?

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't understand religious people trying so hard to make laws abide by their religious beliefs.
They want abortion illegal because they think god doesn't want them to do it. That's fine, THEY don't have to abort anything, but why do they want to force everyone else to never abort anything? I want to abort some stuff.

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.

Note that religion has nothing to do with it.

That's the argument you need to address. But not here.

 

[DaveC426913]

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.

 

[skeptic2]

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.

 

[DaveC426913]

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.

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[DaveC426913]

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.