Euthanasia - Agree or Disagree?

Horse_box

I saw an interesting documentary last night on the topic of Euthanasia and it got me thinking.

If someone gets to the stage in their life where everyday is complete agony and suffering, should they be allowed decide that enough is enough and voluntarily end their life through the system of euthanasia?

TPD

Agree completely. What's the benefit in keeping someone alive, against their will, in agony? I certainly wouldn't wish that on anyone I know.

Fukuyama

Agree.

When someone is in a state where they're going to die yet have months left, are in agony, can't control bowel movements etc... are delirious and are causing huge pain upon themselves and a family, why keep them alive?

I would want to go.

Also, people prattle on about God. Well I see it as pure evil to artificially keep someone alive with meds and hospitalisation while they're in agony.

- Dean

drunkmonkey

Shoud we not be testing anti agony drugs on them. Or maybe we could use them for stunts in movies.

drkpower

As long as one can be very confident that the decision of the person was voluntary and informed, why the hell not?

We allow people in similar situations to refuse even the most basic & simple life-saving treatments if they so choose, so there is no good reason why they cannot similarly choose a direct intervention that ends their life.

tallaghtmick

i would only agree if the person was suffering too much

KeithM89_old

If a family member was in extreme pain and terminal, id have no problem with it. Id even do it myself if it came to it...

Micky Dolenz

Euthanasia, it's deadly.

Fittle

Agree 100%. Know a few friends who have elderly parents in nursing homes now - no quality of life whatsoever. If I got to that stage, I'd prefer to be gone.

OP, your first point in your poll makes it sound like we're agreeing with suicide if we say yes to it.

Biggins

I honestly don't know what is the right course of action.
I can see both sides.

storm2811

If someone is feeling depressed and suicidal then I think they can be helped, through counselling or therapy, I don't think it should be available to those who can actually improve and get better, it would seem like a waste of life imo.

To those who are terminally ill however, I think it should be available to them.
I've seen first hand how hard and draining a disease can be on someone and rather than pointlessly struggling on knowing you you could die any day now without a chance to say goodbye, you should have the choice to just end it before all that happens.

A few years ago my grandmother agreed with her doctor and family that once she cannot look after herself anymore or if she forgets who we all are that she would choose euthanasia.
It did upset all of us somewhat but we accepted it and agreed that it was her choice.

Edit: She's Belgian so it's legal there in case anyone was confused, should have mentioned that.

Sulmac

As long as it is strictly regulated, I agree with it - we easily euthanise suffering cats and dogs but not people, even if they request it and are in unbelievable agony.

Any law should be based off the Dutch one:

The law allows medical review board to suspend prosecution of doctors who performed euthanasia when each of the following conditions is fulfilled:

• the patient's suffering is unbearable with no prospect of improvement
• the patient's request for euthanasia must be voluntary and persist over time (the request cannot be granted when under the influence of others, psychological illness or drugs)
• the patient must be fully aware of his/her condition, prospects and options
• there must be consultation with at least one other independent doctor who needs to confirm the conditions mentioned above
• the death must be carried out in a medically appropriate fashion by the doctor or patient, in which case the doctor must be present
• the patient is at least 12 years old (patients between 12 and 16 years of age require the consent of their parents)

Cheap Thrills!

We kind of have it unofficially; Morphene. Once they put you under with that stuff death follows pretty quickly.

drkpower

Fittle wrote: »

OP, your first point in your poll makes it sound like we're agreeing with suicide if we say yes to it.

Euthanasia is suicide; it is just where you get someone else to do it for you. Physician-assisted suicide is an often used term for it.

If you start restricting the medical conditions that someone must be suffering from before they can choose euthanais, you are getting into difficult territory.

It should be a free choice for each individual for whatever reasons they see as appropriate, subject to that individual being capable of making that choice in a free & informed manner..

ScumLord

A person has the right to do whatever they like with their bodies whether anyone else likes it or not. Every effort should be made to offer every alternative to the lose of human life but at the end of the day it's up to the individual what is the best course of action from their point of view.

Wolf Club

Cheap Thrills! wrote: »

We kind of have it unofficially; Morphene. Once they put you under with that stuff death follows pretty quickly.

That's a bit extreme, don't you think? Fair enough, morphene is an incredibly heavy duty painkiller to be used only in circumstances that require it, but to say it has a death sentence attached to it?

kylith

Watching my grandmother die in agony made me a firm believer in euthanasia for the teminally ill. It's horrible to watch someone who used to be so vital reduced to such a state.

We will end a dog's life if they're in agony, we say it would be cruel to let them suffer, so why is it not cruel to let a human suffer?

dcmraad

ScumLord wrote: »

A person has the right to do whatever they like with their bodies whether anyone else likes it or not. Every effort should be made to offer every alternative to the lose of human life but at the end of the day it's up to the individual what is the best course of action from their point of view.

Yeah I agree with you. Watched a family member go from active, to blind, deaf, incont, to empty over a 10 year period.

We do not need religious nonsense clouding judgements, stem cell research will change everything.

kylith

Wolf Club wrote: »

That's a bit extreme, don't you think? Fair enough, morphene is an incredibly heavy duty painkiller to be used only in circumstances that require it, but to say it has a death sentence attached to it?

I know someone who used to be a nurse. She said that if someone was obviously on the way out they would often be given a painkiller that was known to effect breathing, thus hastening their death rather than dragging it out.

dcmraad

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Shoud we not be testing anti agony drugs on them. Or maybe we could use them for stunts in movies.

Renault the car company used the dead bodies of children to crash test their cars.

Dr_Phil

Horse_box wrote: »

should they be allowed decide that enough is enough and voluntarily end their life through the system of euthanasia?

Yes, and whoever thinks otherwise should feel themselves a pain of dying from cancer, which would probably slightly verify their proud and pathetic statements.

Pherekydes

Agree.

Someone go and put Bertie out of our misery.

OutlawPete

We already have a form of Euthanasia which is not really discussed and that is when doctors use morphine in excess. It happens all the time and I witnessed people die where doctors have all but admitted that is what they did, sure happen more often when it obvious that it is needed.

I don't understand letting people die in agony.

To this day I wake up in the middle of the night with images of my father staring at me in agony but yet unable to say anything to me as he was so far gone. ****ing priest came into the room and gave him the last rights and made his suffering even worse by screaming in his ear and saying he had to get his attention, I felt like ****ing the guy out the window.

Have heard similar stories about Children's hospitals too with regards to over medicating to end suffering. An adult can somehow come to grips with the fact that they are dying in pain as cancer spreads throughout their bodies, but a child dying like that is barbaric and as the cliche goes, we wouldn't put an animal through that.

I total agree with Euthanasia and find it a nonsense that sufferers of Motor Neuron Disease and the like have to travel abroad to get help so that their final days in this world are not spent in insufferable agony.

barbarians

I agree with Euthanasia for terminally ill people but not if people just want to end their lives by suicide because they're going through a rough time.

The one thing is though where do you draw the line on it ?
There's bound to be some evil fúckers convincing their elderly, sick parents or whatever to go for Euthanasia just so they can get rid of them and clean up on insurance.

krudler

If I ever get to the stage when I'm mentally incapabable of looking after myself, and have to rely on nurses to change my adult nappies or spoon feed me, I want out of it. Why do we feel its a good thing to make people suffer to their last breath? cos its "gods plan"?

ebixa82

Cheap Thrills! wrote: »

We kind of have it unofficially; Morphene. Once they put you under with that stuff death follows pretty quickly.

My brother was in a car crash in 2006 and broke his back. He was on morphine IV in hospital for weeks and then sevredol (morphine tablets) after...death didn't follow thou..maybe he was an exception to your rule thou!

macquarie

"But why should the young people in asia get to decide who lives or not ?"

-Ali G

drkpower

barbarians wrote: »

I agree with Euthanasia for terminally ill people but not if people just want to end their lives by suicide because they're going through a rough time..

It is perfectly legal for anyone to end their life for whatever reason they choose; why should that choice not be open to those who have physically lost the ability to end their own lives?

Obviously if someone is suffering from a serious psychiatric illness which affects their decision-making capacity, then that should be identified; but that can be done via a relatively straightforward mechanism.

barbarians wrote: »

The one thing is though where do you draw the line on it ?
There's bound to be some evil fúckers convincing their elderly, sick parents or whatever to go for Euthanasia just so they can get rid of them and clean up on insurance.

And that is why you have an appropriate assessment of each individual to ensure that if there is any suspicion of this, it is identified.

But bear in mind that, right now, there are bound to be some evil fúckers convincing elderly people to refuse certain basic life saving treatments for similar and other reasons, yet we dont have any regulatory framework at all around these decisions. Even still though, doctors do, are entitled and are obliged to respect such refusals.

Any proposed euthanasia regime would be absolutely water-tight in comparison to what occurs currently in respect of refusals of treatment.

Agricola

Where the person is suffering greatly, yes I agree with it. Nobody should have to live out their final days in agony. As someone else said, we'd put a dog out of its misery but a human being cant be afforded that privilege? - me arse!

Fighting Irish

religion ftw once again

Aswerty

I'd agree with euthanasia for people who deem their quality of life to be so bad that it is not worth living and who won't recover from whatever it is they are suffering from.

Euthanasia for all should only be considered when we have pretty much conquered disease, depression, aging and live in a world where your average Joe is as enlightened as the best of us are at our current stage.

bronte

If the person is suffering immensely I believe they should be allowed to go with dignity. I know I'd want to have the option.

epgc3fyqirnbsx

I have long thought that if I was in a position where I was terminally ill and was on the verge of losing my facilities that I would go out with a big bang. Literally. It would be a parachute jumo where I would neglect to open the chute and I would be returned to the earth from the heavens and f*ck that degrading suffering nonsense.
Why would you want you last moments of life to be so demeaning and ugly.

I'd go out on my own terms with adrenalin pumping and a smile on my face

drkpower

Of course they do say that noone wants to live to 90....except 89 year olds

Jesus Wept

Cheap Thrills! wrote: »

We kind of have it unofficially; Morphene. Once they put you under with that stuff death follows pretty quickly.

This.

What a dodgy system we have in place.

drkpower

People are hugely over exaggerating the manner in which morphine is used in Ireland in this context.

Where patients are in-patients, are terminal, are in the very final stages of their disease, are in severe pain and require morphine, there is no doubt that doctors have and will administer substantial amounts of morphine, in order to relieve their pain but also in the knowledge that there is a substantial risk of the morphine causing respiratory depression and death. But this only applies to a very small subset of patients who are already in a very very bad condition and who are in intractable pain.

They do not give morphine to patients who are not in severe pain but whose lives have been made a misery through various other synmptoms & conditions.

They do not give excess morphine, in the sense that they do not gove amounts outside the therapeutic indication of the drug; the reason it kills is because the patient's respiratory function is already severely compromoised.

Even substantial doses of morphine will not kill someone who is in earlier phase of their disease but who is still in severe intractable pain.

So while morphine is occasionally given where the doctor knows there is a significant chance of death, the vast majority of patients who might consider euthanaisa as an option do not and cannot avail of this option.

Irish Guitarist

I agree that someone should be allowed to die if they're suffering. Keeping someone alive with loads of pills just isn't natural.

What I don't understand is that pets are put down if they're suffering but people can't be euthanised. Pets get put down because it's "humane". Either this is a lie and it's not humane or veterinarians have more sense than the industry that governs human medical care.

Lust4Life

This poll is not realistic.

No one can really answer such a question unless they have walked this road. And with each person, each illness is unique, each scenario is unique.

If you have ever been a care giver to a terminally ill person,
you know that you would do whatever it takes to keep that person free of pain and love them as much as you can through as much time you have left with them. If you have to feed them and/or wipe their arse, so be it. It is part of the journey and as long as you do it out of love, it is NOT a burden.

However, there certainly is a breaking point, no matter how much love you have for that person. If it were Years rather than months of caring for a terminally ill person, that would certainly wear on a person's sanity and financial well-being.


However, we must also keep in mind the reason they call it "Practicing Medicine". Each patient is individual. Some can beat a deadly disease while others succumb to it at different rates. I feel that it is only when the doctor says "There is no hope of recovery" that euthanasia ought to be considered.

That said, I have also learned in life that even though your doctor recommends that you express your last rights and wishes in writing i.e. a "Living Will" stating that you do or do not want to be hooked up to any artificial life support, that paper is useless when the actual moment comes because those questions don't even apply to most situations unless you are in a car accident or some other instant trauma.

Just an opinion from someone who has walked that road with too many loved ones.

drkpower

Lust4Life wrote: »

That said, I have also learned in life that even though your doctor recommends that you express your last rights and wishes in writing i.e. a "Living Will" stating that you do or do not want to be hooked up to any artificial life support, that paper is useless when the actual moment comes because those questions don't even apply to most situations unless you are in a car accident or some other instant trauma..

I agree with all of what you have said, except this bit.

A 'living will' certainly should be (in law and medical ethics) respected by your doctor as long as it was a free & informed choice and was intended to cover the kind of circumstance that ends up occurring.

stovelid

For the terminally ill or a situation where an illness/accident has robbed a person of the ability to live a life that they consider meaningful/of quality: yes.

Each case should be closely considered on its own merits though.

Lust4Life

I could give several instances of where a person fills out these wishes feeling they are well informed and ready to face any situation regarding this and then when the moment arrives, they feel differently.

For example, my father said "No Heroics or life prolonging measures should be implemented." But when he had reached his last days, and found that breathing was difficult, the nurse refused giving him oxygen at first, saying that this was a means of prolonging life and is not in is wishes.

As a family, we demanded that they give him oxygen for comfort, and they finally gave in to our wishes. Struggling for your last breath is no way to leave this world.

They will also say that the patient must verbally express that they want anything that may go against their written last wishes. But when you cannot breathe, you cannot talk either.

Firetrap

I've a close relative who's a classic candidate for euthanasia. This person isn't in any condition to make a decision for themselves about what their wishes are. My overwhelming feeling when they finally die is that it's a relief and I'm glad they're not suffering anymore. I agree that there should be euthanasia - I'd certainly want it for myself - but it's easy talk. Not so easy to be the person who pulls the plug.

Magenta

I think euthanasia should be allowed.

2 scenarios.

My cat is hit by a car. She survives, but is so badly injured that she is going to be paralysed for the rest of her life. She will be unable to do anything for herself and will have a low quality of life.

In that situation, I would have the cat put to sleep- she would have little quality of life if kept alive.

If I was hit by that same car, I would be kept alive and would be in a wheelchair, unable to take care of myself, for the rest of my days. I would suffer everything that the cat was spared from.

drkpower

Lust4Life wrote: »

I could give several instances of where a person fills out these wishes feeling they are well informed and ready to face any situation regarding this and then when the moment arrives, they feel differently..

Absolutely; any 'living will' is immediately revoked if someone expresses a contrary intention/wish. But i agree with you that one of the difficulties of 'living wills' as a concept is that they may be written at a point in time when the patient may not realise what lies ahead. That is why anyone wanting a living will to be respected should update it and re-execute it regularly.

Lust4Life wrote: »

For example, my father said "No Heroics or life prolonging measures should be implemented." But when he had reached his last days, and found that breathing was difficult, the nurse refused giving him oxygen at first, saying that this was a means of prolonging life and is not in is wishes.

As a family, we demanded that they give him oxygen for comfort, and they finally gave in to our wishes. Struggling for your last breath is no way to leave this world..

In fairness, i think that nurse was just dumb! Oxygen wouldnt be considered 'Heroics or life prolonging' by anyone who has a clue.

Lust4Life wrote: »

They will also say that the patient must verbally express that they want anything that may go against their written last wishes. But when you cannot breathe, you cannot talk either.

Verbally, in writing, by signalling....; any way of expressing your intention will revoke a previous living will.

drkpower

Firetrap wrote: »

I've a close relative who's a classic candidate for euthanasia. This person isn't in any condition to make a decision for themselves about what their wishes are. .

That is a classic example of someone who is not a candidate for euthanasia.

The absolute pre-requisite to euthanasia is that the person must be able to express their own intentions or the person was, at some point in the past, able to express those intentions.

Firetrap

I disagree. How would you like to be a vegetable being kept alive by a feeding tube and with absolutely zero chance of ever improving? Just because the conversation about euthanasia was never had. I'm sorry but speaking from the perspective of someone who has to go visit someone I love and to see them in that state, I don't think you are being fair here.

ardinn

ebixa82 wrote: »

My brother was in a car crash in 2006 and broke his back. He was on morphine IV in hospital for weeks and then sevredol (morphine tablets) after...death didn't follow thou..maybe he was an exception to your rule thou!

You're not following - Its essentially a doctor giving a patient an overdose of morphine - And it happens everyday - we just shut up about it cause we know its right.!!

Magenta

drkpower wrote:

The absolute pre-requisite to euthanasia is that the person must be able to express their own intentions or the person was, at some point in the past, able to express those intentions.

Firetrap wrote: »

I disagree. How would you like to be a vegetable being kept alive by a feeding tube and with absolutely zero chance of ever improving? Just because the conversation about euthanasia was never had. I'm sorry but speaking from the perspective of someone who has to go visit someone I love and to see them in that state, I don't think you are being fair here.

I agree with Firetrap.
With animals, obviously they can never express their intentions- but as their owner, you can make the decision on their behalf.
I think that with people, even though they never expressed their intentions, if they cannot do so now (due to being in a vegetative state etc) the family should be allowed to make the decision on their behalf.

drkpower

Firetrap wrote: »

I disagree. How would you like to be a vegetable being kept alive by a feeding tube and with absolutely zero chance of ever improving? Just because the conversation about euthanasia was never had. I'm sorry but speaking from the perspective of someone who has to go visit someone I love and to see them in that state, I don't think you are being fair here.

I wouldnt like to be any of those things. But choosing to end the life of someone who has never expressed their own wishes is extremely dangerous territory.

Firetrap wrote: »

I think that with people, even though they never expressed their intentions, if they cannot do so now (due to being in a vegetative state etc) the family should be allowed to make the decision on their behalf. .

Someone's family does not have and should not have any right to make treatment decisions on behalf of their family members.

However, in the case of life-prolonging treatments for patients in permanent vegetative states where there is no reasonable prospect of that state ending, i am of the view that doctors should be entitled to withdraw treatment.

Firetrap

Dangerous how? The person I speak of has massive brain damage, would be dead if they weren't being kept alive by a feeding tube and has a frankly shyte quality of life. It wasn't their choice to have the feeding tube fitted in the first place.

drkpower

Firetrap wrote: »

Dangerous how? The person I speak of has massive brain damage, would be dead if they weren't being kept alive by a feeding tube and has a frankly shyte quality of life. It wasn't their choice to have the feeding tube fitted in the first place.

As i said in my edit, in cases of life-prolonging treatments for patients in permanent vegetative states where there is no reasonable prospect of that state ending, i am of the view that doctors should be entitled to withdraw treatment.

The 'dangers' are where family members are entitled to end a patient's life where they believe that patient has a bad quality of life and where that patient has never expressed their view as to the circumstances in which they would want to end their life. The dangers of that scenario are self-evident.