Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Banned
#26 Old 11th Jan 2009 at 4:46 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Minted Bubbles
There is no comparison between the right to life and other rights. When you choose to remain silent, you may change your mind at a later date; when you choose to die, you have no such second chance. Participating in someone’s death is also to participate in depriving them of all choices they might make in the future, and is therefore immoral.


Who's to say what is moral and what is immoral? If someone that is terminally ill and requests to die, as they'll end up dying anyway, wouldn't it be immoral to refuse their request and force them to suffer in pain instead of releasing from their pain?

I'm all for VE, I just hope if I'm ever in the position of making that choice(or even if I'm comatose) I hope someone will have compassion to kill me. I also think everyone should plan ahead for something like this for themselves, write it up, sign it and make it a legal document. I for one would rather have the legal work signed up and all that, which will trump anyone elses decision on the matter if I were to be comatose and just barely surviving through one of the various means doctors use. My life, my choice, if I want to kill myself let me do it.
Advertisement
#27 Old 11th Jan 2009 at 5:03 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Safyre420
If someone that is terminally ill and requests to die, as they'll end up dying anyway, wouldn't it be immoral to refuse their request and force them to suffer in pain instead of releasing from their pain?


The state in which I live in is one of the only two states in the United States where Voluntary Euthanasia is legal. There is no need for terminally ill patients ever to be in pain, even at the very end of the course of their illness. The future which lies ahead for the terminally ill is of course terrifying, but society’s role is to help them live their lives as well as they can. This can take place through counselling, helping patients to come to terms with their condition. However I am not implying that they should not have the right to die, yes I am against it. But it is their life, their body and they are responsible for it.

As Sue Rodriguez famously put it:
Quote:
"If I cannot give consent to my own death, whose body is this? Who owns my life?"
Scholar
#28 Old 11th Jan 2009 at 5:52 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Minted Bubbles
There is no comparison between the right to life and other rights.

I disagree. Freedom is as important as life, if not more so. Is there not a major historical document (United States Declaration of Independence) that espouses the chief rights as "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"?

I'd say that there is nothing wrong with death, aside from being forced to do it against one's will. Thus, if a person no longer wishes to live (whether they consciously wish to die, or are no longer able to wish to live, the same applies), their life has no value and need not be protected. And, further, if they can still feel pain, I believe it would be most immoral for us to let them remain alive.
Lab Assistant
#29 Old 11th Jan 2009 at 9:37 AM
I know my opinions for the Assisted Suicide/Voluntary Euthanasia of the terminally ill and they match the majority of the responses in this thread but as for AS when it comes to mental illness, I am firmly on the fence in regards to those with severe depression.

Five years ago, I suffered what most would consider severe depression which began hitting in small and large doses since I was a child. Self-multilation was a common thing in my life, as was attempted suicide. I spent a good part of three months doing nothing but sleeping and looking up at a ceiling, I rarely ate and the only time I got out of bed was to use the bathroom. My apartment was never cleaned nor was I. I had no motivation and I felt empty of life, like I was dead already but not quite because I was still breathing. To put it simply, I was a mess.

If I was asked by someone if I wanted to die five years ago, I would've said yes. Now if someone asked me if I wanted to die, I would have to say no. I am not going to be an idiot and say that I've been cured. I know that I will suffer from hits of depression all my life but I know that the severity of it has decreased to the point where I can still function and live with it even if it does spring up again. I haven't caused myself harm in four years and I have accomplished things that I only dreamed about in the past.

As for others who may be in the position to chose AS due to severe depression, I recognize that it's their choice and I would support them through whatever choice they made after making my best efforts to help them. I just wanted to make it clear that as much as I believe that depression is treatable that I also wouldn't deny someone their freedom to choose.

"I am a fly in the ointment, I am a whisper in the shadows. I am also an old, old woman. More than that you need not know."
Field Researcher
#30 Old 11th Jan 2009 at 11:01 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Minted Bubbles
The state in which I live in is one of the only two states in the United States where Voluntary Euthanasia is legal. There is no need for terminally ill patients ever to be in pain, even at the very end of the course of their illness. The future which lies ahead for the terminally ill is of course terrifying, but society’s role is to help them live their lives as well as they can. This can take place through counselling, helping patients to come to terms with their condition. However I am not implying that they should not have the right to die, yes I am against it. But it is their life, their body and they are responsible for it.

As Sue Rodriguez famously put it:
Quote:
"If I cannot give consent to my own death, whose body is this? Who owns my life?""If I cannot give consent to my own death, whose body is this? Who owns my life?"


But see, that's the thing... it is their life, their body... but what if they are unable to do the act themselves?

I've said here in the past, a few years ago, that I had full-blown AIDS.. and I still do, according to my numbers. I cannot work. I get stretches of "sick" that last for weeks, or months. There are several symptomatic illnesses that can affect the brain, and/or body, to the point were voluntary suicide is not possible. In cases such as this, it would require assistance from someone else.

Quote: Originally posted by Minted Bubbles
There is no comparison between the right to life and other rights. When you choose to remain silent, you may change your mind at a later date; when you choose to die, you have no such second chance. Participating in someone’s death is also to participate in depriving them of all choices they might make in the future, and is therefore immoral.


I've been positive since 1993... that's 16 years, in March (have been full blown since 2002,) and I have truly, and honestly come to terms with my own death. There really are no other choices that I feel would need to be made if I'd reached a point in my illness that I do not wish to be in. I've watched dozens of my friends (and other people I know, or have known) wither away in great pain... or.. the other extreme, doped beyond all functioning, for years. I do not want to be in either of those extremes. By your statement, you still feel that if I cannot "do it myself" it would still be immoral for another to help me... How?

One of my long time comparisons to illustrate the absurdity of those opposed to VE or AS... A dog will be put down if it's suffering is too great. Other animals are euthanized "humanely" to spare them the suffering of whatever ails them. But if a human (where do you think the term humane comes from?) would rather end their life to avoid the same suffering, they are classified as "sick" or selfish.

Peace

I am not bigoted for race, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, or age... I do, however, have a big problem with stupidity, and stupidity knows no boundaries.
#31 Old 11th Jan 2009 at 11:07 AM
Personally, I am all for it as long as the patient (or the patients family provided that patient is too weak to sign the paper) signs notorized, legal documentation. I mean, I would not want to suffer for months just so I can die. I like to have control and I want to control when I die, not the doctors taking care of m, if you can call it that. Pain is useless, it won't get you to heaven and god sure as hell won't love you more.

All suicide is not because of depression or craziness(but I do have to say that if you are diagnosed with an uncurable illness, nyone would be depressed)

I look at it this way, it is going to kill you anyways, why noot cut out the pain and suffering, save your sanity.
#32 Old 11th Jan 2009 at 3:46 PM
In the case of physical diseases, yes. Absolutely. I will never forget the story I read a couple years back about a woman who was horribly disfigured by cancer being denied euthanasia by her doctors. She said children ran in fear of her, she had to hide her face in public and was ashamed to see her family. She was in excruciating pain and only wanted to die in a dignified manner. A couple of months later, she was found dead in her home.

In cases where your death is to be long, drawn out, painful and inevitable and you truly would rather die, in this country (America) that's your right. Your right to YOUR life, YOUR body and YOUR choices. Unfortunately, most seem to disagree with me on this topic since it still isn't legal. Some patients see more appeal in taking a pill or getting a shot and slipping off as opposed to suffocating, drowning, or taking a gun to your head(which doesn't always kill you immediately).
Lab Assistant
#33 Old 11th Jan 2009 at 4:33 PM
Here it is legalized but I don't know if this is the only counrty in the world?

I think it's good, sometimes it's for people just waiting until they die when they have a disease. They know they won't ever heal and their last months they are suffering in pain, you can't do that to people when they say themselves they want to die. People must have the right to choose if they want to live or die when they are in pain and terminal ill or other really bad things (here was a man a few months ago and he was beated and he couldn't talk anymore and walk he could nothing almost anymore, he choosed to die).
e3 d3 Ne2 Nd2 Nb3 Ng3
retired moderator
#34 Old 11th Jan 2009 at 6:23 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Dreamydre15
I know that, but I just disagree.

So you would have people suffer for a lifetime? I know many people who have suffered all of their lives as a result of a mental illness.
Mad Poster
#35 Old 11th Jan 2009 at 7:22 PM
Personally, I think it's much easier to let someone die for your own personal confort than for theirs. Sick people, especially if its long term sickness, can affect people a lot more than they are willing to accept. They'll moan, complain, demand and you have to be there for them, and sometimes there's nothing more you can do than be there and listen and sometimes people are too busy even for that. You ask why it isn't allowed for people when it is allowed for animals. Has anyone asked the animals if they want to be put to sleep? Mind you, most of the times the animals are put to sleep is for financial reasons.
Top Secret Researcher
#36 Old 11th Jan 2009 at 8:03 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Santje
Here it is legalized but I don't know if this is the only counrty in the world?

I think it's good, sometimes it's for people just waiting until they die when they have a disease. They know they won't ever heal and their last months they are suffering in pain, you can't do that to people when they say themselves they want to die. People must have the right to choose if they want to live or die when they are in pain and terminal ill or other really bad things (here was a man a few months ago and he was beated and he couldn't talk anymore and walk he could nothing almost anymore, he choosed to die).


No in Belgium euthanasia is also legalized. The debate here is to make it broader. The law doesn't apply on terminal ill children, depression etc ... and in case of dementia it's only allowed if the person has a living well specifying so (a few months back one of Belgium most famous authors Hugo Claes decided to end his life before he was consumed by his dementia, some applauded this while others found it distasteful). Personally I'm not against euthanasia for terminal ill people who suffer greatly. But there are some fussy area's like do you allow people who are clinically depressed euthanasia (which is not allowed here), I think we do need to ask ourselves where do we draw the line (I'm against euthanasia for depression). Euthanasia is a last resort some people prefer other options like palliative care.
Mad Poster
Original Poster
#37 Old 11th Jan 2009 at 8:12 PM
Quote: Originally posted by simsample
So you would have people suffer for a lifetime? I know many people who have suffered all of their lives as a result of a mental illness.


It depends, but you seem to think that if you're are Depressed/Suicidal their is nothing wrong with using V.E. when their is. If you meet a person who has overcome their Depression they will be happy to tell you that they are glad they didn't choose to take their life. They think it's the only way out of their situation. I heard this story about this boy who killed himself because he didn't pass his exam in University. If you know people who have suffered from mental illness for a "lifetime" then they haven't got the help that they need. Summed up, Mental Illness is curable; Terminal illness is not. But the debate topic is not about the mentally ill, so lets stick to the topic.

"Going to the chapel of Love"

the girls club . statistics . yearbook .
Scholar
#38 Old 11th Jan 2009 at 8:14 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Minted Bubbles
There is no comparison between the right to life and other rights. When you choose to remain silent, you may change your mind at a later date; when you choose to die, you have no such second chance. Participating in someone’s death is also to participate in depriving them of all choices they might make in the future, and is therefore immoral.


Yes, but the choice to deprive them of their future choices wasn't yours - they want to end their life and all you can choose is to help them or not. There's also the matter of - while I agree that assisting them is immoral -whether you have the right to veto their choice of ending their suffering.

Though, the problem also lies in the fact that one can never decide that a particular level of suffering is enough to warrant for euthanasia...

"Life is just a chance to grow a soul" - A. Powell Davies
Inventor
#39 Old 11th Jan 2009 at 10:01 PM
I believe that assisted suicide/VE should be legalised but needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis. I think that it should be permitted for non-terminal conditions only when that condition has proven refractory to treatment. Certain individuals with severe clinical depression or other mental illness may fall into this category.

I've complained about my own illness often enough in the 'Vent' thread, but I think it fits as a perfect example here. I have CRPS/RSD, which is a neurological disease that usually arises following trauma (mine was due to knee surgery at 14 and another one at 20). The main characteristic is intense, burning pain. Mine has spread from my right knee to both legs and it now looks as though it's beginning to involve my hands. My legs are swollen to twice normal size, my skin breaks down on a regular basis and they are deformed now because of muscle dystonia. This is what they look like on a really, really good day. To give an idea of just how swollen they are - I weigh 43kg

They get so painful that I can't even wear long pants or lie under a doona, can't bear my cat rubbing around my legs or my dogs leaning against me. I've been through almost every treatment in the book, and many that aren't. Even the strongest of drugs barely takes the edge off unless I take a high enough dose to knock me out. The one recognised treatment that I haven't tried, I haven't tried because it would probably kill me.

My condition is deteriorating and I have additional problems now with my heart and GI tract (the latter is basically causing me to waste away, because I can't tolerate food), but it is not regarded as terminal. However, should I reach the point where my whole body is affected in the way my legs are, I wish that I was able to ask my doctor or my family to help me die with no legal backlash for them.

Mental illness is a difficult one. I think that in general terms, it should be a NO. I suffer from depression (not surprising, given the above...). I know the feelings of uselessness and despair only too well and have contemplated suicide more than once. I know how debilitating it can be. Fortunately I do okay on medication; I can't imagine how life must be for people with mental illness whose conditions can't be successfully managed.

Part of what worries me with assisted suicide and depression is that I think it would be quite easy (easier than with a physical illness) for an unscrupulous relative to persuade the depressed person that this is a good solution. I know how easily I would be pushed over the edge if I had somebody playing on those depressive thoughts and feelings, and this could essentially allow them to get away with murder.

Quote: Originally posted by Dreamydre15
If you know people who have suffered from mental illness for a "lifetime" then they haven't got the help that they need. Summed up, Mental Illness is curable; Terminal illness is not.
I'd argue against that. Many mental illnesses are a lifelong issue. Schizophrenia, Bipolar Disorder, any number of other conditions...they are not curable. A lot of mental illnesses can be well managed through careful multidisciplinary care, allowing the person to live a full and normal life, but mental illness can be incredibly debilitating. Perhaps for example a person requires medication but doesn't respond, or can't tolerate side effects. Whatever the reasons, some people do experience a lifetime of suffering regardless of having sought help.


Just my two cents.

Please call me Laura
"The gene pool needs more chlorine."
My Site
Mad Poster
Original Poster
#40 Old 11th Jan 2009 at 10:11 PM
Quote: Originally posted by longears15
I'd argue against that. Many mental illnesses are a lifelong issue. Schizophrenia, Bipolar Disorder, any number of other conditions...they are not curable. A lot of mental illnesses can be well managed through careful multidisciplinary care, allowing the person to live a full and normal life, but mental illness can be incredibly debilitating. Perhaps for example a person requires medication but doesn't respond, or can't tolerate side effects. Whatever the reasons, some people do experience a lifetime of suffering regardless of having sought help.
Just my two cents.


Your story is very emotional and my heart goes out to you; that could be true, but the mental illness I was speaking of in particular was Depression. Suicide is not chosen; it happens when pain exceeds resources for coping with pain. I had a brief run in with Depression about 3-4 years ago after my parents divorce. I thought/attempted twice but now I am glad that I did not go through with it; it was more like a learning experience. I see life in ways that I couldn't at that point. V.E. for the mentally ill is just something I will always disagree on no matter what anyone says.

"Going to the chapel of Love"

the girls club . statistics . yearbook .
e3 d3 Ne2 Nd2 Nb3 Ng3
retired moderator
#41 Old 12th Jan 2009 at 2:04 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Dreamydre15
If you know people who have suffered from mental illness for a "lifetime" then they haven't got the help that they need. Summed up, Mental Illness is curable; Terminal illness is not. But the debate topic is not about the mentally ill, so lets stick to the topic.

Schizophrenia is NOT curable. Neither is bipolar disorder or dementia. Also, depression is caused by an imbalance of chemicals in the brain and can sometimes have a physical cause. Depression which is short-term like yours tends to be a temporary imbalance but there are many people who have an imbalance which seems to be permanent. This is not off topic at all- depression is not the only mental illness which can make life unbearable.
Mad Poster
Original Poster
#42 Old 12th Jan 2009 at 2:35 AM
Quote: Originally posted by simsample
Schizophrenia is NOT curable. Neither is bipolar disorder or dementia. Also, depression is caused by an imbalance of chemicals in the brain and can sometimes have a physical cause. Depression which is short-term like yours tends to be a temporary imbalance but there are many people who have an imbalance which seems to be permanent. This is not off topic at all- depression is not the only mental illness which can make life unbearable.


I do not believe a doctor should be required to assist someone in suicide if their mental disorder is treatable or curable. But if it is not, and if the person is trapped in a psychotic mind, is it really a more compassionate choice to allow them to seek a doctor's assistance in ending their suffering? Or is it just the beginning of a very dangerous breakdown in barriers that could, over the long term, ultimately lead to eugenics?

"Going to the chapel of Love"

the girls club . statistics . yearbook .
e3 d3 Ne2 Nd2 Nb3 Ng3
retired moderator
#43 Old 12th Jan 2009 at 4:05 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Dreamydre15
I do not believe a doctor should be required to assist someone in suicide if their mental disorder is treatable or curable. But if it is not, and if the person is trapped in a psychotic mind, is it really a more compassionate choice to allow them to seek a doctor's assistance in ending their suffering? Or is it just the beginning of a very dangerous breakdown in barriers that could, over the long term, ultimately lead to eugenics?

If you look at it that way then you would also have to say that a doctor shouldn't be required to assist someone in suicide if their physical disorder is treatable or curable, too. I agree that there would have to be a degree of control- so for example, a schizophrenic could be judged by a psychologist as to whether they were lucid and not in a phase of psychosis. However for anyone in a state of suffering, the desire to end that suffering would be more overwhelming than reason- so a person in acute pain would be just as likely to make an irrational decision as someone who is affected by mental illness. A gentleman I know who has had several recurrences of tongue cancer told me that following surgery to remove a large portion of his jaw, he was in so much pain that he was desperate to end his life. Had he not been closely supervised in hospital he told me he would have likely done so. Now he has recovered he is glad that he did not commit suicide- so you see, I think that euthanasia for a mentally ill person should be treated the same as for any physical illness. Of course any change in law which allows euthanasia must be very carefully thought out and closely controlled, or else a danger of abuse would occur. But I don't necessarily think that the controls should be different for varying illnesses. And it should always be on a case-by-case basis.
Mad Poster
#44 Old 12th Jan 2009 at 7:47 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Night Revenant
Five years ago, I suffered what most would consider severe depression which began hitting in small and large doses since I was a child. Self-multilation was a common thing in my life, as was attempted suicide. I spent a good part of three months doing nothing but sleeping and looking up at a ceiling, I rarely ate and the only time I got out of bed was to use the bathroom. My apartment was never cleaned nor was I. I had no motivation and I felt empty of life, like I was dead already but not quite because I was still breathing. To put it simply, I was a mess.

If I was asked by someone if I wanted to die five years ago, I would've said yes. Now if someone asked me if I wanted to die, I would have to say no. I am not going to be an idiot and say that I've been cured. I know that I will suffer from hits of depression all my life but I know that the severity of it has decreased to the point where I can still function and live with it even if it does spring up again. I haven't caused myself harm in four years and I have accomplished things that I only dreamed about in the past.

As for others who may be in the position to chose AS due to severe depression, I recognize that it's their choice and I would support them through whatever choice they made after making my best efforts to help them. I just wanted to make it clear that as much as I believe that depression is treatable that I also wouldn't deny someone their freedom to choose.


I truly, truly feel for you. I still suffer from Major Depression and many times I want to die. But many other times I don't. But I am too chicken when it comes to pain. That is why I would rather die through VE because it is painless. Then again, when you are like me who feels I have nothing to contribute to the world and I'm almost 30 and have not done anything with my life (no career or dream job) and I have never felt bliss and the whole nine yards, it's so overwhelming. I still get like that and it never goes away. I used to jokingly request my former therapist if I can sign to be put out of my misery. Of course she can't agree, she'd get fired, lol. But at least you are better. So I'm glad you improved.

Quote: Originally posted by LE102071
I had full-blown AIDS.. and I still do, according to my numbers.


I am truly sorry to hear this and my heart does go out to you. I mentioned earlier that my uncle died of AIDS in 1996 and how skeletal and weak he was before he died. I remember a while before that he had refused to take all his meds and didn't take care of himself because I think deep down inside he didn't want to live (at least I assume that was why he died so quickly). *sigh* I know this may sound ungrateful and ignorant and it's nothing towards you at all (I swear), but I don't think I could ever live if I had HIV. If I couldn't have the guts to commit suicide just from the depression alone, I know for sure I'd commit suicide from HIV. I mean, I would fear never getting a job because of it, a record label would not be interested at all in my music, no man would ever want me (they don't now, why would they then?) and just all those things that would depress me very much. I would never want to go out anywhere, I would lose all motivation to want to live and my curiosity about living life would fade away. But that's only because I don't love myself. Please don't take this the wrong way, I am not saying or believing that anyone with HIV/AIDS should die and if anything I think they should live as happily as possible, as many currently do. I just mean myself. My mother would seriously try to convert me like crazy to her damn church because it was her brother who died of AIDS and he was gay, too. She only believes he's in heaven because he repented before he died. She already doesn't accept me for my sexuality so imagine if I had HIV, you know? And then the family would probably react differently and never wanting to touch me (there are people like that). I'm sorry, this is not helping, if I was rude in any way, please forgive me, as it was not my intention. I admit I am very uneducated about these things and I have been risky in the past (I still need to get tested since it's been almost two years now). But I am glad you are at least doing well. That's good to hear.

Quote: Originally posted by Dreamydre15
Your story is very emotional and my heart goes out to you; that could be true, but the mental illness I was speaking of in particular was Depression. Suicide is not chosen; it happens when pain exceeds resources for coping with pain. I had a brief run in with Depression about 3-4 years ago after my parents divorce. I thought/attempted twice but now I am glad that I did not go through with it; it was more like a learning experience. I see life in ways that I couldn't at that point. V.E. for the mentally ill is just something I will always disagree on no matter what anyone says.


Major Depression is NOT curable. It's treated, but NOT curable. I have had it all my life but never knew about it until adulthood (though I was depressed and suicidal even as a teen). I think that VE should still be available for depression only after seeking therapy first and realizing it is not working, thus after trying everything else is when VE can be recommended. I don't think it should be available immediately, just after you have tried other alternatives first. Then again, everyone has the right to die. This world is not a very nice place and it can get very overwhelming for many of us. Therapy still hasn't worked for me, nor have pills. It sucks. I hate it so much and I don't want to suffer anymore. It really hurts. I wish you could know what it feels like. You get depressed by events and things that happen to you or in relation to you, I get depressed for those reasons PLUS by having a chemical imbalance in my brain, which in turns lead to suicide. And if God existed, I'd be more than happy to die and just go to a better place. Heaven is indeed better than earth, lol.
Mad Poster
#45 Old 12th Jan 2009 at 8:06 AM
About the whole depression/mental illness question - I suppose I see it as that there are more likely to be breakthroughs in treatment for depression (and other mental illnesses, to an extent) than for things like AIDS and cancer. So for depressed people it might be worth hanging on a bit longer. I don't know why I think that, I don't have any evidence for it or anything, but that's just how I picture it. Also, depression doesn't kill you. It can make you feel awful awful awful, and can lead you towards committing suicide, but without VE you wouldn't actually die. Whereas with things like cancer etc you would evenutally die anyway, just more painfully and slowly. So the choice with regards to VE isn't between living and dying for terminal diseases, after a point it's between dying quickly and dying slowly. So I guess that makes a difference in my mind.
Banned
#46 Old 12th Jan 2009 at 9:35 AM
For those who suffer from severe depression, doctors are working on something that could completely solve depression.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006...in2053537.shtml

I first heard about this procedure on some show on discovery science channel so I had to google it and share it lol
Instructor
#47 Old 12th Jan 2009 at 11:27 AM
a lot of people get depressed, I don't think "killing (even if they choose it)" them is a good idea.

“When you're taught to love everyone, to love your enemies, then what value does that place on love?”-Marilyn Manson
Field Researcher
#48 Old 12th Jan 2009 at 2:14 PM
Quote: Originally posted by slipknot93
a lot of people get depressed, I don't think "killing (even if they choose it)" them is a good idea.


LOL.. I find it ironic that you post that, yet your sig is not so... caring? lol
Quote:
LET FREEDOM RING WITH A SHOTGUN BLAST!


Peace

I am not bigoted for race, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, or age... I do, however, have a big problem with stupidity, and stupidity knows no boundaries.
Theorist
#49 Old 12th Jan 2009 at 3:53 PM
I am against all forms of assisted suicide. Anything that requires another person to take an active role in someone else's death, whether they wish it or not, goes too far. This is different from passively allowing someone to die, as in "pulling the plug", where by turning the machine off, you are simply allowing the person's body to fail, as it would have had the machines not been artificially keeping them alive to begin with. I also am 100% okay with patients expressing Do Not Rescusitate instructions, as again, rescusitation is an artificial means of keeping someone alive when they go into cardiac arrest, have a stroke, something like that. As someone who has had to make that determination for a loved one, while it is one of the hardest decisions a child should ever have to make for their parent, you understand the reasoning. DNRs and pulling the plug simply stop someone from living beyond "their time". If they express a wish not to have their lives artificially extended like that, I am okay with it. I am not okay however with the idea that it is acceptable to assist someone in an active role. I am firmly against someone like Jack Kevorkian, not because I object to the idea of choosing when to die, but because it requires someone else to actively cause it. It requires someone to actively cause death, rather than passively allowing it to happen. That is the biggest difference to me, passive vs. active. I have read the posts that claim to be compassionate towards the sick, claim they only want to ease suffering, etc, and I simply don't buy their arguments.

We had a debate here that is relevant to this one when hurricane Katrina hit, and we had stories about doctors and nurses who intentionally terminated patient's lives, because they wouldn't survive the hurricane anyway. They took it upon themselves to play god, determining that because they thought those patients would be better off, they had the power to terminate their lives, as a "mercy killing". I call bullshit. I also call it murder.

Laws that sanction assisted suicide inevitably will pose a threat to innocent people. If assisted suicide is allowed on the basis of mercy or compassion, what will keep us from "assisting in" and perhaps actively urging, the death of anyone whose life we deem worthless or undesirable? What will keep the inconvenienced relatives of a patient from persuading him or her to "voluntarily" ask for death? Once we accept that only life of a certain quality is worth living, where will we stop? Do we draw the line at the severely handicapped? Hell, Abortion advocates already claim it is more humane to abort a baby than to allow it to live in poverty...so why not euthanize all the poverty stricken while we are at it? Wouldn't they be better off? Once you start down that path, it is very difficult to stop.

Finally, to those that compare it to euthanizing cats and dogs: Cats and dogs are not human beings. Next, why do you think most cats and dogs (that have owners) are euthanized? Not because the owners are being so merciful, but because they don't want to spend the money for continued care. We have a lot less problems justifying a 20k hospital bill than we would a 5k Veterinary bill. While pet owners love their pets, and I am not suggesting that they don't, ultimately they realize it is just a cat or dog, not their mother or father, son or daughter, grandpa or grandma. To compare euthanizing a cat or dog with a human being is simply ridiculous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
#50 Old 12th Jan 2009 at 6:32 PM
Quote: Originally posted by slipknot93
a lot of people get depressed, I don't think "killing (even if they choose it)" them is a good idea.


If you suffer from major deprression, it's usually not a choice. The sense of pain is so overwhelming that all is wanted is just a surcease of that pain.

The hard choice is NOT to put a period on your existence, but to wait it out. Sometimes, that can take months or even years.

Each day, each moment, the person afflicted makes the choice to live or die.

My mother, on the other hand, has cancer. She's had it 4 times now. She is also depressed and if she asked me to help her, you'd better believe I would, painful as that is.

It's all about choice, and like many here, I respect each person's right to choose what they will about their own life, whether that's to live -- or not.

If I can choose to do it for my dear pets, each of whom had stage 5 lymphoma, my mother --and anyone like her--should have that option too.

On the other hand, I can see why we in the USA are so leery of AS. There's always that question of, "Was it assisted? Was it their choice? or was it not, and therefore murder?"

I don't see Assisted Suicude as something that will ever be legalized in the US because of this very conundrum, and that's an unfortunate thing.

Quote: Originally posted by davious

<Snip>

Finally, to those that compare it to euthanizing cats and dogs: Cats and dogs are not human beings. Next, why do you think most cats and dogs (that have owners) are euthanized? Not because the owners are being so merciful, but because they don't want to spend the money for continued care. We have a lot less problems justifying a 20k hospital bill than we would a 5k Veterinary bill. While pet owners love their pets, and I am not suggesting that they don't, ultimately they realize it is just a cat or dog, not their mother or father, son or daughter, grandpa or grandma. To compare euthanizing a cat or dog with a human being is simply ridiculous.



And to say that the creatures that I love and care for and have spent 20K or more on are "just animals" and not worthy of comparison to someone I love as well is simply wrong and offensive. That shows your complete callousness toward those who do love their pets and have to make horribly hard choices because unlike for humans, animals don't get the benefits of Medicare, insurance and other cost defraying options.
 
Page 2 of 4
Back to top