181 replies to this topic

[joc]

Hasina, on 15 January 2013 - 03:52 PM, said:

The only real solution would just be to look at it case by case, can their depression or what have you be solved by other means?

yes...it's called Xanax.

Quote

Why should someone in pain be forced to go to such measures? Should those who need operations also be forced to do it themselves?

BTW who else is going to regulate euthanasia? Some guy in a dark alley?

So the prescription for pain is now death? Maybe those who need operations and cannot afford them should choose Euthanasia if it is cheaper.
No one should be regulating euthanasia...no one.  If you want to kill yourself well, that is one thing.  If you are suffering in pain we have things like morphine for that.

Edited by joc, 15 January 2013 - 04:48 PM.

[Hasina]

joc, on 15 January 2013 - 04:44 PM, said:

yes...it's called Xanax.

Anti-depressants don't always work~

[joc]

Hasina, on 15 January 2013 - 04:47 PM, said:

Anti-depressants don't always work~

Good point~  Death ALWAYS works so, yeah, go with death.
How about:  I can't bear the thought of never seeing again.  Euthanize me please.  Or...  I just can't bear being alone for Christmas...euthanize me please.   Or...What?  Victoria Secret pulled out of the local Mall???  I can't bear not going to Victoria Secret...euthanize me please!

[Rlyeh]

joc, on 15 January 2013 - 04:44 PM, said:

So the prescription for pain is now death?

I made it clear I was speaking of the terminally ill.

Quote

Maybe those who need operations and cannot afford them should choose Euthanasia if it is cheaper.
No one should be regulating euthanasia...no one.  If you want to kill yourself well, that is one thing.  If you are suffering in pain we have things like morphine for that.

If it is unregulated people would be abusing it.

[OverSword]

It's one thing to euthanize people who's only future prospect is pain and death, such as cancer patients with one month or three weeks to live, or someone with alzhiemers that can't remember who thier children are and have bodies no longer function.  But two people who are depressed because they may soon be blind should not fit the definition.  The doctor who did this should have his process reviewed and if found not to be stringent enough should be charged with some degree of murder IMO.  This is leading down a very slippery slope.  Again IMO.

[Helen of Annoy]

It can’t be the whole story.
The link in the OP doesn’t lead to that article anymore, by the way. Was it removed because it was written in too trolling way or it accidentally floated away?

I said “trolling” because being “unable to bear the thought of never seeing one another again” is not and probably will never be on the list of reasons even close to justify euthanasia. In Belgium or Botswana.
Maybe the brothers had other issues, that made them euthanasia candidates, but if the article exists and gave only their “can’t bear to never see him again” as the reason for their euthanasia, then it’s the most hilarious example of type of “journalism” that shouldn’t be legal.

Doctors are not killing people for being unsatisfied with their lives, it's up to each suicidal person themselves. Euthanasia is there for people who can't do that themselves and it's inhumane to leave them suffer the actual agony. Not something any "journalist" should toy with. *head explodes*

[ExpandMyMind]

Rlyeh, on 15 January 2013 - 03:57 PM, said:

Why should someone in pain be forced to go to such measures? Should those who need operations also be forced to do it themselves?

BTW who else is going to regulate euthanasia? Some guy in a dark alley?

Now you're just being silly. And just to state facts, those twins did not 'need' to die.

And I'm not sure what your second paragraph is all about. I am all for euthanasia given the right circumstances, as I have already stated in this thread. It is, however, my opinion that these were not the right circumstances, and I have made my reasoning quite clear already.

Hasina, on 15 January 2013 - 03:52 PM, said:

The only real solution would just be to look at it case by case, can their depression or what have you be solved by other means?

Depression can always be solved by other means. It is a mental illness, caused primarily by our environments. This is not to say that all are cured of it, but they can be. Are you actually suggesting that people who are seriously depressed (in other words, without the proper mental faculties) should be allowed to be euthanised (is that the verb for euthanasia?)? One of the deciding factors behind these decisions is that the patient must have control of his mental health; must be declared mentally fit. By definition depressives would be automatically excluded.

[joc]

Helen of Annoy, on 15 January 2013 - 05:14 PM, said:

It can’t be the whole story.
The link in the OP doesn’t lead to that article anymore, by the way. Was it removed because it was written in too trolling way or it accidentally floated away?

I said “trolling” because being “unable to bear the thought of never seeing one another again” is not and probably will never be on the list of reasons even close to justify euthanasia. In Belgium or Botswana.
Maybe the brothers had other issues, that made them euthanasia candidates, but if the article exists and gave only their “can’t bear to never see him again” as the reason for their euthanasia, then it’s the most hilarious example of type of “journalism” that shouldn’t be legal.

Doctors are not killing people for being unsatisfied with their lives, it's up to each suicidal person themselves. Euthanasia is there for people who can't do that themselves and it's inhumane to leave them suffer the actual agony. Not something any "journalist" should toy with. *head explodes*

LINK

[ExpandMyMind]

Helen of Annoy, on 15 January 2013 - 05:14 PM, said:

It can’t be the whole story.
The link in the OP doesn’t lead to that article anymore, by the way. Was it removed because it was written in too trolling way or it accidentally floated away?

I said “trolling” because being “unable to bear the thought of never seeing one another again” is not and probably will never be on the list of reasons even close to justify euthanasia. In Belgium or Botswana.
Maybe the brothers had other issues, that made them euthanasia candidates, but if the article exists and gave only their “can’t bear to never see him again” as the reason for their euthanasia, then it’s the most hilarious example of type of “journalism” that shouldn’t be legal.

Doctors are not killing people for being unsatisfied with their lives, it's up to each suicidal person themselves. Euthanasia is there for people who can't do that themselves and it's inhumane to leave them suffer the actual agony. Not something any "journalist" should toy with. *head explodes*

Exactly.

Edited by ExpandMyMind, 15 January 2013 - 05:19 PM.

[joc]

Rlyeh, on 15 January 2013 - 05:07 PM, said:

I made it clear I was speaking of the terminally ill.

If it is unregulated people would be abusing it.

So, the terminally ill are dying...so we should just go ahead and put them out of their misery like a horse with a broken pelvis?  No, we shouldn't.  We have pain medication and hospice set up to help them and their families and make their last moments comfortable and memorable for the family.

[Helen of Annoy]

joc, on 15 January 2013 - 05:17 PM, said:

LINK

Thanks.

So the article is real, the twins were photoshopped, badly, to fit into one photo, and they are – for starts – not identical.
If the article was wrong about that, I sure hope it was wrong about everything else that sounds alarming.

[joc]

Helen of Annoy, on 15 January 2013 - 05:25 PM, said:

Thanks.

So the article is real, the twins were photoshopped, badly, to fit into one photo, and they are – for starts – not identical.
If the article was wrong about that, I sure hope it was wrong about everything else that sounds alarming.

Well, that's what we have to go by here you know...the article.  But, if that is the case...wtf?  They aren't even blind...just...going blind...and allowed to be killed because they can't bear the thought of that?

[OverSword]

Here's the law and researchers' summary of what it requires:

To make a legitimate euthanasia request, the patient must be an adult, must be conscious and legally competent at the moment of making the request, and must be in a condition of constant and unbearable physical or psychological suffering resulting from a serious and incurable disorder caused by illness or accident, for which medical treatment is futile and there is no possibility of improvement.

The physician decides whether the disorder is incurable based on the actual state of medicine, and the patient alone determines whether suffering is constant and unbearable. The physician must have several conversations with the patient in which he ascertains whether the patient experiences his/her suffering as constant and unbearable.

The physician must inform the patient about their medical condition, prospects, and possible alternative treatments, including palliative care. He must consult another independent physician about the serious and incurable character of the condition. This physician does not need to be a palliative care specialist.

[Hasina]

ExpandMyMind, on 15 January 2013 - 05:17 PM, said:

Now you're just being silly. And just to state facts, those twins did not 'need' to die.

And I'm not sure what your second paragraph is all about. I am all for euthanasia given the right circumstances, as I have already stated in this thread. It is, however, my opinion that these were not the right circumstances, and I have made my reasoning quite clear already.



Depression can always be solved by other means. It is a mental illness, caused primarily by our environments. This is not to say that all are cured of it, but they can be. Are you actually suggesting that people who are seriously depressed (in other words, without the proper mental faculties) should be allowed to be euthanised (is that the verb for euthanasia?)? One of the deciding factors behind these decisions is that the patient must have control of his mental health; must be declared mentally fit. By definition depressives would be automatically excluded.

How about this, since we're getting into the land of 'what if this'. Huntington's is very much like Alzheimer's, in time it robs you of your metal facility, but at the same time it cause chorea and many, many other nasty side effects. Since that person isn't in their right mind, should they be looked over? Or since they're experiencing 'real' physical pain, it should be allowable even if they can't say 'yay' or 'nay'? What if the disease progresses a different way? They're in pain but keep their mental facilities? Or a whole hodgepodge of different combination of physical, mental pain and what constitutes 'them' as they slowly slide into insanity.

Edited by Hasina, 15 January 2013 - 05:59 PM.

[ExpandMyMind]

Hasina, on 15 January 2013 - 05:58 PM, said:

How about this, since we're getting into the land of 'what if this'. Huntington's is very much like Alzheimer's, in time it robs you of your metal facility, but at the same time it cause chorea and many, many other nasty side effects. Since that person isn't in their right mind, should they be looked over? Or since they're experiencing 'real' physical pain, it should be allowable even if they can't say 'yay' or 'nay'? What if the disease progresses a different way? They're in pain but keep their mental facilities? Or a whole hodgepodge of different combination of physical, mental pain and what constitutes 'them' as they slowly slide into insanity.

Well, see, the with the likes of degenerative brain disorders, as far as I'm aware, there is legal justification for euthanasia. The only problem being that they either have to set up their end before they lose control of their mental faculties, or they have to set it up during their good days.