Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Should the law make it easier for us to help the terminally ill die?

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Sulmac
    Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭Sulmac


    Captain Darling wrote: »
    Thats my view on it. I'd rather live then die.

    Yes, that's your choice and your perfectly entitled to it - but what about those who don't share your views and would like to end their life if it became unbearable, surely they have a choice too?


  • Options
    #33
    Fink Goddie
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,443 ✭✭✭Fink Goddie


    Captain Darling wrote: »
    You're dead right, i'm only giving you my take on it.

    The sense of hopelessness and dread will probably kill you quicker then the actual condition though. I wasnt going to let that happen to me. Fcuked up frame of mind to be in, but its small odds to me now. :)

    Good to hear :)


  • Options
    #34
    truecrippler
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,243 ✭✭✭truecrippler


    Rabies wrote: »
    Because it suicide is probably painfull and if not, then it does serious damage to the well being of the people around you when it happens.

    If done properly, it would be done under medication and would be a peaceful death. So much better than a messy one.

    That's where loads of Horse Tranquilisers come in.


  • Options
    #35
    Fink Goddie
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,443 ✭✭✭Fink Goddie


    genericguy wrote: »
    it's sh1te anyway, if you really wanna watch a film like that watch 'the champ'.

    Just because it made you cry :D


  • Options
    #36
    Fink Goddie
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,443 ✭✭✭Fink Goddie


    truecrippler wrote: »
    That's where loads of Horse Tranquilisers come in.

    Them, a load of vodka and a few jager bombs. what a way to go :D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    genericguy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,831 ✭✭✭genericguy


    Fink Goddie wrote: »
    Just because it made you cry :D

    I only cried because hillary swank didn't die earlier, her face is too ugly even for the radio. teeth like f'kin tombstones.

    happy friday btw fink :)


  • Options
    #38
    Fink Goddie
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,443 ✭✭✭Fink Goddie


    genericguy wrote: »
    I only cried because hillary swank didn't die earlier, her face is too ugly even for the radio. teeth like f'kin tombstones.

    happy friday btw fink :)

    Harsh :pac:
    Clint Eastwood is a legend though.

    Happy Friday to you too genericdude:D


  • Options
    #39
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    It's all about the choice, really. If you could live with whatever it was - ie have some quality of life (until it killed you), you would.


  • Options
    #40
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    I'm absolutely opposed to euthanasia, there are other means by which one can alleviate the pain of the terminally ill so that they get to live their last moments in life out in relative peace without killing them.

    Euthanasia has too many holes to be legalised, it could result in people dying because they feel guilt tripped into it as they were a "burden onto their family". Modern medical technology allows us to be able to alleviate pain and suffering without killing another human being.

    I heard an interesting speaker talk about this a few months ago:
    PDF and Audio

    This guy made a very strong case against it's legalisation and has been involved in activism in the UK to stop any potential legalisation there.


  • Options
    #41
    JohnThomas09
    Closed Accounts Posts: 357 ✭✭JohnThomas09


    i think people that are terminally ill should be let die.I have a neighbour that has Motor Nueron the last 12 years.he has lost all movement and cant talk.the last five years he has spoken once or doesnt respond to any sort of stimulous.His family go to see him everyday and want him to be put out of his misery but cant with the strick laws.I always tell my family if im ever left like this poison me and tell no one.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Kimia
    Registered Users Posts: 2,897 ✭✭✭Kimia


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I'm absolutely opposed to euthanasia, there are other means by which one can alleviate the pain of the terminally ill so that they get to live their last moments in life out in relative peace without killing them.

    Euthanasia has too many holes to be legalised, it could result in people dying because they feel guilt tripped into it as they were a "burden onto their family". Modern medical technology allows us to be able to alleviate pain and suffering without killing another human being.

    I heard an interesting speaker talk about this a few months ago:
    PDF and Audio

    This guy made a very strong case against it's legalisation and has been involved in activism in the UK to stop any potential legalisation there.

    I agree with you to a certain extent Jakkass - where you say that it has too many holes. There would definitely be some circumstances where (if it was legalised) it would be taken advantage of. It would have to be tightly regulated.

    However I personally feel that if I did get terminally ill, or if I broke my neck and had no feeling from the legs down, I would imagine that I would want the option (if i so choose) to end my life with my family around me with no repercussions for them.

    And I also feel that I shouldn't have the right to force someone to live if they don't want to.


  • Options
    #43
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Kimia wrote: »
    And I also feel that I shouldn't have the right to force someone to live if they don't want to.

    It's this part that's the dangerous part.

    How can we tell genuine consent?

    Could it be a depressive outburst, or related to a psychological issue that can be resolved with help.

    Could it be from pressure from relatives?

    Could it be because of financial reasons?

    There are so many factors that could influence whether or not consent is genuine that it is almost impossible to legislate for it effectively.


  • Options
    #44
    Kimia
    Registered Users Posts: 2,897 ✭✭✭Kimia


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It's this part that's the dangerous part.

    How can we tell genuine consent?

    Could it be a depressive outburst, or related to a psychological issue that can be resolved with help.

    Could it be from pressure from relatives?

    Could it be because of financial reasons?

    There are so many factors that could influence whether or not consent is genuine that it is almost impossible to legislate for it effectively.

    Very true, and therein lies my agreement to your argument. However, when these issues aren't present, and the person involved is fully mentally competent, there are no pressure from relatives, it's not because of financial reasons and they just want to end it all, then I think it is their right.

    Again though how would this ever be regulated. Better to err on the side of caution? I don't know the answer to that. Right now I think I'd know what I'd want, but I'm not in that situation so not able to answer really.


  • Options
    #45
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Kimia wrote: »
    Very true, and therein lies my agreement to your argument. However, when these issues aren't present, and the person involved is fully mentally competent, there are no pressure from relatives, it's not because of financial reasons and they just want to end it all, then I think it is their right.

    This is practically impossible to detect without an entire investigation into discussions that the person seeking euthanasia has had with their family and other potential pressure holders. It's a legislative mess. One cannot ensure with confidence that it is genuine consent in relation to life or death.
    Kimia wrote: »
    Again though how would this ever be regulated. Better to err on the side of caution? I don't know the answer to that. Right now I think I'd know what I'd want, but I'm not in that situation so not able to answer really.

    It's definitely the most pragmatic and fair option to stay cautious about this, and to alleviate the pain using proper medical procedure to ensure that the rest of the persons life is as comfortable as possible for them. I feel that is more a social responsibility than the so-called "right to die" which might seem a great idea before we get down to the practicalities.


  • Options
    #46
    Fink Goddie
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,443 ✭✭✭Fink Goddie


    Jakkass wrote: »
    This is practically impossible to detect without an entire investigation into discussions that the person seeking euthanasia has had with their family and other potential pressure holders. It's a legislative mess. One cannot ensure with confidence that it is genuine consent in relation to life or death.



    It's definitely the most pragmatic and fair option to stay cautious about this, and to alleviate the pain using proper medical procedure to ensure that the rest of the persons life is as comfortable as possible for them. I feel that is more a social responsibility than the so-called "right to die" which might seem a great idea before we get down to the practicalities.

    It all depends on the quality of life the person is having, if someone is left like a vegetable after a crash, why make them live just for the sake of it, they're going to have no life.


  • Options
    #47
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Jakkass wrote: »
    There are so many factors that could influence whether or not consent is genuine that it is almost impossible to legislate for it effectively.

    Yet others have.


  • Options
    #48
    Kimia
    Registered Users Posts: 2,897 ✭✭✭Kimia


    Yes how have other countries legalised it? I agree with Jakkass - it's a legislative mess and these factors need to be considered. However, again I am all for giving everyone the right to their own bodies. It's just that these situations will crop up so how does the law deal with them?


  • Options
    #49
    Wertz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,909 ✭✭✭✭Wertz


    Yes, I support both the right to euthanasia and the right to abortion.

    The right to self determination in the case of euthanasia is of particular importance...why should any human being go on to suffer intractable pain and discomfort and a lowered quality of life merely because they haven't the means nor the energy to actually commit suicide...why should family members and friends have to watch loved ones suffering onward in the face of the inevitable? Through some sort of misguided idea about the sanctity of life in any shape or form? Life should be defined as more than simply breathing and having a heartbeat...someone that is wracked with a terminal illness over a long period may not feel that they are even "alive" in the sense that they once were...so why continue with the charade for the sake of "law" and morals?

    It should be up to the patient in question, in agreement with their close family...the law should play as little a part as possible, only existing in those cases to make sure that no wrongdoing is carried out or that things are not happening against the wishes of the patient.

    [edit] In the case where a patient may not be able to make that self determination, then a decision between the family, medical staff and some sort of appointed legal intermediary should be sought, where it is the wishes of the fmaily in question.


  • Options
    #50
    bleg
    Registered Users Posts: 5,848 ✭✭✭bleg


    We afford other animals the right to die with dignity in this country with a visit to a vet. There is no need to keep somebody alive who has given prior wish to die humanely in the event of terminal illness.


  • Options
    #51
    bleg
    Registered Users Posts: 5,848 ✭✭✭bleg


    Fink Goddie wrote: »
    It all depends on the quality of life the person is having, if someone is left like a vegetable after a crash, why make them live just for the sake of it.


    We don't. If somebody is brainstem dead after such an event then the machines keeping the person alive are turned off in a timely manner giving due regard to the wishes of the family.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Nodin wrote: »
    Yet others have.

    I don't think any country has legalised for euthanasia in a way that can safeguard against these potential threats thus far. Infact it would be highly disingenuous to say so without providing backup.

    Tell me how could this concern from the House of Lord's in 1994 concerning legislating for euthanasia be stopped effectively. One should ensure that there are no dangers or risks concerning legalisation before it goes ahead:
    Lord Walton of Detchant Detchant - February 1994 wrote:
    We concluded that it was virtually impossible to
    ensure that all acts of euthanasia were truly
    voluntary and that any liberalisation of the
    law in the United Kingdom could not be
    abused    . We were also concerned that
    vulnerable people - the elderly, lonely, sick or
    distressed - would feel pressure, whether real
    or imagined, to request early death.    ’

    The safer option seems to be pallative care. This group has been lobbying for it in the UK in response to growing attention to euthanasia in the public sphere:
    http://www.carenotkilling.org.uk

    What people don't inform you about too, is that in practice not all euthanasia is voluntary.

    This link explains common objections to good pallative care as opposed to euthanasia.


  • Options
    #53
    Maddison
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭Maddison


    Yes I believe that euthenasia should be legalised in extreme circumstances. My granny was diagnosed with cancer in September 2005, when she was diagnosed It was already too late for chemo, also the doctors said that with her age It would prob do more harm than good....she lived until May 2006 but those few months were horrible for her & the rest of the family. One week she would be bright as a button, the next week we would be thinking ''this is it'', this happened throughout the months that she had left, even in her times were she seemed perky she bore a brave face although she confided in me that the pain was unbearable & she was ready to die. It was a slow horrible death & while there was no way in hell I would have turned the lights out for her I would have rathered she died in the manner that she wanted to, she was a proud lady & from the time that she was diagnosed her body deteriorated badly & she wasnt able to do the things that she would have loved to have done anyway.


  • Options
    #54
    bronte
    Registered Users Posts: 11,331 ✭✭✭✭bronte


    Having watched several family members suffer from cancer for long periods and express a desire to just go to sleep, I do think it should be allowed.
    It's a damn tricky one to regulate but as someone else mentioned we grant our pets a dignified death,but my loved ones and many others certainly didn't have that choice.
    I know for a fact I would like to have the option if faced with that kind of suffering.


  • Options
    #55
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't think any country has legalised for euthanasia in a way that can safeguard against these potential threats thus far.

    The countries that have legalised it would disagree. Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands have provided a framework, which seems to function.
    We were also concerned that
    vulnerable people - the elderly, lonely, sick or
    distressed - would feel pressure, whether real
    or imagined, to request early death.    ’

    We're not discussing Euthanasia for those reasons. Nor has anyone suggested it. We're talking about suffering a long and painful drawn out death, in the case of an incurable illness.


  • Options
    #56
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Nodin wrote: »
    The countries that have legalised it would disagree. Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands have provided a framework, which seems to function.

    In the Netherlands, euthanasia is available without the consent of the individual, I don't think it's the prime example to note. The audio of the speaker I gave explains this adequately, and the PDF I provided a few posts ago.

    Not all forms of euthanasia need the consent of the deceased to die, and even if they did, we can't know if pressure is not involved in the decision making it extremely dangerous.

    Just because it is legal in other countries isn't a good enough reason to legalise it unless you can provide clear evidence that it is safe to do so and that the law is abuse proof.

    This is my problem with liberalism concerning laws like these. Matters of life and death aren't something to turn a blind eye to, these must be safe before they can be legalised.

    I asked you did you have any evidence the the concerns that were raised in the House of Lords were dealt with in other countries. You have merely retorted to say that it is legal elsewhere so they must be. That isn't dealing with what I asked though.

    If good pallative care is a reasonable option to alleviate suffering in hospitals why should there be the need of euthanasia? People often think euthanasia is the best option until they know what the hospitals can actually do for them.

    In Oregon only 5% received a psychiatric assessment to check if it was a problem motivated with psychological difficulties before euthanasia was carried out.

    In the Netherlands there were 900 cases of non-voluntary euthanasia in 1995. There are also other concerns about the figures from that year if you listen to the audio link I gave a few posts ago.
    Nodin wrote: »
    We're not discussing Euthanasia for those reasons. Nor has anyone suggested it. We're talking about suffering a long and painful drawn out death, in the case of an incurable illness.

    If you are talking about euthanasia these concerns are perfectly on topic and need to be alleviated before it can be legalised at all. You can't say for sure that pressure won't be involved in the decision to have euthanasia carried out, that's the problem with it.


  • Options
    #57
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Jakkass wrote: »
    In the Netherlands, euthanasia is available without the consent of the individual, I don't think it's the prime example to note. The audio of the speaker I gave explains this adequately, and the PDF I provided a few posts ago. .

    Really...Because as far as I know -

    the patient's request for euthanasia must be voluntary and persist over time (the request cannot be granted when under the influence of others, psychological illness or drugs)
    the patient must be fully aware of his/her condition, prospects and options
    there must be consultation with at least one other independent doctor who needs to confirm the conditions mentioned above

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_the_Netherlands
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Not all forms of euthanasia need the consent of the deceased to die, and even if they did, we can't know if pressure is not involved in the decision making it extremely dangerous. .

    ....by which logic no-one should cash a cheque signed by a person not present, lest it have been forced from them. A reasonable standard can be set, enforced and met.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Just because it is legal in other countries isn't a good enough reason to legalise it unless you can provide clear evidence that it is safe to do so and that the law is abuse proof. .

    It has been the de facto position in the Netherlands for over 20 years, and seems to go along smoothly. Thats 'clear evidence'.

    Jakkass wrote: »
    I asked you did you have any evidence the the concerns that were raised in the House of Lords were dealt with in other countries. .

    See above.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    If good pallative care is a reasonable option to alleviate suffering in hospitals why should there be the need of euthanasia? People often think euthanasia is the best option until they know what the hospitals can actually do for them. .

    An informed choice would be made. Because you can't understand why somebody wouldn't wish to linger is no reason to bar them from making a descision on the matter.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    If you are talking about euthanasia these concerns are perfectly on topic and need to be alleviated before it can be legalised at all. You can't say for sure that pressure won't be involved in the decision to have euthanasia carried out, that's the problem with it.

    Nobody has proposed Euthanasia for those problems. We might as well discuss what the fairy godmother would do in a fight with the tooth fairy.


  • Options
    #58
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Nodin wrote: »
    Nobody has proposed Euthanasia for those problems. We might as well discuss what the fairy godmother would do in a fight with the tooth fairy.

    My simple questions are these, and yes they would have to be answered positively before euthanasia can really be seriously considered.

    Is there not a very high possibility that euthanasia can be abused. Yes or no?
    Is there any evidence in any of the countries you have listed that there isn't a high risk that the system can be abused due to pressures? Yes or no?

    If the first question is No, and the second is Yes, and you have backup to suggest so, you'd have a very good case for it. Otherwise it's plain unsafe and plain lunacy to suggest it's legalisation if it could have tragic knock on effects.

    Edit: The figures of euthanasia in the Netherlands are underreported big time:
    3,200 cases of VE
    400 of PAS
    900 of NVE
    2,000 of palliation with Explicit intention of
    ending life (EIEL)
    18,000 of wd/ wh with EIEL
    90 neonates, 2 2-5 psych pts
    = >24,500 total with EIEL
    (1995 figures)

    The only reported figures you will have there are voluntary euthanasia (VE). Yet other means are used in the Netherlands. In 1995 according to official figures for Euthanasia you will see 3,600 being reported there which includes PAS, and VE.

    Other methods such as withdrawing or withholding which amounts for 18,000 cases in that year are not considered as euthanasia and are not subject to the same standards.

    There are also other means for concern:
    Dutch palliative care doctor Dr. Ben Zylicz recently told those gathered at the United Kingdom’s House of Lords that euthanasia practice in his country is detrimental to good medical practice. The instances of involuntary or non-voluntary euthanasia, he reported, are becoming widespread, and in violation of formal Dutch guidelines and safeguards.

    According to Zylicz, the reason doctors (and patients) often resort to euthanasia is that adequate palliative care is not easy to obtain, with only 70 specialist palliative care beds in the entire country. Moreover, few Dutch physicians have been trained in pain management and symptom control and, consequently, euthanasia is the only solution they know if the patient’s suffering becomes too great.

    "If you accept euthanasia as a solution to difficult and unresolved problems in palliative care," he explained, "you will never learn anything." Most disturbing, Zylicz warned, is how often the euthanasia guidelines, established to protect against abuses, are breached by doctors. In 1995, he said, there were 900 cases of non-voluntary euthanasia reported. As many as 25 percent of those patients were killed without requesting death, even though they were fully or partly competent.

    Professor Lord McColl, Lords Select Committee on Euthanasia member, added to Zylicz’s testimony by relating his reaction while on an official trip to the Netherlands. "Our visit convinced me that euthanasia is impossible to police and will be abused," he said. [British Medical Journal, 12/12/98]

    Are you telling me I shouldn't still be concerned if they have been having these issues in the Netherlands?

    Also if people resort to euthanasia solely because of lack of effective pallative care, shouldn't we be trying to effectively provide this care instead of resorting to killing individuals who would have otherwise lived if such services were available?


  • Options
    #59
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Jakkass wrote: »
    My simple questions are these, and yes they would have to be answered positively before euthanasia can really be seriously considered.

    Is there not a very high possibility that euthanasia can be abused. Yes or no? .

    Not with the correct checks in place, no.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Is there any evidence in any of the countries you have listed that there isn't a high risk that the system can be abused due to pressures? Yes or no?.

    No, it hasn't had a knock on effect, and is deemed perfectly normal there. Two thirds of requests in the Netherlands are denied, afaik.
    http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/356/19/1957

    Even here in a sample conducted by the lancet, over 50% were turned down.
    http://books.google.ie/books?id=b52nyi3NZigC&pg=PA183&lpg=PA183&dq=euthanasia+requests+denied&source=bl&ots=rOfq1YtYef&sig=u08FRPaN4Y2gOuparsOqW9Ggqkw&hl=en&ei=4wRzSqnHIZeSjAfA6d2nBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8#v=onepage&q=euthanasia%20requests%20denied&f=false


  • Options
    #60
    Rayven199
    Registered Users Posts: 159 ✭✭Rayven199


    Jakkass wrote: »
    My simple questions are these, and yes they would have to be answered positively before euthanasia can really be seriously considered.

    Is there not a very high possibility that euthanasia can be abused. Yes or no?
    Is there any evidence in any of the countries you have listed that there isn't a high risk that the system can be abused due to pressures? Yes or no?

    If the first question is No, and the second is Yes, and you have backup to suggest so, you'd have a very good case for it. Otherwise it's plain unsafe and plain lunacy to suggest it's legalisation if it could have tragic knock on effects.

    Edit: The figures of euthanasia in the Netherlands are underreported big time:


    The only reported figures you will have there are voluntary euthanasia (VE). Yet other means are used in the Netherlands. In 1995 according to official figures for Euthanasia you will see 3,600 being reported there which includes PAS, and VE.

    Other methods such as withdrawing or withholding which amounts for 18,000 cases in that year are not considered as euthanasia and are not subject to the same standards.

    There are also other means for concern:

    I'm actually writing my thesis for my MA on this subject; the research I have found that has been conducted in relation to the possibility that 'Vulnerable' groups may be at risk (eg. being pressured into it) seems to consistantly show that this doesnt happen.
    These were studies that interviewed patients and their family members whilst the patient was terminally ill and had requested a hastened death, most of whom had actually passed away by the end of the studies (the patients who went through with the assisted suicide that is, not the family members).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Nodin wrote: »
    Not with the correct checks in place, no.

    What are the correct checks? You can be relatively certain they aren't in the Netherlands if the guidelines concerning euthanasia are being breached in hospitals.

    If people are going to propose that euthanasia should be legalised they need to guarantee that there aren't any risks first.
    Nodin wrote: »
    No, it hasn't had a knock on effect, and is deemed perfectly normal there. Two thirds of requests in the Netherlands are denied, afaik.
    http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/356/19/1957

    The figures suggest otherwise. Would you agree that there is a huge difference between 3,600 cases of euthanasia and 24,500? Yes or no?
    Nodin wrote: »
    Even here in a sample conducted by the lancet, over 50% were turned down.
    http://books.google.ie/books?id=b52nyi3NZigC&pg=PA183&lpg=PA183&dq=euthanasia+requests+denied&source=bl&ots=rOfq1YtYef&sig=u08FRPaN4Y2gOuparsOqW9Ggqkw&hl=en&ei=4wRzSqnHIZeSjAfA6d2nBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8#v=onepage&q=euthanasia%20requests%20denied&f=false

    I'll have to read that in more detail.


Advertisement