Rosary-chanting protesters force euthanasia talk to be abandoned

lostexpectation · 10-04-2009 10:34pm

PDN wrote: »

It's funny how when we are in agreement with protestors (eg anti-Iraq War) then they are simply exercising their democratic free speech. However, when we don't agree with the protestors then they are scumbags and zealots.

The tactics mentioned in that article certainly isn't a way I would choose to behave - but its been done a thousand times before for anti-apartheid, gay rights, Brits out, anti G-20, etc, etc. etc.

that because these are people are scumbags and zealots, that the difference

CDfm · 10-04-2009 10:37pm

lostexpectation wrote: »

that because these are people are scumbags and zealots, that the difference

like these radicals quouted in the Irish Times

“The HSE will make us out to be religious zealots but we are not. We are all individual protesters here,” said anti-euthanasia protester Margaret Hurley, from Bishopstown in Cork.

Outside the hospital entrance, protester Moira O’Regan, from Cork, said she was present as a voice for elderly people: “This lecture has nothing to do with providing care for people.”

LOL:D

KnifeWRENCH · 10-04-2009 10:48pm

I am very disappointed to hear this. On one level, it's because I myself am very strongly in favour of euthanasia.
Mainly though, it's because these people intimidated a man who wanted a debate, not just a lecture. If they disagree with him, then they should debate with him rationally. Instead, they basically bullied him away.

These are the kind of people who give Christianity (and religion in general) a bad name, and it's unfair on religious people who are willing to have fair debate and not resort to scare tactics.

Fighting Irish · 10-04-2009 10:51pm

jackpalance wrote: »

They have a right to protest against euthanasia, but they certainly didn't help their case by chanting the rosary and intimidating people. They've made themselves look like a typical religious person.

fixed

CDfm · 10-04-2009 10:58pm

square_igloo wrote: »

I am very disappointed to hear this. On one level, it's because I myself am very strongly in favour of euthanasia.
Mainly though, it's because these people intimidated a man who wanted a debate, not just a lecture. If they disagree with him, then they should debate with him rationally. Instead, they basically bullied him away.

These are the kind of people who give Christianity (and religion in general) a bad name, and it's unfair on religious people who are willing to have fair debate and not resort to scare tactics.

But Len Doyal is a bit of a radical and zealot himself and an advocate of involuntary euthenasia.

Here is a link to his views in the Guardian from 2006.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/jun/08/health.medicineandhealth1

Call for no-consent euthanasia

Doctors should be able to end lives swiftly and humanely, says professor

* Sarah Boseley , health editor
* The Guardian, Thursday 8 June 2006

One of the country's leading experts on medical ethics today calls for doctors to be able to end the lives of some terminally ill patients "swiftly, humanely and without guilt" - even if they have not given consent.

Len Doyal, emeritus professor of medical ethics at Queen Mary, University of London, takes the euthanasia debate into new and highly contentious territory. He says doctors should recognise that they are already killing patients when they remove feeding tubes from those whose lives are judged to be no longer worth living. Some will suffer a "slow and distressing death" as a result.

It would be better if their lives were ended without this unnecessary delay, Professor Doyal writes in an article in Clinical Ethics, published by the Royal Society of Medicine. He calls for the law and professional guidance to be changed.

Critics said yesterday that the views of Prof Doyal, a member of the British Medical Association medical ethics committee for nine years, were the "very worst form of medical paternalism".

Zillah · 10-04-2009 11:14pm

When they say no-consent, I presume they mean coma patients, or those who are in some way incapable of interacting?

CDfm · 10-04-2009 11:31pm

Zillah wrote: »

When they say no-consent, I presume they mean coma patients, or those who are in some way incapable of interacting?

I dont know - I think it means that a doctor can make a decision him or herself without regard to the views that a patient might have expressed in a "living will" , the patients family or the courts.

He is also a supporter of assisted suicide in some cases,

condra · 10-04-2009 11:32pm

No, I think he wanted a more "Logan's Run" type situation where you're exterminated when you reach a certain age.

Sorry just kidding.

CDfm · 10-04-2009 11:47pm

womoma wrote: »

No, I think he wanted a more "Logan's Run" type situation where you're exterminated when you reach a certain age.

Sorry just kidding.

Well thats what the Women in Cork think.

I still am hugely amused that they planned the debate in the hospital itself slap bank in the middle of Wilton. This kind of controversial debate is more a Student Union type thing and not HSE territory.

There is a good link here to Care Not Killing Alliance that covers many of the issues. Its founder Dr Peter Saunders is very anti Prof Doyals views but it isnt a religious site.

http://www.carenotkilling.org.uk/

Zombrex · 11-04-2009 12:05am

Zillah wrote: »

When they say no-consent, I presume they mean coma patients, or those who are in some way incapable of interacting?

If I am reading it correctly it is patients who the doctors have already decided to let die by taking them off life support, such as feeding tubes.

They want the ability to actually kill the person rather than waiting for them to starve to death.

I can see how in isolation, without this context, the call could be seen as giving doctors the power to kill someone for the heck of it, but really it seems to simply be the ability to speed up the process after they have already decided to let someone die.

CDfm · 11-04-2009 12:17am

This argument played out in the UK with the Joffe Bill: so its more active participation rather than passive thru the effects of pallatative treatment or withdrawal of live support.

Here is a link and quote from a Care Not Killing Press Release to a Statement Prof Doyal Made to the British Medical Association Journal

http://www.carenotkilling.org.uk/?show=359

08 June 2006
Care Not Killing responds to Professor Doyal's statement

The Care Not Killing Alliance has responded to Professor Len Doyal's controversial call to legalise non-voluntary euthanasia.

Len Doyal, of the British Medical Association's ethics committee, writing in the June edition of the Royal Society of Medicine Journal Clinical Ethics, had said doctor-assisted deaths were already happening and needed to be regulated. He also said the law should be changed to enable doctors to give lethal injections even if patients cannot consent.

Dr Peter Saunders, campaign director of Care Not Killing, said: 'Doyal confuses euthanasia, in which the doctor actively ends the life of a patient under his care, with the appropriate withdrawal of treatment when its burden outweighs any benefit.

condra · 11-04-2009 1:37am

CDFM I hope you read literature from UNbiased sources too.

Either way, this is not Switzerland. If Euthanasia legislation ever changed here, it wouldn't be the same as Swiss legislation.

I will concede however that a sort of "slippery slope" effect would be possible, and worrying. Though I'm not sure how likely it would be, especially in this country.

CDfm · 11-04-2009 2:39am

womoma wrote: »

CDFM I hope you read literature from UNbiased sources too.

Either way, this is not Switzerland. If Euthanasia legislation ever changed here, it wouldn't be the same as Swiss legislation.

I will concede however that a sort of "slippery slope" effect would be possible, and worrying. Though I'm not sure how likely it would be, especially in this country.

I was aware of the UK debate - I know the source is biased and is from an anti-Euthenasia Group but as far as i am aware it is not a christian group but a UK one. Our model is based on the UK and thats its relevance.

I do not think its a good example of a religous issue or that its opponents are limited to religious which is the impression some posters give.You have atheist opponents of non consent euthenasia too who oppose it for ethical reasons.

ynotdu · 11-04-2009 4:54am

Nodin wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/rosarychanting-protesters-force-euthanasia-talk-to-be-abandoned-1705229.html

I see that particular shower of gobshites haven't gone away....now they're fighting for the right of the born to die badly.

Usually I find people who shout others down are afraid of rational arguement,just in case a majority might disagree with them.I often wonder how secure they are in their own beliefes?

I am in favour of highly regulated euthanasia preferably by living will.

It is often obvious that the most compassionate thing for an animal is to put them down,yet people really suffering are refused even when they are still completely rational and want to opt out of the severe pain they know they are going to face.

there are dangers of lunatic doctors etc..........
With safeguards in place I believe human beings should at least be afforded a chance to die in a dignified way as We allow animals to(We are animals too)

Botany Bay · 11-04-2009 7:10am

ynotdu wrote: »

Usually I find people who shout others down are afraid of rational arguement,just in case a majority might disagree with them.I often wonder how secure they are in their own beliefes?

I am in favour of highly regulated euthanasia preferably by living will.

It is often obvious that the most compassionate thing for an animal is to put them down,yet people really suffering are refused even when they are still completely rational and want to opt out of the severe pain they know they are going to face.

there are dangers of lunatic doctors etc..........
With safeguards in place I believe human beings should at least be afforded a chance to die in a dignified way as We allow animals to(We are animals too)

I'd agree with that. If you can't make a decision over something as crucial as your own life and potentially excruciating suffering, even in a rational, stable state of mind. Then you really have little freedom of choice at all!!

Of course, don't expect this to wash, with the inevitable "It's not your choice, it is Gods choice". Or the idea that there exists an objective morality, which automatically renders euthanasia wrong. The fact it seems, is that whatever amount of suffering may be endured by one or more human beings, it will always be secondary in consideration to the religious convictions of some sanctimonious twit.

This extends to abortion, stem cell research and no doubt future scientific endeavours. The considerations of which, based on rational, logical deduction and empirical research, will always have to contend with arguments from the supernatural, which we all know are neither rational or empirical, but only on occasion could be considered logical, insofar as it's logically consistent nonsense.

LoveDucati2 · 11-04-2009 9:22am

square_igloo wrote: »

I am very disappointed to hear this. On one level, it's because I myself am very strongly in favour of euthanasia.
Mainly though, it's because these people intimidated a man who wanted a debate, not just a lecture. If they disagree with him, then they should debate with him rationally. Instead, they basically bullied him away.

I am in favour of euthanasia.

Religious opinion is not neccessary on this topic, if you choose to believe in fantasy and fiction then do so on your own time.

square_igloo wrote: »

These are the kind of people who give Christianity (and religion in general) a bad name, and it's unfair on religious people who are willing to have fair debate and not resort to scare tactics.

Any fool who professes his love for religon is an idiot, you cannot hold a farsical belief and expect people to take you seriously. There is no debate.

Nodin · 11-04-2009 9:38am

CDfm wrote: »

But Len Doyal is a bit of a radical and zealot himself and an advocate of involuntary euthenasia.

What hes talking about there is to use lethal drugs instead of removing feeding tubes as is the current practice. He's merely not fudging the issue and saying 'just do it quickly'. It's actually more humane.

robindch · 11-04-2009 9:51am

LoveDucati2 wrote: »

Any fool who professes his love for religon is an idiot

Any fool is an idiot? Can't argue with that.

You'd have been carded if you'd phrased that as you intended to :rolleyes:

Stercus Accidit · 11-04-2009 12:34pm

Nodin wrote: »

What hes talking about there is to use lethal drugs instead of removing feeding tubes as is the current practice. He's merely not fudging the issue and saying 'just do it quickly'. It's actually more humane.

Allowing someone to starve to death versus a quick injection?

I know my stance on that one.

Zamboni · 11-04-2009 2:56pm

Someone quite close to me has been begging to die for months now and is in a lot of pain.
They have been told that god isn't ready for them yet.
Quite frankly I think the anti-euthanasia standpoint is disgustingly immoral.

robindch · 11-04-2009 3:27pm

Zamboni wrote: »

I think the anti-euthanasia standpoint is disgustingly immoral.

I wouldn't say immoral -- I think selfish and arrogant might be closer to the mark.

CDfm · 11-04-2009 7:09pm

PDN wrote: »

It's hardly a parallel, since this was not a case of religious people disturbing an atheist debate, was it?

But there is a precedent when group of Dublin Christians got together with some local politicians to protest against another idea from the UK.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/the-last-lap-for-stringfellows-dancers-88174.html

Complex issues make for strange coalitions.

My understanding is that Prof Doyal goes further than removing feeding tubes into the field of active euthenasia.

I have no problem at all with pain relieving drugs which may hasten death, my objections really come down to cases where its done for convenience or cost) in cases where doctors just dont know or where someone is say clinically depressed. The ethics of those situations do cause me problems.

Nodin · 11-04-2009 7:36pm

CDfm wrote: »

My understanding is that Prof Doyal goes further than removing feeding tubes into the field of active euthenasia..

Source?

CDfm · 12-04-2009 12:16am

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Allowing someone to starve to death versus a quick injection?

I know my stance on that one.

Yup I must agree that death by dehydration which is what removing life support systems does is severe.

Does this happen in Ireland and do doctors arrive at the decision or do they have to go to court?

MatthewVII · 12-04-2009 8:44pm

CDfm wrote: »

Does this happen in Ireland and do doctors arrive at the decision or do they have to go to court?

I've only seen this done once when I was a medical student (quite disturbing at the time). Back then it was a decision made with the family who were fully for their father being let go. They were actually quite annoyed that it was illegal to give him something to make the passing quicker and easier. Not sure where the stance is now.

It's really just an extension of palliative care. I don't see why people would want to prolong misery just for life's sake.

CDfm · 12-04-2009 10:33pm

MatthewVII wrote: »

I've only seen this done once when I was a medical student (quite disturbing at the time). Back then it was a decision made with the family who were fully for their father being let go. They were actually quite annoyed that it was illegal to give him something to make the passing quicker and easier. Not sure where the stance is now.

It's really just an extension of palliative care. I don't see why people would want to prolong misery just for life's sake.

Was this is the "double effect" thing I have read about -my understanding is its pallative but as it exceeds the safe dosage it may hasten death but is the only way to relieve pain. I remember seeing something about King George the Queens father been given morphine and it having that affect but he was already out of it for all intents and purposes.Thats not my understanding of what euthenasia is.

I personally have no problem with that.

MatthewVII - as a Doctor whatcha think of Cork University Hospital where terminal patients get treated as a venue for the lecture.

the_syco · 13-04-2009 4:36pm

CDfm wrote: »

But Len Doyal is a bit of a radical and zealot himself and an advocate of involuntary euthenasia.

Here is a link to his views in the Guardian from 2006.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/jun/08/health.medicineandhealth1

This sort of thing should be debated, and not just swept under the mat. Unfortunately the religious nuts don't like debate.

MatthewVII · 13-04-2009 5:20pm

CDfm wrote: »

MatthewVII - as a Doctor whatcha think of Cork University Hospital where terminal patients get treated as a venue for the lecture.

I initially misread this as Cork University Hospital treating terminal patients as a venue for a lecture and was sent into crazy logic spirals about how you'd use a patient as a lecture venue. it took me a while to realise it was, in fact, intended to say 'Cork University Hospital, where terminal patients get treated, as a venue for the lecture'. Lynn Truss strikes again

Anyhow, in answer to your question, i really don't see the problem. For one, a hospital is the best way to reach out to healthcare workers. As I'm not a terminally ill patient myself I can't speak for how it would make me feel to have a lecture on euthanasia go on, but everyone is entitled to their opinions and is entitled to have those opinions heard by people who want to hear it.

Personally I don't think that a talk on euthanasia would make a terminally ill patient feel angry or devalued, since if euthanasia were implemented it would largely be a matter of choice, not something forced on people once they had reached a certain age or level of deterioration.

To be honest, I'm quite impressed that this stuff is being talked about in the open and getting an audience (or not, as in this case). Just a shame that in exercising their right to free speech, the protestors took away the right of the speaker to the same privilege.

Bottom line - The only way to reach a satisfactory conclusion is for both sides to be level-headed and open. More public debate and less public passion is what's needed. much like the abortion debate, it's all about life for all or choice for all. No real clear right and wrong about it.

Phototoxin · 13-04-2009 6:20pm

i'm anti euthanasia. i think its murder. But I think he has a right to his opinion. The actions of the protesters is not exactly doing themselves favour. However I guess that unless you make a fuss then the powers that be just do their own thing and ignore you. Although they should not have abused him and should have entered into a debate

Then again debates only prove who is the better mass-debator
(sorry couldn't resist!) not who's point is the truth.

MatthewVII · 13-04-2009 6:22pm

Phototoxin wrote: »

not who's point is the truth.

That's dangerous talk you're getting into, almost like one side is always objectively right and the other side is always objectively wrong.

CDfm · 13-04-2009 6:44pm

MatthewVII wrote: »

That's dangerous talk you're getting into, almost like one side is always objectively right and the other side is always objectively wrong.

:DLOL

Stick to the Doctoring job -you will never make it in Marketing.

I work in Marketing and have experience in Media and Promotion.

Any Marketing Student will tell you that Marketing is about the 4 Ps are Product,Place , Price and Promotion ( a smartarse will add a fifth P for People) to its target Market( Audience).

Its as real to me as the Placebo affect is to you.

Much mirth that what got picked up in Cork was grab the rosary beads and lets pray outside the hospital because they are planning to put patients to sleep.

You might have got the message as a doctor that it was a debate on pallative care and was useful for doctors and medical professionals to attend.

However, the message the General Public got and which is obvious to anyone reading the media reports is that the policy of the hospital is changing as the key words that are reported in the media are Cork University Hospital and Euthenasia.

If I worked as a lecturer in Marketing & Promotion I would use it as a disaster example. If you had a Marketing Institute Wooden Spoon Award for the Worst Promotion Campaign of the Year- it would win.

I would imagine that the job of any Doctor discussing Pain management and pallative care to patients and their families in Cork just got harder.

Dades · 14-04-2009 9:04am

Phototoxin wrote: »

i'm anti euthanasia. i think its murder.

Well it currently is murder, from a legal standpoint.

If it was legalised (as in Switzerland) would you be still against it from a religious one?

CDfm · 14-04-2009 9:52am

Dades wrote: »

Well it currently is murder, from a legal standpoint.

If it was legalised (as in Switzerland) would you be still against it from a religious one?

Ah - is it thou shalt not kill or is it thou shall not murder debate? Semantics. Are we debating Switzerland or Ireland?

I am a bit lost as to what is defined as Euthenasia in the context of the debate in Ireland so it would help to have some direction here mods.

So isnt it important to define what we mean by euthenasia and pallative care/pain relief.Pertinent here is what the Irish situation actually is now.Can anyone explain what the current law and policy is?

The Swiss and Dutch have controversial systems. In Switzerland -you get legalised assisted suicide. LIke you got a twenty something paralysed rugby player from the UK getting killed. People with degenerative diseases can sign up for it too.Some doctors say that if the patient is depressed it is treatable with drig therapy?

Do we want people who are depressed because of life but can otherwise be treated checking out like this? This I am definately against.Is this in the debate or excluded?

Some of the Cork protestors interviewed by the Press denied they had any links with any Christian group and that they worried that the HSE was bringing in Euthenasia as an alternative to treatment - the Dutch slippery slope effect.

I cant see that this type of protestor is unreasonable and I also cannot see why as some medics propose pain relief when withdrawing life support cant be available are unreasonable either?

MatthewVII · 14-04-2009 12:34pm

CDfm wrote: »

Some of the Cork protestors interviewed by the Press denied they had any links with any Christian group and that they worried that the HSE was bringing in Euthenasia as an alternative to treatment - the Dutch slippery slope effect.

Euthanasia isn't an alternative to treatment, it's an alternative to palliative care (when treatment isn't medically indicated), thereby a choice to die quickly and effortlessly instead of stuggling with everything from horrendous pain to incontinence, night sweats, breathing difficulties, bed sores etc. Believe it or not, life as a terminally ill patient is not glamorous and you can't judge someone who wants to die with a little dignity.

Dades · 14-04-2009 1:28pm

CDfm wrote: »

Do we want people who are depressed because of life but can otherwise be treated checking out like this? This I am definately against.Is this in the debate or excluded?

If someone is suffering from depression from a chemical imbalance in their brain, fair enough. But if someone is "depressed" having permanently lost the use of all of their limbs and bodily functions, I can't see how drugs are going to "help" other than by keeping them in an induced state.

They are vastly different scenarios and an 'option' should not be withheld from one because of the unsuitability of it for the other.

CDfm · 14-04-2009 2:32pm

MatthewVII wrote: »

Euthanasia isn't an alternative to treatment, it's an alternative to palliative care (when treatment isn't medically indicated), thereby a choice to die quickly and effortlessly instead of stuggling with everything from horrendous pain to incontinence, night sweats, breathing difficulties, bed sores etc. Believe it or not, life as a terminally ill patient is not glamorous and you can't judge someone who wants to die with a little dignity.

I would like a clearer definitions really.

You give a great description on what you wouldnt like for you and I accept that. But does that give you the right to make that decision for someone else, with or without their family(ies)agreement(s).

So what are the categories?Coma/permanent vegetative state is one.
Semi- conscious is another. This is where a person cannot indicate whether they live or die.Where withdawing life support is on the table and where you dont know if its cruel/painfull for the patient. I can understand a doctor wanting to lessen pain there and a patient and their family wanting them to. I would want that for me.

Then you have this the double effect thing? Where someone recieves pain relief and it hastens death.

Then there are the others so its the other categories. These cant be easy as normally a physicial is there to heal and a patient wants to live. We dont want Dr Shipmans running around either so what categories do you have? The list must be finite.

Dades wrote: »

If someone is suffering from depression from a chemical imbalance in their brain, fair enough. But if someone is "depressed" having permanently lost the use of all of their limbs and bodily functions, I can't see how drugs are going to "help" other than by keeping them in an induced state.

They are vastly different scenarios and an 'option' should not be withheld from one because of the unsuitability of it for the other.

I would class these as assisted suicide and in my book these thats wrong.

It would be euthenasia too as the Doctor has given up on the patient and has taken positive action to end a life.

THere must be a finite list?

Dades · 14-04-2009 4:05pm

CDfm wrote: »

I would class these as assisted suicide and in my book these thats wrong.

It would be euthenasia too as the Doctor has given up on the patient and has taken positive action to end a life.

I'm confused - are we not debating euthanasia and/or assisted suicide here?

We're not talking about people in a coma, patients who can't communicate, or any situation where the doctor makes the decision. We are talking about situations where the patient, knowing that the only end to their suffering is death, requests their life be ended.

Fanny Cradock · 14-04-2009 4:20pm

Dades wrote: »

I'm confused - are we not debating euthanasia and/or assisted suicide here?

I though it was how many went to St. Ives

Dades · 14-04-2009 4:29pm

I have that trainwreck on ignore!

Fanny Cradock · 14-04-2009 4:33pm

Yeah, sorry about that! (Especially all the badmouthing about you I did)

MatthewVII · 14-04-2009 4:35pm

CDfm wrote: »

You give a great description on what you wouldnt like for you and I accept that. But does that give you the right to make that decision for someone else, with or without their family(ies)agreement(s).

Righto, doctors wouldn't bring around a trolley of potassium on the ward rounds and tell patients they've decided dying is in their best interest and injecting them against their will. What's being debated is the option of euthanasia. For people in a persistent vegetative state, the decision would have to be made with families etc, and that's no different to any other decision that a family would have to make in lieu of their incapacitated relative. Coma is a blurrier one, since recovery is a possibility. It'd really have to be decided on an individual case basis, but again, the patient's families wishes would have preference over the doctor's wishes.

Euthanasia isn't murder. It's a choice, one which would not be taken lightly and one which would not be "the thin edge of the wedge" and drive society off a cliff.

If does happen where terminally ill patients try to commit suicide because of their pain and suffering. Their quality of life is not going to improve. It should definitely be an option.

Phototoxin · 14-04-2009 4:49pm

If it was legalised (as in Switzerland) would you be still against it from a religious one?

Dades you're presuming that I'm against it from a religous one when I'm against it from a moral one irregardless of my religous beliefs or lack thereof.
One can be an athiest / agnostic and be against suicide, be pro-life and like to rape sheep. They are not all mutally exclusive.

Dades · 14-04-2009 5:03pm

Apologies, Phototoxin, you are right in that I made the assumption (despite being vaguely aware that you're not Christian!)

I guess I can't picture a justification for denying someone the right to take their own life without some form of "faith-based guidance" for want of a better term.

Mickeroo · 14-04-2009 7:19pm

Phototoxin wrote: »

Dades you're presuming that I'm against it from a religous one when I'm against it from a moral one irregardless of my religous beliefs or lack thereof.
One can be an athiest / agnostic and be against suicide, be pro-life and like to rape sheep. They are not all mutally exclusive.

Do you consider all forms of euthanasia murder?

It's a pretty complex issue, I think in some cases i would agree with it and others I wouldn't, and I can honestly say I have no idea what i would do if i was put in the position of the decision maker.

I remember one time when i was a teenager, a friend and I were driving around and we ran over a Hare. When we got out of the car to look it was still fully concious,but only the top half of its body was moving, its back must have been completely broken. We both agreed we had to put it out of its misery,but when it came down to it neither of us could bring ourselves to kill it. If it happened now I still cant say if i'd be able to do it or not.Its not exactly the same thing i know but you get the idea.

Nodin · 14-04-2009 9:05pm

Mickeroo wrote: »

.

I remember one time when i was a teenager, a friend and I were driving around and we ran over a Hare. When we got out of the car to look it was still fully concious,but only the top half of its body was moving, its back must have been completely broken. We both agreed we had to put it out of its misery,but when it came down to it neither of us could bring ourselves to kill it. If it happened now I still cant say if i'd be able to do it or not.Its not exactly the same thing i know but you get the idea.

The thing that looks a bit like a rabbit now, not the fellas with the bald heads and the singing and chanting.....?

CDfm · 14-04-2009 11:20pm

Mickeroo wrote: »

It's a pretty complex issue, I think in some cases i would agree with it and others I wouldn't, and I can honestly say I have no idea what i would do if i was put in the position of the decision maker.

That puts it very eloquently. Thats how I think of it.

I would really hate to have to decide.

MatthewVII · 15-04-2009 8:47am

I dunno, it's a fundamental human right that a person of sane mind has the right to decide what can be done to their own body. We see it all the time when patients refuse treatment for certain things even though it's their best option. People should be able to decide the course of their own lives and not have that power taken away from them.

Dades · 15-04-2009 9:43am

Mickeroo wrote: »

It's a pretty complex issue, I think in some cases i would agree with it and others I wouldn't, and I can honestly say I have no idea what i would do if i was put in the position of the decision maker.

CDfm wrote: »

I would really hate to have to decide.

Am I missing something here, or are we not discussing the situations where the patient is the only one making the decision? i.e. They are the only decision maker.

studiorat · 15-04-2009 11:14am

I suppose it boils down to what people actually describe as a life.

Lying in a vegetative state where a patient can't even cough for themselves is not a life. Consider yourself lying in a hospital with no eye response, no verbal response or no motor response and the possibility of being locked into your own body, with maybe just eye movement, if you did make a recovery and then ask which would you prefer for you and your family.

I've seen it and I think anybody else who has would agree that euthanasia should be an option in palliative care. Removing life support etc will leave a person waste away for nearly a month. This leaves families with nothing to do but wait for the patient to die.

Selkies · 15-04-2009 11:46am

Its unusual for a person with locked in syndrome to live for very long as I understand it. Its the people who are confined to a bed while they slowly and painfully die that the whole euthuanisia thing is popular with.

Fact is if someone begged me to kill them in that kind of state I'm not sure I would be able to refuse, particularly someone I cared about.

The thing is euthanasia is already happening in hospices where people are given as much morphine as they ask for. It speeds up the departure of terminal patients by quite a lot.

Rosary-chanting protesters force euthanasia talk to be abandoned

Comments