Euthanasia

[PvtRyan]

What are your views on the subject of euthanasia? Thought it might be an interesting subject with that case in the US of the comapatient.

In my opinion it's the opposite of what protestors call inhuman. It's the most humane thing to do to end the suffering of a person.

My view of inhuman is to prolongue the suffering of a person with zero hope of ever recovering. For what? To let them die eventually but with more pain, or to artificially keep them alive like a vegetable? Is that humane? Is it inhuman to end a person's life at a point where he still can say goodbye to his loved ones with dignity, so they don't have to do it when he or she is only a shred of his or her former self?

It's not like it's easy here to get approval for it, so there's no chance we're killing every person with a broken leg. You need the consent of family members and at least two doctors.

As for the case of Terri Schiavo, I think they just need to pull the plug. There's no hope of recovery, and if she does, her brains are now heavily damaged, her muscles desintegrated, on top of that, she said so herself that she didn't wanna become a vegetable, she has been for 15 years. She's lost, lay her to rest, isn't that a much better ending than to live maybe for another 15 years with this situations for the relatives, where they come to the hospital each day to check if maybe her arm moved?

It's not humane to let a person live, it's selfish to let a person live because you can't let that person go when the situation asks for it.

Unbelievable that in a country where they even kill the mentally retarded, they deny it to the ones that do need it.

 

[el Chi]

In my opinion it's the opposite of what protestors call inhuman. It's the most humane thing to do to end the suffering of a person.

Quoted for emphasis.
If I ever get a terminal degenerative disease (cancer, etc.) I'm topping myself one way or another. I can't stand the idea of living the last portion of my life in such a terrible state.

The only possible objection I can see is the idea that a family might euthenise (is that even a verb?) a relative with the intent to benefit from their inheritance.
Even so, a properly regulated euthenasia service provided by the health service would help to avoid that.

 

[short recoil]

If there is no point in you being alive then you shouldn't need to be alive.

I would want to be killed if i became a vegetable. (i might not think so then, but i do now.....so thats what matters)

Keeping someone in pain alive is so pointless.........i would go as far as saying it is selfish of the relatives to do so.
Life is the choice of the person who is alive as well, if you dont want to be alive you dont have to.......being kept alive against your will is the ultimate in control, far worse than being in prison.

As for abuse of the system, it isn't up to other people to decide......it should be based on quality of life or personal will to die.

 

[15357]

i agree with above statement.....

you shouldn't need to suffer.......

 

[Razor]

If the person suffering, their doctor and their closer family agree, then yes, Euthanasia should be allowed

 

[Nofuture]

Life is the choice of the person who is alive as well, if you dont want to be alive you dont have to.......being kept alive against your will is the ultimate in control, far worse than being in prison.

Maybe that is the point why there is been hesitating in many cases to do the final step? If there is no preceding declaration of intent for a such case, how do you know that a person is really being kept alive against his/her will?

 

[Recoil]

I legalized it in NationStates...

...the only arguement against it is the usual if god wanted it that way, it must be :upstare:

 

[15357]

Maybe that is the point why there is been hesitating in many cases to do the final step? If there is no preceding declaration of intent for a such case, how do you know that a person is really being kept alive against his/her will?

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

no answer found

 

[K e r b e r o s]

My view of inhuman is to prolongue the suffering of a person with zero hope of ever recovering. For what? To let them die eventually but with more pain, or to artificially keep them alive like a vegetable? Is that humane? Is it inhuman to end a person's life at a point where he still can say goodbye to his loved ones with dignity, so they don't have to do it when he or she is only a shred of his or her former self?

Yes, but where do we stop?

Where do we stop?

Lets say we could, "end someone's suffering" right on the spot. What if they were well and healthy, and enjoying life just like you and me, and then all of the sudden with a simple court case against a friends or families ruling, the court's ruled they be killed? What if the person protested and argued that he or she had no say in the matter, and that they are'nt in suffering -- what if they're protest and cries for a right to live were'nt heard, and he/she was "murdered" anyway?

Sure, you could say you'd be smart enough to know something as coy as this, but then again, you would'nt.

What if someone whose married wants a divorce -- and in order to receive tax payments and extra credit, wants to have his or her spouse killed? They're arguement would be that they're in suffering. It would'nt end there. And the person would probably be killed.

What if someone did'nt like the fact of raising children -- what if that person argued their Child was in suffering (after beating them of course) and request that their lives be ended? Who would know besides you and me?

What if someone did'nt like the fact they're teenager daughter was dating without permission -- with this law, they could argue their daughter is suicidal and is in pain -- AND wants to die. Would they win, despite the daughters protest? Yes. Its been proven -- you can already win.

So, where does it stop? People have asked me about taking Stem Cells from dead babies and fetus's, and making that legal -- to them I answered that in doing so, it be on short stepping steps of what I like to call "Harvesting".

Where women, sell themselves out to Universities for a good sum of money, simply to be inseminated, get pregnant, give birth, only to have the child killed and Stem cells yanked for research -- and the process repeats every 11 months (giving recovery).

Where does it stop? It would'nt. But thats why people want it.

From the Harvesting problem, we can an alternative of people killing others simply for their brains and spinal fluids -- a black market of murder would reopen like no other, and because it was made legal people would'nt question where the Stem cells came from.

Where does it stop? Again, it would'nt.

 

[PvtRyan]

Yes, but where do we stop?

Where do we stop?

Lets say we could, "end someone's suffering" right on the spot. What if they were well and healthy, and enjoying life just like you and me, and then all of the sudden the court's ruled they be killed?

What if someone whose married wants a divorce -- and in order to receive tax payments and extra credit, wants to have his or her spouse killed? They're arguement would be that they're in suffering. It would'nt end there.

So, where does it stop? People have asked me about taking Stem Cells from dead babies and fetus's, and making that legal -- to them I answered that in doing so, would'nt stop what I like to call "Harvesting".

Where women, sell themselves out to Universities for a good sum of money, simply to be inseminated, get pregnant, give birth, only to have the child killed and Stem cells yanked for research -- and the process repeats every 11 months (giving recovery).

Where does it stop? It would'nt. But thats why people want it.

That doesn't make any sense, you can't order to have someone killed, not without THEIR consent AND two independant medical doctors who will diagnose you with a terminal disease/condtion AND the family.

And stem cells are not children, they're globs of cells who haven't taken any function yet. It's not even an embryo, not even near the stage at which abortion usually takes place. Ranks on a "murder scale" about on the same height as jerking off. If they can use it to cure diseases, then I can only say good.

Your doom scenario's are not relevant, sure it COULD happen, anything can happen. But a stem cell black market is a bit far fetched isn't it? Organ black markets are hardly a booming market either, but ban them anyway? A lot of people COULD be killed for organ donation. Keyword being COULD, but is it reasonable?

 

[gh0st]

Let them die. Hell, I'd just kill myself anyway if I was rotting away on a bed. I've seen how it looks, and I dont want to be a part of it.

 

[CREMATOR666]

I will never let myself become a vegetable! I'll kill myself before that happens.

Live long, and prosper...

 

[gh0st]

I will never let myself become a vegetable! I'll kill myself before that happens.

Live long, and prosper...

amen :cheers:

 

[Septih]

if god wanted it that way, it must be :upstare:

and in most cases, its human intervention that i keeping them alive, so they have already gone past "gods intentional time of death"

 

[Recoil]

and in most cases, its human intervention that i keeping them alive, so they have already gone past "gods intentional time of death"

Hehe, but that's something the people (that claim the above said) don't have in mind

 

[qckbeam]

I work in a hospital, and every single day I see many, many people with terminal illnesses that are going to spend the rest of their days medicated into oblivion, withering away on a hospital bed. People that die moaning for morphine, reduced to nothing more than a skeleton with a thin layer of dying skin stretched tightly over their bones. These people want to die. They would have died long before they reached this decrepit state had it not been for medicine, doctors, and machinery keeping them alive. I’ve seen too many people living like this- stripped of all dignity, all control. It’s inhumane. Death is their only release.

 

[Razor]

Yes, but where do we stop?

Where do we stop?

Lets say we could, "end someone's suffering" right on the spot. What if they were well and healthy, and enjoying life just like you and me, and then all of the sudden with a simple court case against a friends or families ruling, the court's ruled they be killed? What if the person protested and argued that he or she had no say in the matter, and that they are'nt in suffering -- what if they're protest and cries for a right to live were'nt heard, and he/she was "murdered" anyway?

Sure, you could say you'd be smart enough to know something as coy as this, but then again, you would'nt.

What if someone whose married wants a divorce -- and in order to receive tax payments and extra credit, wants to have his or her spouse killed? They're arguement would be that they're in suffering. It would'nt end there. And the person would probably be killed.

What if someone did'nt like the fact of raising children -- what if that person argued their Child was in suffering (after beating them of course) and request that their lives be ended? Who would know besides you and me?

What if someone did'nt like the fact they're teenager daughter was dating without permission -- with this law, they could argue their daughter is suicidal and is in pain -- AND wants to die. Would they win, despite the daughters protest? Yes. Its been proven -- you can already win.

So, where does it stop? People have asked me about taking Stem Cells from dead babies and fetus's, and making that legal -- to them I answered that in doing so, it be on short stepping steps of what I like to call "Harvesting".

Where women, sell themselves out to Universities for a good sum of money, simply to be inseminated, get pregnant, give birth, only to have the child killed and Stem cells yanked for research -- and the process repeats every 11 months (giving recovery).

Where does it stop? It would'nt. But thats why people want it.

From the Harvesting problem, we can an alternative of people killing others simply for their brains and spinal fluids -- a black market of murder would reopen like no other, and because it was made legal people would'nt question where the Stem cells came from.

Where does it stop? Again, it would'nt.

I think you're living in a fantasy world with chocolate trees and fairies.

 

[Pericolos0]

i find it amazing that president bush and governor bush are advocating to keep that Terri Schiavo vegetable 'alive', while being firmly against stem cell research. Which could probably be the only possible cure for it.

i don't 'get' the religious right ;(

 

[short recoil]

I work in a hospital, and every single day I see many, many people with terminal illnesses that are going to spend the rest of their days medicated into oblivion, withering away on a hospital bed. People that die moaning for morphine, reduced to nothing more than a skeleton with a thin layer of dying skin stretched tightly over their bones. These people want to die. They would have died long before they reached this decrepit state had it not been for medicine, doctors, and machinery keeping them alive. I’ve seen too many people living like this- stripped of all dignity, all control. It’s inhumane. Death is their only release.

I kept on thinking of harold shipman when reading that, sorry.

 

[qckbeam]

I kept on thinking of harold shipman when reading that, sorry.

I'm not totally sure who Harold Shipman is. At first I thought he may have been one of a handful of doctors who had taken on mercy-killing, which is basically helping those people who are terminally ill and wish to die do so in a peaceful manner before their bodies are ravaged by cancer or something along those lines. From what I can tell, Harold Shipman murdered hundreds of his patients. I say murdered because according to this he killed patients without any illness, without consent, and in some cases for money. I don't see how you could make a connection like that based off what I wrote.

 

[Kangy]

Harold Shipman is the biggest serial killer of all time. Basically, he worked at a local surgery for a good long while (where my friend's grandma lived and went actually ) and killed people when they pissed him off (his victim, a 4 year old girl I think), had something to offer him (money etc.) or just when he felt like it. He prayed on the elderly in particular because it's a lot easier to explain away a 83 year old dying the day after going to his surgery than a 23 year old plumber with a kid and a loving wife.

Harold Shipman didn't kill people because he felt sorry for them.

 

[el Chi]

It was surprising how long he actually managed to get away with it.
But this is off-topic, and portraying assisted suicide in the wrong way.

 

[Kangy]

Back on topic...

Forcing people to live without... their human essence is so ridiculously amoral. What annoys me more is the whole "God does not liek it!!1" business. Guess what? You don't have a clue what any possible God may or may not want. Don't try and keep inflicting pain on those who have to see their once incredibly normal and able loved ones act like some kind of rotting fruit every day they live.

Ugh, some people anger me :/

 

[ríomhaire]

It's so hard choose a side for this, it isn't black and white by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[el Chi]

It seems to me that support is growing in the UK, although I can't see it being legalised anytime soon, unless the Lib Dems get voted in. So basically, I can't see it happening anytime soon.

 

[Kangy]

You never know, mate. I don't really think they've had enough of a showing in terms of propag-, posters and TV ads, but people seem pretty disillusioned with both parties. Gordon Brown is saving Blair's tarnished arse right now.

 

[el Chi]

Seriously, they'll gain support, but they won't get in. And if Howard gets in then there'll be no chance of euthasasia, cannabis being made as illegal as crack and homosexuals being sent to work in salt mines.
All hail The Man of the Night.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I think you're living in a fantasy world with chocolate trees and fairies.

I'm sorry, its also the world where Doctors and Physiologists are oathed to do no harm. I believe if someone is suffering, they should end their own suffering by themselves; and if they choose not too, then noone else should end their suffering.

 

[Pericolos0]

and how would you suggest they end their suffering? Because the problem here is that they are unable to do it themselves

 

[Edcrab]

End their own suffering by themselves? So you accept suicide can be justified?

What, then, would you tell, say, the woman you lost her case here in the UK to let her husband help her die? She was wheelchair bound and unable to move anything below her neck.

The same can be said for many who are plugged into machines and find mere speech a trial, never mind hanging themselves or chucking their vegetative body out a window.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

That doesn't make any sense, you can't order to have someone killed, not without THEIR consent

And was the Person with the feeding tube giving consent to be murdered? No, its argued she was too dumb or did'nt even know of the initiative. Starvation is a much worse choice for death -- if they wanted to end it quickly, they should've shot her in the head.

two independant medical doctors who will diagnose you with a terminal disease/condtion AND the family.

But its her life -- her choice. I dont think this man was acting on the best interest of, "ending her suffering". If anything with this starvation he's court ordered on her, he's going to make her suffer for five minutes of her life then let her die ... with the memorey she was being killed.

And stem cells are not children, they're globs of cells who haven't taken any function yet.

Does that matter? Human trafficing and Harvesting was a theory even presented by Bill Maher at one point -- even without him, I believe it.

It's not even an embryo, not even near the stage at which abortion usually takes place. Ranks on a "murder scale" about on the same height as jerking off. If they can use it to cure diseases, then I can only say good.

I disagree. People would literally sell themselves out to Universities simply for the production of Stem Cells through artificial insemination. Is that what you want? Rows of rich women who get aritifically inseminated only to have the future President or next great Intellectual thinker get broken down into a biproduct that can cure an 98 year olds bad back?

Let the 98 year old die -- we need different genes in the gene pool; frankly selling it out to the Hospitals and Universities is going to thread out our options, and its going to have long term effects for those who try and do it. Mock me now, stick your nose up in the air and choose apathy;not believing it -- but one day, as your walking tall with nose pointed towards the sky, you'll wack into the Poll of truth ... and scribbled all over it will be my conspiracy theories that came to life.

Your doom scenario's are not relevant, sure it COULD happen

If it's "not relevant", but sure it could happen, is'int it alarming to you that its possible and probably planned? Would you want your sister or daughter to sell out to these Harvester plans? Let's hear your response to a sibling of yours at 17 or 18 selling out to one of these ideas, and actually doing it.

What would your response be, defensive, saying its her choice when she's 18? Or would it be offensive, in that the idea of your children selling out or possibly becoming to the mantra of sick harvesting studies, is not only grotesque but in the long run could soil your families biological life-line, potentially severing and stopping it at the door because your daughter screwed up her reproductive organs?

But a stem cell black market is a bit far fetched isn't it?

Is it? No, you'd be suprised. Once it was legalized people out to catch a buck would kill anything that had potentially researchable Stem cells for money. Again, Murder Trafficing would be a big thing in the black market.

You don't think some slack-jobs would take over this oppertunity in their own third-world countries, to slaughter their children and biological heritage simply to yank in money?

Organ black markets are hardly a booming market either, but ban them anyway?

Hell yes. If it'll stop the illegal trafficing of organs through murder or wanton criminal assault, then by all means, please do.

A lot of people COULD be killed for organ donation. Keyword being COULD, but is it reasonable?

According to Organ Donation, the people would've already had to have been dead -- or at least, their guardians given consent for the taking of the persons organs. This accounts if it was'nt a black market trade, and the person died in the hospital from natural causes. I'am reguarding the donation laws and prohibitions within the United States.

Consent -- Murder has no consent.

 

[el Chi]

I'm sorry, its also the world where Doctors and Physiologists are oathed to do no harm. I believe if someone is suffering, they should end their own suffering by themselves; and if they choose not too, then noone else should end their suffering.

Actually, the Hypocratic Oath states that they should do whatever is in the patient's best interests. If that encompasses pulling the plug, then there you have it.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Actually, the Hypocratic Oath is that they should do whatever is in the patient's best interests. If that encompasses pulling the plug, then there you have it.

But obviously the Patient in question had no sense of interests; except for eating and surviving off of medical equipment. The doctors are also ordered to do Patients no harm -- they're practically indoctrinated to keep everything within their reach alive. Starving a human to death, would be a painful experience and harmful to the Patients feelings before it died -- Doctors are not to kill or harm. The amount of pain suffered from starvation breaks both oaths according to the doctors. Therefore, I disagree with the courts decision.

So no, its not hypocratic -- the Patients best interests reguard to saftey and life preservation; not life taking. They choose the interest -- not the courts, not you, and in some ways, not even them.

 

[Edcrab]

While it's possible that people might "donate" their unborn young for stem cells I personally doubt it.

The organ trade is indeed a problem in certain countries but as it's rare to encounter penniless Western students selling a kidney I doubt they'll suddenly decide to abort a foetus expressly to harvest stem cells. Besides, just as here in the UK you won't get money for allowing your corpse to be stripped of its innards, I doubt they'll suddenly give the mothers of an aborted foetus a payout for using their stem cells.

Of course, that's a whole new kettle of fish. I thought this discussion started off on a theme revolving more around killing a 98 year old with a bad back, rather than bringing in debatable methods to cure it?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

While it's possible that people might "donate" their unborn young for stem cells I personally doubt it.

You only doubt it because it seems far-fetched to your opinions, but rest assured it would'nt have been long before grotesque recordings and assaults are seen spanning from Muchsucko.com to Ogrish at the order Stem Cell research was legalized.

Its a possibility, and a heavy one at that coming in with some very heavy prices to our sociality and functioning humane societal structures.

The organ trade is indeed a problem in certain countries but as it's rare to encounter penniless Western students selling a kidney

From a person who died in the Hospital, of natural causes. Who also, gave their consent as Organ donors.

I doubt they'll suddenly decide to abort a foetus expressly to harvest stem cells.

Whats to say that they will not? Already, there's evidence of people killing their own Pets for the sake of selling them to universities for Forensic study and tests. People get paid a lot for doing it -- its just hardly a thing in the press.

Which is where Harvesting would be a stealthed thing until the crimes took itself into the streets and homes of our families.

Besides, just as here in the UK you won't get money for allowing your corpse to be stripped of its innards, I doubt they'll suddenly give the mothers of an aborted foetus a payout for using their stem cells.

In the UK, maybe not. Your socialist economic structure would'nt strongly provide for such trades initially -- in our Capitalist structure, it would immediately be provided, and think of the rewards universities pay to people who bring in animals, pieces of flesh, and other anamolous subjects to be studied and ultimately tortured.

To me, such a problem would be no surpise to have taken place.

Of course, that's a whole new kettle of fish. I thought this discussion started off on a theme revolving more around killing a 98 year old with a bad back, rather than bringing in debatable methods to cure it?

Who debated on how to cure it? Not I. I brought up the fact killing someone whose too dumb to give consent or understand to be murdered, is a violation of they're human rights and all of ours. Would you kill a healthy dog or cat, or even a motherless baby under such rights? Perhaps for you, maybe not. But for someone else intent on money grubbing, such traffic would commited upon and everyone would look they other direction. Just because someone cannot give their consent in English, does'nt mean they're suffering or need to be killed for a lack of a response.

The person in question smiled, laughed, cried, and even waved when she understood a family member was in the room -- her consent, was not gaven; therefore she still has a right to live.

What if you got in a car wreck, and where in a Coma doctors predicted you'd be in your whole life -- what if your mom wanted to pull the plug simply because she did'nt want to see you suffer?

The problems with Coma's, is that they can last entire life-times or they can end even under those predictions -- what if you felt yourself healing and coming too, right as the court had finished ordering you be put to death for suffering?

Thats a possibility, and with the common ill-responsibility and patience many people share when involving injured or comatized loved ones, the amount of deaths from alleged "Coma's" would increase.

With this courts decision, we've practically legalized rampant accusations and charges that could put to death many people who should'nt be.

The courts should not be the Dr. Jack Kervorkian's of our United States.

 

[el Chi]

But obviously the Patient in question had no sense of interests; except for eating and surviving off of medical equipment. The doctors are also ordered to do Patients no harm -- they're practically indoctrinated to keep everything within their reach alive. Starving a human to death, would be a painful experience and harmful to the Patients feelings before it died -- Doctors are not to kill or harm. The amount of pain suffered from starvation breaks both oaths according to the doctors. Therefore, I disagree with the courts decision.

So no, its not hypocratic -- the Patients best interests reguard to saftey and life preservation; not life taking. They choose the interest -- not the courts, not you, and in some ways, not even them.

If the patient is in an essentially irreparable wreck of a former human being then I would say that, yes, euthanasia IS in their best interests.
What have they got to look forward to?
Being fed through a tube? Breathing through a hole in their neck connected to a machine? Being bed-ridden because their limbs no longer work? Shitting themselves because they can't control their own bodily functions anymore? Being visited by their relatives whom they barely recognise because their brains are barely worthy of that title?
What kind of a life is that?

We put down animals for more minor illnesses (or even old age) in the blink of an eye. I'm not going down a route of animal rights here, but don't we always say it's the "humane" thing to do? But because we people are more advanced, we should be subjected to the humiliation and pain that our pets are let off? I'm seeing an inherent contradiction in terms here.

Why are you talking about forcibly starving patients? I'm not seeing your logic.

The issue as to whether the patient WANTS to be euthanised is a slightly more difficult one. However, there are, I believe, usually tests such as questionnaires to make sure the patient is in a relatively sentient frame of mind to make the decision. It's not as if you cart in your gran in a wheelbarrow and they crack her round the back of the head, no questions asked. The whole point is that it's a strict medical procedure designed to end pain and suffering in the most painless way possible.

 

[Edcrab]

I was referring on the earlier decision to bring stem cells into the debate, merely drawing on the vague reference you made-

Rows of rich women who get aritifically inseminated only to have the future President or next great Intellectual thinker get broken down into a biproduct that can cure an 98 year olds bad back?

-not the actual issue of curing.

Stem cell research has been given the go ahead in the UK and there's no evidence that what you've predicted has even begun- but I can't, of course, speak for America.

Chi, he's referring to the removal of the woman's feeding tube- which is, I admit, a poor way of circumventing euthanasia rulings and resusitation laws. In an ideal world people would realise the poor woman was a vegetable and let the body- which she left long ago- follow behind more swiftly and "humanely" (even though it's brain dead), rather than through slow starvation.

 

[el Chi]

Chi, he's referring to the removal of the woman's feeding tube- which is, I admit, a poor way of circumventing euthanasia rulings and resusitation laws. In an ideal world people would realise the poor woman was a vegetable and let the body- which she left long ago- follow behind more swiftly and "humanely" (even though it's brain dead), rather than through slow starvation.

Ah, I see. So essentially he's backing up the case for a legalisation of euthanasia? Good stuff.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

If the patient is in an essentially irreparable wreck of a former human being then I would say that, yes, euthanasia IS in their best interests.

Your saying it -- but did they say it? In the case were discussing, NO.

What have they got to look forward to?

Change. Scientific Breakthroughs. Maybe, surviving a little bit longer to get better? What do you have to look forward to? Surely more options are available to you given your circumstances are luckier -- but that does'nt mean someone else's life should be ended only because their dues dont mean your own.

Being fed through a tube? Breathing through a hole in their neck connected to a machine? Being bed-ridden because their limbs no longer work? Shitting themselves because they can't control their own bodily functions anymore? Being visited by their relatives whom they barely recognise because their brains are barely worthy of that title?

Being fed through a tube happens to a lot of people -- mental patients, bolemic and annorexic subjects; should they be killed simply because of their irrational behavior when involving food intake and choice?

Other people breathe through holes in their necks because of Cigerette smoking -- and they still manage to live and carry on their lives happily. Should these people be now killed because they breath through a part of their body you dont?

Car wrecks injure a lot of people -- should people with Spinal problems from wrecks, assaults, or gunshots be put to death, simply because they cannot control their own limbs due to Nervous System damages?

Shitting themselves --? A lot of people shit themselves; and it does'nt bely someone needs to die. Some people cant control their bowels because of certain diseases or birth defects; yet they can maintain perfectly healthy lives and experiences. Should they die too?

As for the Person in this case, she was capable of understanding families and friends -- when they entered into her Hospital room or even when they came to visit her at home, she waved, smiled, and laughed.

Should happiness now be punishable by death, because the person is viewed as suffering?

What kind of a life is that?

A life some people know, and some people have come to terms with living as. Not everyone has all or the same problems -- but just because of a few ample ones that happen to name many strong and healthy people who are on the potential of recovering, does'nt mean killing someone without their personal consent is right, in the name of their "alleged" suffering.

We put down animals for more minor illnesses (or even old age) in the blink of an eye.

Which I'am against.

I'm not going down a route of animal rights here, but don't we always say it's the "humane" thing to do?

I agree, this is incorrect and should not be done.

Why are you talking about forcibly starving patients? I'm not seeing your logic.

Twisting my words to take the offense? If you had'nt understood the case were talking about here, the women whose now having her feeding tube removed will starve to death.

Thats what my references were about -- please, get them right.

The issue as to whether the patient WANTS to be euthanised is a slightly more difficult one.

No, its the easiest one to go by. By default, unless consent is given by the person in question to be killed, then the murder is actually illegal to specified wills and documents. Even then, the Hospital doctors cannot do harm nor kill.

So, its practically not even allowed according to M.D. doctrination.

However, there are, I believe, usually tests such as questionnaires to make sure the patient is in a relatively sentient frame of mind to make the decision.

Which is actually brutal and against the law to do since it is illegal for doctors to do harm or take the lives of their own patients. You believe wrong, and if it existed, its breaking the law and the people breaking it should be arrested as criminals bearing a plausible capital offense.

It's not as if you cart in your gran in a wheelbarrow and they crack her round the back of the head, no questions asked. The whole point is that it's a strict medical procedure designed to end pain and suffering in the most painless way possible.

No, "it has to hurt if its to heal". The man who now won his case in court, ordered his wife to not only suffer more, but to die from her own suffering. She was'nt suffering before -- she was surviving; living. Now her dying memories will be of them pulling the plug.

For a mind as simple as that, even I would recognize some sadness and terrific misunderstand as to why the ethics of preserving my life changed WITHOUT my consent.

 

[Edcrab]

...if they wanted to end it quickly, they should've shot her in the head.

Um, I think he might be. We seem to be debating more on who warrants euthanasia. The lack of speech isn't really an issue- it's more on the chance of a recovery and any sign of sentience.

But from a purely opinion-based angle, if all I could do was laugh and cry and nod while lying near-immobile and letting a machine eat for me, I think I would want to die.