Euthanasia

paleoperson

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

There is no hospice anywhere in the world that can 100% guarantee that a death will be peaceful. If hospices here need to “up their game”, well, that means hospices all over the world need to also. I doubt there’s a palliative care doctor anywhere that would claim they can make every death free of suffering.

You're absolutely right - however this applies to euthanasia as well however. Think of all the botched, excruciating executions costing millions of dollars in the US. It may seem fairly logical that you would do a sledgehammer approach and fill them straight with so much poison that it would kill them peacefully - but just like in the rare case palliative care doesn't work the same is true for executions. The body sometimes hangs on and who knows how much agony these individuals must be in as doctors rush to try to finish them off. Keep in mind if the US wasn't doing these executions we would have no way of knowing about this.

Progress can be made on getting euthanasia/execution more reliable but the same is also true for palliative care. I suggest you don't assume things because a lot of it is counterintuitive and this too serious a matter.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

An illness like cancer can be horribly unpredictable in the end. If it’s your bones especially, sometimes that pain can’t be killed. Sometimes morphine can’t even touch it and then the dose goes so high that the patient dies. A socially acceptable form of assisted dying that nobody has a problem with apparently. But the patient suffers on the way to reaching that point.

I'm not sure how little pain you want here. Unless I die in my sleep at 90+ I would not mind some pain on the way out, just to know I was going rather than being oblivious.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

When people use the euphemism ‘passed away’, does that mean that they think there is something amiss with how the person died?

Fair point. But a key difference is that with one you are making a choice and so can be/are influenced by the words used, with the other - it's generally thought that someone having "passed away" didn't have another option. I think the whole terminology starting to build up around euthanasia can be creepy. The idea of "checking out" or "dignified". "Dignified" is exceptionally problematic if they're comparing it to for example someone who will gradually lose heart function and expire in a few weeks - such a person - or someone violently vomiting - is 100% dignified, possibly even more so. Perhaps terms like killing oneself are too harsh - we don't want to devalue the horror of needless suicide. But I think it's a mistake to dress it up.

Paddy Cow

paleoperson wrote: »

Fair point. But a key difference is that with one you are making a choice and so can be/are influenced by the words used, with the other - it's generally thought that someone having "passed away" didn't have another option. I think the whole terminology starting to build up around euthanasia can be creepy. The idea of "checking out" or "dignified". "Dignified" is exceptionally problematic if they're comparing it to for example someone who will gradually lose heart function and expire in a few weeks - such a person - or someone violently vomiting - is 100% dignified, possibly even more so. Perhaps terms like killing oneself are too harsh - we don't want to devalue the horror of needless suicide. But I think it's a mistake to dress it up.

I'd have to disagree that the term "dignified" is creepy. Someone who will gradually lose heart function and expire is completely different to someone who is violently vomiting till the end. The story above about a woman who was vomiting up her insides is distressing to read, I can't imagine how horrific it was for her sister and daughter to experience.

With my mother, it wasn't dying that got to her - she had made peace with that, it was the loss of dignity. She was a proud woman who took pride in her appearance. The loss of body autonomy hit her harder than her impending death. She went from being able to go to the toilet by herself, to needing help with a wheelchair, then a commode and finally when it was too dangerous for us to lift her out of the bed because she was so weak we were afraid she'd fall, she had to get a catheter. For her, that was the final humiliation the disease inflicted on her.

She refused all morphine till the end because she wanted to be lucid for as long as possible. That was her wish and we respected that. Had she been given the option of euthanasia a week before her death, she would happily have taken it and passed away surrounded by her family. That would have given her the dignity of dying on her own terms. Instead she spent her last weekend not being able to speak and losing all motor function while her body shut down. She was trying to communicate with us and we didn't know what she wanted. We didn't know if she really was trying to communicate or if her brain was deteriorating and she was simply confused and scared. It was absolutely awful for her and in now way a dignified death.

My own personal experience does not make me an expert on these matters but I think a lot of the time when having this discussion, people talk in intellectual terms and forget that there are actual real people, with emotions at the centre. It's the person who is suffering that should be listened to. Not the intellectuals. Not their family. Not their doctor. If someone has a terminal illness and know they face certain death, often in a horrific way, they should be given the option to end it on their terms. As long as they are competent to understand what they are doing and they can administer the final dose, they should have the final say.

Paddy Cow

Here's a question to all the people who are against euthanasia solely on the basis that ending someone's life prematurely is wrong. How would you react if you were on an ethics committee and a patient with a terminal illness presented themselves asking for euthanasia? They are competent and not being cajoled by relatives. They are not depressed or suffering from any mental illness. They know their time is up and they want to go out on their terms. They provide all medical documentation which proves that they have limited time and their last days are not likely to be peaceful. Would you deny this person the right to end their own life under medical supervision simply because it makes you uncomfortable or would you listen to what the person actually wants?

uck51js9zml2yt

Paddy Cow wrote: »

Here's a question to all the people who are against euthanasia solely on the basis that ending someone's life prematurely is wrong. How would you react if you were on an ethics committee and a patient with a terminal illness presented themselves asking for euthanasia? They are competent and not being cajoled by relatives. They are not depressed or suffering from any mental illness. They know their time is up and they want to go out on their terms. They provide all medical documentation which proves that they have limited time and their last days are not likely to be peaceful. Would you deny this person the right to end their own life under medical supervision simply because it makes you uncomfortable or would you listen to what the person actually wants?

As one who believes that only the Giver of that life can take it again...yes.

wiggle16

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.

What a ridiculous and incontinent assertion.

There is absolutely no comparison between what is being discussed in this thread, euthanasia/assisted suicide, and Aktion T4, which you are inaccurately describing in your post.

Aktion T4 was not euthanasia. It was the extermination of disabled, poorly socialised and mentally ill people as part of the Nazi state's haphazard eugenics plan, to remove "degenerates" from their gene pool. It was murder and no different to what happened in the death camps. The only reason that we refer to it as "euthanasia" is because it was carried out in hospitals, not death camps. Referring to it as, or on the same terms as, euthanasia, is an insult to the thousands of defenceless people who suffered that fate.

We are not talking about introducing euthanasia because we do not value people who are terminally or chronically ill or don't care about them. We are talking about it because we care about them. We are talking about giving people the choice as to whether they wish to suffer a prolonged, needless and agonising death for no good f***ing reason or making alternative arrangements to preserve their dignity, autonomy and humanity - a right to choose which places far more value on the wishes of the dying person than on the abstract morals of bystanders.

You need to realise this is not abstract. Look how many people are posting about their own experiences with the end stage of life and their relatives. The obligatory suffering and dehumanisation caused by the lack of a choice affect thousands of people every day in Ireland. Needlessly.

You should inform yourself better before making sweeping, slippery slope warnings.

As an aside, T4 was not pushed by "psychiatrists", and it was not proposed in the "early 1900's" - the Nazi party did not exist until 1920. The operation itself only commenced in 1939 and the figure of 70,000 victims is out of date since the 1990s. The total number of deaths from T4 was closer to 300,000, and it was not by any means confined to Germany.

I hate this phrase, but seriously, open a history book. (Michael Burleigh, A New History of the Third Reich, would be a good start).

Paddy Cow

Ivanna Beautiful Ibex wrote: »

As one who believes that only the Giver of that life can take it again...yes.

We use medicine to alleviate and help suffering. If there is a God and he knows that someone is going to die, I can't see any compassionate God having a problem with someone using medicine to have a dignified death. He is after all the one who provided us with the means of making these choices both through medical advances and free will. We were given the gift of free will in the Garden of Eden. They were given the choice to take the apple or not. When Eve took the apple, God didn't abandon humanity. Think of it that way. If someone is given the choice of euthansia or natural death, God isn't going to abandon them whatever choice they make.

P_1

Ivanna Beautiful Ibex wrote: »

As one who believes that only the Giver of that life can take it again...yes.

Grand, apply your own philosophy to yourself just dont insist that others have to follow it

wiggle16

Ivanna Beautiful Ibex wrote: »

As one who believes that only the Giver of that life can take it again...yes.

Seriously? Not something you can have given a lot of thought to.

By that logic you should be eschewing medicine entirely. Because surely if only the "giver" of life can take it away, then aren't we interfering by prolonging life in the first place?

Diseases which are now treatable but which would have killed people in decades past include measles, diphtheria, polio, TB, rubella and many strains of flu, to name a few. HIV is no longer a death sentence, but 25 years ago this was not at all the case.

I'm 30, and was born almost 3 months premature. At the time, my mother was told there was not much that could be done for me besides being locked in an incubator and she would simply have to wait and see if I survived or not. Today, medicine has advanced to the point where being 3 months or more premature is not a significant obstacle to survival in and of itself.

By your logic, with modern medicine we are allowed to almost indefinitely delay the "Giver" of life in taking life away, but can't expedite it for him?

The above assumes there is a God. There isn't - you're free to believe that there is but you are not free to impose your misapprehensions upon others or force them to participate in your fantasy by denying them the right to choose the manner of their death.

AndrewJRenko

Ivanna Beautiful Ibex wrote: »

As one who believes that only the Giver of that life can take it again...yes.

Why would you want to impose your beliefs on others?

paleoperson

wiggle16 wrote: »

Seriously? Not something you can have given a lot of thought to.

You don't know this, I don't see any reason to think this.

wiggle16 I can see why you're full sure of what you're arguing, think you couldn't possibly be mistaken.

But you'd be shocked at what goes on sometimes in the medical world. Or maybe your eyes would just glaze over it, I don't know. Whatever the case, euthanasia, with positive things associated next to it, is a dodgy road to go down and should be treated as such. Even if possibly a good idea sometimes it's never in my opinion beautiful and in no way more "dignified" than another way of dying. This idea of it having more "dignity" is one I really object to.

wiggle16

paleoperson wrote: »

But you'd be shocked at what goes on sometimes in the medical world.

With respect, in the same way, you have no reason to believe I would be shocked by what goes on in the medical world or that I have no experience of it.

paleoperson wrote: »

Whatever the case, euthanasia, with positive things associated next to it, is a dodgy road to go down and should be treated as such. Even if possibly a good idea sometimes it's never beautiful and in no way more "dignified" than another way of dying.

Why is it a dodgy road to go down?

When you say "dignified", you are inferring that I have ascribed a value to that word from my post. Dignity means different things to different people. For some people, there is no loss of dignity in needing to be brought to the toilet and have their clothes changed by others if they soil themselves, or spend their last days vomiting constantly etc. And that's fine. But for others, most I would wager, there's no dignity in that.

I never said it was beautiful. I'm not basing any argument upon aesthetics. It's based upon the personal autonomy that we take for granted before our bodies begin to fail us.

L.Jenkins

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why would you want to impose your beliefs on others?

I have to agree with you there, it is up to the individual in question, as long as they can make that decision for themselves.

Paddy Cow

paleoperson wrote: »

You don't know this, I don't see any reason to think this.

wiggle16 I can see why you're full sure of what you're arguing, think you couldn't possibly be mistaken.

But you'd be shocked at what goes on sometimes in the medical world. Or maybe your eyes would just glaze over it, I don't know. Whatever the case, euthanasia, with positive things associated next to it, is a dodgy road to go down and should be treated as such. Even if possibly a good idea sometimes it's never in my opinion beautiful and in no way more "dignified" than another way of dying. This idea of it having more "dignity" is one I really object to.

But why? I want to understand where you are coming from but it's not coming across in your posts. Surely you can see the difference between someone who goes to sleep and doesn't wake up vs someone who spends their last hours vomiting up their insides in unimaginable pain?

Why do you object so strongly to someone who knows they are going to die, opting to push a button on their terms?

I really don't understand your opinion. You are obviously entitled to it but why should you be able to force it on other people? I've made my opinions clear, based on my experiences. I wouldn't force them on anyone and would never expect someone with a terminal illness to opt out. I want to give the person the choice.

Do you honestly think all deaths are dignified?

uptherebels

Ivanna Beautiful Ibex wrote: »

As one who believes that only the Giver of that life can take it again...yes.

Their parents?

paleoperson

yera go away with your codology. If you can't understand what I'm saying you must be some kind of invalid.

I'm not even against euthanasia per se though I respect people who are.

edit: Answering PaddyCow.

Paddy Cow

paleoperson wrote: »

yera go away with your codology. If you can't understand what I'm saying you must be some kind of invalid.

I'm not even against euthanasia per se though I respect people who are.

edit: Answering PaddyCow.

I can guarantee that I'm not an invalid. I simply don't understand from your posts what you think "dignity" is. You might want to reduce my opinion to "codology" but that doesn't make your argument any clearer.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I don't disagree with your thinking, but the injection scenario doesn't seem to be that simple at all;

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/26/gory-botched-alabamas-aborted-execution-of-inmate-was-bloody-says-lawyer

As someone who has her arms punctured repeatedly searching for veins every time I’m in hospital (which is usually weekly, sometimes more frequently), that article seems a tad overdramatic. They couldn’t find a vein. That’s all. I go through that approximately 50 times a year.

Sardonicat

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

The death itself may have looked gentle and peaceful But there is nothing beautiful about being killed. It's the ultimate statement that the person is not valued - and will rapidly expand to other people who aren't valued. Look at how many posters here hate travellers.

Just to clarify:
Definitely terminally ill people should suffer til the end and possibly terminally ill are OK to leave alone at Christmas. Have I got that right? This is how you show people you value them?

Dave_The_Sheep

My father always said to me, If I can't control myself, it can't know who I am or you or your sister are, just fix the brakes on my car and make me drive into a wall. He said it less succintly than that, which is saying something, but still.

I don't disagree with him, but I still reamed him out of it for saying it. What he's actually asking is to ask his kids to help him kill himself. That's not ok. That's a totally understandable situation for him, but not cool position. I still fully agree with his position on it. Not OK to ask me to do it, as much as I agree with the situation.

Dead now, but I still agree with him mostly. I still think about it. I don't have kids, nor will I if I have any say in it, but still. Ah, it's a weird situation. I'm just thinking aloud.

Emme

Ivanna Beautiful Ibex wrote: »

As one who believes that only the Giver of that life can take it again...yes.

As somebody else said, several people would not be alive today if we had not intervened with medical and hygiene practices down the years. These interventions have improved the quality of life for many people and prolonged life for more.

The "Giver of life" may indeed take life in most cases, but the taking of life has been postponed by mankind.

uck51js9zml2yt

wiggle16 wrote: »

What a ridiculous and incontinent assertion.

There is absolutely no comparison between what is being discussed in this thread, euthanasia/assisted suicide, and Aktion T4, which you are inaccurately describing in your post.

Aktion T4 was not euthanasia. It was the extermination of disabled, poorly socialised and mentally ill people as part of the Nazi state's haphazard eugenics plan, to remove "degenerates" from their gene pool. It was murder and no different to what happened in the death camps. The only reason that we refer to it as "euthanasia" is because it was carried out in hospitals, not death camps. Referring to it as, or on the same terms as, euthanasia, is an insult to the thousands of defenceless people who suffered that fate.

We are not talking about introducing euthanasia because we do not value people who are terminally or chronically ill or don't care about them. We are talking about it because we care about them. We are talking about giving people the choice as to whether they wish to suffer a prolonged, needless and agonising death for no good f***ing reason or making alternative arrangements to preserve their dignity, autonomy and humanity - a right to choose which places far more value on the wishes of the dying person than on the abstract morals of bystanders.

You need to realise this is not abstract. Look how many people are posting about their own experiences with the end stage of life and their relatives. The obligatory suffering and dehumanisation caused by the lack of a choice affect thousands of people every day in Ireland. Needlessly.

You should inform yourself better before making sweeping, slippery slope warnings.

As an aside, T4 was not pushed by "psychiatrists", and it was not proposed in the "early 1900's" - the Nazi party did not exist until 1920. The operation itself only commenced in 1939 and the figure of 70,000 victims is out of date since the 1990s. The total number of deaths from T4 was closer to 300,000, and it was not by any means confined to Germany.

I hate this phrase, but seriously, open a history book. (Michael Burleigh, A New History of the Third Reich, would be a good start).

I heard people talk about "caring for people" and giving them a choice in the last 12 months...we then legalised murder of the unborn....but please do keep believing it's to provide "better health care" and a "better quality of life".

We can call killing people what we like. Euthanasia is a "nice" word , it softens what's really happening.

The psychiatrists of their day called eugenics "nice" things at the start.They were helping society. Within a short space of time we got to genocide.....oops ...were there already!

uck51js9zml2yt

Emme wrote: »

As somebody else said, several people would not be alive today if we had not intervened with medical and hygiene practices down the years. These interventions have improved the quality of life for many people and prolonged life for more.

The "Giver of life" may indeed take life in most cases, but the taking of life has been postponed by mankind.

We're discussing taking a life here , not improving it...or are you in the wrong thread ?

Emme

Ivanna Beautiful Ibex wrote: »

We're discussing taking a life here , not improving it...or are you in the wrong thread ?

Do you not care about improving life and quality of living?

What happens when life can no longer be improved and is only an existence of suffering agony beyond belief?

Paddy Cow

Ivanna Beautiful Ibex wrote: »

We're discussing taking a life here , not improving it...or are you in the wrong thread ?

But we're not taking anyone's life. We're talking about giving someone who has a terminal illness the option of ending their life under medical supervision. On their terms.

wiggle16

Ivanna Beautiful Ibex wrote: »

I heard people talk about "caring for people" and giving them a choice in the last 12 months...we then legalised murder of the unborn....but please do keep believing it's to provide "better health care" and a "better quality of life".

We can call killing people what we like. Euthanasia is a "nice" word , it softens what's really happening.

The psychiatrists of their day called eugenics "nice" things at the start.They were helping society. Within a short space of time we got to genocide.....oops ...were there already!

I never mentioned abortion. So I don't know why you're bringing it up or telling me what I apparently believe about it.

No, we cannot call "killing people" what we like. We have different words for different things. Hence why euthanasia and murder are not interchangeable words.

It's becoming quite clear that you do not understand that eugenics and euthanasia are two different things. You also do not understand that Aktion T4 was not a "euthanasia" program and, for that matter, that Aktion T4 was not genocide either. You clearly did not read my post that you are responding to either.

May I ask, what exactly is your issue with psychiatrists? Do you have any idea what a psychiatrist actually does?

paleoperson

wiggle16 wrote: »

May I ask, what exactly is your issue with psychiatrists? Do you have any idea what a psychiatrist actually does?

They're psychologists who can write prescriptions and are insistent on putting everyone on expensive pills that often do a lot more harm than good.

Psychiatry is looked down on and often considered dodgy even by their peers in the medical community.

amdublin

paleoperson wrote: »

They're psychologists who can write prescriptions and are insistent on putting everyone on expensive pills that often do a lot more harm than good.

Psychiatry is looked down on and often considered dodgy even by their peers in the medical community.

Codswallop. Complete and utter codswallop.

wiggle16

paleoperson wrote: »

Psychiatry is looked down on and often considered dodgy even by their peers in the medical community.

You literally just made that up out of nowhere. It's been a recognised branch of medicine for well over 150 years.

paleoperson

wiggle16 wrote: »

You literally just made that up out of nowhere. It's been a recognised branch of medicine for well over 150 years.

That's totally false.

Can you mods please stop pretending you know it all or at least stop suggesting that you have any idea what others are talking about? I "literally just made that up out of nowhere" eh? What a stupid thing to say, you have no idea how or why I think this. It's quite a common knowledge thing, it is 100% true, many people agree. You can disagree with it all you like but to say I "literally just made it up", what are you some kind of child?

It's bad enough when a common troll does it, but to see moderators take part in this type of trolling is really jarring. I'm talking about genuine views ok? If you want to cast doubt, fine, to say I made it up is bull****.

It's you so-called "mods" that make me stop coming to this board. Not so much from being warned or anything, but by your attitude and belligerence and lack of respect for other views.

1hnr79jr65

paleoperson wrote: »

That's totally false.

Can you mods please stop pretending you know it all or at least stop suggesting that you have any idea what others are talking about? I "literally just made that up out of nowhere" eh? What a stupid thing to say, you have no idea how or why I think this. It's quite a common knowledge thing, it is 100% true, many people agree. You can disagree with it all you like but to say I "literally just made it up", what are you some kind of child?

It's bad enough when a common troll does it, but to see moderators take part in this type of trolling is really jarring. I'm talking about genuine views ok? If you want to cast doubt, fine, to say I made it up is bull****.

It's you so-called "mods" that make me stop coming to this board. Not so much from being warned or anything, but by your attitude and belligerence and lack of respect for other views.

Its not just mods calling you on BS, psychiatry is difficult yes, but looked down on? Definitely not as its the medical science that helps the mind where physical medical science cannot.

In fact officials, politicians and even other medical professionals are calling for more psychiatric services for the benefit it brings, so yes your talking crap.