Euthanasia, For or Against?

Remove all ads!

While I don't advocate killing someone, I do agree with a DNR order and no machines to keep me alive. Let God's will take it's course, but do not fight it or seek to accelerate it.

 

Brain death occurs when the cerbellum and thereby the higher functions of the brain cease functioning, in this state unless damaged the autonomic functions (heartbeat, breathing, digestion, enzyme production etc) continue; though sometimes aided by machines. It's my understanding that when the machines are switched off the autonomic functions continue until the body dies; as a process this can take anywhere from hours to weeks dependent upon such factors as fitness, atrophy levels. In most cases death occurs as the body starves itself.

This is why the person who has my medical power of attorney has specific instructions in this case to apply to the courts for assissted death rather than to leave me to starve to death. We wouldn't treat an animal that way why should we a human ?

 

On an interesting note, I've read this from several science reviews for my university courses. Here is some food for thought:

With modern technology, some people who have lost all thought processes (brain dead) can have their body sustained with continued function with machines. Up until the point where the body can actually have a normal pregnancy and give birth to a healthy child!!

 

@Faye - yes. In fact there was a woman earlier this year who was pregnant, and during the pregnancy she was diagnosed with terminal cancer. She slipped into a coma, and was kept alive by artificial means until the fetus was able to survive outside the womb, and which point, a C-section was performed. The mother was subsequently removed from life support, and died, but the baby is apparently healthy.

@Nakia - it depends. Someone like Terri Shaivo was brain dead, but as you can see, it took quite some time for her to die. Now, if someone is on life-support as well as being brain dead, pulling the plug will result in death much quicker. So, if Terri Shaivo had, for example, been hooked up to a respirator, then it is quite likely that removal of the respirator would have resulted in her death in the matter of minutes.

 

Aldeth, bad news for you -- the baby did not make it. They kept the mother alive until the start of the third trimester then performed a c-section to remove the baby -- it was only a little over 2 pounds. The baby only survived a few weeks (premies do not have the best survival rates).

I'm definately with Nakia on this one. Euthanasia can be too easily abused. Assisted suicide sometimes falls under euthanasia, but not always -- I am for helping someone relieve suffering, but I don't agree with the extent Kavorkian went to (or that soldier in Iraq). There needs to be limits and close monitoring.

 

While I believe that human choices should be respected, especially about not prolonging burdensome and painful treatment. I am worried that legislating for euthenasia would inevitably lead to less research into and resources for good palliative care. No decision is cost-free and the cost of allowing people to end their own lives might be a significant deterioration in palliative care and this too must surely be considered.

 

SatansBedFellow brings a thought to my mind. How would insurance companies view this? Euthenasia would be cheaper than keeping someone alive indifinitely. In which case they might be in favor of euthenasia and willing to pay for it.

Which convinces me more and more that this something that should be very closely monitered and regulated.

 

Oh, most certainly, especially if the insurance companies deem euthanasia as 'not a natural cause' even if a natural death was only days or weeks away. I wouldn't put it past them.

 

This whole issue would require some extremely careful and thorough research to cover all angles with the legislation. I'd like to see it legal, but making the laws fool-proof (or greedy insurance company weasel-proof) is a hard task.

 

Every time anyone declares anything fool-proof, someone else invents a better fool. No law is fool-proof and I can't think of many that greedy insurance companies can't get around if they really want to.

 

I guess the only circumstance in which I would want to be kept alive artificially is if my organs would be viable to give someone else a chance at life. Otherwise, don't resist the will of God...

 

Gnarff,

They don't take your organs until after you die anyway. If you're an organ donor, they wait until you die, and THEN they take your organs. Maybe I'm just reading this wrong, because it doesn't make much sense.

 

Pro. When properly motivated and when there is proper support for the person in question and the relatives.

Now if only they managed to make a proper, non-ambigous law for it.

[ October 26, 2005, 16:18: Message edited by: Uytuun ]

 

Well, if I wasgoing to die, and there was a chance to keep me on life support to make an organ viable for transplant, then do it. Otherwise, don't fight God's will.

 

Pro, but agree with Nakia that it needs to be on a case by case basis.

However, I also have concerns for the doctors involved. Obviously it would need to be a voluntary thing, but I heard some statistics on suicides in vetinary staff, these are actually extremely high in comparison to other high-stress professions (Three times that of doctors I think)
One of the main reasons could be that because they are used to relieving animals of their suffering they are more likely to chose the same path for themselves, rather than seeking alternative help.

I'm a little behind the news at the moment, but I believe the current House of Lords debate is regarding Doctors offering assistance for the patients to administer their own death. Theoretically this would nulify my concerns, but it doesn't offer much help to patients in a PVS or total paralysis.

 

If it were my brother in law, I'd gladly pull the plug, even if he were saying "I feel no pain, I'm happy, no, DON'T TOUCH THAT!!"
"Bring out your dead!"

Sorry, this is not the proper place for humor. What worries me is not the idea of a willing person wishing to spare himself unnecessary pain and his family unnecessary costs and anguish. What I am concerned about is this:

LKD is in a horrible crash. His injuries are serious. LKD is a decent, contributing member of society with no criminal record, just for those who don't know. Anyhow, he's in the hospital, and here comes a guy (I'll call him Rufus, sorry if there's any new members here by that name) who is having liver failure. Rufus has a criminal record that fills 3 CD-ROMs, with multiple convictions for rape, murder, theft, bestiality, fraud, and bad grammar. However, he is in need of a liver transplant, and the doctors say "well, LKD happens to be a viable donor, and, well, no one will know the difference. We'll just load him up on drugs, con him into asking to die while stoned, and Rufus can get his liver and go out and rape LKDs kids."

I'm being deliberately facetious here, but my fear and my point is serious.

 

@LKD:
That seems like just another variation on the 'crooked doctors looking for organs to harvest' theme. If you don't want someone to have your organs after your death, just don't put the sticker on your driver's license. (Maybe it's different in Canada, I don't know; but even if it is, the US and freedom of keeping-your-body-parts isn't too far away. )

 

Felinoid, you're right, but my argument is that I want as many safeguards as possible in place to prevent any possibility of someone being tricked into euthanasia for the convenience of others. As for someone who is in their right mind and the situation is clearly hopeless, on that basis I'm all for alleviating unnecessary suffering.

 

I was watching a reality medical show once, and there was a guy who broke his neck while on vacation with his family.

He was in the emergency room paralyzed from the neck down. One of the doctors was urging him to have surgery performed ASAP to save his life. He would most likely be paralyzed from the neck down forever. He said he was thinking of refusing the surgery and just letting nature take its course (i.e. dying) but the doctor said something like "well, you're not in the right state of mind to make that decision." Ultimately, they did the surgery and he did live.

I just wonder when you're considered to be in the "right state of mind" to decide if you want to live or die.

And am I the only person bothered by the government, Big Brother, a doctor or (God forbid) Pat Robertson deciding whether I can die when and how I want? It seems like the ultimate freedom, to decide when one wants to die.

The idea of the government stepping in and saying "no sir! you're going to live whether you like it or not!" really doesn't sit well with me.

 

There has to be some safeguards in place, though. I've read of many people who considered suicide or euthanasia while under great stress who later expressed great appreciation for the people who stopped them so they could think it through a little more.