Euthanasia - where to draw the line?

MagicMarker

Having saw this story on the news last night. I'm just curious where the line should be drawn for euthanasia?

Generally, i'm all for it, but it's usually a case of an elderly person with a terminal illness, or someone in a vegetative state whereas this guy was only 23, and although bound to a wheel chair, he was of sound mind and not 'dying', so to speak.

I can't really form an opinion on this, because i haven't been there. But i'd like to think that if something like that had happened to me, that i would be strong enough to get through it.

It must be said that he wasn't just bound to a wheelchair, he was completely paralyzed, with no hand movement, i guess that would make a huge difference really?

DarkJager

I saw this too and I have to say, as horrible as it sounds, I would do exactly the same in the circumstances. This was a guy who enjoyed playing rugby and being active, who suddenly could never play it again and he wouldn't be able to move either.

When you think of his age, spending the rest of his life paralysed must have been a soul destroying thought.

MagicMarker

Yeah, but something tells me they were too quick to make the decision. He was only paralyzed 18 months ago.

If you want a sex change, you have to live for years as the other sex, just to prove you're mentally able. Surely if you want to kill yourself, you should have a similar kind of guideline?

Mena

I don't see how anyone has the right to tell a person they must keep living a life they don't want to live. If it's their choice then so be it.

DarkJager

MagicMarker wrote: »

Yeah, but something tells me they were too quick to make the decision. He was only paralyzed 18 months ago.

If you want a sex change, you have to live for years as the other sex, just to prove you're mentally able. Surely if you want to kill yourself, you should have a similar kind of guideline?

There's a huge difference between waiting for a sex change, and being told you'll never move again. 1 is going to be self inflicted due to mental reasons, the other is a cruel twist of fate.

I know I couldn't live with that, not just for me but the thought of being completely reliant on other people for the rest of my life. He knew he wouldn't be able to move again and didn't want to suffer that or burden his family for however long he may have lived. Thats completely understandable...

Bottle_of_Smoke

I think I'd have done the same thing, it would have been painfully difficult but If my son was going through the same thing I'd have to be there for him.

The 18months seems very short but how could you expect someone to live the rest of their lives like that.

Rev Hellfire

Mena wrote: »

I don't see how anyone has the right to tell a person they must keep living a life they don't want to live. If it's their choice then so be it.

It could be argued that anyone who is placed in a situation where they wish to terminate their own life may not in fact be competent to make that decision by virtue of their suffering.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Well then would someone in pain be competent to make the decision to take an addictive drug like morphine. Etc

Rev Hellfire

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Well then would someone in pain be competent to make the decision to take an addictive drug like morphine. Etc

Its a question of scale, drugs like morphine and the level of pain they are administered for are heavily prescribed. The choice as to the availability of the drug is not really given to the patient, but left to those both medically competent and detached from that pain. And even when given morphine is provided its in a manner which attempts to regulate its administration by the user.

seclachi

I dont think its right for somebody who is so young to give up their life, I know he lived for sports, but there are other things, and I am sure many disabled people in his condition. I think he sank into serious depression, and instead of treating it they took the euthanasia route. I cant imagine how difficult it is, but I am sure there are people in that position who would never do such a thing.

Kama

It could be argued that anyone who is placed in a situation where they wish to terminate their own life may not in fact be competent to make that decision by virtue of their suffering.

It could, but its a circular logic; voluntary euthanasia becomes a Catch-22. The right to deny competence to another is a problematic one; forcing someone to live in obligate dependence and suffering against their will seems a violation of their liberty, and what's more, cruel.

Rev Hellfire

Kama wrote: »

It could, but its a circular logic; voluntary euthanasia becomes a Catch-22. The right to deny competence to another is a problematic one; forcing someone to live in obligate dependence and suffering against their will seems a violation of their liberty, and what's more, cruel.

Its not really, you place the decision in the hands of someone qualified.

A person can request a particular outcome, but the actual decision is left to a qualified practitioner. We don't allow the young or mentally challenged to make life effecting decisions for themselves since it is understood that they lack the capacity to make a detached and informed choice, this is no different.

Society reserves the right to protect people against themselves after all.

Kama

I swing pretty libertarian on this myself, always found suicide being a crime a nonsense, and am in favour of assisted suicide with a ballpark 2-year wait, on grounds of 'detached and informed choice'.

We don't allow the young or mentally challenged to make life effecting decisions...this is no different.

It's the same basic assumption again: if you wish to end your life, you're 'faulty'; deficient, childlike, or insane. The paternalist assumption is immense, as is the denial of autonomy to the person in question. Society in this case can be seen not as protecting, but as inflicting pain against the wishes of one of its individuals...the harm argument also swings both ways.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Its not really, you place the decision in the hands of someone qualified.

A person can request a particular outcome, but the actual decision is left to a qualified practitioner. We don't allow the young or mentally challenged to make life effecting decisions for themselves since it is understood that they lack the capacity to make a detached and informed choice, this is no different.

But they did go to a qualified practitioner.

pablomakaveli

Id do it if i was in that situation. you would be a prisoner in your own body and i just couldnt live like that tbh.

anyone in that situation who decides they want to die should be allowed. sometimes it seems family members keeping alive loved ones in a vegative state ,with no chance of recovery ,are doing it for their own sakes rather than the sake of that person.

im not saying those people are bad for keeping their loved ones alive but there is an unintended selfishness to it.

Rev Hellfire

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

But they did go to a qualified practitioner.

I'm referring to euthanasia in general, and the principle that anyone should be able to select their own demise.

18 months may seem short a time to us but 18 months in a body which is of no use to you (I don't mean this in a derogatory way at all) must seem like a life time.

The way I look at it is, if you bring your dog to the vet and he has a terminal illness, you are told to put him to sleep as it is cruel to keep him suffering, surely it is therefore also cruel to keep a human being who is suffering, alive against their wishes? I'm not comparing humans to dogs here by the way, but you see my point?

If I was that guy I would not want to live my "life" trapped in a lifeless body.

Kama

I'm referring to euthanasia in general

That's a far wider case than the OP. In cases of paralysis or consistent pain, with consent, I'm pretty fully in favour. In the wider case, I'd still argue that there is some justification for the right to die, in regulated form. The conditions of regulation obviously require care and attention, but evenso...

Frankly, I'd prefer regulated and assisted suicide to unregulated and criminalised. But like said, pretty libertarian on this; what do to your own body is your own business...It's a peculiarity in that if we own an animal, who we love, we recognise the humanity in not causing them further suffering, but in the case of fellow humans we consider it immoral.

I would be worried about putting this decision in the hands of a mental health practioner.
I think there should be a system whereby a person states there intent, and then has a cooling off period. Where they must undergo mental health assessment and treatment.
The decision should always be theirs, nobody should be in a postion where a medic has the final say.


I don't like to make judgements about a situation based on such limited information.
But I just can't see this fella being able, to come to terms with this accident in such a short period of time.
I think in this situation they should have waited longer.

I can't help thinking of Frank Williams, the team principle of WilliamsF1.
He has achieved so much with a similar disability.
There are far worse situations to be in.

Rev Hellfire

Personally I think the guy was a coward, at least from what I've read of the extent of his injuries. As noted above other people have similar if not worse conditions and manage to lead functioning and productive lives.

Kama

Of course people can can manage to live fruitful and productive lives, with incredible impediments; it doesn't follow from this that it is our collective place to force everyone in such a situation to attempt to.

And frankly, calling someone a coward seems a bit uncalled for...a little human sympathy wouldn't go astray...

Rev Hellfire

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Personally I think the guy was a coward, at least from what I've read of the extent of his injuries

Just because someone doesn't feel strong enough to get through something, doesn't make them a coward, a bit harsh me thinks....

people who have not been in a particular situation cannot make a fair judgment on it.

Rev Hellfire

Deleted User wrote: »

people who have not been in a particular situation cannot make a fair judgment on it.

Of course you can, people make judgement on things they haven't directly experienced everyday of the week.

It will be interesting to see how the parents are treated now that they have been questioned by the police and if they will have to face legal repercussions due to their actions.

Rev Hellfire

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Of course you can, people make judgement on things they haven't directly experienced everyday of the week.

Of course you can make judgment, you can't make fair judgment though.

KnifeWRENCH

Dan found his life unbearable and had tried suicide three times. Other than to starve himself, Switzerland was his only option. He couldn’t walk and had no hand function, but constant pain in his fingers. He was incontinent, suffered uncontrollable spasms and needed 24-hour care.”

If that was me, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that I would also want to be euthenised.
If other people think they could live a life like that, fair enough. But I know for sure I couldn't, and would rather be dead than to have to wake up everyday and be paralysed, incontinent and in pain. I also wouldn't want my parents to have to look after me - their lives would be ruined aswell as mine.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Personally I think the guy was a coward, at least from what I've read of the extent of his injuries. As noted above other people have similar if not worse conditions and manage to lead functioning and productive lives.

Define what you mean by functioning & productive lives there

Rev Hellfire

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Define what you mean by functioning & productive lives there

By functioning and productive I mean having the ability to interact with society in both a tangible and positive way. Certainly nothing I've read about the condition of this man leads me to believe he was not capable of that if he could have moved past his self-pity, this was not a quadriplegic with no hope of self mobility, or someone whose intellect and personality had been destroyed through misfortune.

Yes I'm not beyond empathy and can imagine the pain was severe and perhaps that alone would have been an understandable reason to seek to do what he did. But that was not the case here, there was not wanting to live his life in a wheelchair.

Well I'm sorry he couldn't go play rugger with simon and lads. But that in my book makes him a self-pitying coward.

Harsh perhaps but I believe fair.

Kama

Ok, sure, you consider him cowardly; that's a common response to suicide, always found it a bit brittle and self-righteous but it's your opinion, not one I share but nevertheless.

Now, you may not approve of his actions, his lack of bravery, that he merely did not want to live a life in a wheelchair. Simply, what's the problem? If someone comes to a decision that they do not wish to continue their life (not in spur-of-moment hysteresis), on what grounds do you consider their choice illegitimate? What gives you (by extension, us) the right?

Rev Hellfire

Kama wrote: »

What gives you (by extension, us) the right?

Society does, all ordered working societies are based on the principle of society establishing a set of allowable actions as agreed by the members of that society. This is no different.

Kama

Society can ofc, permit or forbid. My question is what the grounds are for society imposing on peoples rights, other than on a 'it is what it is' circularity.

On a further note, the idea that we all signed up to a list of allowable actions doesn't seem that plausible to me; our laws on suicide seem more to do with genealogy, path-dependence and a relic of the religious injunction against it.

But like said, have a libertarian imprint on things like this...

Rev Hellfire

You don't get to sign up to the laws of our societies, if you wish to operate within them you are required to adhere to them or suffer the consequences

tbh I don't see any moral issues with any individual who attempts suicide, rather if I have a beef (and I'm not sure I care that much) its with the principle that people selecting euthanasia are always competent to do so.

Kama

You don't get to sign up to the laws of our societies, if you wish to operate within them you are required to adhere to them or suffer the consequences

Very static-conservative view of social rules there hehe, also a bit contradictory to your previous 'agreed by members' position; straight to 'authority sez so kk?'.

its with the principle that people selecting euthanasia are always competent to do so.

Which isn't an argument against, its a argument for fixing the competency threshold. I'm quite in agreement on this.

Rev Hellfire

Kama wrote: »

Very static-conservative view of social rules there hehe, also a bit contradictory to your previous 'agreed by members' position; straight to 'authority sez so kk?'.

Democracy has always been tyranny by the majority

Kama

And there was me thinking the Lizards were in charge...

Dades

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Well I'm sorry he couldn't go play rugger with simon and lads. But that in my book makes him a self-pitying coward.

Well that's the nastiest comment I've read on boards in a long time.

I'm having difficulty composing a post on the story in question, so suffice to say I have the utmost respect for the family and their decision.

40crush41

I am a student of occupational therapy who is looking forward to dedicating my life people with disabilities.
This particular quote caught my eye “Over the last six months he constantly expressed his wish to die and was determined to achieve this. He was not prepared to live what he felt was a ‘second-class existence’."
My instinct is to question why should a person with disabilities feel that they must live a second class existence? They are people too, its the job of able-bodied people to work to eliminate this feeling of disconnect.
It is a devastating change in a person's life, its really awful, clearly a person who experiences any such change in life will question their existence. Of course they are having feelings of depression and suicidal thoughts. The burden on the caregiver is extraordinary, for them to see this change, from a person that they once knew to this new state. But I see that there is still life to live even in a disabled body.
So my challenge would be instead of helping them throw it all away to work to achieve engagement in other activities that will give their life meaning. Easier said than done? Well, I know that it can and is done.
I can't speak for him or anyone else, but for myself that I would find it very cold and lonely to bring the idea to my parents that I do not think my life is worth living anymore, and instead of trying to prove me wrong, to find that they agree and confirm my fear that I am a second class citizen and that it makes no difference if I live or die.

Kama

Firstly crush, I applaud your vocation, and would agree that reducing stigma and building platforms which allow fuller integration of the disabled, physically, socially, and psychologically is a more than worthy endeavour. Thankfully we have made huge strides in this area in even the last 10-20 years, and although significant barriers remain, the capacity of a disabled person in a modern society is greater than in any other time in history, which (imo) does us credit as a society.

My point was more general and rights-based, simply that I support the right of an individual to pass on in a method and at a time of their choosing, without prejudice or recrimination as to their decision. This is not intended to mean that anyones life is of lesser value, but that individuals are competent to make their own assessment, and choose for themselves on this basis.

CDfm

Im not with the euthenasia supporters.

i cant say why exactly - its against my religious beliefs but thats not why.

it seems to me that he could have a reasonably good quality of life. its natural for a person to want to live. many people with dehabilitating illnesses dont want to die.

its like he couldnt adapt and his life revolved around his sporting life -and he couldnt see past that.

that said -suicide is very sad -my problem with assisted suicide is its clinical and the person may feel "presurised" simply because the arrangements are made and cant possibly back out.

Otacon

While I would hope, that under his circumstances, I would be able to decide to live, I can certainly understand his decision.

From the stories I have read, and seeing as I have not seen any contradictory evidence, he seemed determined to end his life. I don't know what physical or mental pain he was going through, but being of sound mind (as far as I can gather), he came to the conclusion that he wanted his life to be over. I get the feeling he would have done it himself if he could.

As for his parents, I feel for them. They had to do something I know they did not want to do, but felt the wishes of their son was more important.

As a general principle, I believe in a person's right to choose their life, and their death, if possible. I may not agree with all the cases, but I don't believe society or I, must force rules on someone else, that would only cause them suffering.

My €0.02

kizzyr

Moonbaby wrote: »

I would be worried about putting this decision in the hands of a mental health practioner.
I think there should be a system whereby a person states there intent, and then has a cooling off period. Where they must undergo mental health assessment and treatment.
The decision should always be theirs, nobody should be in a postion where a medic has the final say.


I don't like to make judgements about a situation based on such limited information.
But I just can't see this fella being able, to come to terms with this accident in such a short period of time.
I think in this situation they should have waited longer.

I can't help thinking of Frank Williams, the team principle of WilliamsF1.
He has achieved so much with a similar disability.
There are far worse situations to be in.[/QUOTE]


Such as? Its very easy to say something like that if you've never been in that situation or something similar.

nacho libre

i think his parents did the right thing here. they loved their son and saw he was suffering so they abided by his wishes. the selfish thing would have been to ask him to keep living for their sake. afterall, good parents want what it is best for their children. however, that said i think youthinasia(what do the youth in asia have to with this topic) should be on a case by case basis. ideally in the case of a physically disabled people they should have a two year wait where they are assessed and if it is deemed they are of sound mind at the end of it then let them die. Anyone who is diagnosed with a terminal illness should have the automatic right to die if they want. i mean where is the sanctity in forcing someone to go through the agony and indignity of terminal cancer against their will. that is just cruel and selfish.

Kama

Times has an article on this, making the distinction between euthanasia and assisted death. It balances quite well (imo) between the possibilities of people in difficult situations, without implying they should 'get over it'.

It focuses initially on the legal ramifications for families due to the differences of laws between the countries. It reminds me a little of our abortion situation; 'don't do it here, go to another country'.

sorella

Thank you for this sanity and sense.

There was a case in Holland where a young dancer, early 20s, requested and gained euthanasia because she developed arthritis in her feet and could no longer dance.

People who become disabled, especially young ones who love physical activities, need support and help and time to come to terms with their condition.

The ideas re euthanasia are all part of the culture of death than is gaining ground in the world; "Dr Death" in the UK to help old folk to commit suicide etc etc.

And in Holland, babies born with disability being murdered legally; for that is the only word to use.

As if disability and long term illness means a person is no longer of any worth.

Remember Harold Shipman?

Hitler?

Few of us as we age are without illness of varying disabling degrees; yet we know that we can in time adjust and adapt and gain and give pleasure in life.

It does take time, and it does take a lot of loving patience also. Most of all it takes the awareness of the sanctity and value and worth of each human life.

Gee; they would have killed me off years ago!!

I am deeply thankful to be alive.

40crush41 wrote: »

I am a student of occupational therapy who is looking forward to dedicating my life people with disabilities.
This particular quote caught my eye “Over the last six months he constantly expressed his wish to die and was determined to achieve this. He was not prepared to live what he felt was a ‘second-class existence’."
My instinct is to question why should a person with disabilities feel that they must live a second class existence? They are people too, its the job of able-bodied people to work to eliminate this feeling of disconnect.
It is a devastating change in a person's life, its really awful, clearly a person who experiences any such change in life will question their existence. Of course they are having feelings of depression and suicidal thoughts. The burden on the caregiver is extraordinary, for them to see this change, from a person that they once knew to this new state. But I see that there is still life to live even in a disabled body.
So my challenge would be instead of helping them throw it all away to work to achieve engagement in other activities that will give their life meaning. Easier said than done? Well, I know that it can and is done.
I can't speak for him or anyone else, but for myself that I would find it very cold and lonely to bring the idea to my parents that I do not think my life is worth living anymore, and instead of trying to prove me wrong, to find that they agree and confirm my fear that I am a second class citizen and that it makes no difference if I live or die.

It wasn't me!

I don't believe anyone has the right to force anyone to live against their wishes. The criminalisation of suicide is a ridiculous state of affairs and makes a criminal where none exists.

The decision is more complex for the person making the decision. They have to consider their family, their friends and those they know. They have to explain it and rationalise it for dozens of different people over and over. They have to make the decision knowing it will hurt other people, and be sure that it's still worth it to escape what they're feeling.

So, when a person has gone through all that, society should have no say in what happens. To legislate against it is more monstrous than the actions of a suicidal person ever will be.

sorella

Someone who has suffered major trauma and injury will also suffer a serious reactive depression... ie they are not thinking straight and need time for body and mind to adjust and begin to rally.

I may be wrong, but I do not think suicide is a crime on the statute books any more?

This is a question of protecting a person, and a young one at that, from the effects of a negative time. To allow them to recover in body; and to recover also from the effects of pain meds and other chemicals.

There can be few, if we are honest, who have not at a stressful time thought we wished we were dead. But we recover and carry on.

This culture of death makes it too easy for that time of acute crisis to destroy a precious life.

It wasn't me! wrote: »

I don't believe anyone has the right to force anyone to live against their wishes. The criminalisation of suicide is a ridiculous state of affairs and makes a criminal where none exists.

The decision is more complex for the person making the decision. They have to consider their family, their friends and those they know. They have to explain it and rationalise it for dozens of different people over and over. They have to make the decision knowing it will hurt other people, and be sure that it's still worth it to escape what they're feeling.

So, when a person has gone through all that, society should have no say in what happens. To legislate against it is more monstrous than the actions of a suicidal person ever will be.

ChocolateSauce

I don't see a problem if they're 25 and perfectly healthy, if a person wants to die they should have that right.

Climate Expert

They are people too, its the job of able-bodied people to work to eliminate this feeling of disconnect.

Rubbish.

This young man was probably used to pulling women with the lads every weekend and thats not going to happen now. Is that the fault of able bodied people?
He can't paly rugby anymore and whose fault is that?
He can't have children, can't do a million and one things and the rest of society can't change that. Its just what happens when you are paralysed in such a severe way.

Victor

DarkJager wrote: »

There's a huge difference between waiting for a sex change, and being told you'll never move again. 1 is going to be self inflicted due to mental reasons, the other is a cruel twist of fate.

Which is which? Are you saying people are betwixt an between, who have been incorrectly determined to be one gender or other and seek gender reassignment - do they suffer from a cruel twist of fate?

I know I couldn't live with that, not just for me but the thought of being completely reliant on other people for the rest of my life. He knew he wouldn't be able to move again and didn't want to suffer that or burden his family for however long he may have lived. Thats completely understandable...

Many people have their difficulties but get on with life.

Periscope

I think the orginal question - Where to draw the line?- is interesting.
It seems sad that a 23 year old would want to die but living cocooned inside ones body for life is a daunting reality to face.

I'm not here to give my arguments for and against the situation but for anyone interest in this type of case I recommend reading a book called The Diving Bell and the Butterfly: A Memoir of Life in Death. There is a film (based on book), but it is not as good. The book was written by a past editor of Elle magazine about himself. He had a stroke and was unable to move a single muscle in his body except his left eyelid. Blinking out a letter at a time he wrote the book I mentioned above. He descibes the pain of his condition but also his realisation that even though he could only move an eyelid there was so much he could do. He died about ten years ago I think. Very interesting and inspiring.

metaoblivia

This is a very emotive topic. I'm a former gymnast and spinal injuries happen in that sport, not frequently, but it happens. Most of the gymnasts who've been paralyzed from the neck down have gone on to have very fulfilling lives, despite their limited mobility. I can see how daunting and unthinkable that would be for some people. I know I would be beyond distraught if it were me. But I agree that, especially when they're young, those people need support and they need to see that they can still contribute and enjoy life.
However, I have unfortunately seen cases where I believed that euthanasia should have been offered. One little girl had a terrible accident on vault; her foot slipped off of the spring board and she crashed head first into the vault. She not only became a quadrapeligic, she also suffered extensive brain damage leaving her in a vegetative state. But her heart still beat and she was able to breathe, and her family eventually took her home where she lived in that state for years before she finally died. I think euthanasia should have been an option in that case. I also think it should be an option for patients who are terminal and facing a tough road to the end.

irishwheeler2

I
hope the lead story on sky news this morning will help put the issue
of euthanasia on a higher agenda. Its scandalous that people have
no choice when it comes to ending their lives, when life itself
involves constant choices. It is galling that the principal opposition
for this comes from all the cult members, who believe that mere
humans should tolerate whatever **** happens, all so they can dance
on a cloud, and worship a figure who only had a rough few hours
for all eternity. On sky news this morning, eamonn holmes asked
anti euthanasia campaigner, just why humans should be treated worse
than sick cats and dogs, to which he indignantly huffed that humans
should not be placed in the same category as cats and dogs. Given
the depths that humans can sink to, this is a gross insult..........to
cats and dogs.Why
should this option only be open to those who can afford to get to
switzerland with facilitating family members? What happens if you
are unable to travel, broke and isolated as so many people here
are. There is a huge industry based around sick people, be they
from physiotherapists, medical people, drugs companies, caregivers
etc, and the cynical side of me questions their motives. Euthanasia
is never going to eradicate suffering or disability, but we are
not going to turn into some uncaring, maniacal society if we allow
people another option different to the current one of living on
no matter what state you're in. Yes life is precious sometimes,
but the question for me is whether there would have been any fuss, if this guy, like so many others, had died a natural death after
years of humiliating dependancy. I believe in life, just not life
at all costs.