Voluntary Euthansia,Should we have the choice ?..

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.