PDA

View Full Version : Euthanasia.



Goki
12-01-2004, 06:55 AM
Euthanasia. Yes or no? State your reasons.

wliethof
12-01-2004, 07:07 AM
If there is no chance of getting better, or the person is suffering so much that he or she sees no reason to continue living, why not. Of course they should discuss with with family and stuff, but yeah, I think it's a good thing. I know someone who had cancer, and decided up front that if he was going to die, and got really ill, he wanted it. And he got it.

Goki
12-01-2004, 12:29 PM
I'm not actually neither for nor agaisnt it. I believe it depends on the patient's situation. Other opinions? Euthanasia should be legal or illegal?

lousyskater
12-01-2004, 12:34 PM
it really depends on the state the person is in. if there is no way of getting better and the person is in horrible pain, then yes i'm for it.

Goki
12-01-2004, 12:48 PM
What about the relatives and others who respect and love the person? Wouldn't it be a hard decision to make? Also, what about the religious people? They all won't be happy about euthanasia.

JoY
12-01-2004, 01:28 PM
it seems wrong to take away life, when it's still there, when life to the most of us seems such a gift. some believe it's a gift from God, some don't, but whatever you believe.. in cases, it can only mean buckets of suffering & waiting till the ending of the suffering finally begins, it stops being a gift & starts being a pain in the ass. in those cases it's nothing but a curse.

my grandfather got in a caraccident ten years ago & slipped in a coma. my grandmother was to decide; pull the plugs & let him sleep forever, or keeping him alive in a state that's completely inhumane. he woud've needed machines, medication... not on a daily base, but constantly. & he'd never be the same. he probably wouldn't have been able to recognise his closest family-members. she decided the man had fought for his life for so long, he'd never want to waste away slowly & painfully. my dad arranged the papers (he's a doctor), she signed them & he's been sleeping ever since.

wheelchairman
12-01-2004, 02:00 PM
I don't approve of doctor assisted suicide purely because Doctors shouldn't be using death as a cure.

I would consider some sort of agency or body that could take the lives of these people. But what would happen is that we would see a far larger trend for this form of 'treatment' among poorer folks who can't afford the expensive long term intensive hospital treatment. Would be rather sick actually.

JoY
12-01-2004, 02:13 PM
there's nothing wrong with docs being involved. doctors can judge if a disease, or simply a physical state will cause merely misery, till the end. if someone is a hopeless case, that can only go downhill. if someone has only begun slowly falling apart. they don't advise patients to choose euthanasia, they only inform them on the fact, they're on a road, that'll just get bumpier & uglier. the patient can decide for him-/herself, if he/she wants to crawl down that road, or will die the most pleasant death possible at that time.

my dad has had more than one request to end a life. he's never done it himself, though. first there are psychologists, psychiatrists, a whole hospital-crew, that talk to the patient & that need to confirm the physical mess over & over again. really, people don't choose the easy way out, unless they're really, awfully sure they want to & that it's their best option. because it's really not all that easy. then the patients doctor makes sure the papers & the documents are ready, the patient needs to sign them, the psychs have to sign them.....

could an agency ever possibly make sure such prognoses & important decisions concerning health happen as relyable & well considered as that? I personally think not.

JoY
12-01-2004, 02:22 PM
plus, who knows you & your physical problems better, than your own doctor, who's been treating you over time? you share one of the most intimate, personal things with your doctor, if you think of it, being your health. I've had dying people on the phone, who wanted nothing more, than their doctor, who supported them during the whole process of being sick, with them to hold their hand during the last minutes. you can't possibly have an agency, that has the same knowledge, aswell of the disease/complaints of the patient, as of the patient him-/herself, as the doc, who treated him/her.

wheelchairman
12-01-2004, 02:25 PM
The problem with this, is that even in the western world, hospitals can be expensive for a large part of the population (such as America.) This becomes a very disgusting situation for people who don't have medical insurance (i.e. have to pay very expensive hospital bills whenever they use hospital facilities).

JoY
12-01-2004, 02:41 PM
that still doesn't take away any of my arguments.
it's a matter of who you'd rather trust with your life. the fact that there's a pricetag to that, thanks to the system there exists.. is something that won't change one tiny bit with an agency, that'll provide you of death. it's just another bill, sweety. be realistic: everyone needs to get paid to pay their bills & buy their food. also people, that work for agencies. people with health problems & little money would just ring an agency to avoid medical bills & get it over & done with, instead of fighting their sickness, if it means a doctors bill on top. & you need to learn the fact, that your prognoses are absolutely hopeless, by treatment & an effort to make you better.

Betty
12-01-2004, 02:48 PM
I think it's a good idea for people to fill out the appropriate forms when they are healthy regarding what should be done if they ever got to the point where they would need life support to stay alive.

Either that or they should make it very clear to their families/doctors what they would like to have done.

And then at least people would know what the individual wanted, and would simply be doing what they desired.

I suppose you could argue that that's like suicide, but I think it's different.

JoY
12-01-2004, 02:52 PM
suicide is death by your own hand. so there is a difference, even though in these cases someone fills out the forms for his/her death with his/her own hand. in this case at least the person's been diagnosed more than once & has heard the prognoses for the rest of their possible life.

wheelchairman
12-01-2004, 02:58 PM
My biggest problems with Euthanaisa are two: One, it may lead to a slippery road path. When death becomes the cure, well what can't it cure? Would it be able to outcompete medicine? (which let's face it, most places can't be sold to anyone who needs it.)

Second, it would be poorer people being forced to use Euthanasia because they can't afford to keep their loved ones alive. That's not humane, that's disgusting, and a very viable problem in countries which don't have nationalized healthcare. (I don't believe the Netherland's has it, so I would never dream of legalizing Euthanasia there, the result on people who can't afford long-term hospital treatment would be quite awful don't you think?)

In the European (and Canada I believe) where we have nationalized healthcare, it wouldn't be so much of a problem. However we would have the slippery-slope as a problem.

As far as an agency or a body taking care of it, I didn't say I supported that idea. That's how I'd support it in a socialist or communist society though. It would be state-owned, so the information would be shared if the patient made the decision, the doctor could be present if the patient so wished, but performing the procedure, no I don't think this is a method of healing. That is what doctors should focus on in society, let someone else take the pain away.

JoY
12-01-2004, 03:40 PM
you shouldn't ever consider euthanasia as a way to cure, or heal people. it's a way to liberate people from endless suffering for the rest of their lives. it's only for terminally sick people (don't make me explain 'terminal'). the laws considering euthanasia are extremely strict for well, about every reason you just summed up. no matter how much money you have, it depends on the patients health & its condition, if euthanasia is an option, or not. & it only is for people, for who there isn't a possible cure left. you can live with a disease just fine, depending on the stage & circumstances. as soon, as the circumstances become unbarable & absolutely inhumane, THEN you can consider euthanasia as an option.

the rules that exist now are, as I said, extremely strict, & they should be & they always will be. sure there'll always be exceptions to confirm the rules, as in any case, but those exceptions should be treated individually to make a carefull, well considered judgement, that doesn't go against human rights in any way. it's inhumane to suffer & suffer & suffer only more as you're slowly on your way to death. *that*'s inhumane. when there's no possible quality your life has left, then why live? & as long as a person can still slightly function & make something out of the time he/she still has, that person should be kept alive. & doctors are obligated to & will try to stimulate & motivate their patients to make the best of it, as long as there's *something* to make of it. all these aspects are carefully studied by people, who can make a proper diagnosis of the physical health, aswell as the mental health.

fine, you get my point. as for the bill & who it should be sent to...
without euthanasia, doctors are still OBLIGATED to treat a patient the best they can & keep him/her alive as long as possible in the best state possible. it's their job & they've sworn to do so. without euthanasia, this would mean keeping people alive, even against all forces of nature & possible wishes of the patient him-/herself, until there's nothing that can possibly be done. but even with the existence of euthanasia, that means, they should even treat patients without their consent (when euthanasia isn't 'im Frage'). no worries, peaches. that medical bill isn't something people can just get away from, simply by requesting euthanasia. it'll be there, waiting on their doormat. also on that of terminal patients.

JoY
12-01-2004, 03:46 PM
I'd like to add, that I've seen a woman, addicted to heroin, strapped to her bed, because she didn't want treatment & said she was sure she wanted to die. if she would've walked out of there, she probably would've comitted suicide, because she'd told the nurses (well.. me, actually) she was planning to do so. you can wonder if this is right, or wrong, you can discuss it till the end of time, but the doctors only did for her, what they once had promised & sworn to do: treat her the best they possibly could. she wasn't dying, she was having a severe asthma attack from smoking heroin. she wasn't mentally stable, because she'd been smoking heroin. then what options do you have??

doctors aren't just horrible people, that send you expensive medical bills. they've chosen their career to help people under any circumstances. even if that means death. when death is merely a relief, because life has zero potential... what can you do?

TheUnholyNightbringer
12-01-2004, 03:48 PM
The thing about Euthenasia, to me, is that it's incredibly difficult to police. Where is the cutoff point? Should it be legal to kill someone who's in constant pain, but illegal to kill someone who can't feel anything? How do you decide these things?

Personally, for me, no. I don't really see how it's any different to murder. The only time I see it as acceptable is when the person concerned said, when they were in their right mind, that they would like to be killed at a certain time, and that has been put in writing, signed and given to a trusted family member of friend or whatever. Otherwise, it's just murder by the state, IMHO.

JoY
12-01-2004, 03:51 PM
The thing about Euthenasia, to me, is that it's incredibly difficult to police. Where is the cutoff point? Should it be legal to kill someone who's in constant pain, but illegal to kill someone who can't feel anything? How do you decide these things?

Personally, for me, no. I don't really see how it's any different to murder. The only time I see it as acceptable is when the person concerned said, when they were in their right mind, that they would like to be killed at a certain time, and that has been put in writing, signed and given to a trusted family member of friend or whatever. Otherwise, it's just murder by the state, IMHO.
those are the only cases in which it is allowed...

TheUnholyNightbringer
12-01-2004, 03:52 PM
In that case, things are fine now and shouldn't change. In my opinion.

wheelchairman
12-01-2004, 03:55 PM
Isa, I ain't saying doctors are horrible people, not even the ones who perform euthanasia, I am sure they have the best of intentions. Except plastic surgeons, I don't approve of their practices.

You say the laws of Euthanasia will always be strict (obviously you can't prove that), furthermore there will always be a chance that they will get less strict. Especially if money interests get involved.

And you can't say that income isn't relevant. It is always relevant. A man who may want to live through as long as possible (despite his terminal illness) may decide to end it, because he knows he's a drain. It hasn't exactly been the rarest act of mankind. (to kill yourself to stop being a burden. happened in primitive societies frequently.)

And the bill will be far smaller, you know it will, when they end their life. Fighting a pro-longed battle in a hospital bed is more expensive than deciding upon euthanasia.

JoY
12-01-2004, 04:05 PM
In that case, things are fine now and shouldn't change. In my opinion.
I agree.
but well.. in case of passive euthanasia you can still discuss if it's right, or wrong. like in case of my grandfather; my grandmother knew he wouldn't have wanted to spend the rest of his life lifeless like a cactus on a shelf, so together with close family the decision was made, not to give him an injection, or anything like that, but to simply stop treatment. that only took pulling a cable or three out the wall.

there's a difference between active euthanasia - giving something, that'll shorten someone's life - & passive euthanasia - simply stopping treatment. both cases need a LOT of consideration, not only by the patients, but also by doctors. sometimes you can wonder, if all the medical knowledge we have isn't partly a curse. we know in so many cases how to keep people alive - as I said; even against any force of nature - but sometimes it seems so much better to let nature just take its course. sure medical knowledge & knowledge overal can be a blessing & a way to help people, but when it's not helping people, but almost even harming them.. then what?

it's an interesting matter.


Edit: "partly", not "party". *giggles* FREUD.

TheUnholyNightbringer
12-01-2004, 04:07 PM
Another thing about it is that it's impossible to generalise. Each situation is unique, and so laws are difficult to make, because they have to accomodate all situations.

JoY
12-01-2004, 04:14 PM
Isa, I ain't saying doctors are horrible people, not even the ones who perform euthanasia, I am sure they have the best of intentions. Except plastic surgeons, I don't approve of their practices.

You say the laws of Euthanasia will always be strict (obviously you can't prove that), furthermore there will always be a chance that they will get less strict. Especially if money interests get involved.

And you can't say that income isn't relevant. It is always relevant. A man who may want to live through as long as possible (despite his terminal illness) may decide to end it, because he knows he's a drain. It hasn't exactly been the rarest act of mankind. (to kill yourself to stop being a burden. happened in primitive societies frequently.)

And the bill will be far smaller, you know it will, when they end their life. Fighting a pro-longed battle in a hospital bed is more expensive than deciding upon euthanasia.
I never said income isn't relevant. it's relevant to people, who have to pay for others income & it's also relevant for the people, who may collect it. I said, that with how the laws are now, there's no way euthanasia will be practiced in case a person still can remotely function & thus has a life with a bit of quality left. for that decision, made by both the doctor & the patient, the patients bankaccount won't be an argument, as things are now.

of course I can't guarantee laws will stay as strict as they are now. all I can say is that they're made for the benefit & in the best interest of the patient & that they're not likely to become less strict, than they are now, from that view.

I know how much hospitalising costs. how much medication costs. I've even been there myself. but the costs should never be involved in the arguments pro, or con euthanasia. at the moment, here, they are most definitely not & I believe that shouldn't change. if anything should change, it's the health system & since that's not very likely to change any time soon, these laws concerning euthanasia should be maintained.

JoY
12-01-2004, 04:32 PM
Another thing about it is that it's impossible to generalise. Each situation is unique, and so laws are difficult to make, because they have to accomodate all situations.
you can surely throw methematics in the direction of almost any matter the human kind struggles with. everybody should be considered, diagnosed & treated individually, BUT however, you can define what gives a life a certain quality & add it all up, just do the math. can a person still move his/her legs, what about the arms, is he/she able to breathe, can a person still think? can a person still live, without being attached to a thousand machines & depend on all possible medical science?? what can you do, if you can't do all of these things?? what do all of these things do to the mental health of a patient?? you can't just say, that if 2 + 2 = 4, 1 + 6 = 4, too. you have to try to see the value of every aspect for every single patient. individually, yeah.

when I really find it difficult, is when a patient is simply old & has already lived most of his/her life. one time we had a 89 year old lady in the hospital with a terrible pneumonia. she kept getting weaker, no matter what the doctors did for her, simply because she'd had it with life. she had her children, her grandchildren, her greatgrandchildren, she'd already lost her husband.... she was ready to go. we (the nurses) tried anything & everything to motivate her again to live. in her case euthanasia wasn't an option, since she'd heal again & would be able to *enjoy* her family for a certain time to come. but hypothetically the case could've been worse. what if she'd only been able to enjoy her family a few more weeks & not really enjoy it at all? you don't make decisions like these overnight. you can't possibly prodict the future, you can just make a prognosis. that doesn't mean someone won't be hit by a meteorite the next day.