Should Euthanasia/assisted dying be allowed?

[busenbust]

Allowed? It certain cases it should be compulsory!!

:1orglaugh {shakes head! } :o

 

[TheOrangeCat]

Allowed? It certain cases it should be compulsory!!

Just let me know when, MrT, just let me know .. I'll be there will a hot shot

 

[Jagger69]

Under certain conditions and after proper counseling procedures have been completed it should absolutely be allowed.

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?

3rd party rep for you from Atar554! :thumbsup:

 

[Thomas O'Malley]

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.

Hmmm... And what about the miracles that happen every day in medical care? Sometimes people are in a coma for months while doctors are convinced the situation is hopeless, and still they wake up. I mean, what is a terminal illness? Cancer, AIDS? What about car accidents? Besides, shouldn't it be the patient who has to decide what would happen with his life, in stead of relatives?

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.

That's the reason why the Belgian law stipulates there should be an official (by the government) paper signed by the doctor and the patient, and the doctor underscribes as well that he tried everything in his power to convince the patient not to die.
As for your example, if Christopher Reeves didn't have the kind of money he had, maybe he would have chosen the other option. You have to realize not all of us can affort such a wheel chair and all the accomodations Reeves had after his accident.

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.

I reacted a bit early I see now...

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".

Why would family be involved? A patient has to decide, and if he can't because of his accident or illness, everything must be done to keep him alive, after all, that's the oath make when they become a doctor, right? So there is a contradiction as well, because what has a doctor got to do? Choose for the healing process no matter what it takes or the outcome might be or choose for the quality of lifeof his patient?

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.

Oh, but you can all arrange it in advance in Belgium. Legally everyone is a donor in Belgium, but you can go to the town hall to undersign a paper that states that you don't want your organs to be used as a donor. The same goes for euthanasia, you can all arrange it in advance, but hardly anyone does it because no want wants to think the worst case scenario. When that law was voted, I thought to go to the town hall and arrange it all, but I have to admit, we're now two years later, and still I haven't signed any paper at all. I don't like the tought of making decisions wheater I want to die or not when I get involved in a car crash.

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.

A complete different rule in the States then in Europe. Here the bodies never ever become property of the State, except when there is a murder involved. In all other cases, it always remains property of the nearest family member.

 

[Atar554]

Hmmm... And what about the miracles that happen every day in medical care? Sometimes people are in a coma for months while doctors are convinced the situation is hopeless, and still they wake up. I mean, what is a terminal illness? Cancer, AIDS? What about car accidents? Besides, shouldn't it be the patient who has to decide what would happen with his life, in stead of relatives?

There's no evidence of "miracles" in a religious sense. Just unexplained reasons why people survive. Statistically any disease or disaster some small population or single person will find a way to survive. By accident or by choice.

It's not just about the illness it's also the desire to keep on living. If I have AIDS and want to die and you have AIDS and want to take up a banner of finding a cure that's fine; both should be acceptable rationale. Unless we want a society that manufactures what they call "heroes", despite their consent.

Why would family be involved? A patient has to decide, and if he can't because of his accident or illness, everything must be done to keep him alive, after all, that's the oath make when they become a doctor, right? So there is a contradiction as well, because what has a doctor got to do? Choose for the healing process no matter what it takes or the outcome might be or choose for the quality of lifeof his patient?

Family would be brought in for legal matters. Determining what are the wishes of the person if they are unable to communicate them. Such as in cases of people planning their end life procedure, family members are picked by the patient to determine treatment in the event they can't. That's standard practice right now.

As far as the Oath goes; it depends on how you're interpreting it. After all Doctor's perform abortions and they have taken the Oath. This would likely fall in line with their views. What is to be done when the point of healing cannot carry through a successful treatment? After all everyone is mortal and everyone will die. At certain points, all action is futile.

Oh, but you can all arrange it in advance in Belgium. Legally everyone is a donor in Belgium, but you can go to the town hall to undersign a paper that states that you don't want your organs to be used as a donor. The same goes for euthanasia, you can all arrange it in advance, but hardly anyone does it because no want wants to think the worst case scenario. When that law was voted, I thought to go to the town hall and arrange it all, but I have to admit, we're now two years later, and still I haven't signed any paper at all. I don't like the tought of making decisions wheater I want to die or not when I get involved in a car crash.

Same reason people die without having a proper will. If I just avoid it, it isn't an issue type thinking. Which is fine, it just might be a problem later.

A complete different rule in the States then in Europe. Here the bodies never ever become property of the State, except when there is a murder involved. In all other cases, it always remains property of the nearest family member.

In the States you're not allowed to prepare your own service or the body itself etc... You have to call a funeral home and they process the body for burial and execute the services. Also an officer will be present.

You get to pick the coffin, the plot, the headstone and content of the service (who speaks, flowers, music etc...). But it's a for profit mandatory service.

 

[Henrik Larsson]

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.

It was actually a very interesting program even if it was a little depressing. Watching the man die at the end though was a little uncomfortable as it looked like he was in pain, he was choking as he was gasping for air, they said that it was him snoring

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0120dxp/Terry_Pratchett_Choosing_to_Die/

 

[Henrik Larsson]

Hmmm... And what about the miracles that happen every day in medical care? Sometimes people are in a coma for months while doctors are convinced the situation is hopeless, and still they wake up. I mean, what is a terminal illness? Cancer, AIDS? What about car accidents? Besides, shouldn't it be the patient who has to decide what would happen with his life, in stead of relatives?

It should only be alowed in the case of a terminal illness, i.e a disease in which it cannot be cured and you cannot recover witout a God given miracle. Diseases like parkinson's, motor neurone disease,paralysis etc

 

[Thomas O'Malley]

It should only be alowed in the case of a terminal illness, i.e a disease in which it cannot be cured and you cannot recover witout a God given miracle. Diseases like parkinson's, motor neurone disease,paralysis etc

Even if the person itself never told or wrote down he wanted you to do that for him? :shocked:

 

[Facetious]

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.

I suppose that it's subject to interpretation... at least in 49 states.
I'm not opposed to it, I just don't know what the consensus is amongst doctors as, traditionally, they've only been on the side of preserving life in most instances.

 

[Will E Worm]

I suppose that it's subject to interpretation... at least in 49 states.
I'm not opposed to it, I just don't know what the consensus is amongst doctors as, traditionally, they've only been on the side of preserving life in most instances.

:hatsoff: Doctors are supposed to preserve live.

I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

:surprise: You read it correct. "Doctors" who murder children are not doctors.

 

[Alyssa Rose]

Even if the person itself never told or wrote down he wanted you to do that for him? :shocked:

I think it should have to be specified in a patients will.. Like the "don't ressucitate" order.. That way you know it's what that pt wanted.

 

[SpexyAshleigh]

If there are doctors who are legally allowed to kill unborn babies, then there should be doctors who are legally allowed to assist terminally ill patients to end their lives.

I do think however the guidelines should be strict (must have a terminal disease with little to no chance of recovery, must be of sound mind, must be done at a licensed facility with witnesses etc).

 

[bostonkid9]

It should be.

 

[Henrik Larsson]

Even if the person itself never told or wrote down he wanted you to do that for him? :shocked:

Obviously only if it was requested

 

[Stranix]

We put down out pets when they are old and no longer can function, or are too sick to recover and I think that humans should have the right to chose the same. There is no quality to life when you can no longer take care of yourself, are bed ridden, burden on your family, or lack the basic functions of a human so you can live.

 

[Togath]

I am not reading through every to make sure some one has not already said this. So if it has already been said I am sorry.
Euthanasia has not been a hot topic for almost a decade now. Why is that? Well the big push of hospice companies funded by medicare has pretty much become the next best thing to euthenasia. Basically how it works is that you are put on into a D.N.R. status ( Do Not Resusitate) no cpr or other lifesaving methods aply. A physician will take over your care for pain/comfort management. At first when its early on in the death phase people still have alot of good days. They dont need a whole lot of pain meds, but as soon as the disease process starts really hitting the care shifts to comfort. A funny thing happens when the pain meds start getting on board. Thier side effects include decreased circulation, decreased breathing and all over decreased movement. Well these pain medications usually switch from an oral pill to a pain "patch". A pain patch is a medicated band-aid like device. It releases a certain amount medication over a certain amount of time that is taken in through the skin. This is changed regularly, so the person might really not be needing the pain patch much but they cant get medication assistance any other way. This medication builds up in the body and eventually leads to the persons lungs filling up with fluid and passing away. The fluids builds up due to the individual not moving any more or coughing, just plain and simply clearing thier airway. It isnt really viewed like this but it is what happens. Dont get me wrong this is a great way to help someone transition through. It keeps them comfortable, it helps the family not to worry about a loved one suffering. It is done with all of the greatest intentions, with all respect given to the individual suffering. The aides, nurses and physicians who work in this line of field are a real kind hearted people. It takes a special individual to console encourage berieve and care for the family and individual dying.

 

[Automate]

Absolutely.

Naturally, there are several practical problems with it. Not going to think about those right now. I just know for an absolute fact that I personally woudn't want to spend a decade or more just hooked to a machine that forcibly keeps me alive and possibly aware of my surroundings in some sort of way, with no chance of ever recovering from that state. That would be one of the worst forms of torture I can think of.

If in any way possible, I would just kill myself before it would come to that. If not, I would certainly want for someone else to be able to kill me legally.

 

[mrtrebus]

We put down out pets when they are old and no longer can function, or are too sick to recover and I think that humans should have the right to chose the same. There is no quality to life when you can no longer take care of yourself, are bed ridden, burden on your family, or lack the basic functions of a human so you can live.

Being a burden on your family is NOT a reason for euthanasia!!!

 

[luis1972]

Yes, its our freedom to choose die or living...

 

[Togath]

Absolutely.

Naturally, there are several practical problems with it. Not going to think about those right now. I just know for an absolute fact that I personally woudn't want to spend a decade or more just hooked to a machine that forcibly keeps me alive and possibly aware of my surroundings in some sort of way, with no chance of ever recovering from that state. That would be one of the worst forms of torture I can think of.

If in any way possible, I would just kill myself before it would come to that. If not, I would certainly want for someone else to be able to kill me legally.

Thats what a living will is for. If you are fundamentally brain dead or just cant function without mechanical breathing or artificial feeding, you can request to be taken off of those things. So if you truely feel this way, please go to a lawyer and have it drawn up. It doesnt cost more then a $50-$100 charge. The lawyers office usually has a standard premade form and then you can check this box or that box and then the lawyer will sign, you will sign it and a third party will sign it.