To be or not to be

[Fragony]

Just watched Mar Andento which I suspect translates into my life because that is what the movie is about.

The guy kinda lost it after so much to have it, broke his neck and had to be put on the toilet ever since. Now this was a force of nature someone destined to be happy that makes it so much more cruel. He wants to end it because there is no dignity in his current state of being but somehow that isn't his decision and that is why I open this thread. I am against abortion because it is simply murder but your own life is your own no matter how you live it or end it. All too gratefull that our family-docter gave my father a little bit of extra, from a selfish point of view I could not watch it anymore, and he simply faded away when he wanted to. How much of your life is yours.

So, on to euthanisia wrong or right.

[Papewaio]

The ultimate expression of life is in our choices. Death does end that array of choices, but surely we should get to choose life on our terms and have a death with dignity.

Mind you unless someone has a terminal illness all other options should be exhausted. To choose euthanasia would require a sound mind in an unsound body that is wracked with pain. I don't think euthanasia is a valid choice for those of unsound mind or a body that is less then perfect but otherwise functional.

[KukriKhan]

The trouble is: "euthanasia" is different from suicide, in that it involves another human to do the killing.

Pulling the plug oneself = regrettable, 'though there may be circumstances (like great pain with no sign of abatement) that can generate great sympathy in the non-suffering.

Having someone else do it for you... I dunno; it's hard to get past the murder verdict for the 'doer' for me, even though the victim was seemingly willing.

If I were the doer, I might do it if I was convinced it was for the greater good of the hurting person - but I'd expect to go to jail for the rest of my life, for my 'kindness' - because I did prematurely end someone else's life, and the state's 1st purpose is to protect life (then liberty, then the pursuit of happiness).

[Papewaio]

We euthanise animals all the time and call that mercy. We say to keep them alive and in pain is cruel. So are vets saints or sinners? Should we send them to jail for animal cruelty.

The state's first purpose should be to protect life. That doesn't mean that the state's purpose is to extend life beyond a certain point. After all if a state is prepared to send it's youngest and healthest to die for its principles, surely those same principles should allow the oldest and unhealthest the same right to die.

[Banquo's Ghost]

As long as euthanasia is subject to stringent checks and balances to ensure it really is the individual's choice, it should be available to them. There's no murder involved if the person requests to end their life with full decision making facilities - as Papewaio notes, we extend this courtesy to the suffering animal all the time.

I believe that the means for dignified suicide should also be easily available. If I so wish, I can end my life quickly but messily (and traumatically for relatives and staff) with my shotgun. If I were minded to, it should be available to me to go to a doctor and request the necessary drugs to end life gently, and to arrange the going to my taste - without harassment from law or moralists - and with proper arrangements so that my family don't have to deal with such distractions.

Of course, it would be the right of medical personnel who do have objections, religious or otherwise, to refer on to someone else, but the principle would be one of my choice.

Once again, the only reason these choices are not available to us is the lingering impact of religious dogma. There is such a thing as the sanctity of life, but not because that life belongs to some Creator God. That life belongs to me, and I should have the choice as to how I end it, just as I have the choice of how to live it.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I wouldn't even object to being made into Soylent Green. The trouble there was the corporate lying and exploitation, not the concept of recycling an excellent protein source. I joke not.

[InsaneApache]

This is a very pertinent thread for me.

A very good friend of mine is dying as we speak. An ex-athlete he broke his leg making a cup of tea. Sounds funny doesn't it? Funny that you should break a leg making a cuppa that is. The thing is, he has cancer of the bone and it's very advanced. It's spread to his spine and we didn't think he'd make it to christmas. He did and went home last week after 3 months in hospital.

A very proud man who has never had to rely on anyone in his whole 77 years. Now confined to a wheelchair for the last part of his life, he is trying to be upbeat, as it's his nature, but you can tell the guys miserable. It's in his eyes.

The analogy with animals is very apt. If I was to keep a dog in that condition, I'd probably (rightly) be prosecuted for cruelty. Because he's human, I'd probably be prosected for murder if I 'helped' him out.

In conversations in the past with him, he's always said that he would not want to live like this. I understand why, but when he's gone, I'll still be here.

Not as easy as it seems the choice to euthanize or not.

[Fragony]

Yikes that is the worst kind you can get. It is horrible to see someone waste away good luck with that.

[drone]

I believe that the means for dignified suicide should also be easily available. If I so wish, I can end my life quickly but messily (and traumatically for relatives and staff) with my shotgun. If I were minded to, it should be available to me to go to a doctor and request the necessary drugs to end life gently, and to arrange the going to my taste - without harassment from law or moralists - and with proper arrangements so that my family don't have to deal with such distractions.

Right here:



Personally, I don't have a problem with euthanasia/suicide for compassionate reasons. I have had relatives linger on for years in pain and humiliation, and I would never want to go through that myself, or put my loved ones through that hell. A legalized system would definitely need to be carefully watched for abuses, though.

Slightly off-topic: What exactly is the cause of the Western society's aversion to suicide? Does it all come from the Catholic Church?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Suicide = none of my business
Involving others in your suicide and having them actually facilitate it = My business to the extreme

If you feel so strongly about ending your life, do it yourself. Otherwise, you are trying to deflect personal responsibility.

If you are physically unable to do so (in the unlikely case) there lies the rub.

Too many people from the second camp will abuse this and ask others to murder them. Who can help you do this? Doctors? Why should they be the only ones to administer the final serum? When can they take over the responsibilities of the care giver and decide that you would rather be dead than on life support?

you will find yourself in situations like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_M...der_conviction

Long, drawn out court cases with the possibility of having a clearly sick murderer end up getting out of jail in a few short years. OR having the charges dropped entirely.

[Ser Clegane]

If you are physically unable to do so (in the unlikely case) there lies the rub.

There are other reasons to not do it on yourself and alone the just the physical inability.
- access to substances (not everybody is keen on shooting himself or jumping off a bridge)
- not wanting to die alone but in the circle of your beloved ones (and doesn't being present and not preventing another person from killing himself already make you an "accomplice").

If you grant a person the right to kill himself what is the problem with granting this person also the right to seek the help and support of another person?

Of course there is always the risk of the abuse of assisted suicide - but wouldn't legalizing it and establishing a clear and strict process potentially increase the transparency and reduce the risk of abuse?

[ICantSpellDawg]

I really can't get behind having the state allow the death of it's own citizenry by the hands of another except in defense. I think I am firmly set in that concept. I am against the death penalty. I am against abortion. I am for abortion if it is done in defense (the life of the mother is in danger).

It is a clear line. Once you step over it, the slippery slide begins.

[AntiochusIII]

If you feel so strongly about ending your life, do it yourself. Otherwise, you are trying to deflect personal responsibility.

Compare to Euthanasia, suicide is messy.

Pragmatically, it's a much bigger load on the State's resources, what's with having to investigate the matter, to clear out the mess, and to give psychiatric care to potentially traumatized individuals left behind...

It's not 'Hasta la Vista, baby.' It's dozens and dozens of man-hours for various organizations and a big trauma for the ones left behind.

[Vladimir]

I'll do it for free AND clean up the mess! Deal or no deal?

[Viking]

Just wanted to post this:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegrap...006003,00.html

"
A MOTHER of three suffering from a disfiguring, incurable disease and battling incredible pain has pleaded for the right to die by euthanasia.

....

"In 2000, I lost my sense of smell and taste, and then the tumour evolved and ate into my jaws, before attacking the eye socket. I lost my sight in October last year," she said.

The disease caused "atrocious bouts of pain that can last up to four hours at a time".

"In 2000, I lost the sense of smell and taste ... and I lost my sight in October 2007," she said.

"One would not allow an animal to go through what I have endured," she said in a plea aired on France 2 television and urged President Nicolas Sarkozy to pay heed to her request.

[LittleGrizzly]

I believe someone who wishes to end thier own life due to medical reasons should be allowed to do so.

Most Euthenasia cases involve people with terminal diseases so we are simply shortening a life that would end anyway, I think the freedom of assisted suicide is the ultimate freedom, these people have had thier own ability to do many simple things taken from then, after this follows pride, dignity.

If a loved one was ever in such a situation where they're racked by pain an have everything taken from them i would offer any assistance they requested and no potential jail time would distract me

The ultimate test is to put yourself in that position, and if i was ever suffering a painful dehabilitating terminal illness i would want help to get it over with

Of course numerous checks and balances would have to be put in place, family agreement (a few of closest relatives) doctors agreement 2nd 3rd or even 4th opinions, certian conditions such as, its a terminal illness, sufferer is of sound mind (and requested it), its a painful illness.

If all the above conditions are met and euthanasia is refused that is imo just cruel, i don't see why some peoples religous beliefs should force an extension of pain on those who have suffered enough, a few people have brought up the fact we put down animals for thier own good, why should a human deserve less when they request it thierselves...?

[Conradus]

I agree with Banquo's Ghost, euthanasia should be available, if properly regulated by the government, it is inhumane to prolong a suffering life.
In granting the right of euthanasia and abortion (though that's another discussion), I really can't see a slippery side. This isn't justifying murder, this is ensuring that those who live will actually be taken care for (as children) or don't have to suffer unnecessary pain (as elder).

Further I wish Insane Apache and his relatives the very best of luck in these hard times.

off-topic: sorry for thread resurrecting

[KukriKhan]

It seems we all agree that a mentally-competent adult human in pain, with no prospect of relief, should have the right of self-termination. I mean, what's the state gonna do - lock up the cadaver? That decision is between his god and himself.

The euthenasia issue then is: what about the killer/assister? Should they go free as a humanitarian? Or be jailed as a killer (whatever their intentions)? And who do we allow to decide such things? Doctors? Lawyers? Family? The citizenry at large?

[LittleGrizzly]

The euthenasia issue then is: what about the killer/assister? Should they go free as a humanitarian? Or be jailed as a killer (whatever their intentions)? And who do we allow to decide such things? Doctors? Lawyers? Family? The citizenry at large?

this is why i think it should be legal as the thing becomes a process with checks and balances instead of a case of mary helping her husband die and then the authorities trying to determine if she had the paitent in mind or she just wanted her hands on his money.

Legalisation of euthanasia would help stop people falsely claiming on someones behalf for the wrong reasons.

I think the people with the decision to make should be the paitent and the state at large, the doctor i see as more of an advisor letting you now the facts of the disease and such rather than a decision maker.

[Beirut]

I don't know if it counts as euthanasia, but we took my mother off the drugs that were keeping her alive in the hospital and brought her home. She died a few days later.

She was in the final stages of brain cancer and the drugs might have kept her going for another few months, but my father had died of brain cancer a year or two before, and after that long and excruciating and pointless battle, we thought it best that our mother not go through the same thing.

All of us kids decided that we would never go through what they went through. Honestly and for true, I would rather be dead six months sooner than suffer like that.