Mercykilling (Planescape not related)

Remove all ads!

Okay, I am wondering on what people think about euthanasia and other "mercy killing". Do you think it is moral and should be done, or do you think that people should have a right to live, regardless of their physical/mental state?

{Note: any posts you make can and will be used by me in my personal debates in euthanasia.)

 

Well death, is one of the fundamental things of life. If you want the person to have the right to live, it should also have the right to die

 

If you have the right to live, shouldn't you be able to give up that right? Euthenasia is not something I'd ever be comfortable administering, but in some circumstances, I would be glad to receive it.

 

Euthanasia has nothing to do with "the right to live". Euthanasia has to do with the right to die. And the thing that makes that right hard to legalize is the fact that sometimes it's not truly the wish of the dying person to use that right.

This right can be misused. By others, or by the person himself. The most difficult issue concerning this subject is precisely that, as I understand it. The mental state of the one wishing for euthanasia for himself may often be so disturbed that he might not be sure of what he says. In a disease this is surprisingly common, for the knowledge of the disease and the shock caused by it combined with for example heavy medication will produce a state more than compareble to being heavily drunk or drugged.

Still, modern society does value life to the point of zeal (sp?). Death is thought of as an unfortunate thing, an evil that must be avoided at all costs. Instead of thinking it as a natural thing, even worthy of celebration for the person who has finally made it to the end of his journey gloriously, it is thought of as a curse that everyone should be spared from. Even if they should wish otherwise. Wishing for death is considered as a mark of madness, confusement and weakness for giving up a painful fight. Or depression. Never is death, even of own admission, viewed as the right choice. And this is where we are wrong.

[ January 03, 2003, 12:18: Message edited by: Forashi ]

 

Death is part of life, to complete life you must die.
To give a person the right to live, is to give a person the right to die
Life and Death are not opposites, they´re brothers.

Then they could say I´m mad, confused, weak, because I don´t want to have an eternal life
(BTW, what is weaker: running away from fate or accepting it?)

.................................

Next question:

A doctor has sworn to "save life wherever possible" how should modern-day-society view this oath:

1. He/she should save life, even though the patient will then life as a vegetable, quantity over quality.

2. He/she should end life when the quality will become bad (the patient will not life by itself, but with use of machines, etc), quality over quantity

 

i think there is only one country practising euthanasia - holland right??
honestly speaking...it saves money for hospital, a patient with no hope, lying in a bed, waiting for the time, he has to take lots of pills not for a cure... just to make him suffer less, he is connected to a machine or whatever the thing called connecting to his vein so that he get the nutrient and it hurt, he is depressed, he feels hopeless, and in the reality, he is hopeless as the doctor told him, he wants to die...
for the patient, it stops the suffering
and the hospital save a bed, the machine...whatever it is called, the pills (pills do cost a lot of money), doctors and nurses have more time for other patients

 

Being an advocate of an individual's right to make his/her own responsible, informed choices, I believe in allowing somone the right to determine for him/her-self when life should end. No one else has the right to make this decision, in either direction (I'm talking about a competent adult. In other cases, it's the individual's legal guardian who calls the shots).

Can someone with greater knowledge on these details (or more time for research) answer two questions for me, please?

1. Who paid Karen Ann Quinlan's medical bills after the state forced her to be kept alive, against her parents' wishes?

2. What is the historical basis for making attempted suicide a CRIME? Skip the religious parts, I'm aware of that - I'm curious about what offense against the secular state is being committed by a suicide attempt.

TIA

 

Why it is legal to mercykill someone dying in a combat but not when they are dying on a bed?
That is just plain stupid. If someone dying wants to die, kill 'em.

 

Here in Sweden the doctors and the relatives can decide to pull the plug on people that live only through the means of machines and with no hope of recovery. Is this euthanesia? Is it practiced in other countries? I have no problem with that. But when it comes to active help in dying ie. inject stuff or the like it is a bit more trickier. What if grandma Smith didnt want to be a burden to her children and society and thus decides that she should die to spare everyone the cost and burden of keeping herself alive for another few years? That is the mainobjection I have against actively helping people to die. It can so easily get out of hand.

 

Why did you use my quote here? Obviously that sentence had nothing to do with the philosophical aspects of life and death, and how they relate to each other. "Euthanasia" is about the right to die, or the right to grant a person their death should they not be able to end their lives on their own. More about the latter, for the first one can hardly be controlled. Though it IS illegal to attempt a suicide, at least in my country. Euthanasia directly has nothing to do with the right to live, as I said. For the right to live already has a very, very stable and powerful position in our laws. Too powerful, even.

Most people actually do think this way. To fear death is normal and acceptable to a certain range. To accept death is for those of older generation or people in general who know that they'll be dying soon. To relish death, to wish it, is for mentally disturbed people. Those who are confused in what they want, those who are in such a painful situation that they "cannot think clearly". Those who are not normal, and cannot be accepted. I don't remember the exact quote, but there is a saying that goes something like this: "to not fear death is to be crazy". That pretty much describes the attitude in the modern society. This is all logical. But too often I've seen this inacceptance of death go to such boundaries that it is dangerous.

I do not accept the undermining of a person who has committed a suicide due to multiple things gone wrong in life. Let's say it's a case of someone with a cancer that has permanently damaged some organs and/or parts of brain. Sure, it might be possible that he could have fixed his life through a tremendous amount of fighting physically and emotionally. But never could he have become a normal human again, ever. And probably his fight would have ended in vain for the disease was apt to reappear after some years. And you know what they say? "It was unfortunate that he did not see that he still had an opportunity to return to a normal (note, normal) life", or something of the like. Worse things have been said even.

I just wrote a novel that obviously due to its confusingness was made for my own eyes alone. So I deleted it and instead say only this. Death is not bad. It isn't good either. And the same thing is with life. The both of them are what you make them. Every time I have hardships in my life, I think of the day I will die. That's when I realise that I do not have to suffer forever, that all I have to do is to just fight with the little energy that I have and some day I will be released. Also, I always know that should the pressure become too hign, I can end this all and run into the warm embrace of death whenever I wish to. As far as I know, I'm a completely healthy young man. Also, I know that in face of a disease, I become very afraid of what I will lose. But I know, that death isn't my enemy, it is our culture that has made it so.

Define, "vegetable". People who are completely braindead do in fact get their plugs pulled out. But I have no idea how much brain functions is required to still think of the "vegetable" as a human that cannot be killed.

But I do appreciate quality over quantity, to a certain extent. Of course the mere existence of both means that they are in fact both required.

 

Another issue here is deciding if a patient is physically/mentally healthy enough to make rational decisions for himself.

If only a broken leg, perhaps his judgement is still sound. But what if he suffers from traumatic experiences, or shows symptoms of insanity as well? Then the choice isn't so clear.

One reason why this is important is because anyone can shed "crocodile tears". There is a fear that by giving somebody else the right over a patient's life, that somebody may make a decision for the benefit of himself.

 

Well, I've always been an advocate of right of choice. In this case, it seems that killing someone who is clearly suffering and near death is far more merciful and humane than keeping them alive just to satisfy their families' emotional needs.

As it occurs to me, this term refers to still retaining consciousness, yet unable to survive away from the confines of their artificially controlled environment. Yet, the fundamental question is, is it more ethical to simply "pull the plug", or to have a fully aware person that is alive but is unable to perform any actions.

Looking at this from a personal point of view, I would not wish to live like that. I am far too vibrant to prefer artificial life over death. I can safely say that many people feel the same way, depending on their beliefs.

 

A few years ago, voters in the state of Oregon adopted a Physician Assisted Suicide measure. Patients wishing to use this option required two independent diagnoses of a terminal illness and a psychiatric assessment to get a prescription for a lethal mix of drugs. The doctor couldn't administer the drugs, nor could another person - the patient had to take them by him/herself.

After this law was adopted, there was a hue and cry and an attempt to overturn it, which was rejected. Of course the federal government then had to step in and threaten to make it illegal for doctors to do this ("What's that sticking to your shoe, Senator?" "Oh, nothing - just states' rights.").

 

I for one am going to state in my will (or inform my family in written form) to pull the plug on me when I am 80 and can't say a word and can't move a thing being fed with a tube lying in a bed till I die. No thanks, I would prefer the easy way out.

Oh that means I definatly approve 'mercykilling' BTW

[ January 06, 2003, 14:49: Message edited by: Apeman ]

 

Just to let you know before you read the rest: I was, just like you, asked to give my opinion. Maybe my opinion might be somewhat different then the regular ones, since I'm a Protestant (Christian). But just don't think I'm here to dictate my view to any of you.

I believe that:
God has created me. He's the one that gives me life. And He's the one that ends it. He has given us medicines, medics, hospitals, devices to aid us. Not to end us. So if somone plugs me out, I won't care. Cause if God wants me to die, then that will happen anyway. He gives us the machines, but He's not bound to them.

Plugging me out would be different to give me an injection. When giving me an injection, you simply want me to die. When plugging me out, you just say you leave it up to God.

I had to smile when I read that, since actually I'm pretty crazy. That's what people tell me, at least I would say something like it, but different: To not fear death is to believe there is a better place. (To me to live is Christ and to die is gain, Philippians 1:21?) Death leads to life, since there is life after death. I do not fear to die, but I fear for others to die.

God will decide when we are ready to die, so there would be no need to quicken it. Even when we suffer, we have to trust that God will never give us a burden we cannot bear.

Money shouldn't be a reason to let someone die, since a life can not be bought with money. It is erm... nice to know that you can spend the saved money on someone else, though

I didn't mention Mercykilling or Euthenasia, but I hope you know how I think of it.

Some might think this is all bullocks, others will understand. I don't care if you think this was all bullocks, but I'm glad when someone understands.

This was just me in one of my religious moods.

Btw: Did you really read all this?!

 

I am not trying to equate humans to animals, even though we are. I have worked in a zoo in Birmingham and an aquarium in Chicago. I've also had numerous animals throughout my life. My parents are going through the difficult process of deciding to euthanise my dog. She is 17 years old, very frail, can't see, can't hear.
When deciding to euthanise an animal, there is a basic question we ask, "What is the quality of life this animal will experience by keeping it alive?" Sure, my dog could last another 6 months to a year, but she is miserable. She suffers from pain. I've had the "make the call" myself, and even though it is an animal, if you are like me in the way I feel about animals, it is still very difficult.
So how does this equate to humans? Well I think you have to ask the same question. What will the quality of life be like for this person by keeping them alive?
Take for example a person who has a terminable illness. They have 6 months left to live. By the 3rd month, this person will start experiencing pain, they won't be able to do things a healthy person would do. They may also have to go through tremendous amounts treatment, that may only make them moderately comfortable. So why should this person have to suffer? I don't think they should.
I think a reason a lot of people are afraid of euthanising humans is that deep down they may have a fear that a year from now there might be a cure for the disease. Anyone see Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country? We learned that Dr. McCoy had a father who was terminally ill. McCoy made the decision to euthanise his father. Only to learn a few years later, they found a cure. I think we have that same fear.
I know it would be tough, and I would want a loved one to be around as long as possible. But I also think I would not want that person to suffer.
I do, however, think it is wrong for doctors today to help a patient die, mercykilling, because it is against the law. Regardless of how we feel about a law, it is still wrong to break the law and I think doctors who practice mercykilling should be prosecuted.

 

If you´re dead, would you even care about being dead??

1. Not in Holland
2. It would be cleaner, than the patient slitting his arms or jumping of a building
3. Remember that the law isn´t always the best thing, there are many ways to achieve a goal, and the best ain´t a straight line, it´s curved

[ January 07, 2003, 22:15: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

 

Slightly I agree that the law isn´t always the best thing. But regardles, it still is the law. And you shouldn't circumvent the law to achieve a goal. But there are others ways to get that curved line. Activism, get involved. And most of all, especially here in the states, vote.

I guess that depends on your beliefs and views of death, as well as any religious views you may have.

 

I agree with MoN but I'd like to add something. The law we have here in Holland is extremely vague, It states that euthanasia is allowed if there is severe pain without hope of recovery. But what about mentally unstable people? they do suffer a lot and it would seem without hope of recovery (ei manic depression). Should you mercykill these people as well?

And as a doctor you have sworn to protect life and therefore I think you can't make use of euthanasia(as in an injection or abortion for that matter but that is another discussion).