Euthanasia

AllForIt

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Well that''s setting a pretty low bar for your claim, isn't it. Same as the one we got here "not everyone opposed to abortion is religious." Find one person meeting that criterion and your claim is true. Well duh. It's a meaningless claim, unless you can demonstrate that a significant proportion of the people objecting to euthanasia are those who you denigrate as "SJWs" and that that correlation (which you have completely failed to demonstrate exists) demonstrates something useful.



Which people?
Why would a non-religious belief make someone object to euthanasia? All the evidence to date shows that the overwhelming majority of people who object to it are coming at the question from a religious viewpoint.
The UK is very far from being a secular state, it has an established church, and quite a number of very vocal religious conservatives of various kinds, which the state and media give attention to out of all proportion to their actual numbers.

You're talking complete nonsense tbh.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

The poster you quoted didn’t say “solely”. They said “for the most part”.

In the US, despite being a minority religion, the Catholic church has been one of the main groups holding up the passing of Death With Dignity laws in many states. I’m incredulous at your claim that only non-religious idealogues oppose it in the UK. That is hopelessly naïve. The UK might be overall a much more secular country than Ireland but there are still very active religions over there.

This is the most lame swipe at SJWs that I’ve ever seen on boards.ie. People seem to be recognising it as such though.

I don't get either of you at all. It's not made easy that you reply to a point I made to someone else, neither of yourselves, and because of that I've no idea where your coming from, or what your position is on euthanasia.

You can't be seriously suggesting, and it's a bit difficult to nail down where you coming from, that only religious ppl object to euthenaia? Is that your position?

On the subject of SJW I think there is no such thing. I already stated what I mean by those types as I said in an earlier post. https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108679129&postcount=8

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..

HB, you accuse me of talking nonsense but I think the reason you do is because you don't understand what I'm saying. Do you seriously think that only ppl who are religious subscribe to values? Really? You dragged the abortion ref into this and you suggested (I think, but it's a bit obscure from your writing) that only religious ppl objected to it? I'm an Atheist and I abstained.

HB you have a history of being a little bit aggressive in your posting when you disagree with someone. That obscures where you coming from. I don't know where your coming from, please explain. Are you defending SJW's or euthanasia or what?

Franz Von Peppercorn

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m neither being pedantic nor contrarian, but if you want an echo chamber then certainly I’ll bow out of the discussion as I’m not particularly invested in discussing the issue on an Internet forum anyway.

I don’t imagine it’s worth much, but certainly I can accept that animals suffer and sometimes some people euthanise them to relieve their suffering. I just don’t agree that people who are suffering should be regarded the same way is all. I think the analogy to how some people humanise animals is fundamentally flawed. The reason why it’s flawed goes back to your basis for making the argument - that we don’t tolerate animals suffering. We do, and in far greater numbers than humans, and if we actually didn’t tolerate animals suffering - we’d all be vegans. As it turns out, the vast majority of people aren’t vegan, not even in our Western culture where there is no necessity for animals to suffer to provide us with food.

The fact of the matter is that most people have no qualms whatsoever with animals suffering, they’re tasty. The same cannot be said of our perception of other people, and a lot of the reasons for that are based upon our values which are informed by culture and society. There’s a context to the argument regarding the numerous issues around euthanising people which I feel you’re purposely ignoring to suggest that we should treat people who are suffering the same way we treat animals when they are suffering as it’s not palatable for us to be aware of people’s suffering and how it’s uncomfortable for us to know there’s nothing we can do to allieviate their suffering in those circumstances.

The argument as to what constitutes human dignity and how we treat people and how we acknowledge human dignity, should not be based upon how we treat animals.

The animal issue is a total red herring. If you forgot that the op said we don’t let animals suffer you could possibly move onto whether or not humans should have a right to end their lives in dignity, or not.

paleoperson

The problem is that you can't trust the SJW types from suddenly claiming their teenage depression is just as equivalent in suffering as this type of cancer patient and other SJWs that will agree with them. They will say you only can't understand that because you're ignorant about mental health issues, or some such similar nonsense. In a world where hundreds of children are getting sex changes you know there are people who would be like that and some psychiatrists somewhere who will sign off on it.

But yeah, I might be in favour of it in a limited extent in exceptional circumstances.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

AllForIt wrote: »

You can't be seriously suggesting, and it's a bit difficult to nail down where you coming from, that only religious ppl object to euthenaia? Is that your position?

Naturally there will exist individuals who are non-religious and oppose euthanasia. And I never said otherwise. In the US however, one of the biggest pressure groups aimed at blocking its introduction in various states has been the Catholic Church there. The most prominent opponents tend to be religious. Not always but usually. That’s how it is.

On the subject of SJW I think there is no such thing. I already stated what I mean by those types as I said in an earlier post. https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108679129&postcount=8

You apparently think there is no such thing as SJWs yet in the very post of yours that you helpfully supplied, you wrote this:

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.

And the rest of the post in no way shows that you think SJWs don’t exist or that you think of SJWs as different from how everyone else understands the term.

If you don’t think SJWs exist, why did you write a post in which you very clearly write like they do? Stop back-tracking. You tried to inject some populism into the thread by using a trigger word, SJW, to gain support. It backfired.

Take a deep breath and stop contradicting yourself.

AllForIt

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Naturally there will exist individuals who are non-religious and oppose euthanasia. And I never said otherwise. In the US however, one of the biggest pressure groups aimed at blocking its introduction in various states has been the Catholic Church there. The most prominent opponents tend to be religious. Not always but usually. That’s how it is.



You apparently think there is no such thing as SJWs yet in the very post of yours that you helpfully supplied, you wrote this:



And the rest of the post in no way shows that you think SJWs don’t exist or that you think of SJWs as different from how everyone else understands the term.

If you don’t think SJWs exist, why did you write a post in which you very clearly write like they do? Stop back-tracking. You tried to inject some populism into the thread by using a trigger word, SJW, to gain support. It backfired.

Take a deep breath and stop contradicting yourself.

Your quite clearly being utterly obtuse.

As for trigger words you use the term populism which is always used as an insult designed to elevate your own points as intellectual.

But in regards to pressure groups that only proves that the ppl involved in those groups are religious. The fact they exist says nothing about why anyone would personally be against it.

Gael23

jimgoose wrote: »

Well, I don't think it is, really. The animal end of it is somewhat useful inasmuch as it illustrates a compassion for a suffering creature that - and this is a key point - is at that point of no use. It will sound somewhat callous but people who are at this stage of the game are generally of no use either - indeed if you want to get right down to the cold, hard brass-tacks of it the vast majority of people are of no use whatsoever, but that's another conversation - but they can at least tell you, in a somewhat reasoned way, whether or not they wish to continue with life under the current circumstances.

That’s exaclty my point. Humans have the ability to end the life of an animal who is suffering an incurable illness but that same human must suffer an unbareable lingering death.

MonkieSocks

Having been at the bedsides of My Dad, Then my Uncle and my mum earlier this year i would endorse euthenaia.


All three had cancer,and being on various treatments.

All three were up and about managing their with low dose over the counter pain medication

The Doctors told us if they a good dose of radiation it would ease the pain.

This despite them saying that hadn't much pain at the time.

They all got the radiation treament that was supposed to ease their pain.

It didn't, all three got terrible side effects and their pain increased greatly in their last few weeks.

Pain management would have been much better than the radiation treatment, especially in people that age.

Despite very heavy sedation the all suffered excruiting pain in their last few days.

They were all in their late 80s, in my opinion they should not have radiation treatment as all three quickly declined after it.

We had our Dad at home for a while at home and the help of the pallitave care team was invisible.

One came out and asked us had we told him he was dying, all of the family had agreed not to tell him.

The very first thing she said to dad "you are going to die soon" her exact words.

This also sped up his his deterioration and he was incredibly depressed and sad for his last remaining time with us.

It was terrible to sit at their besides and see them go one by one over a five week period. May June this year.

4Ad

MonkieSocks wrote: »

Having been at the bedsides of My Dad, Then my Uncle and my mum earlier this year i would endorse euthenaia.


All three had cancer,and being on various treatments.

All three were up and about managing their with low dose over the counter pain medication

The Doctors told us if they a good dose of radiation it would ease the pain.

This despite them saying that hadn't much pain at the time.

They all got the radiation treament that was supposed to ease their pain.

It didn't, all three got terrible side effects and their pain increased greatly in their last few weeks.

Pain management would have been much better than the radiation treatment, especially in people that age.

Despite very heavy sedation the all suffered excruiting pain in their last few days.

They were all in their late 80s, in my opinion they should not have radiation treatment as all three quickly declined after it.

We had our Dad at home for a while at home and the help of the pallitave care team was invisible.

One came out and asked us had we told him he was dying, all of the family had agreed not to tell him.

The very first thing she said to dad "you are going to die soon" her exact words.

This also sped up his his deterioration and he was incredibly depressed and sad for his last remaining time with us.

It was terrible to sit at their besides and see them go one by one over a five week period. May June this year.

Sorry to hear that, you are going through a very hard patch..
I totally agree with Euthanasia, I saw my mother fade away and it was awful, but luckily she seemed to suffer no pain.

MonkieSocks

4Ad wrote: »

Sorry to hear that, you are going through a very hard patch..
I totally agree with Euthanasia, I saw my mother fade away and it was awful, but luckily she seemed to suffer no pain.

Christmas for all us was always a dinner booked out in a hotel for Christmas.

Huge gathering

We won't be doing that this year.

Sorry about your Mum,

Hope you and your family are recovering after your loss.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

AllForIt wrote: »

Your quite clearly being utterly obtuse.

I wouldn’t be throwing around the word ‘obtuse’ if I were you.

But in regards to pressure groups that only proves that the ppl involved in those groups are religious. The fact they exist says nothing about why anyone would personally be against it.

Who is saying otherwise? Pressure groups matter because they’re the people who hold things up, stop issues going to vote. If it gets to that stage, Mr or Mrs Non-Religious McAnti-Euthanasia can get their vote in, like everyone else.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

MonkieSocks wrote: »

Having been at the bedsides of My Dad, Then my Uncle and my mum earlier this year i would endorse euthenaia.


All three had cancer,and being on various treatments.

All three were up and about managing their with low dose over the counter pain medication

The Doctors told us if they a good dose of radiation it would ease the pain.

This despite them saying that hadn't much pain at the time.

They all got the radiation treament that was supposed to ease their pain.

It didn't, all three got terrible side effects and their pain increased greatly in their last few weeks.

Pain management would have been much better than the radiation treatment, especially in people that age.

Despite very heavy sedation the all suffered excruiting pain in their last few days.

They were all in their late 80s, in my opinion they should not have radiation treatment as all three quickly declined after it.

We had our Dad at home for a while at home and the help of the pallitave care team was invisible.

One came out and asked us had we told him he was dying, all of the family had agreed not to tell him.

The very first thing she said to dad "you are going to die soon" her exact words.

This also sped up his his deterioration and he was incredibly depressed and sad for his last remaining time with us.

It was terrible to sit at their besides and see them go one by one over a five week period. May June this year.

I am so sorry. You have all my sympathies.

I don’t want to rant here whilst replying to such a sensitive post. I will just say that this is a problem with modern medicine: “We have these tools, we must use them. We must always be seen to be doing something”. When studies have shown that terminal patients often get more time and, crucially, more comfortable time when they simply opt for the calmer waters of palliative care.

I really think doctors need to very clearly spell out how bad the side effects of treatment will be. Pretty much every cancer treatment has some horrible side effects and patients need to be informed so that they can weigh their options.

Obviously most early stage cancer patients will throw the kitchen sink at it because they have a chance to cured. But if one is terminal, do the benefits outweigh the risks and side effects?

Again, I am so sorry for your losses.

The One Doctor

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The argument as to what constitutes human dignity and how we treat people and how we acknowledge human dignity, should not be based upon how we treat animals.

It isn't.

Gael23

Was at a Funeral yesterday of a man who died after 15 years with Alzheimer’s Disease, the last few of those spent in little more than a vegetative state in a nursing home. It really hurt his wife and family that he no longer recognize them and more recently stopped talking. The last few months in particular were an existence and nothing more.
He won the lotto in 2001 and got Alzheimer’s in 2003

uck51js9zml2yt

Jessie Belle wrote: »

I believe in choice and that this should 100% be legalised.


.

The psychiatrists of the early 1900's said the same in Germany to the early Nazi party leadership. Next they were sending people they considered to have no value to their deaths(and getting paid per referral)..... guess what happened next?

70,000 mentally ill in Germany killed...6million Jews killed

That's what happens when you tell people they are of no value.

Nessel

My grandfather asked to be euthanised and it had to be assessed and approved by multiple gp's. He was 94 and had had more and more falls and just wanted to go. He was done. Got approved in a week or so. You do have to find a gp who's willing as it's not mandatory for them.

I thought it was a beautiful way to go as he at least had the choice. He was put to sleep before THE injection. Why shouldn't we decide when we're done. I'd hate to have to suffer from an illness. I've seen up close how horrible that can be. (This was in the Netherlands btw).

Hopefully in the future...

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

I’m for assisted-dying. Note assisted-dying is different from euthanasia.

I’m for it. However, I watched Louis Theroux’s recent documentary on the subject and one of the stories he followed creeped me out a bit. I’m gonna spoiler tag this in case anyone has recorded it but not yet watch it.

One woman featured was in a wheelchair because of an earlier car accident. Her husband had died, I understand, suddenly six months before. They appeared to have been a very happy couple and I’d imagine only six months on, she was still grieving deeply. They never had children. She wanted to end her life. She lived in a state where assisted-dying is legal but only for those with a terminal illness who only have six months left to live. An organisation featured on the documentary (name escapes me) came to visit her. They help people who want to end their lives peacefully but reliably (as most suicide methods are far from reliable, except for the most violent methods).

Louis asked for her reasons for wanting to go. She cited cost of healthcare as she ages due to her disabilities and having no children to help. She cited having nothing to live for and of being a burden on society. He interviewed the two people from the suicide organisation. They repeat her reasons that she had told them but there was something creepy about them talking about old people who no longer feel they have anything to offer to society. It made me wonder if this is something they too believed. They seemed so eager to help this woman who appeared to be badly grieving but who I don’t think was out of her 60s and who was disabled but seemed not too bad. Shouldn’t she be given time to see if her feelings change? Maybe she could come up with a solution for future healthcare costs? It just seemed to be jumping the gun a bit and the people from the organisation didn’t seem to reflect on it at all. They were a bit robotic: “Person want to die. We help.”.

I was glad that this story was included because the documentary might have come across polemical otherwise. Her situation and solution to it threw up all kinds of ethical questions in my mind. Is someone only worth something to society if they are in full health? If someone with health problems that are not life-threatening be helped to end it anyway? If people can just go because they don’t want to live with a chronic illness, will others with that illness feel that they are wrong to want to live on?

I’m still for it but it must be tightly-controlled and regulated.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Ivanna Beautiful Ibex wrote: »

The psychiatrists of the early 1900's said the same in Germany to the early Nazi party leadership. Next they were sending people they considered to have no value to their deaths(and getting paid per referral)..... guess what happened next?

70,000 mentally ill in Germany killed...6million Jews killed

That's what happens when you tell people they are of no value.

Big difference between assisted-dying and euthanasia. Anywhere it’s legal, it’s not something that can be done to you, it’s something you request.

paleoperson

Nessel wrote: »

My grandfather asked to be euthanised and it had to be assessed and approved by multiple gp's. He was 94 and had had more and more falls and just wanted to go. He was done. Got approved in a week or so. You do have to find a gp who's willing as it's not mandatory for them.

I thought it was a beautiful way to go as he at least had the choice. He was put to sleep before THE injection. Why shouldn't we decide when we're done. I'd hate to have to suffer from an illness. I've seen up close how horrible that can be. (This was in the Netherlands btw).

Hopefully in the future...

Being given a lethal injection is NOT a "beautiful way" for anyone to go.

Making the best of a bad situation? Maybe. Nothing is "beautiful" about dying ilke that.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

paleoperson wrote: »

Being given a lethal injection is NOT a "beautiful way" for anyone to go.

Making the best of a bad situation? Maybe. Nothing is "beautiful" about dying ilke that.

Death isn’t good but a peaceful death is the best one can hope for. Palliative care in hospice is not always able to provide a peaceful death despite best efforts. If the lethal injection gave him a peaceful death, that’s the best case scenario fulfilled.

I’d rather die “like that” than painfully. And painful deaths can occur even in hospice, sadly.

paleoperson

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Death isn’t good but a peaceful death is the best one can hope for. Palliative care in hospice is not always able to provide a peaceful despite best efforts. If the lethal injection gave him a peaceful death, that’s the best case scenario fulfilled.

I’d rather die “like that” than painfully. And painful deaths can occur even in hospice, sadly.

I didn't say anything to disagree with any of that. I didn't mean my post to come off as any way combative, just to say that "beautiful" wouldn't be a word I would use.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

paleoperson wrote: »

I didn't say anything to disagree with any of that. I didn't mean my post to come off as any way combative, just to say that "beautiful" wouldn't be a word I would use.

Well, that person thought the experience was beautiful, mostly it seems because their grandfather had agency right to the end. You can’t tell them to feel otherwise about it.

BBFAN

I have extensive experience of this having seen a loved one go through an agonising death from cancer when they wouldn't let anyone but me see them for the last six weeks of their life and I totally understand why because they were a person who was always beautiful and glamourous and ended up ****ting themselves, pissing themselves and screaming in agony.

I've also seen another loved one who told me bluntly that they were raging they had gone through treatment just to pacify relatives and suffered agonising pain as a result and just wanted to be gone.

I presently work in a nursing home where I see people who have NO life whatsoever. Not just no QUALITY of life, they have NO life, they sit there like vegetables and wouldn't understand what was happening if you stripped naked front of them and danced.

I have told everyone, friends, family, and anyone I know if I ever end up in that state that I want to go quickly, no questions asked but I'm fully aware that currently they will have no option than to allow me to suffer for maybe years on end.

Someone I spoke to lately put it very well, it's all very well and good that people are living to their 80's 90's and 100's nowadays but if choices had to be made between keeping those same people alive in a miserable existence and giving children life saving surgery what would anyone with any compassion decide upon?

I have seen animals put down an it's so quick, painless and peaceful I really don't see why we can offer the same compassion to humans.

BBFAN

paleoperson wrote: »

Being given a lethal injection is NOT a "beautiful way" for anyone to go.

Making the best of a bad situation? Maybe. Nothing is "beautiful" about dying ilke that.

It is actually a beautiful way to go, it's extremely quick and painless.

Surely we'd all like to go in a quick and painless way?

paleoperson

BBFAN wrote: »

It is actually a beautiful way to go, it's extremely quick and painless.

Surely we'd all like to go in a quick and painless way?

For me it will always be a bad and perverse way to go, even if sometimes the best alternative.

I mean what do you want, you want me to smile and say I'm happy and it's beautiful?

BBFAN

paleoperson wrote: »

For me it will always be a bad and perverse way to go, even if sometimes the best alternative.

I mean what do you want, you want me to smile and say I'm happy and it's beautiful?

Nope, I want you to accept that it's preferable to going out screaming in agony, ****ting yourself, pissing yourself, abusing you loved ones etc etc. Or putting your loved ones through agony for months or maybe years on end watching you being a vegetable.

If you think that's preferable way to go then I suggest that you're radicalised in a way that you don't even realise.

BBFAN

paleoperson wrote: »

For me it will always be a bad and perverse way to go, even if sometimes the best alternative.

I mean what do you want, you want me to smile and say I'm happy and it's beautiful?

Try to explain what's bad or perverse about it?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

paleoperson wrote: »

For me it will always be a bad and perverse way to go, even if sometimes the best alternative.

I mean what do you want, you want me to smile and say I'm happy and it's beautiful?

You can feel however you want about it. And if that other poster thought it was a beautiful experience, well, that’s their call.

If you think a peaceful death is ugly, then surely you think any death is? Peaceful is the best case scenario after all and, like I said, can’t be guaranteed by hospice.

paleoperson

BBFAN wrote: »

Try to explain what's bad or perverse about it?

Their life is unnaturally being ended by someone else.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

If you think a peaceful death is ugly, then surely you think any death is?

No, seems like you have my thinking process all wrong.

I really think I'm done with this discussion.

Nessel

I said beautiful because I have no other words for it. When the question was asked for the last time if this was what he really wanted he said oh god yes. Me, my parents brother husband grandpa's brother and his wife were all at his bed for his final rites and when it happened. He was so happy when he was allowed to go.

Yes it was extremely sad, but only because we would not see him in this world anymore and he can't meet his great granddaughter that was born a few months ago.

But it's his way. And personally I think that's beautiful yes.

Paddy Cow

Ivanna Beautiful Ibex wrote: »

The psychiatrists of the early 1900's said the same in Germany to the early Nazi party leadership. Next they were sending people they considered to have no value to their deaths(and getting paid per referral)..... guess what happened next?

70,000 mentally ill in Germany killed...6million Jews killed

That's what happens when you tell people they are of no value.

There is a huge difference between mentally ill and terminally ill. I absolutely do not think people with mental illness should be put to sleep. The story of the woman in the wheelchair is harrowing. Clearly she is deeply depressed but that's no reason to end her life. Those vultures should be trying to get her into counselling and other support systems. People like that are why others are wary of euthanasia.