PDA

View Full Version : Euthanasia



Anapeg
04-12-2014, 02:18 PM
As we have someone on site going through a situation with family as we type, what are the prevailing views toward euthanasia today. I myself think it a good and necessary thing not solely for the individual but more speaking to the family unit.

BFLPE
04-12-2014, 02:46 PM
I've always considered Robert Latimer to be a good man.

Anapeg
04-12-2014, 03:10 PM
If we can do it for pets and it is being done surreptitiously now, why does it not become law? Because our Churches have some misplaced sense of morality? I sincerely believe our healthcare system capable, in this day and age of definitively knowing the person they are drugging into oblivion is never going to walk out their doors ever again. So why not speed the process and eliveate some of the hurt the remaining family has to endure and help some poor soul shuffle off our mortal coil? When the end is near, be a dear and pull the plug.

Anna Noyance
04-12-2014, 03:20 PM
If we can do it for pets and it is being done surreptitiously now, why does it not become law? Because our Churches have some misplaced sense of morality? I sincerely believe our healthcare system capable, in this day and age of definitively knowing the person they are drugging into oblivion is never going to walk out their doors ever again. So why not speed the process and eliveate some of the hurt the remaining family has to endure and help some poor soul shuffle off our mortal coil? When the end is near, be a dear and pull the plug.


I agree with this 100%!

The Berean
04-12-2014, 04:16 PM
If our health care systems were not so greedy, self serving and avaricious, I MIGHT go along.

But until I believe that they have done everything humanly possible to cure disease, I will not agree.

Anapeg
04-12-2014, 04:30 PM
If our health care systems were not so greedy, self serving and avaricious, I MIGHT go along.

But until I believe that they have done everything humanly possible to cure disease, I will not agree.

My point being when death is imminent or self evident. If one is diagnosed with, or in the throes of, a disease with a known end then why prolong the issue. The issue being "when the out come is known" with 'known' being the operative word.

BFLPE
04-12-2014, 05:31 PM
Interesting


Three-quarters of British Columbians support euthanasia, and more than half recommend decriminalizing assisted suicide, according to an Angus Reid Public Poll published Monday.

The online survey compiled the opinions of 1,003 Canadian adults, with Quebec and B.C. showing the highest support for euthanasia, respectively.

Nationally, 85 per cent of Canadian respondents believe legalizing euthanasia would allow an opportunity for suffering people to ease their pain, in addition to establishing clearer regulations for doctors with end-of-life decisions.

Further, two-thirds of Canadians agreed that legalizing euthanasia would not send the message that the lives of the sick or disabled are less valuable...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/canadians-show-strong-support-for-euthanasia/article1365000/

A*lil*Loopy
04-12-2014, 06:28 PM
I believe that many of those making the rules haven't had to face the possibility of suffering from terminal illness or watching a loved one suffer. Too often it used to be thought of as playing God if we were to end a life (or a sin to take our own) and we were expected to believe that we should put our faith in a higher power. It's Gods will they used to say..... I call bull turds.

Now taking religion out of it for the sake of common sense, it makes no sense to permit suffering when an individual is capable of making an educated choice on their final moments. There is only so much that can be done in many situations to alleviate suffering and keep dignity intact. I am a firm believer in allowing someone to have the choice to end their own life so they don't have to suffer or lose their dignity. Sadly, we are permitted and encouraged to put our animals out of their misery yet still are expected to watch as our loved ones fade away and spend so much time in agony.

It isn't always our healthcare system that pushes us to allow a loved one to suffer. After a certain age, the healthcare system tends to not want to invest time and money into individuals with not much time remaining. Face it, we are accustomed to packing our old people away into cramped homes with no time allowed for them to be cared for. After a certain age, the hospitals tend to want the equipment for the younger people and don't encourage us to do as much as we/they can for the seniors.

We really need to see a change and let people make their own decisions.....I agree 100% with euthanasia. When I get to the point that I am unable to do anything that I enjoy and I have to depend on someone to wash me, feed me, cloth me and I hurt the entire time......I truly hope that I am able to make the choice without having to put my husband or family in legal harms way by ending my life. This has already been discussed for myself as I will get to the point where I need to make the decision.

Anna Noyance
04-12-2014, 07:10 PM
If a person is at death's door and there is no way he is going to survive, is it wrong to wish for him to be out of pain? Is it selfish for me to want an end to my brother's suffering, or for an end to my mom's suffering, while watching her son, fight for a life already lost? Because I do, just want this all to end. Each time I go to visit my brother, it is getting more and more difficult for my legs and feet to walk that hall. I don't want to see what I am seeing any more. If he were a dog and we were letting it suffer, people would be saying, "Why are you letting it suffer? That is just cruel! ". I know this because I have heard it. I feel like we treat our pets with more dignity! Yet my brother, is made to suffer! He wants to die. Well he wanted to when able to voice his wants and needs. Now he just sleeps. It's like he's gone already but not. As it is, it is going to take me a long time, a very long time, if ever, to ever see my brother as the man he was! I will have this vision of a man drained of all vitality, just a mere shell of a man! This is the first time I have ever experienced this, watching a person die, a person whom I love!

The Left Sock
04-12-2014, 07:41 PM
I think that's the crux of the problem. Those who live through the prolonged passing of a loved one have the knowledge and wisdom to plead with the rest of the world to allow someone's suffering to end, while the majority who haven't lived through that and don't understand it, rest upon some preconceived ideas of morality that they have picked up along the way. Most people are upset and overwhelmed by these issues, and so when confronted with something they can't process, society's answer is to pour more resources into keeping someone alive, rather than assist them to make the transition out of life. It is fear and ignorance that drives us this way, in my view.

When you think about it, we are all on our way to dying, the moment we are born. The big question is; how close to death do we need to get, before we can all agree that to go any further, serves no purpose? Is there such a point - if so, what is it? When their pain becomes too great to bear? When they can no longer function in most human capacities? When they decide they want out? When the doctors tell you it is physically impossible to recover?

It opens a slippery slope. Some people have much higher tolerance for pain than others. Some see more value in life, in different aspects of life, than others. What is unbearable to one person is manageable to someone else. Some people become suicidal, without any real risk of death from disease, so you can't just go by what the person wants. There has to be some measurable guidelines, for decisions like these. I think it has to be a combination of a grim diagnosis, a high level of suffering, and the person themselves, wanting to end the pain. Anything less than that, and we put what we understand about the value of life in peril.

As for the religious argument, I cannot concur with those who hold the view that allowing a dying person the ability to hasten their fate equates to killing. 'Thou shalt not kill' does not translate into 'Thou shalt die as slowly as is humanly possible' - at least not in my books, anyway. If God created us mortal, created disease, created suffering, and gave us the capacity to be merciful, then it should be obvious that we are supposed to employ mercy when those other things converge on someone we care about.

Daiv
04-12-2014, 07:52 PM
We were discussing this the other day.
My husband's nana passed away and we were there with her.
She was lucky, in a way. She hand Alzheimer's, so it wasn't as bad as it could be.
And she went very peacefully.
I don't mean she was 'lucky', but I hope you understand what I meant by that.
Anyway. We were talking about ending suffering, and I am totally for it.
I think, too, though, there could be the problem of somebody KNOWING they're going to get something in the will so they figured they will hurry it along.
And then I think, what about crooked doctors who might say there is nothing left to do in a situation because they know there might be a big 'payout' and the heir has said they'll pay them.
(Yeah, I know. I think too much.)
I do think it should be allowed, but there would have to be measures in place to make sure things like that don't happen.
Such as x number or doctors signing off on it - and the family doesn't get to pick the doctors. They're random or something.

Bluesky
04-12-2014, 07:54 PM
Once this pandora's box is opened, there is no going back, and in this case, the slippery slope argument proves to be valid.

The Left Sock
04-12-2014, 08:10 PM
Well, just because something is slippery, doesn't mean we should abdicate all responsibility to deal with it, now does it?

And if the rules were relaxed, and then it was found they were too loose, they could be tightened up again. You can't really compare social policy to Pandora's Box, because social policy has the capacity to move in both directions; Pandora's Box is a one-way ticket.

So, we should keep pouring our energies onto keeping someone alive at all costs? Even if there is no hope of recovery, and they are begging to be done with the suffering? Where does mercy fit into that world?

Anapeg
04-12-2014, 08:13 PM
Once this pandora's box is opened, there is no going back, and in this case, the slippery slope argument proves to be valid.

Sorry old man I fail to see any boogie men here. With as was already brought up, a qualified committee of doctors, clergy if wanted or necessary, family and perhaps lest they feel left out a representative of the government. With a group of this magnitude how could anything be considered on the proverbial "slippery slope"? If you are fearing a method of basic suicide, with a group such as this would you still think it possible?

Anapeg
04-12-2014, 08:20 PM
Well, just because something is slippery, doesn't mean we should abdicate all responsibility to deal with it, now does it?

And if the rules were relaxed, and then it was found they were too loose, they could be tightened up again. You can't really compare social policy to Pandora's Box, because social policy has the capacity to move in both directions; Pandora's Box is a one-way ticket.

So, we should keep pouring our energies onto keeping someone alive at all costs? Even if there is no hope of recovery, and they are begging to be done with the suffering? Where does mercy fit into that world?

I fail to see why the person is still in a busy hospital when we have hospice. Are they not equipped or what else would be the reason to expend hospital staffing and such? The hospice, I have been made to believe is more adept, more family oriented, more private than the hospital as well. They are, after all, geared specifically for just this situation, or do I err yet again?

BFLPE
04-12-2014, 08:25 PM
Once this pandora's box is opened, there is no going back, and in this case, the slippery slope argument proves to be valid.
Care to expand on that?

Personally I think the slippery slope argument is based mostly on fear and ignorance. I've asked people before to describe how we would slide down this slope but haven't gotten any real answers.

It's a tough issue but simply saying slippery slope is not much of a reason to discount the idea of permitting it when there is no hope.

When death is imminent and the pain will not end while the heart still beats it seems cruel to prolong suffering.

How do you think the slide down the slope may go? It's not like you'll just pick up a cyanide pill at the local C store.

Upper Decker
04-12-2014, 08:25 PM
If our health care systems were not so greedy, self serving and avaricious, I MIGHT go along.

But until I believe that they have done everything humanly possible to cure disease, I will not agree.


As long as capitalism runs the world, disease will never be cured or even attempted to be cured.


While I wholeheartedly agree with your statement, it at this point in time a vicious circle.

Anapeg
04-12-2014, 08:35 PM
As long as capitalism runs the world, disease will never be cured or even attempted to be cured.


While I wholeheartedly agree with your statement, it at this point in time a vicious circle.

Too true, when not finding the "cure" is equated with job security they will publicize loudly how "close" they are and there it will end. Research is in todays economy a multi billion dollar a year industry. Who wants to shut that down, scientific research bring in serious money and decent jobs, not gonna happen!

The Berean
04-12-2014, 08:43 PM
HMO's will sign on to get the most profit from a bed.

Anapeg
04-12-2014, 08:47 PM
Only if they are allowed.

Bluesky
04-13-2014, 08:24 PM
So, we should keep pouring our energies onto keeping someone alive at all costs?
Overstatement of your opponent's view is a specialty of yours. Euthanasia is not about keeping someone alive at all costs. I do believe in drawing the line at some point. I could easily sign a living will to ensure that heroic measures are not taken should life not be sustainable without life supports. But that is a separate question.

Active euthanasia is the question.

Bluesky
04-13-2014, 08:30 PM
Sorry old man I fail to see any boogie men here. With as was already brought up, a qualified committee of doctors, clergy if wanted or necessary, family and perhaps lest they feel left out a representative of the government. With a group of this magnitude how could anything be considered on the proverbial "slippery slope"? If you are fearing a method of basic suicide, with a group such as this would you still think it possible?

Aside from the moral question (which we would have to take to the religious forum) I do believe that once euthanasia is legalized (and I have no doubt it will be some day soon) it will be applied to a broad spectrum of people who simply don't want to live anymore. The it will be used on those who cannot speak for themselves. And some day it will be applied to those who want to live but are a burden to society. Mark my word. I believe Pandora's box has already been opened. It happened the day we decided that we are God.

Anapeg
04-13-2014, 09:11 PM
Aside from the moral question (which we would have to take to the religious forum) I do believe that once euthanasia is legalized (and I have no doubt it will be some day soon) it will be applied to a broad spectrum of people who simply don't want to live anymore. The it will be used on those who cannot speak for themselves. And some day it will be applied to those who want to live but are a burden to society. Mark my word. I believe Pandora's box has already been opened. It happened the day we decided that we are God.

I can see your point but one would hope there would be some at the planning stage to think of those of diminished mental capacity. This has been collectively covered by the generalized statements for safety measures I believe, a 'group' consisting of doctors, clergy etc. I would hope any that may in the future be involved setting legislation for this or something of similar plan would be diligent and watched by all, politician and citizenry alike.
I am not so sure we began to think of our selves as God but rather to question God in general.

The Left Sock
04-13-2014, 10:03 PM
Overstatement of your opponent's view is a specialty of yours. Euthanasia is not about keeping someone alive at all costs. I do believe in drawing the line at some point. I could easily sign a living will to ensure that heroic measures are not taken should life not be sustainable without life supports. But that is a separate question.

Active euthanasia is the question.

Active euthanasia, passive euthanasia - it all adds up to the same thing: whether or not people have the right to end their suffering in the face of a hopeless situation. And euthanasia is indeed all about keeping people alive at all costs, even against their will, or you wouldn't see all those bitter court battles between hospitals and families.

You might have drawn a line somewhere in your own head, but religious groups tend to be absolutist. The predominant view, and the official position from most Christian groups is clear; people don't have the right to decide their own fate, because doing so means playing God. This may be cynical on my part, but the only reason I can see for this stance is that certain people want to keep a 'miracle' fantasy alive. You're willing to let someone keep suffering, because you want to maintain some belief in Divine Intervention.

Well, here's some good news, for when we descend down the 'slippery slope' - if your God really is as powerful as you claim, he can always keep people alive after the life support machines get turned off, or turn the poison into wine, the next time a terminal cancer patient decides to drink the hemlock. You can still have your miracles, and other people can be relieved of their suffering - it's a win-win.

Anapeg
04-14-2014, 10:12 AM
Anna Noyance and her family have experienced an inevitable end. Her brother passed away in the small hours of the morning. I wish them peace and a return to normalcy in their lives.

Daiv
04-14-2014, 03:04 PM
I'm sure your thoughts are appreciated, Anapeg.

Anna Noyance
04-14-2014, 05:51 PM
Anna Noyance and her family have experienced an inevitable end. Her brother passed away in the small hours of the morning. I wish them peace and a return to normalcy in their lives.

Anapeg, after watching my brother suffer the way he did, it is almost a relief! The entire family feels the same way. It is still sad but none of us wanted him to suffer any more! We all appreciate your kind words. Thank you!

lynys
04-15-2014, 09:42 AM
First off, Anna, I am sorry for your loss.

I have never understood what the difference is between euthanasia and removing someone from life support is. Both have the same end result. Death. Why is it more humane to remove life support, allowing the body to slowly shut down, taking days in some cases? I have sat with three relatives, who all had been removed from life support, watching as their lungs slowly filled with fluid, breathing laboured... how is this better than a quick end? If a person chooses to end their own pain or suffering and have it happen quickly, why is that "wrong"?

Guess Who?
04-15-2014, 10:05 AM
I sat with my father for 9 hours as he died. The doctors told him he required surgery that he would not survive, yet he begged them to try. They would not. Instead, they put him on a morphine drip that killed him in 9 hours to "ease his pain". It was selective euthanasia by the medical staff with no choice to my father or his family.

The Left Sock
04-15-2014, 05:02 PM
That is truly a heart-breaking story, and I can fully understand the raw emotions that must still linger from living through such an experience. Do you not believe the doctors were being honest when they said he could not survive the surgery? This would have to be the case, in order for your charge of 'selective euthanasia' to apply.

BFLPE
04-17-2014, 11:04 PM
Aside from the moral question (which we would have to take to the religious forum) I do believe that once euthanasia is legalized (and I have no doubt it will be some day soon) it will be applied to a broad spectrum of people who simply don't want to live anymore. The it will be used on those who cannot speak for themselves. And some day it will be applied to those who want to live but are a burden to society. Mark my word. I believe Pandora's box has already been opened. It happened the day we decided that we are God.Just euthanize one's who become a burden to society eh. That's about as far fetched as one can get. I'm surprised you resort to off the wall scare tactics. If not scare tactics then your faith in us as a people is disappointing.


When did we decide we are God? Was it when we messed with the natural order of things by creating silly things like vaccines, or when we started diverting water for our advancement? I don't know if there's a God or not but when man started controlling others by claiming to know what God wants us to do is when man decided to be God.

The Berean
04-17-2014, 11:19 PM
Just euthanize one's who become a burden to society eh. That's about as far fetched as one can get. I'm surprised you resort to off the wall scare tactics. If not scare tactics then your faith in us as a people is disappointing.

When did we decide we are God? Was it when we messed with the natural order of things by creating silly things like vaccines, or when we started diverting water for our advancement? I don't know if there's a God or not but when man started controlling others by claiming to know what God wants us to do is when man decided to be God.

The word "claiming" shows where the problem is, which is of course what we already knew.

IMO, one doesn't have to look very far to be disappointed in the actions of man. If we have killed 50 million at the beginning of life, it's easy to believe that we will soon begin killing at the other end.

The Left Sock
04-17-2014, 11:50 PM
Mankind is a killing machine. We wipe people out in all phases of life, this is nothing new.

But instead of killing people because we don't want to raise them, or killing people because we don't like them, the idea of killing people so they don't suffer as much at the end of their lives, seems like an idea that is long overdue.

We throw parades to send 18 year-olds off to war, to die in some foreign place over some fabricated cause, and cheer them as they go. But whatever you do, don't give a little extra morphine to the poor bugger dying of an inoperable tumor as he lies screaming in his deathbed. That would be inhumane!

Anapeg
04-18-2014, 12:28 AM
Approval is in place now, albeit tacit. Why make believe the government is unaware? Who is being fooled? The government does not want to upset Christians, pure and simple. This is a situation that could lead to problems, there is no regulation, no guidelines. Or, is there?

The Berean
04-18-2014, 09:09 AM
Approval is in place now, albeit tacit. Why make believe the government is unaware? Who is being fooled? The government does not want to upset Christians, pure and simple. This is a situation that could lead to problems, there is no regulation, no guidelines. Or, is there?

I was unaware that Christians had a political party in Canada, or even a majority.

Sock, Canada doesn't send young men off to war for fabricated reasons.

Please note that I am not arguing against the idea of euthanasia, that would be a waste of time. Like the carnage of abortion, it is coming. I merely put out the warning that ther will be a progression of the practice.

First the dying in pain, then the dying anyway, then the alzheimers, along with the ones with no family, and so on.

I won't make any comparisons with cultures that have done this before, that would be redundant.

The Left Sock
04-18-2014, 10:14 AM
"Sock, Canada doesn't send young men off to war for fabricated reasons."

That's exactly my point. When the US wanted a coalition to invade Iraq, Canada risked our relationship with them, by refusing to go. Thank goodness we had a Liberal government, because Harper would have sent our boys, if he was in charge.

This illustrates the answer to your second point, "I merely put out the warning that there will be a progression of the practice." The correct statement should be 'there could be a progression to the practice'. Sane, rational people always need to be in charge, or senseless killing will be the result.

If our country had the decency and the humanity to avoid attacking Iraq, then I must take confidence in our ability to approach a topic like euthanasia with the same measured restraint, and respect for human life.

Anapeg
04-18-2014, 10:55 AM
Christians may not enjoy a majority, neither do they have a party. What they do have is representation, a very strong, healthy representation on top of this they are vociferous and carry a large amount of weight within our government. Religion is/was/will be a strong vital part of the foundations of this country. If the government flew in the face of that force you and I would witness a government fall, you know that as well as myself.

dancingqueen
04-18-2014, 12:40 PM
I am on the fence about euthanasia. On one hand, if a person is suffering, with no hope of recovery, provided they can make an informed decision, they should be able to. Falling short of that I would side with the religious ones but for different reasons. The slope does get slippery, and dangerously so when people cannot make rational decisions of their own. I work part time in group homes with adults that have significant developmental disorders. Many are non-verbal. The staff that I work with are responsible for making decisions on the part of the individual and all too often I see people make these decisions based off of what is more convenient for them or the agency as opposed to what is convenient for the individual. This is in less dire circumstances than life or death such as going to a particular day program, or engaging in sexual activities with a partner. As a result, I cannot advocate for other people making life or death decisions for an individual incapable of self-expression. There are too many "what if's" and much like my position on the death sentence, if one single life is lost because of a error, intentionally or unintentionally, it is one life too many.