Voluntary Euthansia,Should we have the choice ?..

Paddy20

Voluntary euthansia is available to citizens, in different EU states, yet we in Ireland as members are denied this option.

Can anyone justify the right of someone with a terminal illness the right to die with dignity in their own home, after the medical specialists have admitted there is nothing they can do to help the individual and death 'with suffering' is inevitable. ?..

Personally, I am totally in favour of humane euthanasia, as a basic human right. As I have watched very close relations suffer all the indignaties of terminal illness, when they had made it clear they only wanted to be released from suffering any longer.

What is your view ?...

P. :cool:

smashey

Paddy

While I have no problem with the topic, I think it might be better suited to a different forum.

Paddy20

smashey wrote:

Paddy

While I have no problem with the topic, I think it might be better suited to a different forum.

Why, are our North-West Forum citizens not faced with this reality, every day ?..

P. :cool:

smashey

They probably are. I just think it would get a better hearing in any of the following.

Legal Discussion
Biology/Medicine
Personal Issues (maybe)
Humanities
Religion/Spirituality

Paddy20

smashey wrote:

They probably are. I just think it would get a better hearing in any of the following.

Legal Discussion
Biology/Medicine
Personal Issues (maybe)
Humanities
Religion/Spirituality

Sorry smashey,

I believe the people of the North- West 'Regiom' have a right to express their own personal view's, on this issue.

P. :cool:

smashey

Paddy20 wrote:

Sorry smashey,

I believe the people of the North- West 'Regiom' have a right to express their own personal view's, on this issue.

P. :cool:

That's fine Paddy. I believe their views would be better expressed on another forum where they would probably get a bigger audience and more qualified answers.

bettlebrox

Eh? What's this to do with the North-West forum? Wouldn't this be better posted in a health forum or something?

muffler

Like the old saying goes - everything in its place.

This is the wrong forum for this topic so Im locking it and will find somewhere more appropriate for it tomorrow.

Night all

muffler

This has now been moved to "Personal Issues"

dudara

moved to Humanities.

InFront

Its a very complex argument and is a medical can-of-worms.

after the medical specialists have admitted there is nothing they can do to help the individual and death 'with suffering' is inevitable

What medical specialists? Death with suffering is not inevitable even in slow drawn out deaths thanks to major pharmaco/therapeutical progress in the past 25 years and before.
Also, it is wrong to assume that Irish medics have no control over their patients' deaths. It is well known occurance that doctors often increase the morphine dose to the dying elderly, knowing that their pain will be decreased and that it will quicken the onset of death.
Assisted suicide and euthanasia fit into completely different categories imo. Personally I would have major difficulties with them, nobody has the right to decide when a life should end.

growler

InFront wrote:

Its a very complex argument and is a medical can-of-worms.



. Personally I would have major difficulties with them, nobody has the right to decide when a life should end.

I think I have that right when it comes to my life, if faced with the likelihood a long and painful death i'll happily take the blue pill rather than endure the discomforts, pain, suffering and helplessness I've watched relatives go through. I'd rather die with dignity on my own terms than put my family and myself through months of torture.

LadyJ

growler wrote:

I think I have that right when it comes to my life, if faced with the likelihood a long and painful death i'll happily take the blue pill rather than endure the discomforts, pain, suffering and helplessness I've watched relatives go through. I'd rather die with dignity on my own terms than put my family and myself through months of torture.

I'd have to say,I agree with this. I suppose it depends on the exact situation at the end of the day but I watched my 91 year old grandmother suffer for over two years with cancer that had spread to almost every organ in her body.

Bit by bit,day by day,we all watched as her body and her mind just slowly stopped working. I loved my granny a great deal,she brought me up,but I would have preferred her to have died with dignity,than die in pain and go through the torture of losing her mind.

I think if a very old person is very sick and can't possibly be cured then surely they should have the right to die before they lose everything,if they so wish of course.

JC 2K3

InFront wrote:

nobody has the right to decide when a life should end.

My personal opinion on the issue is that if someone is as good as dead then there is no problem with ending their life right then.

I mean the only major issue about someone dying is the suffering of their friends/relatives, it should be entirely up to them(and the person in question of course, if they can still express their opinion on the matter), what ever makes them happiest.

patzer117

ok, to clear up a few myths. Euthanasia isn't killing yourself. That's suicide. Growler, if you want to kill yourself later in life that's fine, suicide is legal, that's not what is being talked about here however. Euthanasia is where you can't kill yourself, where you can't for some reason or other take the blue pill. It's having someone else feed you the blue pill, which is somebody else taking your life.

Ok, now, Euthanasia isn't simple. It very rarely is about poor old Mrs. Tillman, just two months to live with a fatal illness that causes lots of pain and loss of all your abilities. That rarely happens, and even if it did, it wouldn't be voluntary Euthanasia. Most people wouldn't really have a problem if they were sure it was Voluntary Euthanasia as the op stipulated, but the problem is that it rarely is voluntary - one must be adjudged to have a sound mind for it to be voluntary.

Now, let's say an old woman has cancer, and take LadyJ's grandmother as an example (this isn't intended to cause any offence it's just to illustrate a point). She has cancer, presumably for some time, she's on many pain killers and has been diagnosed with a fatal bout of cancer. She knows it's going to degenerate her into a sad condition before death. In short it's an awful situation. But for Euthanasia to be allowed then we must know that she wants to die, and she must be of a sound mind when she makes the decision. Now i ask you, how can we ever know that somebody who is in a huge amount of pain, and has been diagnosed with a life-taking illness is of sound mind? simply they will never be 'of a sound mind' to make a life or death decision, and anything they say about it will be clouded by the fact that they are on high-doses of drugs and are suffering from Cancer.

Now moving off LadyJ's grandmother, presume it's a poor old man who doesn't want to be a burden to his family (that JC 2k3 is talking about), he doesn't want to put them through suffering, well that's not right that they should die either, because he has a right to live even if his family might suffer hardship. His life or his living shouldn't depend on what his family think, he should be allowed live as long as he wants, and killing him is murder. Remember these people can't take their own lives so if you're killing somebody who doesn't really want to die, then that's murder.
On the opposite scale, if he was a very wealthy man then his family may be lobbying him to die 'that it'd be better for him because he wouldn't suffer' to get a hold of his fortune... that's not right either, but a more clear cut example

Euthanasia is extremely complicated. To say it's just a case of the poor person doesn't want to suffer is taking a far too simplified situation of it and that's why it's not legal in Ireland - yet.

patzer

Samos

InFront wrote:

...nobody has the right to decide when a life should end.

And yet we have the right to prolong life indefinitely? Surely keeping a person alive artificially is just the same as killing a person 'artificially' when interference with God's will is considered.

I think the issue of euthanasia becomes controversial when the subject is not in a position to make a sound judgement, ie. delirious with pain, depressed or in a coma and otherwise unable to commit suicide. On what criteria does one decide that they should no longer live? Firstly, they must have no chance of complete recovery or else suffer from an uncurable degenerative condition. Secondly, the levels of pain and anguish they are suffering cannot be alleviated. In this kind of scenario (though difficult to quantify), a conscious and sane patient would probably desire to live no more. But in the case of a patient who cannot make this decision, others who are sufficiently qualified ought to decide. Such people may be doctors, family and a hospital ethics board, with a unanimous decision required.

Should the interests of others be taken into account also? A patient who is in an irrecoverable coma might be considered to be wasting hospital resources: food, space, labour, etc., which would be better used in treating a patient who has a greater chance of recovery. Surely it is unfair to keep a person in a coma for decades (as currently happens) while so many people die from easily curable defects because of a lack of resources. Would it be better to donate the organs of incurable patients to help those who actually have a chance of recovery?

BTW: Have a look at the film "Whose Life is it Anyway?", which raises questions about whether doctors should attempt to save the life of a patient who wants to die.

Paddy20

Do I personally as someone of sound mind, who is suffering all the mental and physical pain and indigaties, of being kept alive by drugs and other interventions who will die shortly, not be allowed to depart now at a time of my choosing.

P. :cool:

LovelyHurling

Yes but the issue isnt whether its okay for the person to make the decision for themselves. Patzer above very correctly pointed out that suicide has been legalised and voluntary euthanasia is not suicide.

The difference is when the ability to communicate has been lost and a third party (not God and not the patient) makes the decision

Gurgle

LovelyHurling wrote:

The difference is when the ability to communicate has been lost and a third party (not God and not the patient) makes the decision

Theres a little more to it when you take religion and physical disability into account.

Some may consider euthanasia as an alternative to suicide that will allow you to bypass God's rules and get into heaven.

Theres also cases where a person may not be physically capable of taking their own life and would ask someone else to do it for them.

Euthanasia without consent is extremely dodgy ground because its very hard to demonstrate the difference between euthanasia and murder.

The Sweeper

patzer117 wrote:

She has cancer, presumably for some time, she's on many pain killers and has been diagnosed with a fatal bout of cancer. She knows it's going to degenerate her into a sad condition before death. In short it's an awful situation. But for Euthanasia to be allowed then we must know that she wants to die, and she must be of a sound mind when she makes the decision. Now i ask you, how can we ever know that somebody who is in a huge amount of pain, and has been diagnosed with a life-taking illness is of sound mind? simply they will never be 'of a sound mind' to make a life or death decision, and anything they say about it will be clouded by the fact that they are on high-doses of drugs and are suffering from Cancer.

I've never understood the 'sound mind' argument when it's based on an assumption like this. So you're in mortal agony and you have no quality of life and you say you want to die - but we're going to decide that you can't because you don't really know what you want because you're in mortal agony and you have no quality of life.

It's like saying "yes but if you felt better tomorrow you wouldn't want to die anymore, so we're not going to let you control your own fate". So what, you have to want to die whether or not you're sick?

"Oh, see, we think you're just a bit depressed about being racked with pain, and in an utterly hopeless condition. So we're not going to give any credence to your opinions."

Well here we are, on the internet, where you can write things down in a public forum and everyone can read them. And I'm of sound mind. And I want to say this:

If I'm in a brain-dead coma and am being kept alive by a ventilator, kill me.

If, when you take me off the ventilator, I'm still alive, please kill me quickly by administering an injection of something, as opposed to withdrawing a feeding tube and starving me to death.

If I have a terminal wasting, debilitating or degenerative disease, or cancer, please trust that I do not want to get to the point where you can lift me with one hand and I can't recognise you. If I ask you to kill me, I really mean it. I'm not being petulant because I'm just a bit down in the mouth.

I'm not a religious person, so the implications of suicide and barriers into heaven don't bother me. I don't think I quite know of anyone who, given the choice, would fancy a slow and painful death.

bonkey

Minesajackdaniels wrote:

I've never understood the 'sound mind' argument when it's based on an assumption like this. So you're in mortal agony and you have no quality of life and you say you want to die - but we're going to decide that you can't because you don't really know what you want because you're in mortal agony and you have no quality of life.

It's like saying "yes but if you felt better tomorrow you wouldn't want to die anymore, so we're not going to let you control your own fate". So what, you have to want to die whether or not you're sick?

What if the doc refuses to give you more medication until you sign your worldly belongings over to him?

I'm pretty sure that if someone did so to get their medication, you'd be amongst the first to argue that its the doctor who is in the wrong and that the patient couldn't be held to such an agreement because they were in such pain they'd agree to anything.

Is the patient of sound mind?

Now, go a step further. Say that the patient announces they want euthenasia, after a family-member has been in telling them that its the right thing to do. Prior to that, they didn't want it, but now they say the pain they're causing others is too much and they want to die.

Same question - is this patient of sound mind?

You can give any number of cases where it will be argued that someone in extreme pain should not be held to their decisions because their pain prevents them from thinking clearly and rationally.

Why then, is this different? Why does it cease to be (even arguably) the case once we're talking about euthenasia?

This is the crux of the issue for me. No matter what way you go, you'll end up either with inconsistencies in how you apply your reasoning or you end up making someone lose out.

There is no easy answer.

If I have a terminal wasting, debilitating or degenerative disease, or cancer, please trust that I do not want to get to the point where you can lift me with one hand and I can't recognise you. If I ask you to kill me, I really mean it. I'm not being petulant because I'm just a bit down in the mouth.

And if a cure for this illness may be on the market before you'd be due to go from this disease....you'd still like to be offed?

What if there's a cure already on the market but you've simply refused to take it? Are you being rational and sound of mind to say "kill me, I don't want to be cured"???

See, the problem doesn't come in with the extreme cases. The problem is that once the line is drawn to allow the extreme cases then you also have to deal with cases much closer to the line.

JC 2K3

The only people against this are those who can't comprehend someone wanting to die.

Forgive me for being cynical, but most euthanasia cases would involve old people who've already lived for 60-80 years. What difference does it make whether they die now or in a year if they're only going to be lying in a hospital bed? Sound mind or not.

Gurgle

JC 2K3 wrote:

The only people against this are those who can't comprehend someone wanting to die.

Forgive me for being cynical, but most euthanasia cases would involve old people who've already lived for 60-80 years. What difference does it make whether they die now or in a year if they're only going to be lying in a hospital bed? Sound mind or not.

Then theres DNR - I could never argue with someones right to DNR
Theres suicide - Its kinda pointless making it illegal
Theres voluntary euthanasia as assisted suicide - I could agree to this where the euthanasee was deemed by 2 psychologists and 2 doctors to be of sound mind and unsound body and terminally ill, everything documented and witnessed.

And then theres voluntary euthanasia where the decision is taken via power of attorney in the case of someone of unsound mind. Thats way too dodgy and opens the door to a whole different type of murder. Its not the principle thats the problem, its the practise and regulation thereof.

FranknFurter

JC 2K3 wrote:

The only people against this are those who can't comprehend someone wanting to die.

I agree with you on that point.
Ill say one thing for sure, if I ever got to a point where I couldnt talk or take care of myself, had to be nursed by others and in danger of losing any dignity I may have, I would sure as hell be taking the "blue pill".

b

Gurgle

FranknFurter wrote:

I agree with you on that point.
Ill say one thing for sure, if I ever got to a point where I couldnt talk or take care of myself, had to be nursed by others and in danger of losing any dignity I may have, I would sure as hell be taking the "blue pill".

b

Thats suicide, you're allowed to do that.

FranknFurter

what I meant was Id be making sure that would happen, if I ever were incapable of doing it myself.

b

Bottle_of_Smoke

And if a cure for this illness may be on the market before you'd be due to go from this disease....you'd still like to be offed?

What if there's a cure already on the market but you've simply refused to take it? Are you being rational and sound of mind to say "kill me, I don't want to be cured"???

OK surely you realise if there was a cure the disease wouldnt be seen in such a terminal light.***








***It's possible I've missed something

Shellie13

Ok i know its the ethic of this thats always debated...but practically couldnt the person who wanted to die just take an overdose etc?!
Is this only rational in the case of coma patients etc?!

metrovelvet

bonkey wrote:

This is the crux of the issue for me. No matter what way you go, you'll end up either with inconsistencies in how you apply your reasoning or you end up making someone lose out.

There is no easy answer.?].

No, everyone loses that's why.

Its sooo easy to have a lucid opinion with your lucid mind and functioning body, but when your hospitalised and cant recognise your children and cant wipe your own ass you may be thinking differently. You may not be thinking at all. ANd the family with the agenda ?

bonkey, you have hit so many good points about how unanswerable this is.

Minesajack, you have it all figured out dont you?

If you have family who love you you may not want to leave them with the big wound of your absence. What if you had a small child? What if there was a chance of recovery? What if this happened to you next year?

Illness makes you despair. It makes you do insane things. I had a chronic disease myself [which I mysteriously dont have anymore] and I watched my father die of cancer. Its not as simple as you think. You are NOT of sound mind when its at that level.

Rev Hellfire

While euthanasia is not available in Ireland is correct, the idea that people are somehow forced to suffer for unnaturally long periods is not totally correct.
The right for intervention can be denied in particular cases, which in a sense is similar euthanasia in that while no active step is taken to cause death its likelihood is increased.

Paddy20

Rev Hellfire wrote:

While euthanasia is not available in Ireland is correct, the idea that people are somehow forced to suffer for unnaturally long periods is not totally correct.
The right for intervention can be denied in particular cases, which in a sense is similar euthanasia in that while no active step is taken to cause death its likelihood is increased.

You neglected to use the word Voluntary', Has anyone the right to deny a human being the right to end their life, particularly if they are suffering physically from an incurable disease, which also cause's mental anguish to such an extent that they are currently forced to commit suicide ?..

P. :cool:

Rev Hellfire

I left the word Voluntary out since the particular point I was making (not very well maybe) was that medical professionals do not always extend a persons suffering.

The key issue here is not really the right of someone to kill themselves, but rather the right of another person to actively assist in the killing of another.
In the case of someone who denys intervention they aren't actively assisting in the killing of someone, but rather taking a passive stance which will most likely result in death.

Samos

Rev Hellfire wrote:

The key issue here is not really the right of someone to kill themselves, but rather the right of another person to actively assist in the killing of another.
In the case of someone who denys intervention they aren't actively assisting in the killing of someone, but rather taking a passive stance which will most likely result in death.

Often, taking a passive stance when someone is in pain can be cruel. Currently euthanasia is illegal, but 'letting someone die' is not. However the former would be quicker and fairly painless, while the latter results in prolonged suffering until a 'natural' death occurs. When we see an animal suffering from an incurable injury/disease we 'put it out of its misery'; yet when a new-born infant comes into the world with a debilitating affliction, we do not mitigate his/her misery - doctors and parents simply allow him/her to starve to achieve a 'natural' death, and thus avoid any blame for the baby's dying.

This is especially true with someone who has a fully developed and functioning mental faculty, but who is physically unable to commit suicide. Is it right to allow his suffering to continue when we, and he, recognise its magnitude and have an opportunity to stop it?

Faith

I can tell you right now, while of sound mind and body, that if I was going to die a slow and painful death, I'd want something done about it. I'm in complete support of euthanasia. I don't want to suffer, nor do I want me family to see my suffer. I fully intend on getting a DNR. I would rather be dead than spend the rest of my life in a vegetative state.

minesajackdaniels wrote:

If I'm in a brain-dead coma and am being kept alive by a ventilator, kill me.

If, when you take me off the ventilator, I'm still alive, please kill me quickly by administering an injection of something, as opposed to withdrawing a feeding tube and starving me to death.

If I have a terminal wasting, debilitating or degenerative disease, or cancer, please trust that I do not want to get to the point where you can lift me with one hand and I can't recognise you. If I ask you to kill me, I really mean it. I'm not being petulant because I'm just a bit down in the mouth.

My thoughts exactly.

metrovelvet

You should have this legally secured before you get ill. Do it while your healthy so that the people around you, that is your family, dont have debates over the unrecognisable scribble that will be on the DNR papers a nurse has you sign when your tripped up on morphine and no one knows how much credibilty to give it.

Just a piece of practical advice.

Rev Hellfire

Samos wrote:

yet when a new-born infant comes into the world with a debilitating affliction, we do not mitigate his/her misery - doctors and parents simply allow him/her to starve to achieve a 'natural' death, and thus avoid any blame for the baby's dying.

That statement is simply not true.
Doctors do in such a situation administer medication to reduce suffering on the part of the patient.
The idea that this is done so as to remove any notion of blame for the possible death is also totally inaccurate. Trust me if you do find yourself in the situation of having to make such a stance you will be under no illusion that it by your actions that death will come about.

Samos wrote:

This is especially true with someone who has a fully developed and functioning mental faculty, but who is physically unable to commit suicide. Is it right to allow his suffering to continue when we, and he, recognise its magnitude and have an opportunity to stop it?

I do agree it can certainly seem harsh and cruel to when dealing with such a situation. But when you allow another to kill another for reasons such as quality of life you are on a very dangerous course(imho). People say it’s solely the decision of the sufferer but that is not true since you have a second (approved?) party now involved. Society must have decided that people with such and such a condition are better off dead but in my mind you have reached that point you must have determined them to be less worthy of life.