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!
Theorist
#51 Old 12th Jan 2009 at 7:19 PM
If you were caught in a fire, and had to choose whether to save your cat or dog, or a someone else's child, and only had time to save one, would you struggle to choose? Or would the choice be automatic? What would the reaction be of everyone you know if you told them you let the child die to save your dog? How would that reaction be different if you told them you let your dog die to save a child?

Now, if you are caught in a fire, and had to choose to save one child or another child, is the choice as automatic?

For me, only one of those choices requires any decision making at all. When it comes to picking a pet or a child, I will save the child every time. Since I would have no hesitation about sacrificing the dog for the child, I cannot put the dog's life at the same level as I would a child. It has nothing to do with being callous, and everything to do with recognition that cats and dogs are not human beings. Because of that, I stand by my earlier comment entirely. I would let my pet die if it would save a human child 100% of the time. It isn't even a question. The child doesn't have to be mine.

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?
Advertisement
Mad Poster
#52 Old 12th Jan 2009 at 7:40 PM
Quote: Originally posted by davious
If you were caught in a fire, and had to choose whether to save your cat or dog, or a someone else's child, and only had time to save one, would you struggle to choose? Or would the choice be automatic? What would the reaction be of everyone you know if you told them you let the child die to save your dog? How would that reaction be different if you told them you let your dog die to save a child?

Now, if you are caught in a fire, and had to choose to save one child or another child, is the choice as automatic?

For me, only one of those choices requires any decision making at all. When it comes to picking a pet or a child, I will save the child every time. Since I would have no hesitation about sacrificing the dog for the child, I cannot put the dog's life at the same level as I would a child. It has nothing to do with being callous, and everything to do with recognition that cats and dogs are not human beings. Because of that, I stand by my earlier comment entirely. I would let my pet die if it would save a human child 100% of the time. It isn't even a question. The child doesn't have to be mine.


That's fair enough, so would I. But that doesn't mean that I wouldn't be willing to pay for my dog's care if he was ill, and could still have a reasonable quality of life if he was treated. Whereas I would have him euthanized if he was suffering and he couldn't be helped. I would be equally (if not more) willing to pay for the treatment of a friend or family member, but that doesn't mean that I don't think that they should have the right to die if they are suffering and can't be helped, just like my dog.

In the case of VE for humans/euthanization for animals, you don't have to choose who to save. Just because I would choose to save a child rather than my dog in a fire doesn't mean I wouldn't be willing to do everything possible to help my dog if it wouldn't harm any people.
Theorist
#53 Old 12th Jan 2009 at 8:12 PM
I wasn't suggesting that people don't spend ANY money on their pets, just that it is easier to justify spending a lot more money to take care of a human than it is to justify spending less on a pet. If you spent 20 grand to get a life saving surgery for yourself, nobody would think anything of it. However, if you told them you spent 20k on a life saving surgery for your cat, most people are going to think you were flat out nuts. Based on that, it only makes sense to me that humans and pets are not equal, so comparing human euthanasia and animal euthanasia are apples and oranges. Two completely different things.

The point of the fire example was to demonstrate the level of value in each. I would hope that most people wouldn't hesitate to let their dog die to save the child. It would be a no-brainer decision. Of course you save the human kid. Because it should be a complete no-brainer decision, I cannot assign a dog the same value as I would a human. It only becomes a tough decision when you have two lives of equal value, ie, two human children, as opposed to one child and one pet. It was only to illustrate that pets and humans are not the same, and should never be the same, and that comparing the two euthanasias is fruitless. It was less to do with actually saving a pet, and more to do with demonstrating that we assign different values on life depending on whether its human or not.

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?
Mad Poster
#54 Old 13th Jan 2009 at 7:52 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Safyre420
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


Thank you for this link. If only I had the money, I would desperately try it out. I am desperate and I want to rid this damn depression!

Davious, not to be rude or anything, just a question, that's all. Do you think your opinion on this debate is merely because you are a devout and faithful Christian and it's a sin/immoral to accept VE/AS? Because you made reference to that in the abortion thread, so I just wondered. I just thought that you would see the light in this, that people are suffering and they don't want to suffer, just like myself. We don't want to suffer anymore. I understand that you are incapable of understanding this because you believe that "Jesus died for us" and if he can suffer very badly, then we should be able to suffer, too, without any complaints, otherwise it would make us ungrateful of the "life that he gave us." This is what I'm getting from you and please don't take offense to this. I'm just trying to understand why you are so against this when there will be proof that it was the patient's choice (witnesses, legal papers, etc.). Remember, "God" can't heal us. Even if he exists, he won't because it's not in his hands to do so. That is why we suffer because there is no healing to come, so that is why we have the natural desire to want to end the suffering.
Theorist
#55 Old 13th Jan 2009 at 1:24 PM
Frankie, nowhere in any of my posts in this thread did I make it about Christianity or faith. In fact, I have been deliberately avoiding that aspect of it, because honestly, it would be too damn easy that way.

I referenced the abortion thread to demonstrate the slippery slope this could lead to, with a real example of how the value of human life is dependent on your financial status. As poverty is often a leading excuse made by pro-choice people, that it is cruel to allow a child to come into the world in that kind of situation, another hungry mouth that has to be fed, etc, if we accept that premise, what is fundamentally the difference between that and euthanizing someone because of poverty? If it is valid that it is cruel to bring a baby into poverty, is it not also cruel to keep people in poverty? Aren't they exactly what was trying to be prevented by aborting those babies? Thus, you already have a precedent set for "mercy killing" the extremely handicapped to slowly, over time, devolve into "mercy killing" other groups who maybe don't have it as well as others might.

Frankie, if you are suffering, and don't want to suffer anymore, if you took your own life, there is nothing anyone could do about it. What is being discussed here isn't straight suicide though. It requires other people to take an active participation in your death. It requires someone to intentionally end your life. As I stated in my first thread, I am okay with passive forms, allowing someone to die naturally, I am okay with terminal patients requesting to not be resuscitated. My objection to assisted suicide is the word assisted. I also object to suicide in general, as I think it is the coward's way out, but ultimately, if you choose to kill yourself, it was your life. With assisted suicide, it is someone else taking your life, not you. Think about this...Lets say my father is incredibly wealthy, and I covet my inheritance, and want it sooner rather than later. My father is in his early 70s, and starting to get some health problems due to age. What would stop me from killing him, and then claim that it was his wish to die? What prevents me from murdering my father with the story that he didn't want to suffer the ravages of time, as he witnessed his mother go through (she lived to 92, and dealt with Alzheimers for the last 15 years of it) and that rather than go out 20 years later, not knowing who is who like she did, that he decided enough was enough, and he refused to go out like that? What prevents me from murdering my dad and framing it as an "assisted suicide"? He is an attorney, I could easily go to his office and forge up some documents, and make them look legit. I could get my brothers in on it, as witnesses, as they have as much a stake in that money as I do.

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?
Instructor
#56 Old 13th Jan 2009 at 1:32 PM
what annoys me is when people go to a country where it's aloud to have it done, somone they know takes them, then when they get back the person who took the, is arrested for it.

“When you're taught to love everyone, to love your enemies, then what value does that place on love?”-Marilyn Manson
Mad Poster
#57 Old 14th Jan 2009 at 8:43 PM
Davious, I see your point. I understand that it is a very risky situation because there will still eventually be people who will abuse this, as with your inheritance example. If I agreed to this thread, it was only because I don't want people to have to be forced to suffer, that is why. But I also see your point, which makes it a bit confusing. Maybe there would have to be tons of witnesses? Not sure.
Theorist
#58 Old 14th Jan 2009 at 9:28 PM
Another thing to consider is the effect it would have on family. Yes, it might conceivably ease YOUR suffering, but it also robs your family of a loved one before they expect it. If you have a terminal disease, family members understand that your death is approaching, that sooner rather than later they will have to go on without you. However, if you commit suicide or have someone help you commit suicide, you take yourself away from them before they are fully prepared for it. I can't stand the grunge band Nirvana because of Kurt Cobain's suicide. Not because I am adamantly opposed to grunge music, but because he took the coward's way out. he may have been incredibly depressed, and thought that suicide was his only option...however, his completely selfish decision robbed a wife of her husband, and a child, her father. His actions, which he thought would ease his own suffering, ended up causing a lot more suffering for his family. He put his own needs ahead of those of his family. It isn't just Cobain, I merely use him as an example to illustrate a point, and because his name is instantly recognizable. Suicide can end up causing more suffering than it is supposedly alleviating.

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?
Mad Poster
#59 Old 15th Jan 2009 at 8:03 AM
Davious, but how is suicide selfish? When I feel that way, a few friends of mine tell me the same thing and it really annoys the hell out of me. How is it any more selfish than them wanting you to suffer? And how is it cowardly? I can just use the same meaning of your Cobain/robbed example of the fact that many of us never even asked for a life to begin with. It was just given to us by force. I find it more selfish that a drugged up street hooker choose to give life and risking that the baby will end up in bad shape. Yet that baby never chose to have its life. I know life was never meant to be easy, I can accept that, but there are people out there who are so weak and emotionally unstable and just tired of fighting that they literally cannot manage their lives. Therapy and medication are not the cure, they just reduce pain, but not completely eliminate it. And when they don't have spouses or children or even life partners, and some not even family to where they are lonely, then, well, I can see the reasons of suicide even clearer. Besides, if you think about it, we are all going to die anyway. We can be the most successful person with the perfect job, perfect mansion, perfect car and just a perfect life overall, but once we die, what will all of that have meant? Regardless how we live our lives, it won't affect the afterlife. We are just not going to have any recollection of our lives after we die. We're either dead and just dead, living a new life as a another human being or a different being, or in Heaven in a better place.

Sorry, I guess I just don't understand the importance of being successful in life when it will all be taken away when we die.
Lab Assistant
#60 Old 20th Jan 2009 at 5:34 PM
Quote: Originally posted by frankie
EDIT: Also, why is it that people seem to be okay with it when it comes to pets but never people? Humans are not any more valuable than animals.


Maybe not to you. Humans are more valuable to me, because they are my own kind. Animals are essential to the Earth, and have a right to life as we do, but people are my family, my friends, my brothers, my sisters, my lovers, my livelihood, my strength, and my heart (also my hardships, but you gotta take the bad with the good). Despite what some people may say, it is perfectly natural to feel this way. Go into a wild animals territory, and tell me if they put humans equal to their own kind. I love animals too, and I understand your point, but that is my perspective. I hate for people to see this as wrong. I would never intentionally hurt an animal. I've put my safety at risk to save stray animals, I've missed paying my rent so that I could take my cat to the vet when he was in pain, I saved the life of a fish when I was a little girl and wanted to be a veterinarian, I welcome lizards into my home, I've given wild mice a proper burial (and lit a birthday cake candle on each grave), and I've even felt guilty after spraying a cockroach in my home with Raid (seriously). The list goes on, really. I am very sensitive, and I respect life, but human life is more important to me, because it affects every aspect of my life. Don't tell me I am wrong for that. It's just the way it is.

It's really easy to kill yourself, and there are painless (and nearly painless) ways to do it. Obviously, I won't mention them for ethical reasons, but there are options. As long as you are mobile, there is absolutely no reason to subject someone else to ending your life. If a person is alive, it is because he/she choses to be so. If this person choses to be alive, then I will NOT take that away from them. Who knows what I could take away? Perhaps this person could find a way to cope and be happy within a few years? Who am I to take that away?
I have been depressed to the point of insomnia, I have prayed for death (yes, I was that desperate. I didn't even go to any church), I intentionally let my sadness take over and cry for an hour or two before bed just so that I could relieve enough pressure to fall asleep, and now I have found a way to cope with my view of the world.
I told myself that I didn't kill myself, because I didn't want to hurt my family. While this was partially true, I just never truly wanted to die. I even tried to train myself to get angry when something bad happened, because I was so tired of hurting all the time. I thought being angry would be easier, but it really made me hate myself more. What kept me from losing it completely was logic, and caring. Caring about how people feel comes naturally to me, and I clung to being a good person. If I could love myself, then life would be worth living. So I focused on things that made me feel good about myself. For me, it was making people happy and doing right. I'm no saint, of course, but I at least consider other people's feelings before everything I do. I also lie far less than anyone I've ever met. (Why do people think it's perfectly okay to lie and deceive each other? All it does it completely eradicate any chance of anyone ever being able to trust each other. Think about that. From the age that we are able to ask a question, we have been lied to (here, at least). Whether anyone says anything true or not, you always know that it could be a lie. Now imagine how much better life would be, and how closer humans would be to another, if people didn't lie. Mindblowing, isn't it? If it's wrong, don't do it. If you honestly don't believe something is wrong, then you have no reason to lie about it. If someone doesn't agree with your morals, then they should be given a chance to not associate with you.)
The other thing I did to learn to control my depression, was to train myself to think more positively. Every single time a bad thought popped in my head (I called them my demons =P), I would remind myself that it wasn't as bad as I made it, that it was just my depression ruling my thoughts, and I used my analytical skills to tell myself a more logical explanation of why such-and-such happens in the world. The hardest part of this was convincing myself that it wasn't anything personal against me (usually). Yes, people can be selfish, insensitive, and deceitful pricks (no offense haha), but it is usually just to meet their own selfish desires and has nothing directly to do with you. You just happened to be caught in the crossfire, when they were trying to get their way. A lot of times people cross you simply because they are inconsiderate. Not in a conniving sort of way, but more oblivious. I realized that I had a big problem with taking things too personally.
If this all sounds depressing and exhausting to you, it is. However, it's less depressing than just letting every bad deed in the world make you feel that it isn't worth living. Because it is. There is a lot of good in this world, as well. You just have to find something that makes you happy, and cling to it. Not drugs, because that is temporary and makes matters worse.
My views may not align with those of a lot of people, but I have a system and it works for me. I'm probably one of the most sane people you will ever meet, despite the occasional bouts of depression. Instead of justifying my depression by bad things that are happening (whether I even witness them or not), now I can't explain it. I just get depressed for no reason now. It isn't plagued by horrible thoughts, and there doesn't seem to be any direct cause most of the time. It's weird. Maybe I have a chemical imbalance? Maybe I still have Dysthymic Disorder...I was diagnosed with that years ago, but a psychologist diagnosed me with Major Depressive Disorder after that. I find it odd that nothing needs to happen to trigger it. These episodes are usually mild, and I am able to overcome them quickly now. So...I can deal with that. =)
I know this is a bit of a tangent, but I hope it gives someone else the strength to fight for their happiness. I know that some people are more severe than I was, but I'm still living proof that many depressives can be happy. Maybe I gave some ideas for learning to cope in your own life. Maybe group sessions would help, if you have trouble doing it on your own. It took a few stubborn years of daily struggle, but positive views come naturally to me now. A lot of people need help to accomplish it. I couldn't afford it.

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 agree with this.

I also agree with Davious on all of his points. Killing someone else is murder, even if you label it "Assisted Suicide". And no, I'm not religious.

As long as someone is fully capable of making their own decision to end their life, they are more than able to do it themselves. If they don't end their life, then there is a part of them that wants to live. Biologically, ending your life is very simple and there are many ways to do it. There is absolutely no need for assisted suicide.

Ending the life of people who don't have the ability to do it for themselves is another matter, and I would have to express my opinion on a case-by-case basis. Personally, if I ever have to rely on machines to live, and have little chance to recover (or would have severe brain damage upon any recovery), then I would wish for them to pull the plug. This will be written in my will, and I have already expressed such desires with my husband. My family cannot afford to spend tens of thousands of dollars to keep me alive, when I will only be a burden and incapable of having a functional life afterward. I also would not want to subject them to the pain and mental stress that would cause.

Mental illness is another story. In most cases (if not all), I would not agree with assisted suicide. The majority of mental illness has enough treatment available to give people a chance at life. If they end it, I am very sad for them, but it is their choice. It is not anyone else's responsibility. A doctor has no place in suicide. If someone with mental illness wants to die, they are capable of making it happen. If someone is so messed up in the head that they aren't able to kill themselves, then they are also incapable of making the decision to end their life. I can't think of any situation where this would be moral.

I do realize that some people suffer from more severe bouts of depression, but the majority can learn to control it well enough. A whole lot of people are depressed. I do not believe these people should have assisted suicide AT ALL.


Quote: Originally posted by frankie
Sorry, I guess I just don't understand the importance of being successful in life when it will all be taken away when we die.


I often used to feel this way, too. Being successful in life is essential to happiness. For some people, this means having a happy marriage, a healthy family, charity work, saving lives, protecting animals, making music, inventing, teaching, etc. No matter what you decide to do, it will have some impact on at least one other person in the world. Every great moment in history, every invention, every breakthrough in medical science, etc., was a direct result of someone working to be successful. Even if you don't believe this, success is still important for making you happy in your own life, no matter how you choose to measure your success. Sure our success will be taken away when we die, but by then we're dead, so who cares? We don't need it anymore. Success is for life!

I urge anyone who wants to die, to please get help. In the U.S., you can get psychological help for free or on a pay scale, depending on where you go. Call your local hospital, and ask them for a number. They should know. Or a local health clinic. The social security office, etc...Somewhere, there is help!


Quote: Originally posted by frankie
Davious, but how is suicide selfish?


Suicide can be considered selfish, because you are hurting the people that care about you to save yourself the pain/trouble of dealing with your problems. Whether or not you agree with this, is up to you.
Losing a loved one is devastating. Some say it's even worse if that person commits suicide. Think of how your parents and friends would feel if you died. Nothing I have ever felt with depression would come close to the pain of losing either of my children. I'd go through it again, for the rest of my life, to save them. I don't even have to think about it. I love them that much.

"They can jump, and land, and have no natural predators. Unless, of course, you count me!" *SH-BOOF!* - The Maxx
Mad Poster
#61 Old 20th Jan 2009 at 5:50 PM
Perhaps I only hold this opinion because I'm a rather private person, but my question as to those who do not support euthanasia is always this- what gives you the right? So often I say about political matters that it's no one's business but the parties involved, and I reflect the same sentiment in this debate. The circumstance of euthanasia is not one that constitutes the need for someone to interfere and "save" the involved party from an unjust fate, and therefore I can't help but wonder why those who do not support euthanasia feel the need to prohibit it. So long as the person is mentally sound enough to be rational, the decision is no one's but their own, and it's often a snap decision because these people have suffered such long, painful illnesses that it requires no thought to choose euthanasia.

These people voluntarily elect to end their lives, and it's not the place of anyone, let alone a self-righteous do-gooder, to attempt to take part in the decision. Citizens are permitted to choose the course of their own lives- why not the course of their death? If someone goes over Niagara in a barrel, will you jump in to save them? No, you won't. The same philosophy applies to the controversy of euthanasia. Red tape should be involved to prevent mishaps and the possibility of a doctor forcing a terminal patient's hand, but it's a conscious, voluntary decision, and not something that people need saving from. There are greater affairs of state to be concerned about than the humane termination of a life too painful to be deemed worth living.

Quote: Originally posted by Eva Aisling

Losing a loved one is devastating. Some say it's even worse if that person commits suicide. Think of how your parents and friends would feel if you died.


Is it not more selfish for the healthy relatives of the patient to bind them to a life of sickness and pain to spare themselves the grief? I certainly think so.

Do I dare disturb the universe?
.
| tumblr | My TS3 Photos |
Theorist
#62 Old 20th Jan 2009 at 6:59 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Eva_Aisling
Suicide can be considered selfish, because you are hurting the people that care about you to save yourself the pain/trouble of dealing with your problems.


Exactly. Frankie, what I was trying to say was that while it might ease an individual's own personal suffering, it can cause even more suffering for his or her loved ones. It robs them of a mother or father, a son or daughter, a brother or sister, or friend. Going back to my Kurt Cobain example, can you honestly tell me that Francis Bean Cobain is better off without a father, than she would have been had her father toughed out his depression? Can you tell me she doesn't have the right to feel cheated out of something? She had to grow up with the knowledge that her father chose to die rather than to live for her sake. Kurt Cobain was a father. He had a greater responsibility than just his own life. Chances are anyone who chooses to commit suicide leave behind a destructive wake among family and friends, thus, it is selfish.

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?
Mad Poster
#63 Old 20th Jan 2009 at 9:25 PM
Davious, I understand your point completely. It seems as if there will be pain on both sides. Maybe Kurt should have sought professional help first with all the money he earned? I at least tried this and I am still trying this. It's not like I'm choosing to give up just like that. But there are people who, after trying to get help, still remain the same. I guess that is where it gets tough. I don't know, I'm still confused about mental illnesses (other than just blatantly insane and permanently out of touch with reality like in a mental institution).

Eva Aisling, I see your point as well. It makes sense. I guess it's just a matter of trying to get help first and THEN if that doesn't work after many tries, then the person could die? I don't know, I'm really confused about this topic, lol. And you are right about the animals example... I guess it makes sense and I'm no animal lover myself. I guess I was trying to equalize things.
Theorist
#64 Old 20th Jan 2009 at 9:49 PM
They may find a cure for depression...they will never find a cure for death.

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?
Lab Assistant
#65 Old 20th Jan 2009 at 10:33 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Rabid
Perhaps I only hold this opinion because I'm a rather private person, but my question as to those who do not support euthanasia is always this- what gives you the right?


The difference is involving another person in the act. If you want to end your own life, it's easy enough to do and that is your business. Your Niagara example was one, although there are easier ways.
Even an otherwise mentally stable person does not always think clearly when depressed, or in severe pain. You also have to consider that these people are on a lot of drugs, while in the hospital, or if they have chronic pain. These same people can be happy that they survived later on. It is difficult to judge where the line should be drawn.
I can certainly understand not wanting to live while suffering, but do you not find the idea of doctors putting human beings to death the slightest bit disturbing? You're not just ending their suffering, you are ending their life. If they want to die so badly, why can't they do it themselves? As long as there is a will to live, I do not feel it is right to take someone's life. As long as they allow themselves to remain alive, there must be a will to live. Is that viewpoint so hard to understand?


Quote: Originally posted by Rabid
Is it not more selfish for the healthy relatives of the patient to bind them to a life of sickness and pain to spare themselves the grief? I certainly think so.


I never said that I would want anyone to suffer, I was only answering the question as to how some people might consider suicide to be selfish, and giving an example. I know that there are times I would rather let a loved one die, than to have them suffer. I understood what Davious was trying to say, though I don't necessarily agree.

Rabid - Please do not claim that we are naive, simply because you don't agree. It sounds condescending.

frankie - I don't believe doctors should have any right to assist suicide with anyone for depression. It is something that can be controlled well enough, and possibly overcome.

The only way I could even consider changing my mind, is if there is a terminal illness, or lifelong condition involved. I was actually surprised to see so many that were immediately FOR assisted suicide. Then again, it isn't usually a topic that arises in my circle.

"They can jump, and land, and have no natural predators. Unless, of course, you count me!" *SH-BOOF!* - The Maxx
Top Secret Researcher
#66 Old 20th Jan 2009 at 10:41 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Eva Aisling
As long as there is a will to live, I do not feel it is right to take someone's life. As long as they allow themselves to remain alive, there must be a will to live. Is that viewpoint so hard to understand?
I may be arguing your semantics instead of your viewpoint, but I have to point out that you can't kill yourself through sheer willpower. It is certainly possible to want to die, to lack the desire to live, and still be alive.

Theorist
#67 Old 20th Jan 2009 at 10:44 PM
Eva, I would point out that there is a difference between letting a loved one die, and causing that loved one to die. It is part of what makes Rabid's post a little confusing, as there is no distinction between active and passive euthanasia. I am all for the right to pull the plug. Pulling the plug stops the artificial mechanism by which a person is still alive. It terminates the life of someone that should have naturally terminated earlier. That is different than actively injecting someone with a drug to cause them to die, that isn't simply allowing nature to take its course, its deliberately ending a life before it would naturally expire. That is where I draw the line.

In fact, I have let it be known to all those who might have to make that decision on my behalf should something occur, that if there is no hope of recovery, and I am in a persistant vegetative state, they are to pull the plug and allow me to die. That does not mean they can inject me with a drug to kill me though. Allow to die naturally: okay. Cause to die unnaturally: not okay.

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?
Top Secret Researcher
#68 Old 20th Jan 2009 at 11:02 PM
I don't know if you're explaining your personal wishes or what you would put into law, davious, but in this day and age, it's hard to draw a firm line regarding "artificial mechanisms" keeping people alive. Isn't prescribing antibiotics for a potentially fatal case of (bacterial) pneumonia extending life artificially? Installing a pacemaker or a stent certainly is. So if a patient has had any modern medical treatment at all, then it could be argued that nature's course has already been diverted. At that point, what's the difference between stopping treatment (or "pulling the plug") to allow the patient to die - and active euthanasia?

While your personal moral standpoint may be different, the above is why the easiest distinction for the law to make, rather than active or passive, is whether the patient wants to die.

Lab Assistant
#69 Old 21st Jan 2009 at 12:08 AM
Daisie - I don't mean that they could simply will themselves to die, but the fact that they have not killed themselves is proof to me that they have some will left to live.

davious - I am not against letting someone die that is too ill to survive on their own, but there are already laws in place for that. I stated before that I would not want to burden my family by staying on life support for an extended period of time, especially if I would likely be brain damaged. People in this position are usually unconscious, and family is allowed to decide for them. Unless it differs by state?...

I believe most people here are speaking for having the option to choose euthanasia (sounds weird saying that for humans). I just feel its wrong, not to mention unnecessary. I certainly won't bash anyone for feeling otherwise, as I understand the other side of things too.

"They can jump, and land, and have no natural predators. Unless, of course, you count me!" *SH-BOOF!* - The Maxx
Theorist
#70 Old 21st Jan 2009 at 12:32 AM
Well, I would start out by saying that even with pulling the plug, you need the consent of the person hooked up to it, or if they are incapable of making that decision, the closest legal representative of that person, whether its a spouse, child, sibling, guardian, whatever. Further, with your examples, Daisie, there is a clear notion that the patient will live. Giving antibiotics isn't what I was talking about. I am talking about situations where someone is hospitalized, is only being kept alive through machines such as respirators, etc, and has no chance of recovery. Installing a pacemaker is generally done with the patient's consent, as with antibiotics, so in both of those situations, the patient has expressed a desire to live. With a pacemaker installed for their heart, or antibiotics given to stave off pneumonia, the patient can fully expect to live a fruitful life afterwards. That isn't what I am talking about. However, I think a patient should have every right to refuse treatment, if they so choose. That is really what passive euthanasia (pulling the plug) is, a refusal of treatment, rather than active euthanasia, which would be a treatment designed to kill.

Active euthanasia requires a second party to actively partake in the termination of a human life. That is the easiest distinction for the law to make, I think, and it already has made that distinction.

Essentially, if you feel you have nothing left to offer the world, and feel you would be better off dead, nobody can stop you from committing suicide. I think its a cowardly act, a selfish act, but nobody can stop you. However, the second you involve a second party in your suicide, its not suicide anymore, its homicide. That is what the law says, and I think the law is right. You may have a right to die, but your accomplice does not have the right to kill you. There is no such thing as legal consensual homicide. And that is exactly what assisted suicide is. Homicide.

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?
Banned
#71 Old 21st Jan 2009 at 12:44 AM
What if someone that is paralyzed from the neck down, can't commit suicide themselves and wants to die? I think they should be allowed the option of assisted suicide as they can't do it themselves.
Theorist
#72 Old 21st Jan 2009 at 2:11 AM
Then they can starve themselves to death. You cannot get around the fact that no matter what you want to call it to give you peace of mind, assisted suicide is homicide, not suicide. Suicide is you killing you, not someone else killing you. Calling it a form of suicide is a misnomer. Giving a nickname, calling it assisted suicide, mercy killing, or whatever doesn't change that, nor does it matter if they are terminally ill or mentally incapacitated, it is a homicide, and is a criminal felony. Actually, technically, suicide is also a criminal felony, but, when it is successful, there isn't anyone to prosecute...not so with "Assisted" suicide. So, while you get to die with your friend's help, they go to prison.

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?
Top Secret Researcher
#73 Old 21st Jan 2009 at 2:25 AM
I spoke about this to my parents the other day. As people here may know, my uncle's currently dying due to brain tumours, so right now this subject is a difficult subject for me. He currently can't remember his own children, but he's able to enjoy being read to by my aunt. I honestly can't say which hurts more, knowing he's in pain, or knowing that I honestly hope he'll die soon in order to help my aunt's state of mind. In the end, all I can say is something my parents said to me during this discussion.

'In the end, the only one who can decide if it's good or bad, are those in that situations. We can talk and debate until the night falls, but in the end you can't make an opinion until you're in that exact situation. You may say yes now, but when that time comes, you may say no, and vice versa.'

I suppose, in the end, my opinion is 'I honestly don't know.'

I would like to clear up the little matter of my sanity as it has come into question. I am not in any way, shape, or form, sane. Insane? Hell yes!

People keep calling me 'evil.' I must be doing something right.

SilentPsycho - The Official MTS2 Psycho
Banned
#74 Old 21st Jan 2009 at 2:26 AM
Going by that, any lethal injection done to a death row inmate is murder and those that performed it should be held accountable for murder.
Top Secret Researcher
#75 Old 21st Jan 2009 at 2:33 AM
Quote: Originally posted by davious
I am talking about situations where someone is hospitalized, is only being kept alive through machines such as respirators, etc, and has no chance of recovery.
I know. But my point was that there's really no such thing as letting nature take its course. In terms of "natural" life, what's so different between a patient on life support and one who's had any medical treatment in the past?

SP, I am very sorry about what's going on with your uncle. It must be awful to know about and be part of.

Quote: Originally posted by SilentPsycho
'In the end, the only one who can decide if it's good or bad, are those in that situations. We can talk and debate until the night falls, but in the end you can't make an opinion until you're in that exact situation. You may say yes now, but when that time comes, you may say no, and vice versa.'

I suppose, in the end, my opinion is 'I honestly don't know.'
And that's why as much choice as possible should be left to the parties involved. It's impossible for anyone outside the exact situation to know what would be best for those who are faced with the situation.

 
Page 3 of 4
Back to top