Euthanasia

Gael23

Been following a blogger documenting his battle with terminal cancer the past few months. He lost that battle at the end of September.
More recently his family have posted a clip describing the last few days of his life and to be honest it’s fairly horrific. Things like vomiting so violently it projects up to the ceiling of his hospice room.
An animal wouldn’t be allowed to suffer like that so why should a human being?

Canis Lupus

Gael23 wrote: »

Been following a blogger documenting his battle with terminal cancer the past few months. He lost that battle at the end of September.
More recently his family have posted a clip describing the last few days of his life and to be honest it’s fairly horrific. Things like vomiting so violently it projects up to the ceiling of his hospice room.
An animal wouldn’t be allowed to suffer like that so why should a human being?

Because religion and politics.

Gael23

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Because religion and politics.

Should the politics be changed?

AllForIt

Gael23 wrote: »

Been following a blogger documenting his battle with terminal cancer the past few months. He lost that battle at the end of September.
More recently his family have posted a clip describing the last few days of his life and to be honest it’s fairly horrific. Things like vomiting so violently it projects up to the ceiling of his hospice room.
An animal wouldn’t be allowed to suffer like that so why should a human being?

Because ideologues like SJW's who are the scourge of at least western society object to it for their own self serving reasons. It appalls me the arguments they put forward in objection to it. They would rather ppl suffer unnecessarily only so they feel some higher virtue is being defended which they themselves can feel good about because they are the ones defending it.

Capt'n Midnight

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Because religion and politics.

and corporate welfare.

In the US it's as if For Profit healthcare will keep alive long enough to drain your remaining asses regardless.

JustAYoungLad

AllForIt wrote: »

Because ideologues like SJW's who are the scourge of at least western society object to it for their own self serving reasons. It appalls me the arguments they put forward in objection to it. They would rather ppl suffer unnecessarily only so they feel some higher virtue is being defended which they themselves can feel good about because they are the ones defending it.

Mate what does this have to do with the SJWs?

Jessie Belle

I believe in choice and that this should 100% be legalised. If I cant wipe my arse, am dribbling like a teething baby and don't recognise my loved ones I give full permission to euthanise me.


















Unless I'm pissed. Wait til the next morning just in case.

AllForIt

JustAYoungLad wrote: »

Mate what does this have to do with the SJWs?

Because imo SJW are driven by ideological values just like say staunch Catholics. It is my belief that SJW's aren't solely concerned with equality amongst minorities but they are a kind of religion that isn't a religion in that they subscribe to ideological values.... to a fault. They are never pragmatic but ideological. This isn't surprising as affiliation to religions recedes in the west so it's a place for those types to go. So I'm saying SJW's are a bit more than ppl who simply defend social minority issues. It's a mentality not dissimilar to that of a staunch religious person which would rather ppl suffer in order to protect their ideological values.

gigantic09

Gael23 wrote: »

Been following a blogger documenting his battle with terminal cancer the past few months. He lost that battle at the end of September.
More recently his family have posted a clip describing the last few days of his life and to be honest it’s fairly horrific. Things like vomiting so violently it projects up to the ceiling of his hospice room.
An animal wouldn’t be allowed to suffer like that so why should a human being?

Having witnessed a friend ending his days in in the manner you describe I fully agree with your sentiments. While death by lethal injection is used on criminals in some societies, and seen as justifiable, why is the humane ending of a terminally ill person's (in severe pain) life, such a taboo.lm not afraid to die but I fear dying with no dignity and in a pain that's present through every waking hour.

JustAYoungLad

AllForIt wrote: »

Because imo SJW are driven by ideological values just like say staunch Catholics. It is my belief that SJW's aren't solely concerned with equality amongst minorities but they are a kind of religion that isn't a religion in that they subscribe to ideological values.... to a fault. They are never pragmatic but ideological. This isn't surprising as affiliation to religions recedes in the west so it's a place for those types to go. So I'm saying SJW's are a bit more than ppl who simply defend social minority issues. It's a mentality not dissimilar to that of a staunch religious person which would rather ppl suffer in order to protect their ideological values.

You ever feel like youre shoehorning in your personal politics in tangential topics?

Mate if theres any institution out there against euthanasia its the catholic church.

Ursus Horribilis

This has reared its head in the UK as well and it's not a Catholic country by any means. I hope that as time goes on, euthanasia will be destigmatised. We all know far more now about the miserable lives and deaths suffered by many people. All because, it seems, there are no other options. I feel strongly about this issue after watching a loved one die slowly and horribly. Around the same time, a family pet had to be put to sleep. It makes no sense that an animal has the right to a quick death whereas a human has to be put through hell before they eventually expire. Palliative care or no palliative care, it's barbaric.

AndrewJRenko

AllForIt wrote: »

Because imo SJW are driven by ideological values just like say staunch Catholics. It is my belief that SJW's aren't solely concerned with equality amongst minorities but they are a kind of religion that isn't a religion in that they subscribe to ideological values.... to a fault. They are never pragmatic but ideological. This isn't surprising as affiliation to religions recedes in the west so it's a place for those types to go. So I'm saying SJW's are a bit more than ppl who simply defend social minority issues. It's a mentality not dissimilar to that of a staunch religious person which would rather ppl suffer in order to protect their ideological values.

That looks like a strong ideological value on your part.

judeboy101

To play devils advocate, there is no way to 100% exclude the possibility that family friends may coerce or influence the process for their own reasons, which may not tally with the reasons of the person being euthanised, hence why i can't support it.

Graces7

judeboy101 wrote: »

To play devils advocate, there is no way to 100% exclude the possibility that family friends may coerce or influence the process for their own reasons, which may not tally with the reasons of the person being euthanised, hence why i can't support it.

Thank you,. When they introduced it in Holland it got abused in many ways and still is.

Brian?

AllForIt wrote: »

Because ideologues like SJW's who are the scourge of at least western society object to it for their own self serving reasons. It appalls me the arguments they put forward in objection to it. They would rather ppl suffer unnecessarily only so they feel some higher virtue is being defended which they themselves can feel good about because they are the ones defending it.

Why blame SJWs? It’s the religious conservatives who object to euthanasia, for the most part. Most progressive or left leaning people are in favour of it.

You need to pick the right target for your anger.

Brian?

AllForIt wrote: »

Because imo SJW are driven by ideological values just like say staunch Catholics. It is my belief that SJW's aren't solely concerned with equality amongst minorities but they are a kind of religion that isn't a religion in that they subscribe to ideological values.... to a fault. They are never pragmatic but ideological. This isn't surprising as affiliation to religions recedes in the west so it's a place for those types to go. So I'm saying SJW's are a bit more than ppl who simply defend social minority issues. It's a mentality not dissimilar to that of a staunch religious person which would rather ppl suffer in order to protect their ideological values.

What has that got to do with euthanasia?

Essien

judeboy101 wrote: »

To play devils advocate, there is no way to 100% exclude the possibility that family friends may coerce or influence the process for their own reasons, which may not tally with the reasons of the person being euthanised, hence why i can't support it.

I think I'd be ok with that if it meant that in the vast majority of cases, terminally ill people didn't need need to suffer unnecessarily.

kneemos

From what I've seen doctors are eager enough with the do not resuscitate forms.

Graces7

Essien wrote: »

I think I'd be ok with that if it meant that in the vast majority of cases, terminally ill people didn't need need to suffer unnecessarily.

With good hospice care, they don't.

Spleerbun

While AllForIt's description of SJWs is absolutely spot on, I do agree it's a bit shoehorned into this topic. SJWs aren't what's holding back euthanasia

JustAYoungLad

Spleerbun wrote: »

While AllForIt's description of SJWs is absolutely spot on, I do agree it's a bit shoehorned into this topic. SJWs aren't what's holding back euthanasia

Mate his generic definition can fit literally almost any self righteous institution.

Mrs OBumble

Essien wrote: »

I think I'd be ok with that if it meant that in the vast majority of cases, terminally ill people didn't need need to suffer unnecessarily.

We're all going to die anyway, so what does terminal illness have to do with it - shouldn't we all be avoiding unnecessary suffering?

So how do you distinguish between necessary and unnecessary suffering?

Is the anguish experienced by a teenager with severe clinical depression really necessary? Why shouldn't they be allowed to request a doctor to kill them.

What about an elderly man with prostrate cancer? It's terminal - it will kill him eventually, but only if nothing else does first. What if he has something else non-terminal that's causing him far more suffering than the cancer is - can he request it?

Gael23

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

We're all going to die anyway, so what does terminal illness have to do with it - shouldn't we all be avoiding unnecessary suffering?

So how do you distinguish between necessary and unnecessary suffering?

Is the anguish experienced by a teenager with severe clinical depression really necessary? Why shouldn't they be allowed to request a doctor to kill them.

What about an elderly man with prostrate cancer? It's terminal - it will kill him eventually, but only if nothing else does first. What if he has something else non-terminal that's causing him far more suffering than the cancer is - can he request it?

I agree with you mostly. But what about someone facing imminent death , should there be a point where a patients medical team and next of kin can decide enough is enough and alleviate further suffering leading up to what is going to happen anyway within a short time?

Graces7

Gael23 wrote: »

I agree with you mostly. But what about someone facing imminent death , should there be a point where a patients medical team and next of kin can decide enough is enough and alleviate further suffering leading up to what is going to happen anyway within a short time?

wedges have very thin ends.. One of the cases in Holland was a young professional ballet dancer of 24 who had injured her foot and was told she would never dance again. She requested and gained euthanasia.

You mean something like this ?

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-23698071

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool_Care_Pathway_for_the_Dying_Patient

granturismo

Whats wrong with the youth in asia?

Deebles McBeebles

What's wrong with Megadeth's 1994 tour-de-force, Youthanasia?

If we could get rid of all the sick, think of all the money we'd save (especially when combined with previous eminent proposals to get rid of immigrants, Travellers and women who don't fit into Dr Strangelove-style scenarios).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzddAYYDZkk

Yours,

the poor oppressed PAYE-paying men in their 30s & 40s of After Hours.

seamus

judeboy101 wrote: »

To play devils advocate, there is no way to 100% exclude the possibility that family friends may coerce or influence the process for their own reasons, which may not tally with the reasons of the person being euthanised, hence why i can't support it.

This already happens without legal euthanasia.
Legalising it would just shine a spotlight on it and make it more difficult to get away with this coercive behaviour.
But it's a fact that today some families coerce their loved ones into "giving up" prematurely.

It's relevant, but not directly connected, to legalised euthanasia.

Graces7 wrote: »

With good hospice care, they don't.

This is naive.
Suffering takes many forms. Someone doesn't have to be in pain, to be suffering. The indignity and helplessness of being in a hospice bed can be intolerable suffering for some.
You cannot say that "with good hospice care, people don't suffer". It's just plain wrong.

TomSweeney

AllForIt wrote: »

Because imo SJW are driven by ideological values just like say staunch Catholics. It is my belief that SJW's aren't solely concerned with equality amongst minorities but they are a kind of religion that isn't a religion in that they subscribe to ideological values.... to a fault. They are never pragmatic but ideological. This isn't surprising as affiliation to religions recedes in the west so it's a place for those types to go. So I'm saying SJW's are a bit more than ppl who simply defend social minority issues. It's a mentality not dissimilar to that of a staunch religious person which would rather ppl suffer in order to protect their ideological values.

I agree with you about SJWs and their ideology , but I would have thought SJW would support euthanasia ?

Berserker

Next referendum of note we'll have here. Think we'll see it becoming more and more acceptable within the next ten years. Cannot understand why it is looked upon in such a negative light.

Ursus Horribilis

Is a referendum needed for this?

Berserker

Graces7 wrote: »

With good hospice care, they don't.

Nope, even with the best hospice care some people live fruitless, horrible lives, in constant pain. Would you like to live that way? I've seen it with my own eyes. It's heartbreaking.

Ursus Horribilis wrote: »

Is a referendum needed for this?

Most definitely. Doubt we have a political party here who'd hold one though.

Graces7

Berserker wrote: »

Nope, even with the best hospice care some people live fruitless, horrible lives, in constant pain. Would you like to live that way? I've seen it with my own eyes. It's heartbreaking.



Most definitely. Doubt we have a political party here who'd hold one though.

Like many here I live in almost constant pain and many here would call my life fruitless.

No way is suicide acceptable

Graces7

seamus wrote: »

This already happens without legal euthanasia.
Legalising it would just shine a spotlight on it and make it more difficult to get away with this coercive behaviour.
But it's a fact that today some families coerce their loved ones into "giving up" prematurely.

It's relevant, but not directly connected, to legalised euthanasia.
This is naive.
Suffering takes many forms. Someone doesn't have to be in pain, to be suffering. The indignity and helplessness of being in a hospice bed can be intolerable suffering for some.
You cannot say that "with good hospice care, people don't suffer". It's just plain wrong.

Did you look up the references I gave? This issue has many facets . Open to so ,much abuse

Graces7

seamus wrote: »

This already happens without legal euthanasia.
Legalising it would just shine a spotlight on it and make it more difficult to get away with this coercive behaviour.
But it's a fact that today some families coerce their loved ones into "giving up" prematurely.

It's relevant, but not directly connected, to legalised euthanasia.
This is naive.
Suffering takes many forms. Someone doesn't have to be in pain, to be suffering. The indignity and helplessness of being in a hospice bed can be intolerable suffering for some.
You cannot say that "with good hospice care, people don't suffer". It's just plain wrong.

Not. I am nearly 80 years old and know a lot more on this than you do; have seen friends go down that road.

Gael23

Graces7 wrote: »

wedges have very thin ends.. One of the cases in Holland was a young professional ballet dancer of 24 who had injured her foot and was told she would never dance again. She requested and gained euthanasia.

You mean something like this ?

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-23698071

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool_Care_Pathway_for_the_Dying_Patient

I mean someone in the final stages of a cancer battle or with a terminal illness where death is expected to occur within a short time and where that person is suffering unacceptably.
Should the patients doctor and next of kin have the power not to prolong that suffering?

seamus

Graces7 wrote: »

Did you look up the references I gave? This issue has many facets . Open to so ,much abuse

People at the end of their lives are already being abused by a system that denies them choice and autonomy.

Just because something is difficult or imperfect, doesn't mean we should avoid doing it.

We can't just bury our heads in the sand and ignore the suffering that people at the end of the lives are being forced to endure because we're uncomfortable with the questions that euthanasia raises.

That's a much greater injustice, far more morally reprehensible than euthanasia itself.

sbsquarepants

Graces7 wrote: »

wedges have very thin ends.. One of the cases in Holland was a young professional ballet dancer of 24 who had injured her foot and was told she would never dance again. She requested and gained euthanasia.

You mean something like this ?

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-23698071

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool_Care_Pathway_for_the_Dying_Patient

I think it basically boils down to who "owns" the life. The person living it, their family, society as a whole? As far as I'm concerned, I own my life, mind and body. If I decide I've had enough of living for whatever reasons, i'll be opting out, legally or otherwise. I don't care what society thinks of that, society doesn't own me!

The problem is some people aren't in a position to do that themselves, they might be paralysed or vegetative or something like that, and they may not want to put the burden on their families or friends by asking for assistance - it does criminalise them after all.

There is no reason why people should be forced to suffer, just to keep them alive so they can suffer some more. If people want to die, let them die.

Graces7

seamus wrote: »

People at the end of their lives are already being abused by a system that denies them choice and autonomy.

Just because something is difficult or imperfect, doesn't mean we should avoid doing it.

We can't just bury our heads in the sand and ignore the suffering that people at the end of the lives are being forced to endure because we're uncomfortable with the questions that euthanasia raises.

That's a much greater injustice, far more morally reprehensible than euthanasia itself.

????? Not sure what your post is about? Very odd reasoning on a matter of life and death?

Not a question of being uncomfortable. A question of life.. did you read the references I gave? There are too many dangers of abuse as was shown in the UK
If you are really determined there are ways to end your life or that of a relative. People die of drugs ODs every day.

sbsquarepants

Graces7 wrote: »

Like many here I live in almost constant pain and many here would call my life fruitless.

No way is suicide acceptable

That's your choice and people should accept it, applaud it even, but in no way should you be allowed to impose it on those who might want to choose differently.
Logically it's no different from seeking to impose mandatory euthanasia - which I'm fairly sure you'd be very much opposed to!

gctest50

Graces7 wrote: »

????? Not sure what your post is about? Very odd reasoning on a matter of life and death?

Not a question of being uncomfortable. A question of life.. did you read the references I gave? There are too many dangers of abuse as was shown in the UK


If you are really determined there are ways to end your life or that of a relative.

People die of drugs ODs every day.

Very bad 'advice' - method probably amongst the most prone to failure


And you may die in misery and agony, if you survive you could be left with a fcked liver/kidneys on top of whatever was wrong with you

Ursus Horribilis

As far as I know, living wills have no legal standing. It'd give us some idea of what someone wants for themselves while they're still in a position to tell us.

After having seen what palliative care doesn't do for dying people and having spent time in a high dependence nursing home, the thoughts of being unable to have a say over my own destiny are terrifying. Modern medicine has saved people and that's great. It also has prolonged the misery for others and we never hear about that.

Graces7

sbsquarepants wrote: »

That's your choice and people should accept it, applaud it even, but in no way should you be allowed to impose it on those who might want to choose differently.
Logically it's no different from seeking to impose mandatory euthanasia - which I'm fairly sure you'd be very much opposed to!

:rolleyes:

Have a nice day..

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Graces7 wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Have a nice day..

Is that your reaction to everybody who disagrees? Ignore them?

Who are you to tell me if I should live or die. It's my choice, I should get to decide if I want to continue living or not. Your views are incredibly selfish.

gctest50

It'd be better to go the nice, organised route :

seamus

Graces7 wrote: »

????? Not sure what your post is about? Very odd reasoning on a matter of life and death?

Not a question of being uncomfortable. A question of life.. did you read the references I gave? There are too many dangers of abuse as was shown in the UK
If you are really determined there are ways to end your life or that of a relative. People die of drugs ODs every day.

"Because it's too open to be abused, people should go off and do this in secret so that society doesn't have to talk about it". Just like abortion.

Letting your faith shine right through there Grace.

seamus

Ursus Horribilis wrote: »

Is a referendum needed for this?

Yeah, kind of.

Suicide is not illegal. And there is no referendum required to make it legal for someone to provide me with the necessary tools to kill myself.

But someone who is physically capable of ending their own life, doesn't need permission. They're not going to apply for a "licence", or ask their doctor for help.

So that's not really the issue being discussed. It's really about assisted suicide - helping people to end their lives when they're physically incapable of doing so.

And this would possibly require a referendum, as there would be several possible points in the constitution in which it could be held unconstitutional to allow assisted suicide.

It's not expressly barred, but if a government were to legalise it, then it would take a very long time to test it for constitutionality.

It might be in fact faster to just place a clause in the constitution that allows the government to legalise it. Then there's no question.

CPTM

When this comes to proper public debate, there will be the similar arguments back and forth as with the abortion campaign, where one side will talk about how a life is a life and we should never play God with it, and the other side which acknowledges that it's not ideal but it's happening illegally in Ireland anyway so we should do it in a more supportive and safe way, and we should trust people to have control of their own life.

Eventually it will go to a referendum and there will be a landslide win to the euthanasia side and life will go on. The change will be an incredible relief to the tiny tiny part of the community it affects, while the rest of society bring their attention back to their kids, difficult daily commute, and Netflix programmes.

Phibsboro

Graces7 wrote: »

wedges have very thin ends.. One of the cases in Holland was a young professional ballet dancer of 24 who had injured her foot and was told she would never dance again. She requested and gained euthanasia.

You mean something like this ?

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-23698071

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool_Care_Pathway_for_the_Dying_Patient

I'm not sure if you realise that end of life processes like the Liverpool Care Pathway you are linking to are a reaction against the possible introduction of euthanasia? And they actively supported by anti-euthanasia organisations like Care Not Killing :

https://www.carenotkilling.org.uk/news/liverpool-care-pathway

The fact it is that ideologues would rather have a pathway that sedates and starves people to an early death than allow the patient themselves to chose to end their life in a dignified way at a time and place of their choosing.

Also, I think your Dutch ballet dancer might be fake news - I can't find any mention of a case like that online.

SusieBlue

Graces7 wrote: »

Like many here I live in almost constant pain and many here would call my life fruitless.

No way is suicide acceptable

I think what you meant there is there is no way suicide is acceptable to you.

If someone is ill and cannot endure another day of pain and suffering we should not force them to continue living a life they find miserable just to satisfy someone else's personal morals on the matter.

I'm not encouraging or condoning suicide and am all too aware of the effects it has on the family left behind, but as a human I feel nothing but compassion & sympathy towards those who could no longer struggle on under the burden of their pain.

I have seen first hand what the last few days of life looks like with a terminal illness, and there was nothing peaceful or dignified about it.
The closer family members found it extremely distressing & upsetting to see their loved one in such agony.
I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy and would certainly never wish to go through it myself.

A peaceful, dignified death should be allowed for those who want it, and their wishes on the matter should be respected.

gctest50

Graces7 wrote: »

wedges have very thin ends.. One of the cases in Holland was a young professional ballet dancer of 24 who had injured her foot and was told she would never dance again. She requested and gained euthanasia.

You mean something like this ?

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-23698071

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool_Care_Pathway_for_the_Dying_Patient

Phibsboro wrote: »

...................

Also, I think your Dutch ballet dancer might be fake news - I can't find any mention of a case like that online.

Not quite fake


Straight from Anti-Choice Central :

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/film-depicting-euthanasia-of-26-year-old-dutch-woman-draws-700000-viewers

AMSTERDAM, June 25, 2013– A documentary on the “chosen death” of a young woman who was suffering from a degenerative disease has drawn a mass audience in the Netherlands.

Priscilla Brouwer, described in the film as a “disco queen,” was a 25-year-old woman

with a hereditary illness

who decided to end her life on her 26th birthday. “I would like to get away from life happily. I prefer to leave it at age 26 rather than at 30 after years of suffering,” she said.

Brouwer was diagnosed at 16 with an unnamed disease. Her mother also suffered from and eventually died of the illness. The film notes that she was not in the terminal phase of the disease when she was euthanized.

.