Should the law make it easier for us to help the terminally ill die?

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

I feel as many others do reasonably that euthanasia is far too risky to legalise.

I don't think you're being honest with us, Jakkass. That's why I brought your religious beliefs into this.

Let me put it this way: If I tomorrow proposed a system for legalising euthanasia that reduced the dangers of euthanasia to almost nothing, would you then still be opposed to it?

If your answer is yes then this entire "It's too risky!" act has been nothing but a duplicitous smoke screen.

If your answer is no then that means you agree with euthanasia in principle and should be helping us work out the best way to implement it, not dismissing it wholesale.

Wurly

Sulmac wrote: »

Yes, that's your choice and your perfectly entitled to it - but what about those who don't share your views and would like to end their life if it became unbearable, surely they have a choice too?

He didn't say no to changing the law, nor to anyone having a choice. As far as I can see, he was just telling his experience and what was going through his mind at the time.

He has come closer than most people his age to the concept of not only being wheelchair bound, but completely paralysed. Having been there with him, I know for sure he wouldn't have committed suicide.

My view is that we should let someone who is suffering take their own life/assist them in doing so. If a dog was suffering, you wouldn't just leave them. Why is it not the same with a human being? And since when is it our business to dictate for someone else whether they should have to suffer or not?

Personally, if I had have been in Cap'n D's shoes, I would have probably taken my own life. Actually - I know I definitely would have. But he definitely wouldn't have. His reasons made sense. But thankfully that's all in the past now.:)

philologos

Zillah wrote: »

I don't think you're being honest with us, Jakkass. That's why I brought your religious beliefs into this.

Let me put it this way: If I tomorrow proposed a system for legalising euthanasia that reduced the dangers of euthanasia to almost nothing, would you then still be opposed to it?

If your answer is yes then this entire "It's too risky!" act has been nothing but a duplicitous smoke screen.

If your answer is no then that means you agree with euthanasia in principle and should be helping us work out the best way to implement it, not dismissing it wholesale.

Read my other post, I was asked this question already. I said I am a mixed bag. It doesn't float well with me to be honest with you, but then there is the argument of personal autonomy over ones life. It's a difficult question if we remove away the risk of abuse. However, as was ruled in the Lord's in 1994 there is just too much of a risk before we even begin to look at the more complicated questions.

I don't advocate a theocracy in respect to Christianity in public. Christianity is something to be accepted, not to be forced. I believe that euthanasia is a pro-life issue in the respect of the risks involved, and I am a general advocate of the pro-life cause so by extension I am also an advocate of pallative care being made as an option instead of getting into unnecessary dilemmas of ethics and risk pretty much as I am pro the use of pluripotent stem cells which can do the exact same thing as embryonic stem cells because it avoids the unnecessary dilemma of ethics when we can find an approach that is suitable for all contexts and pretty much risk free.

It seems a more rational approach to make pallative care more affordable and more accessible for all than to encourage euthanasia legalisation.

Carrying on though. Nodin, as for arguing my point well. Considering that you haven't even managed to raise any means of actually regulating the practice of euthanasia at all apart from saying "they do it in the Netherlands". I don't think one can regard that as a complete argument.

I've provided figures to suggest why I and others have a huge concern with how euthanasia actually operates there. You tell me that in the Netherlands non-voluntary euthanasia is illegal, yet I fail to understand given this that 900 took place in hospitals in 1995. Strange or what?

Zillah

You didn't address my comparison to other laws. No law is perfect, every element of a bureaucracy is subject to abuse, we don't use that as an excuse to not take affirmative action. Innocent people go to jail, some people take advantage of social welfare, some people escape paying taxes...but we do the best we can because for a fair society we need to punish criminals, have social welfare and have a tax system.

I will not concede that a government has the right to tell me I am not allowed to die. If they claim there is a danger to others by making a system for it then it is their responsibility to make a concerted effort to ensure a fair system, not to wholesale deny people their rights.

Rebelheart

Fink Goddie wrote: »

I think it should!
What does everyone else think?

I agree (subject to the obvious mental health and other checks). This would have been a good poll. How do you make a poll in After Hours?

jaffa20

Jakkass, you say you don't argue based around your beliefs but that's what you are doing and as do always on AH. Assume it was your mother bed ridden with cancer in agony and the doctors won't give her any more morphine because it could kill her. Would you rather see her pass away in agony or let her have her wish and allow her to die peacefully when it's inevitable. I don't see how you can allow a "natural" death when it is hardly natural to be pumped with morphine in the first place. Yeah, it can alleviate pain but euthanasia is just a greater form of pain relief and acts on the inevitable and the patients wishes.

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

However, as was ruled in the Lord's in 1994 there is just too much of a risk before we even begin to look at the more complicated questions.

....I wasn't aware the lords was somehow the final word in judgement. Three seperate western states have thought its feasible and right to have such a system, with proper safeguards in place.

Jakkass wrote: »

It seems a more rational approach to make pallative care more affordable and more accessible for all than to encourage euthanasia legalisation. .?

I wasn't aware that anyone was proposing a choice between the two.

Jakkass wrote: »

Carrying on though. Nodin, as for arguing my point well. Considering that you haven't even managed to raise any means of actually regulating the practice of euthanasia at all apart from saying "they do it in the Netherlands"..?

I highlighted the criteria they use there. We could also take a look at Luxembourg and Belgium and see how they handle it.

Jakkass wrote: »

I've provided figures to suggest why I and others have a huge concern with how euthanasia actually operates there.

Yes, the god squad with their "moral" objections. Like the guy who said there was a lack of pallative care in the Netherlands. That was dealt with comprehensively, I believe.

Jakkass wrote: »

You tell me that in the Netherlands non-voluntary euthanasia is illegal, yet I fail to understand given this that 900 took place in hospitals in 1995.

Source?

philologos

jaffa20 wrote: »

Jakkass, you say you don't argue based around your beliefs but that's what you are doing and as do always on AH.

Why would I use a religious argument when I am discussing with people in general about a topic. Sure if I was discussing on a board full of Christians I might try justify it from a Biblical point of view, but I am not so therefore I will use a secular argument. If you cannot relate to Christianity there is no point in arguing from Christianity. Again, I think you're reading far too much into this, I can argue my case rather adequately without resorting to theology.

I think I must try to bring in other peoples atheism to the same extent that they insist on bringing in my Christianity in an argument. Go ahead, I'm proud of my faith, but it'd be nicer if you actually just dealt with the argument on the table.

I've said very clearly at this point, if euthanasia were risk free I'd be a mixed bag, I wouldn't be either very opposed or very supportive, I'd need to think about it more. However, the reality is the risks are still there and I cannot support it until those holes are covered up substantially.

jaffa20 wrote: »

Assume it was your mother bed ridden with cancer in agony and the doctors won't give her any more morphine because it could kill her.

Hypothetical scenario that has very little basis in reality. It assumes that morphine is the only pain reliever one can be given. Pallative care is very successful in alleviating pain in general, and I think the doctors have some kind of clue as to what they are doing, and it doesn't involve a life or death issue which is very difficult to legislate for.

jaffa20 wrote: »

Would you rather see her pass away in agony or let her have her wish and allow her to die peacefully when it's inevitable. I don't see how you can allow a "natural" death when it is hardly natural to be pumped with morphine in the first place. Yeah, it can alleviate pain but euthanasia is just a greater form of pain relief and acts on the inevitable and the patients wishes.

Again, this is very much a hypothetical scenario, and it assumes that I should have the decision whether or not to kill my own mother rather than letting her have that decision for herself.

As for euthanasia being a greater form of pain relief, that's absolute nonsense. It isn't pain relief at all, it's death. If we can deal with pain adequately with pallative care there isn't a need for it in my opinion and it's far safer to do without.

Nodin wrote: »

Source?

I've left you two sources in the course of this argument, please go back and seek them for yourself.

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

I've left you two sources in the course of this argument, please go back and seek them for yourself.

The PDF of the God and Bio-ethics persons little power-point show, I presume you mean.

Those are more than likely lifted from Euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, and other medical practices involving the end of life in the Netherlands, 1990-1995 which concludes "Since the notification procedure was introduced, end-of-life decision making in the Netherlands has changed only slightly, in an anticipated direction. Close monitoring of such decisions is possible, and we found no signs of an unacceptable increase in the number of decisions or of less careful decision making."

Euthanasia without explicit request refers to where the patient has discussed it, but not written it down, as far as I'm aware. If you want to argue that phyisicians are committing murder, admitting it, and being let walk in the netherlands, please feel free.

philologos

Leaving aside the fact that you are assuming sources for now. What journal was that published in so I can look it up for myself and read it?

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

Leaving aside the fact that you are assuming sources for now. What journal was that published in so I can look it up for myself and read it?

Google, baby, Google. You'll only find extracts however.

philologos

Nodin wrote: »

Google, baby, Google. You'll only find extracts however.

I think I can log in and get the full thing with my university account. Worth a try anyway

Holopimp

I agree that the terminally ill should legally be helped to take their lives if they so wish. However, I think there should be a strict process that should be followed. For example, they should sign documents stating they wish to be helped to die when they are suffering, and this should be done in the early stages of illness, when they are of sound mind. Otherwise people might end up having their senile grannies bumped off at a whim!

I do feel that people have a right to choice. I have 4 family members with the Huntington's Disease gene, which is a wasting disease similar to Parkinsons. Two of them are currently suffering from the disease, for which there is no cure. The other two are still young and the disease won't kick in until they reach middle age. We believe one of my relatives with the disease even tried to commit suicide a while back, either that or he muddled his meds up. His symptoms have worsened of late, so it pains the family to see him like this. I think if he was given the legal right to choose to die when he is suffering too much, he would have chosen it. But instead we just have to watch him waste away before our eyes.

Blazer

Agreed with what the previous poster said about signing up before you're ever diagnosed.
Myself I'd sign up asap. There's no way on hell I'd want to be lying comatose/brain dead and causing unimaginable suffering to my family if they had to look after me.
Same for cancer or some other terrible disease.
If I had to go then I want it on my terms.

peanut66

irish_bob wrote: »

no , people should only die when thier finished having all the sufferng god intended for them

What a complete idiot!!!

Holopimp

peanut66 wrote: »

What a complete idiot!!!

I agree. And I like how the person uses a big passive aggressive smiley at the end. As if smiling at the end of such a comment makes it better! :D:D:D

Nodin

He was being ironic lads.....