Should Euthanasia/assisted dying be allowed?

[GodsEmbryo]

Who are we to say euthanasia is 'unethical' in our eyes, therefore no one can do it? We should be allowed for ourselves to decide if we want to end our lives (or not).

I always found the word 'unethical' to loosly used by the way. A politician for example could have no problem sending soldiers to war to fight for their country, although they might get crippled, butchered, killed in the worst possible way. Yet the same politician might find it 'unethical' if someone takes his own life. And christians (for example) would find euthanasia unethical because their religion does not permit ending your own life. Therefore you would have to endure excruciating pains or suffer till you die. Yet they preach not to hurt others and be good...
If you are religious and seek comfort in the bible to find consolation when you are terminal ill and suffering, fine by me. But as a non-believer I don't want to be pushed in doing nothing because someone elses god tells so.
Politicians are chosen by the people and should be there for the people. Let people decide for themselves in this case, don't decide for them because it doesn't make you feel comfortable.

 

[GodsEmbryo]

Doctors believe in the double effect But i recently watched a video in which a Dutch doctor had to administer euthanasia and he hated it, he knew it was compassionate and the patient was suffering. Yet he knew he was killing another human being, every time he gave the injection he could not sleep for that night. Could you purposfully kill someone, could you kill one of your parents?

There are kits now on the market so you can do it yourself, no doctor needed (the doctor can prescribe it after consultation)

 

[Henrik Larsson]

I am mostly for euthanasia but in the Terry Pratchet film last night it showed the clear greif that the partner of the patient felt, it should be allowed that we can choose to end our lives if we are in unbearable pain but you also have to consider the patients families and the doctors who have to carry it out

 

[The~Lone~Ranger]

I definately agree with it, but have a slight reservation...

If the person was not able to make the decision themselves, a minority of relatives may try to abuse the right for selfish reasons.

BigmanHarris, I'm guessing the doctors will be able to deal with it. They will be ending misery and pain, helping people die peacefully, rather than being considered an executioner.

I know its not the same, but in the final hours of a loved ones life, they already ask relatives if its ok to raise the morphine just to help them pass away more peacefully.

 

[Facetious]

The trouble is, most doctors don't want to spend all of those years in medical school for the sole purpose of violating the Hippocratic Oath.
Also, would you want 'doctors' walking around the hospitals looking like -> :anonymous with syringe in hand? :nono:

:drool1:

 

[thapie]

i think it should be an individual choice.i did some volunteer work getting elderly who had no funds to their appointments and found out that their doctors often start to pull away from them leaving them with no health advocate.so if the quality of life is no longer being on par with what the person can handle and their health care isn't what it once was and they just can't go on then that is their choice.

 

[Trident1]

Yes.

 

[Petra]

The trouble is, most doctors don't want to spend all of those years in medical school for the sole purpose of violating the Hippocratic Oath.
Also, would you want 'doctors' walking around the hospitals looking like -> :anonymous with syringe in hand? :nono:

:drool1:

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I don't think in the case of assisted suicide the doctor isviolating the Hippocratic Oath. I think, when it comes down to it, that they need to do exactly what the oath states. "This awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness..."

I think letting someone live knowing what the final stage of the particular disease will entail can do more harm to the person and family than letting them end it with dignity.

 

[Atar554]

Doctor's giving the drugs to end life wouldn't be much different than when people put in writing that if they get sick they don't want heroics performed to bring them back. It's also decided all the time to take someone off of life support; honestly that's fairly cruel even if acceptable, the drugs would at least deny the person pain rather than letting them try and gasp and potentially feel organs shutting down.

It also has to be done carefully, there's be incidents reported of death row inmates not being given enough Gas to kill them or enough poison to keep them unconscious while the next poison is injected to actually begin killing them. Meaning they can wake up or be conscious while they're dieing.

The trouble is, most doctors don't want to spend all of those years in medical school for the sole purpose of violating the Hippocratic Oath.
Also, would you want 'doctors' walking around the hospitals looking like -> :anonymous with syringe in hand? :nono:

:drool1:

You're talking about the modern Oath right? It doesn't run counter to it iirc.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

Basically meaning they can decide if someone is sick enough to euthanize or not without relying on a guess or a hunch or just because someone asked them to etc...

 

[Petra]

I am mostly for euthanasia but in the Terry Pratchet film last night it showed the clear greif that the partner of the patient felt, it should be allowed that we can choose to end our lives if we are in unbearable pain but you also have to consider the patients families and the doctors who have to carry it out

On the other hand, look at it like this. Do you think he wanted his wife to remember him as he was then or watch him slowly wasting away until he finally suffocates when he can no longer control his diaphragm to breath.

Personally, I don't wish that image on anyone. How terrible to watch someone you love stop functioning little by little.

 

[TheOrangeCat]

The trouble is, most doctors don't want to spend all of those years in medical school for the sole purpose of violating the Hippocratic Oath.
Also, would you want 'doctors' walking around the hospitals looking like -> :anonymous with syringe in hand? :nono:

Hopefully, this last part is 'factious'.

The Hippocratic's abiding maxim is to 'do no harm' .. prolonging a patient's (often agonizing) death clearly violates this principle if the cost of living is to do more harm to the mortal substance of a person than the relief of death.

 

[The Grasshopper]

Who's to make this decision, government... gov't of the people for the people?! Meh...

 

[Thomas O'Malley]

We had this discussion in the Belgian parlement about two years ago. Now we have laws about it in which cases it is allowed and in which cases it isn't. You ought to think that's a good thing, but at the other hand, in cases when it's not allowed, what would happen if the doctor gives just that little bit too many morphine, to a patient who wants to end his life, but is not allowed by that law? Is that a legal killing from that doctor who wants to help his patient with his last will?
Face facts, laws don't regulate things like this. Euthansia was always there and will always be there, in case doctors know their patients for decades.

 

[Atar554]

We had this discussion in the Belgian parlement about two years ago. Now we have laws about it in which cases it is allowed and in which cases it isn't. You ought to think that's a good thing, but at the other hand, in cases when it's not allowed, what would happen if the doctor gives just that little bit too many morphine, to a patient who wants to end his life, but is not allowed by that law? Is that a legal killing from that doctor who wants to help his patient with his last will?
Face facts, laws don't regulate things like this. Euthansia was always there and will always be there, in case doctors know their patients for decades.

Right and keeping it banned or partially only forces it underground and makes it more dangerous.

Like prostitution.

It typically doesn't work when people try to legalize morality.

 

[Thomas O'Malley]

Right and keeping it banned or partially only forces it underground and makes it more dangerous.

Like prostitution.

It typically doesn't work when people try to legalize morality.

I agree, but at the other hand, and we see this now with these new laws in Belgium, legalizing it, and regulating it doesn't work, but if you don't legalize it, it indeed remains underground and will be dangerous?

So what do you suggest then?

I believe that people have the right to decide what should happen when they want to die, and they should be able to choose how they want to end their lifes as well, as long as no other people get hurt. A signed paper might be helpfull in that case. Problem then would be if the signature on that paper was put there on free will and not forced. So what is the best sollution to regulate these things?

In Belgium it only counts when the paper is signed by a doctor and his patient. That paper is a legal one from the government with watermarks and stamps from the government so there is no doubt that the doctor tried to convince the patient (his duty according to the law) to stay alive, and the patient wants to die.

 

[Kingfisher]

A religious organization that I have no affiliation with should not decide whether or not I should end my life and spare myself a immense amount of pain or grief, if I'm at the end stage of a horrible cancer or other illness.

I've told my family that if I'm technically brain dead from an accident or otherwise, that I'll never be the same person I was. Let me go and disconnect me. Do not let me end up as Terry Schiavo.

 

[Atar554]

I agree, but at the other hand, and we see this now with these new laws in Belgium, legalizing it, and regulating it doesn't work, but if you don't legalize it, it indeed remains underground and will be dangerous?

So what do you suggest then?

I believe that people have the right to decide what should happen when they want to die, and they should be able to choose how they want to end their lifes as well, as long as no other people get hurt. A signed paper might be helpfull in that case. Problem then would be if the signature on that paper was put there on free will and not forced. So what is the best sollution to regulate these things?

In Belgium it only counts when the paper is signed by a doctor and his patient. That paper is a legal one from the government with watermarks and stamps from the government so there is no doubt that the doctor tried to convince the patient (his duty according to the law) to stay alive, and the patient wants to die.

Well there's always red tape and there are always errors involved when humans are doing anything.

1. For extreme cases where life support is an issue; decide ahead of time if you want to have heroics or life support turned off or euthanasia after certain criteria are met. Those criteria typically being no hope for recovery during a terminal illness or advanced age-sickness. Creating a preemptive plan like organ donation.

2. For those who's quality of life has been lost to a degree no longer suiting to their liking. Therapy or counseling would be a good beginning step. Even Christopher Reeves when he first learned of his paralysis after he woke up immediately wanted to end his life and asked his wife to help him do just that. Obviously his first choice wasn't a lasting one as he changed his mind.

For those that don't have that change of heart and/or don't have celebrity status and money the choice may be different. They shouldn't be forced to live a life they no longer want.

3. Allow for Doctor's to work with therapists or counselors to determine if pain prevention via euthanasia is the best course of action or not. Input from the family would be accepted and considered but not the sole determining factor above the individual's beliefs. Allow for fail safes to be in place for the patient to change their mind up until their final moments. Instead of the current standard of "pulling the plug". Allow the patient to decide "when" and "where and even "if".

In terms of pure regulation. It shouldn't be a corporate or money making service. It shouldn't be done by organizations that provide medical services like nursing or EMS etc... It should be at least a physician and not for profit. Governmentally you should be able to register for your own euthanasia, again a "preemptive plan" type deal. Preemptive but not necessarily years in advance to sickness or desire but days or weeks depending on the case. Counselors would have to sign off on the mental state of the patient in order to have the euthanasia recognized in governmental bodies; Doctors as well. If the patient is unresponsive greater weight would be given to the Doctor and families recommendations, pending any previous wishes from the patient when they were still able to articulate them.

Extra Credit:

Bodies - Should be allowed to be kept by the families for personal ceremonies if desired. After you die your body doesn't immediately become the property of the State and you are allowed to determine your own ritual for burial. However abusing or disgracing or in any way demeaning the remains would still be illegal. Perhaps a third party observer would be made to bear witness that things are done in a professional type manner.

 

[TheOrangeCat]

It should also be noted that euthanasia is practiced en passant as a consequence of the corruption of health insurance providers, who routinely deny life-saving/life prolonging treatment - leading to death.

This they do to save money.

I ask you, what's the purer motive? To end suffering for mercy's sake, or to willfully allow death to avoid spending money and increase profit?

 

[Atar554]

Good point orange. I'd rep you but I can't just yet :/

Not only do they at times directly deny treatment leading to a patients death but also deny treatment which adversely affects quality of life. Making the desire for suicide and its' legal denial even more cruel.

 

[mrtrebus]

Allowed? It certain cases it should be compulsory!!