Do you agree or disagree with assisted suicide/euthinasia?

cynder

I agree with assisted suicide and euthinasia.

would i be able to kill someone i loved that was already dying and in pain I do not know. I dont think I could.

How about you?

AnonoBoy

grindelwald wrote: »

I agree with assisted suicide and euthinasia, would i be able to kill someone i loved that was dying i do not know.

How about you?

I'd be able to kill your loved ones I'd say.

KingLoser

what has everyone got against young asian people?!

mehmeh12

Definitely plus one.

In some situations death is better than life. I had a neighbor who recently suffered from a stroke. For the last 12 months of his life he was confined to bed, unable to move, completely dependent on others ,etc. Terrible way to go.

mehmeh12

KingLoser wrote: »

what has everyone got against young asian people?!

????

WindSock

I agree if the person gives consent.

opinion guy

grindelwald wrote: »

I agree with assisted suicide and euthinasia.

would i be able to kill someone i loved that was already dying and in pain I do not know. I dont think I could.

How about you?

How do you know they won't discover the cure the next day. Or the next week.Or in a month. Maybe a year.

WindSock

mehmeh12 wrote: »

????

Euthanasia.

cynder

As the saying goes "you wouldn't let your dog suffer".

I had an uncle who had a brain tumor he died last september age 56 (5 weeks after my dad age 54) he lost his sight and use of limbs a year ago and just lay in bead waiting for death, he had no means of comunicating and was tub fed.

If that was your pet it would have been euthanized long before its condition got that bad.

KingLoser

grindelwald wrote: »

As the saying goes "you wouldn't let your dog suffer".

I had an uncle who had a brain tumor he died last september age 56 (5 weeks after my dad age 54) he lost his sight and use of limbs a year ago and just lay in bead waiting for death, he had no means of comunicating and was tub fed.

If that was your pet it would have been euthanized long before its condition got that bad.

Pets don't normally have greedy relatives with lawyers.

Normally.

cynder

Voluntary euthanasia

Main article: Voluntary euthanasia
Euthanasia conducted with consent is termed voluntary euthanasia.
Involuntary euthanasia

Main article: Involuntary euthanasia
Euthanasia conducted without consent is termed involuntary euthanasia. Involuntary euthanasia is conducted where an individual makes a decision for another person incapable of doing so.
Procedural decision

Both voluntary and involuntary euthanasia can be conducted passively or actively. A number of authors consider these terms to be misleading and unhelpful.[1]
Passive euthanasia

Passive euthanasia entails the withholding of common treatments, such as antibiotics, necessary for the continuance of life. Whether the administration of increasingly necessary, albeit toxic doses of opioid analgesia is regarded as active or passive euthanasia is a matter of moral interpretation, but in order to pacify doctors' consciences, it is usually regarded as a passive measure.[1]
Active euthanasia

Active euthanasia entails the use of lethal substances or forces to kill and is the most controversial means. An individual may use a euthanasia machine to perform active voluntary euthanasia on himself / herself.

cynder

KingLoser wrote: »

Pets don't normally have greedy relatives with lawyers.

Normally.

very very true, however what if the person had nothing?

NothingMan

Well as it is we pretty much do euthenise people just in a much more slower and painful way.

My friends Mother was dying of cancer and she was close to the end and she was just doped up on morphine and not fed until she died. In that scenario, once the decision to leave her in a drug induced coma and not feed her, has been made, one needle to end it a week sooner is, imo, much more humane and easier on the person. Not sure how it could effect some family though. You could always be thinking "what if" type scenarios.

meditraitor

Im for it,

BennyLava

I would agree with it, (having watched a family member die, a particularly unpleasant death)

but it would have to be strictly monitored / sanctioned by an independent assessment team evaluating cases on a case by case basis

preilly79

turn the question around and ask the question of yourself: if you were on your death bed, in agony, unable to communicate, move, see or hear, what would you want your family to do?

cynder

NothingMan wrote: »

Well as it is we pretty much do euthenise people just in a much more slower and painful way.

My friends Mother was dying of cancer and she was close to the end and she was just doped up on morphine and not fed until she died. In that scenario, once the decision to leave her in a drug induced coma and not feed her, has been made, one needle to end it a week sooner is, imo, much more humane and easier on the person. Not sure how it could effect some family though. You could always be thinking "what if" type scenarios.

Thats what happend to my dad he had kidney and liver failure and they put him in a drug induced coma. I didnt get to the uk in time and he died of a massive internal bleed. But im glad that he went quickly rather than over a week or 2. I didnt get to say goodbye but im glad he didnt suffer.

cynder

preilly79 wrote: »

turn the question around and ask the question of yourself: if you were on your death bed, in agony, unable to communicate, move, see or hear, what would you want your family to do?

Kill me!!!!!:cool:

twitch1984

People should be allowed to decide if they want to live and fight or numb the pain permanently, afterall it is them who are suffering not the doctors or theire friends and family.
yes it is hard when a loved one dies but its twice as hard to see them suffer while waiting for death.
so yes if the person wants to i am fully 100% for assisted/euthanasia

seamus

grindelwald wrote: »

very very true, however what if the person had nothing?

There are still no win-no fee solicitors out there hungry for a medical malpractice suit.

The main problem in Ireland is that even if you refuse medical treatment for yourself and you die, family members may still pursue the doctors after your death claiming that they failed to provide adequate or the correct treatment.

Not so long ago - 60s and 70s, geriatric patients who presented with serious medical conditions were often just made more comfortable - sent home with some drugs to ease the pain and die in dignity surrounded by their families. It can be inhumane to put a much older patient through serious surgery or medical procedures only to extend their life by a few months - most of which is spent sitting in a hospital bed, miserable and out of it.

However, with the rise of litigation, doctors have been sued on a number of fronts:
1. That they didn't do everything possible to save the patient
2. Where the patient refused treatment, the family claims that the patient wasn't sufficiently informed or of sound mind to refuse the treatment.

At present, any geriatric patient who refuses a medical procedure is assessed by a psychiatric counsellor before they can be discharged.

I would be very much in favour of a system that allowed a patient to opt for euthanasia, with a simple formal procedure in place:

Where the patient is under 70, they must present evidence that they are suffering from an permanent, incurable disease which may or may not be fatal, but in any case will result in a need for constant care or death - such as motor neuron disease.

Where the patient is over 70, they can opt for it as they like.

The paperwork should be signed off by a number of people:

Two psychiatrists
One doctor
Two members of the patient's family, with priority given in the following order:
1. Spouse
2. Child
3. Parent
4. Sibling
5. Sibling's child
6. Parent's Sibling
7. First Cousin

i.e. In a normal case, the paperwork *must* be signed off by the spouse and at least one child. Where there is no spouse, the signature of two children is required, and so on.

Where the person has no blood relatives to sign off, the signature of two doctors will suffice.

Any legislation should also safeguard all parties from legal action initiated by any member of the deceased's family.


We have the ability and presence of mind in this day and age to allow people to choose how, when and where their child arrives into this world. Surely we should afford the same choice for people leaving this world?

stovelid

Generally, yes I do support it, but each case (and the consent involved) is different, I guess.

Abi

After a psychological evaluation if the wanna log off, they should be allowed imo.

grindelwald wrote: »

would i be able to kill someone i loved that was already dying and in pain I do not know. I dont think I could.

I thought that too, but a quick insult or punch and they're a gonner.

omahaid

Ya course, if the time comes I hope it is available for me.

cafecolour

If someone else wants it, i'd say it's their choice.

I wouldn't want it for myself though. If I was in an unresponsive coma, I'd prefer my brain me transplanted into an android exoskeleton.

RoadKillTs

I say .... YES! Its their choice. If they are in serious pain and going to die regardless why shouldn't they have the choice to end it on their own terms?

omahaid

cafecolour wrote: »

I'd prefer my brain me transplanted into an android exoskeleton.

Hmm, if this option is available, I'll probably take that over euthanasia.

Jemmaa

I don't know.

Elenxor

.....when I decide to go with dignity and having said my fond goodbye's to my loved ones.

I did't have a say in my birth, but I sure as 'ell will decide when it's time for me to go.
(I hope)
and what's all this horse**** about Asian youth?

WindSock wrote: »

I agree if the person gives consent.

Lux23

I think it should be an option for people. Like a previous poster said people nearing the end of a terminal illness are often given more pain relief then they really need and it helps them to pass on in more comfort. If I had an illness where I was confined to a bed with little or no chance of recovery I would want to die. The only way that may change is if I had children and there was a chance that I could see them grow up a little bit more.

If a parent or sibling asked me to help them to die and there was no chance of survival or a decent life then I would like to think I could help them. But its not worth thinking about right now, thankfully.

Bonito

grindelwald wrote: »

I agree with assisted suicide and euthinasia.

would i be able to kill someone i loved that was already dying and in pain I do not know. I dont think I could.

How about you?

TBH I am baffled. You say you support it? So, tell me, what's the difference with this http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64644219&postcount=17

The mother aborted a child who, most likely, was going to have a pretty worthless life, and you went in to uproar about it. Yet you are saying that if someone is left dying and in pain you'd support assisted suicide or euthanasia?

Is that not somewhat, hypocritical? Especially when you consider A) The mother most likely would have died during birth and The child was most likely going to be born with one or more disabilities. Also if the childs mother was not there due to dying giving birth what sort of a life would that disabled child and his disabled brother have?

It confuses me as to how you can go against an abortion when it's done for the right reasons but you can go with assisted suicide/euthanasia.

caseyann

Depends on expectancy of saving the person.If you cant and they wish to go they should be allowed to end their lives with help to relieve them of their pain and suffering.

Elenxor

Bonito wrote: »

TBH I am baffled. You say you support it? So, tell me, what's the difference with this http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64644219&postcount=17

The mother aborted a child who, most likely, was going to have a pretty worthless life, and you went in to uproar about it. Yet you are saying that if someone is left dying and in pain you'd support assisted suicide or euthanasia?

Is that not somewhat, hypocritical? Especially when you consider A) The mother most likely would have died during birth and The child was most likely going to be born with one or more disabilities. Also if the childs mother was not there due to dying giving birth what sort of a life would that disabled child and his disabled brother have?

It confuses me as to how you can go against an abortion when it's done for the right reasons but you can go with assisted suicide/euthanasia.

OH OH!!!
Here he goes....AGAIN and if you get into it with him...you are crazy.

bye now..

cynder

I hate abortion because it ends a life before it has started it hasnt even given the baby a chance (there are people who are out there who would love to adopt).

I agree with assisted suicide and euthinasia because the person has a choice over their life to continue in pain or not (a fetus has no choice).

say for instance my sister in law who has pulmonary hypertension Life expectancy 5 years, now down to 3. she is in a electric wheelchair and has 24 oxegen, needs a heart and lungs transplant to survive. She will at some point be to sick for a transplant, her quality of life will be diminished to the state she is bed ridden (the woman who had the abortion wasnt bed ridden). she will then die a horrible death. Where her pain and suffering could be eased by euthinasia IF THAT WAS HER CHOICE.

My husband had cancer (now in remission) that would have been his choice if he was terminal.

also I get pregnant, i have my kids and take whatever illness and disbilities they have (i have a diabetic and possible asd/adhd). A mothers love has no conditions and no boundaries and is not selfish . I would gladly die for my kids.

My mother told me years ago that if she was ever on life support and there was a 50% chance of her being a veg then turn off the machine. there aint a hope in hell she wants to be kept alive as a veg. Same goes for me.....

Bonito

Before I start I'm not arguing with you so apologies in advance if I come across in that light.

grindelwald wrote: »

I hate abortion because it ends a life before it has started it hasnt even given the baby a chance (there are people who are out there who would love to adopt).

I agree with this with the exception that the child is healthy and there's no risk to the mothers life. Cases like that should not be treated with an abortion. With the amount of complications this particular woman had it was not worth the risk of either her life nor taking a chance of her new born to come out without any disabilities. Your thread generalises in the title and then within it gives specific situations which is spot on perfection. Now, if you look in hindsight on your reaction to this particular woman's case do you still believe terminating her pregnancy was not justified?

I agree with assisted suicide and euthinasia because the person has a choice over their life to continue in pain or not (a fetus has no choice).

Sure nobody can tell her what's right or wrong, or anyone else for that matter. It's her body. Also a child has no say in what happens to them 'til they reach adulthood anyway so if you think about it final decisions always come down to a parent regardless of the situation and you just have to trust those parents to do what they see right.

say for instance my sister in law who has pulmonary hypertension Life expectancy 5 years, now down to 3. she is in a electric wheelchair and has 24 oxegen, needs a heart and lungs transplant to survive. She will at some point be to sick for a transplant, her quality of life will be diminished to the state she is bed ridden (the woman who had the abortion wasnt bed ridden). she will then die a horrible death. Where her pain and suffering could be eased by euthinasia IF THAT WAS HER CHOICE.

My husband had cancer (now in remission) that would have been his choice if he was terminal.

My mother told me years ago that if she was ever on life support and there was a 50% chance of her being a veg then turn off the machine. there aint a hope in hell she wants to be kept alive as a veg. Same goes for me.....

These are particular cases and I am in agreement with you but, you have to treat like for like and see every case for what it is. You can't look at the depths of one case and say yes that was justified but then look at another and slam on the brakes just because it's labeled abortion or assisted suicide. It must be means tested as it's not for everyone. Depending on the particular case I can't say whether I would be in favour or not. What I can say though is this. If a friend or a loved one said to me that they never want to be in a cabbaged state or on a life support machine then there would be no second thought to either switch their machine off or (if it were legal) assist them in leaving peacefully.

cynder

Abitar wrote: »

After a psychological evaluation if the wanna log off, they should be allowed imo.


I thought that too, but a quick insult or punch and they're a gonner.

I laugh every time i read it........:D

Abi

You think I'm messing

dvpower

preilly79 wrote: »

turn the question around and ask the question of yourself: if you were on your death bed, in agony, unable to communicate, move, see or hear, what would you want your family to do?

Stay away from my stuff.

Bonito

Elenxor wrote: »

OH OH!!!
Here he goes....AGAIN and if you get into it with him...you are crazy.

bye now..

The irony of your sig is brilliant! I think you should change it :rolleyes:

opinion guy

On balance I disagree with assisted suicide/euthinasia. Even if you can make arguments for it on an individual case, its SOooooo open for abuse I think any attempt to legalise it cause more problems than it solves.

cynder

opinion guy wrote: »

On balance I disagree with assisted suicide/euthinasia. Even if you can make arguments for it on an individual case, its SOooooo open for abuse I think any attempt to legalise it cause more problems than it solves.

very true, many out there would abuse it.

ScumLord

opinion guy wrote: »

On balance I disagree with assisted suicide/euthinasia. Even if you can make arguments for it on an individual case, its SOooooo open for abuse I think any attempt to legalise it cause more problems than it solves.

That's the big fear, that it could be used by depressed people or people that think they're breasts aren't big enough, small enough. I don't like that kind of attitude though, I understand it but I really don't like it, I think it holds back development and improvement in so many areas. The limits would be set for people with untreatable fatal conditions where it's just a matter of time and the patient will be in pain, or in a coma due to the medications needed to dull the pain.

christina_x

it depends...
i do agree with it, say if a person is suffering from a long term illness, is in severe pain and there is no chance for recovery, then yeah i think its more humane than letting them suffer

opinion guy

opinion guy wrote: »

How do you know they won't discover the cure the next day. Or the next week.Or in a month. Maybe a year.

So I thought this was a good point but noone seemed to pick up on this. Say you kill your gramps and a week later they announce a discovery that would have cured her ?

ScumLord wrote: »

That's the big fear, that it could be used by depressed people or people that think they're breasts aren't big enough, small enough. I don't like that kind of attitude though, I understand it but I really don't like it, I think it holds back development and improvement in so many areas. The limits would be set for people with untreatable fatal conditions where it's just a matter of time and the patient will be in pain, or in a coma due to the medications needed to dull the pain.

Thats not the form of abuse I meant - thou its also a point. I meant people being coerced etc.
"OH sure granny waht have you got to live her with your dodgy hips and bad ticker. All your millions can't buy you back your youth after all. Tell that nice Dr Death you'd like him to help you ?"

This is what I mean. Its very easy for someone to subtly influcence a sick person for their own ends.

Mike 1972

I dunno why people are lumping assisted suicide and euthanasia together they are two different things.

Euthanasia for example could include unconscious patients who are unable to express their wishes either way.

Im all in favour of assisted suicided being legal. It is the persons life and nobody elses and to forcibly keep a person of sound mind alive under such circumstances is a form of torture. Anyone who would attempt to do such a thing quite frankly deserves to be put down themselves.

This "greedy relatives" stuff is pure scaremongering but if someone really has genuine concerns in this regard it is very simple to make a will with a clause stating that under such circumstances all their money/assets is going to the dogs home.

opinion guy wrote: »

How do you know they won't discover the cure the next day. Or the next week.Or in a month. Maybe a year.

Cryogenics anyone :pac:

seamus

opinion guy wrote: »

So I thought this was a good point but noone seemed to pick up on this. Say you kill your gramps and a week later they announce a discovery that would have cured her ?

Cures don't appear suddenly and miraculously. Someone works on it for a long time, starts small scale tests on animals and such, then moves it onto clinical trials and so forth. Even if a discovery is made that could lead to a cure, there's still a lot of work to be done, and a lot of chances that it won't come to fruition.

The doctors advising gramps should be experts in whatever illness he has and should be aware of these potential new treatments being tested and can advise gramps on their likelihood of having a real effect and the estimated timescale on it coming out. It can take 10 or more years for a "discovery" to become a workable cure that reaches clinical trials.

Then gramps can decide whether or not he wants to wait and see or just go anyway.
Remember that all treatments are ultimately just delaying the inevitable - having a 90-year-old woman endure chemotherapy for example, seems a bit pointless.

Thats not the form of abuse I meant - thou its also a point. I meant people being coerced etc.
"OH sure granny waht have you got to live her with your dodgy hips and bad ticker. All your millions can't buy you back your youth after all. Tell that nice Dr Death you'd like him to help you ?"

This is what I mean. Its very easy for someone to subtly influcence a sick person for their own ends.

This is why you don't sell it over the counter or make it as easy as going in at 9am, stamping some forms and having a funeral by lunchtime.

You get objective 3rd parties involved to discuss it with the potential deceased and assess if they are making the decision freely and clearly thinking about it.

opinion guy

seamus wrote: »

Cures don't appear suddenly and miraculously. Someone works on it for a long time, starts small scale tests on animals and such, then moves it onto clinical trials and so forth. Even if a discovery is made that could lead to a cure, there's still a lot of work to be done, and a lot of chances that it won't come to fruition.

The doctors advising gramps should be experts in whatever illness he has and should be aware of these potential new treatments being tested and can advise gramps on their likelihood of having a real effect and the estimated timescale on it coming out. It can take 10 or more years for a "discovery" to become a workable cure that reaches clinical trials.

I'm well aware of all this. My post was deliberately tongue in cheek. Now imagine the cure is not next week, but instead next month, or maybe next year, maybe 5 years. Perhaps the person would have many more years of happy life thereafter - who is to know ? Where is the cut-off point of whats an acceptable trade off ?

Then gramps can decide whether or not he wants to wait and see or just go anyway.
Remember that all treatments are ultimately just delaying the inevitable - having a 90-year-old woman endure chemotherapy for example, seems a bit pointless.
This is why you don't sell it over the counter or make it as easy as going in at 9am, stamping some forms and having a funeral by lunchtime.

You get objective 3rd parties involved to discuss it with the potential deceased and assess if they are making the decision freely and clearly thinking about it.

Mike 1972 wrote:

This "greedy relatives" stuff is pure scaremongering but if someone really has genuine concerns in this regard it is very simple to make a will with a clause stating that under such circumstances all their money/assets is going to the dogs home.

No it is not scaremongering - elder abuse, phyiscal, mental and emotinoal is a very common thing. It also can be very subtle and sometimes difficult to spot. Even when you involve 3rd parties its not that simple. At then end of the day the relatives have most access to the person and can be saying whatever to them when the 3rd party is not their. If you were a doctor, trained to heal and do no harm, would you like to have the responsiblity of this 3rd party role suddenly added to your job description ? I think not

Mike 1972

opinion guy wrote: »

No it is not scaremongering

Why quote an entire paragraph if youre only going to respond to the first seven words ?

lcrcboy

put a poll up

seamus

opinion guy wrote: »

Where is the cut-off point of whats an acceptable trade off ?

That's for the person themselves to decide - "Am I willing to put with this for another five years and we'll see if something promising comes along?". You can use the "something better might come along tomorrow" argument to talk yourself out of almost anything.

oppenheimer1

Of course it shouldn't be allowed. There is no system that can protect against coercion, no matter how well intentioned. If allowed, the system will be abused, and the most vunerable will suffer.

What would happen say if an elderly person with chronic health problems fell into a bout of undiagnosed depression? Elderly people could be made to feel wrongly like a burden on society. Its a dangerous path to start walking down.

ScumLord

opinion guy wrote: »

Thats not the form of abuse I meant - thou its also a point. I meant people being coerced etc.
"OH sure granny waht have you got to live her with your dodgy hips and bad ticker. All your millions can't buy you back your youth after all. Tell that nice Dr Death you'd like him to help you ?"

This is what I mean. Its very easy for someone to subtly influcence a sick person for their own ends.

Overall that kind of stuff is going to be rare, the death of a relative is also going to cause upheaval in the family, in some situations that can't be avoided. It will be up to the doctor most likely to decide if euthanasia is even an available option. If he thinks the family are coercing the patient into asking for the treatment they could be accused of attempted murder so it would be a serious thing for them to try and do.