Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


Euthanasia- Should it be Legal?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
28 replies to this topic

#16    Bone_Collector

Bone_Collector

    -> SkEpToMaNiAc <-

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,334 posts
  • Joined:05 Oct 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • You savvy?

Posted 14 March 2006 - 11:26 AM

Body post 4

Kratos, in this post I will present elaborate stasistics and evidence to strengthen my argument against euthanasia; I will also add new reasons to suggest why euthanasia shouldn't be made legal.

Please note: just as before, I've quoted you in red.


Oh, it's a very nice number for the drug companies to become filthy rich off of. So if this "miracle" drug doesn't work on 11% of people, what happens to them then? Do

they just get screwed and have to suffer till they die?

So, let's just say hypothetically speaking there are 1,000 people on this drug that are in such pain that morphine and other powerful drugs don't work.

1,000 people, with 89% of them taking the drug and it works plays out to 890 people having pain free days. While 11% would come out to 110 people still in agony with it

not helping.

If you really think about it, 11% is a whole lot bigger then it seems when you look at all the figures. Even if there is a small percent of cancer patients with the horrible

pain, they still exist. They simply just don't go away because they are still in pain.

Kratos, Ziconotide is not the ONLY pain killing drug in this world; there are several other alternatives. I merely touched the surface when I discussed some of them in my earlier post.


It will for sure for children then?

Hopefully, yes.


So, it's still not through trials, there is no way to know it will be good enough to get through there, then also it would have to be pushed through the FDA or a government

committee (depending on country) before it will be allowed in the hospitals.

All medical products HAVE to go these procedures. Though the scientists are pretty sure of its success, the tests still have to be done practically. There is hardly a doubt.


Also, your link doesn't work.

Odd...it doesn't work now. Anyways, the link just says that the testing of the drug is in its first phase.


It is curious you can accept the death of an entire species, but not a single decaying human being. Are we not animals as well?

A few frogs used for research doesn't end their entire species. Also, I suggest you look into several euthanasia cases -all people who have been euthanized were not exactly rotting bodies as you conveniently put most of the time.

And no, we are NOT animals in the sense that we are far more capable than them, but
that's another subject altogether and a little off-topic too in my opinion.


So if you just take a little bit from the 295,734,134 people living in the US Source, lets say a dollar. That is 295,734,134 bucks right there. Just a little right?

Aww Kratos, I said the contribution from each individual towards people on life support and such is nearly negligible; I didn't say the whole amount was little. Infact I clearly mentioned that it adds up when accumulated from everybody. Small drops together make up an ocean. I only wanted to contradict your point that keeping the chronic patients alive is a major contributing factor in taxes paid by people.

It's not like the patients are stripping people of their money in the form of taxes. They are NOT a major financial burden on the society. A country like US which can spend billions and billions of dollars on war and show off, cannot give financial support to its sick? Not believable and simply NOT true.


It is a great idea to sacrifice the few to save the many.  

Indeed it is, but euthanasia is not saving, it is killing.


I just said they would be glad to see this, because it would save them money. However, in losing these people to euthanasia, the cost of such insurance would come down

for the common family. Everybody isn't a millionaire you know.

Kratos, you MUST take a good look at how Insurance works, you really should.

If people choose euthanasia, then they automatically lose a chance of getting paid for their treatment bills because they are willing their own death.

If euthanasia is introduced globally, there will surely be a considerable drop in the people seeking medical Insurance. Why? It's because if more and more people chose euthanasia, the risk factor for the Insurance companies reduces drastically and so the premium would also have to decrease and less and less people will prefer medical Insurance.

Who would pay for treatment they wouldn't get, life they wouldn't live and risk which wouldn't be covered, would you? Contrary to what you think, if euthanasia is accepted worldwide, it will actually mean lesser money for the Insurance companies.


I gave you a definition of euthanasia for this sole purpose, please this time don't ignore it

Oh come on kratos, I know what euthanasia means. Do you  think I'm brewing all this up without actually knowing the defeniition of euthanasia? What I said only meant to theoretically suggest that euthanasia is actually not much different from suicide.


A vast majority of the world is against gays and gay marriage, but there are still laws for them. Should we really allow a minority of people suffer till they die because

some people of the majority says it is alright?

If the majority said it was alright to burn a witch at the stake 400 years ago, does it mean they are still right? Do we still burn witches at the stake today in the modern

world? No, of course we don't, that's considered barbaric and cruel. Just shows you how times change.

What a majority of people think to be right today might be considered wrong tomorrow, similarly, what people might have considered to be right in the past might be considered wrong today.

Right or wrong are relative terms kratos, nothing is univerally accepted, I repeat ...nothing. Standards change from time to time; whatever the majority of the world considers to be good at a given moment of time is exactly what will prevail at that time.


The body doesn't control the mind, the mind controls the body. Our body is merely a tool for our minds to work with. Our thoughts are what make us different.

Where have I said that the body controls the mind? However, I believe our mind is greatly influenced by our bodies.


If they do not have legal documents they that will fall onto the legal guardians shoulders on who makes the calls to the best of their knowledge. It can't be helped. Even

today without euthanasia people are in comas and mentally unfit that need a legal guardian that talks for them and makes all their choices for them in life. It's nothing new

that a patient has a legal guardian talking for them that can make or break them.

I have said time and again that patients take such decisions under extreme physical and mental pressures and that such decisions should not be taken by the word for they are not taken with a balanced mind. A 'will' made under such circumstances by a patient is no different.


A family member can fight to keep them alive using anti-euthanasia laws to keep SS checks coming in, pensions, government programs and more while they lay and

decay.

The checks come in to keep the person alive -for his/her medicine, treatment and such, not for a family member's own use; insurance companies and the government are not plain dumb.

Talking of the statistics that you presented...

Kratos, did I read it right, what was the number of people surveyed in the charts and graphs that you posted? 525? 885? 1000? 2000?

They do not even form 1% of the total population of a country, let alone the whole world. Forget 1%, to be precise, the number of people surveyed account to 0.00067% of the poulation of United States.

Calculation: (2002/295734134)*100 =0.00067%
Note:

* 2002 is the largest number of people surveyed in the polls and charts you posted.
* 295,734,134 is the population of United States.

Small sample surveys can be very misleading and can never be generalized for an entire population.

But then, if you still want to see some polls and statistics, I'll be glad to give you some.
Here goes...

CODE

Results of a poll conducted by the American Medical Association (AMA) were released January 6, 1997. The survey was conducted nationwide by Global Strategy Group, New York City, and has a +/- 3.1% margin of error at the 95% confidence level, for those of you who understand all that.

In a nutshell, what the survey found was that people change their minds about assisted suicide when they have all the facts. Or, in other words: don't jump to conclusions when you read the latest poll informing you that 70% (or whatever) of all Americans want physician-assisted death. Those figures would drop drastically if those surveyed were informed first of their options.

This news doesn't surprise me. Two or three years ago I read in an IAETF Update that a team of surveyors inadvertently learned that people changed their minds when informed of the facts. (Since this is informal, I won't try to find the specific issue. Write me if you want to know.) The team's mission was to learn what it was that people most needed to know about assisted suicide and euthanasia, so that an effective video could be produced to meet that need. In the course of a 20-minute interview, a significant percentage of people changed their minds about the practice merely through being questioned! (The resulting video is called "Euthanasia: False Light" and is very effective.)

The AMA poll reveals that, five-to-one, Americans, when fully informed of available options, would choose comfort care and natural death over "death assistance."

Key points from the above article:

* In a nutshell, what the survey found was that people change their minds about assisted suicide when they have all the facts.

* Figures would drop drastically if those surveyed were informed first of their options.

* The AMA poll reveals that, five-to-one, Americans, when fully informed of available options, would choose comfort care and natural death over "death assistance."

Source
See how misleading polls can be?

CODE

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A new poll conducted by CBS News claims that a majority of Americans favor assisted suicide. However previous polls show the nation is as least split on the issue or opposed to the grisly practice. And what may matter most, actual ballot votes on the subject, have Americans strongly opposed. The CBS News poll asked respondents if they thought "a doctor be allowed to assist the person in taking their own life" who "has a disease that will ultimately destroy their mind or body and they want to take their own life."

Some 56 percent of Americans said yes and 37 percent said no. CBS News asked the same question in July 2005 and found a 54-39 percent split in favor of assisted suicide.

Conducted by Angus Reid, the poll surveyed 1,229 American adults from January 20 to 25.

However, an August 2005 poll conducted by the Pew Research Center found Americans opposed assisted suicide by a 48-44 percentage margin.

Also, a November 2004 CBS-New York Times survey looked at the issues of euthanasia and assisted suicide and found, in a question pro-life groups say was skewed, 46 percent of those polled backed assisted suicide and 45 percent said no.However, the numbers in that survey indicated the level of support for the grisly practice is dropping.

In 1993, 58 percent said yes to the question and 52 percent backed assisted suicide when asked the question in a similar 1998 poll. The level of opposition to assisted suicide has risen with only 36 percent saying no in 1993 and 37 percent opposing it in 1998.

But what may matter most is what Americans decide at the polls when asked to determine if assisted suicide should be legalized.

While voters in Oregon twice approved allowing assisted suicide there, other states have shown that assisted suicide is not popular.

In Michigan in 1998, voters overwhelmingly rejected a measure to legalize assisted suicide by a wide 71 to 29 percent margin. In 2000, Maine voters defeated an assisted suicide proposal by 51-49 percent.

California voters rejected an assisted suicide proposal by a 54 to 46 percent margin in 1992.

Key points from the above article:

* What may matter most, actual ballot votes on the subject, have Americans strongly opposed.

* An August 2005 poll conducted by the Pew Research Center found Americans opposed assisted suicide by a 48-44 percentage margin.

* The numbers in that survey indicated the level of support for the grisly practice is dropping.

* In Michigan in 1998, voters overwhelmingly rejected a measure to legalize assisted suicide by a wide 71 to 29 percent margin. In 2000, Maine voters defeated an assisted suicide proposal by 51-49 percent.

* California voters rejected an assisted suicide proposal by a 54 to 46 percent margin in 1992.
Source

CODE

London, England (LifeNews.com) -- A new survey conducted by a doctors group finds that the British public favors allowing patients to receive food and water if they have asked in advance not to have it removed. The polling results are similar to those in a recent survey conducted in the United States.

First Do No Harm, a coalition of doctors and physicians who oppose euthanasia, conducted the poll of 1,000 people and found 77 percent thought patients who made a previous request to have food and water should not be deprived of it regardless of the views of doctors or family members.

The survey also looked at the case of Leslie Burke, a patient with a degenerative brain condition.

Burke won a case at the British High Court because he feared that doctors would refuse to provide him wanted food and water when his condition deteriorates to the point that has to receive nourishment through a feeding tube.

Current British Medical Association ethical guidelines permit doctors to stop tube-supplied nutrition and hydration if they believe the patient's quality of life is poor, leading to eventual death.

The poll found only one-third of respondents favored guidelines for doctors allowing them to withhold food and water from patients who can't make their own medical decisions.

"The survey shows that this humane ruling has the backing of the public," Dr. Mary Knowles, chair of First Do No Harm, told the Daily Mail newspaper.

The results come short after an April Zogby poll showing 79 percent said the patient should not have food and water taken away while just 9 percent said yes.

The Zogby poll also found that, if a person becomes incapacitated and has not expressed their preference for medical treatment, as in Terri Schiavo's case, 43 percent say "the law should presume that the person wants to live, even if the person is receiving food and water through a tube" while just 30 percent disagree.

Key point from the above article:

* An April Zogby poll showing 79 percent said the patient should not have food and water taken away while just 9 percent said yes.
Source

CODE

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Polls leading up to the death of Terri Schiavo made it appear Americans had formed a consensus in favor of ending her life. However, a new Zogby poll with fairer questions shows the nation clearly supporting Terri and her parents and wanting to protect the lives of other disabled patients.

Source

CODE

Assisted Suicide is losing support.

According to a report in the Chicago Sun-Times, "Doctor assisted suicide is losing moral support  from moral to immoral," with 49 percent of those polled now viewing PAS as "wrong" and only 45 percent considering it "acceptable."

Source
I can list tons of such stuff but I think what I listed is quite enough for this post.

Now, let us have a look at some statistics of seven years of assisted suicide in Oregon...

CODE

Under Oregon's law permitting physician-assisted suicide, the Oregon Department of Human Services (DHS) previously called the Oregon Health Division (OHD) is required to collect information, review a sample of cases and publish a yearly statistical report. (1) Since the law, called the "Death with Dignity Act," went into effect in 1997, seven official reports have been published. However, due to major flaws in the law and the state's reporting system, [b]there is no way to know for sure how many or under what circumstances patients have died from physician-assisted suicide[/b].


I'll list some more important points:

* The latest annual report indicates that reported assisted-suicide deaths have increased by more than 225% since the first year of legal assisted suicide in Oregon. The number of deaths, however, could be far greater.

* The DHS had to rely on the word of doctors who prescribe the lethal drugs.

* The Death with Dignity law contains no penalties for doctors who do not report prescribing lethal doses for the purpose of suicide.

* Physicians who prescribe the lethal drugs for assisted suicide were present at fewer than 16% of reported deaths.

* Assisted-suicide advocacy group involved in majority of assisted-suicide deaths  

* Oregon's law provides greater protection for doctors than for patients.

* Family members do not need to be informed before a doctor helps a loved one commit suicide.

Consider some horrendous situations that euthanasia gave rise to.

CODE

Speaking at Portland Community College, pro-assisted-suicide attorney Cynthia Barrett described a botched assisted suicide. "The man was at home. There was no doctor there," she said. "After he took it [the lethal dose], he began to have some physical symptoms. The symptoms were hard for his wife to handle. Well, she called 911. The guy ended up being taken by 911 to a local Portland hospital. Revived. In the middle of it. And taken to a local nursing facility. I don't know if he went back home. He died shortly...some...period of time after that." (9)

Overdoses of barbiturates are known to cause vomiting as a person begins to lose consciousness. The patient then inhales the vomit. In other cases, panic, feelings of terror and assaultive behavior can occur from the drug-induced confusion. (10)  But Barrett wouldn't say exactly which symptoms had taken place in this instance. She has refused to discuss the case since her December 1999 revelation


CODE

Kate Cheney, 85, died of assisted suicide under Oregon's law even though she reportedly was suffering from early dementia. Her own physician declined to provide the lethal prescription. When counseling to determine her capacity was sought, a psychiatrist determined that she was not eligible for assisted suicide since she was not explicitly seeking it, and her daughter seemed to be coaching her to do so. She was then taken to a psychologist who determined that she was competent but possibly under the influence of her daughter who was "somewhat coercive." Finally, the managed care ethicist, who was overseeing her case, determined that she was qualified for assisted suicide, and the drugs were prescribed.

There are several, several more cases and points that I could make; the evidence against euthanasia is just overwhelming. It is crysrtal clear: the abuse and pain it caused innumerable people is undeniable. Statistics and reports only confirm worst fears to be true and stand testimony to the fact that legalizing euthanasia is woefully wrong.

If you still wish to read more, here's the link which is my source for all the above posted euthanasia information from Oregon: Source

Below, I present one more reason why euthanasia shouldn't be made legal...

Imagine euthanasia is legal everywhere in the world: all patients suffering from several chronic ailments and such are put down without giving them a chance to fight; the trend will catch on, more and more people will be taking this option because they will be 'asked' to die and 'not be a burden.' But this is not the point I'm talking about here; this is my point: it will be impossible for us to study illnesses pertaining to several chronic diseases and other bodily complications and discover cures for them if our entire test/study population is dead. Understand what I mean?

By allowing people to murder themselves or by giving permission for some one to murder them, we would be indirectly killing people who may develop certain health problems in the future. We will no longer know how patients will react and respond to different treatments in the long run. Medical treatment will weaken and so will our understanding of the ailment itself. The worst thing is that we will sound a death bell for people who develop health complications in the future.

The consequences of legalizing euthanasia can be disastrous. We cannot afford to simply think of ourselves when countless more lives could be saved in the future.

There is no dignity in death or in murder. Think about it.

Your turn again Kratos.

Edited by Bone_Collector, 16 March 2006 - 04:31 AM.

The woods are lovely, dark and deep, but I have promises to keep and miles to go before I sleep... and miles to go before I sleep ~Robert Frost

#17    __Kratos__

__Kratos__

    -Staring-

  • Member
  • 25,876 posts
  • Joined:13 Oct 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Inside the moon

Posted 19 March 2006 - 12:15 PM

Body Post 4

In this post I will show more reasons for euthanasia and why it should be legal, while defending points.

Bone_Collector, your quotes are in green.

Kratos, Ziconotide is not the ONLY pain killing drug in this world; there are several other alternatives. I merely touched the surface when I discussed some of them in my earlier post.

The trick is finding the right drug for the right person. That can sometimes take years of touch and goes. Even still there will always be someone that will reject all the drugs and cannot be helped. That is fact. I for one do not want that one person to suffer because some other people think it's wrong for them to let go.

Hopefully, yes.

Hopefully... That gives me comfort for the thousands of children sitting in a hospital bed right now in agony. What does hope do for them right now while these drugs are still in the testing process? hmm.gif

All medical products HAVE to go these procedures. Though the scientists are pretty sure of its success, the tests still have to be done practically. There is hardly a doubt.

Yes, all medical products do. There is still a chance of mess-ups however. Look at Vioxx as a prime example, the FDA passed it and now it's off the market because of deaths and bad side effects.

There also no guarantee of it passing as with all drugs.

As for the scientists being pretty sure of success that is to be expected as they want it to and hope it will be. Just as all scientists would in a drug they are trying to pass. Without their word behind the product, there would be no testing or screening.


Odd...it doesn't work now. Anyways, the link just says that the testing of the drug is in its first phase.

Alright then.

A few frogs used for research doesn't end their entire species. Also, I suggest you look into several euthanasia cases -all people who have been euthanized were not exactly rotting bodies as you conveniently put most of the time.

And no, we are NOT animals in the sense that we are far more capable than them, but
that's another subject altogether and a little off-topic too in my opinion.


A few frogs? I bet it's a lot more then a few for testing and for lab studies being killed. You're more then willing to sacrifice a good handful of frogs but you are against a human that will die in a matter of months in great suffering and loss of dignity to cut short their life?

Euthanized people should be given euthanasia before they are rotting bodies. That's the whole point of it. To die with dignity and lack of suffering.

Well, I'll base my opinion that we are animals on scientific fact rather then philosophy.

Aww Kratos, I said the contribution from each individual towards people on life support and such is nearly negligible; I didn't say the whole amount was little. Infact I clearly mentioned that it adds up when accumulated from everybody. Small drops together make up an ocean. I only wanted to contradict your point that keeping the chronic patients alive is a major contributing factor in taxes paid by people.

It's not like the patients are stripping people of their money in the form of taxes. They are NOT a major financial burden on the society. A country like US which can spend billions and billions of dollars on war and show off, cannot give financial support to its sick? Not believable and simply NOT true.


Not a major factor, but still it is a factor as you say. That "ocean" of money could be put towards more medical research and could potentially save more lives in the long run then hoping on the chances of someone actually waking up against all the odds that are very much stacked against them. The money then saved would out weight the cost of keeping those people alive now not to mention the medical benefit.

You are contradicting yourself. You say people are not being stripped of their money but they are still not a major financial burden... Just because it isn't major, it is still a taxpayer burden and money is being taken away to fund the live support of said patients. yes.gif

Money used to fight for freedom and promoting democracy is an investment for the citizens and legal immigrants of the US for the long run. Without that, things would be worse off in the medical world for them then now. Even so, the people that have many of the odds stacked high against them are a drain on the system. Priorities should be made. Also the money used for the military is federal taxes, not state. Each state has a budget it must keep to keep the place running. Many states are strapped for cash these days and must pick and choose what gets funded and what doesn't. Money going to those patients could be spent on community projects, schools and/or improvements for society.

Indeed it is, but euthanasia is not saving, it is killing.

When I said:

Quote

It is a great idea to sacrifice the few to save the many.
I was referring to sacrificing those patients in sense to push the money towards more medical research to actually save more people in the future.

Even still, it is mercy killing. That's what euthanasia is; mercy.

Kratos, you MUST take a good look at how Insurance works, you really should.

If people choose euthanasia, then they automatically lose a chance of getting paid for their treatment bills because they are willing their own death.

If euthanasia is introduced globally, there will surely be a considerable drop in the people seeking medical Insurance. Why? It's because if more and more people chose euthanasia, the risk factor for the Insurance companies reduces drastically and so the premium would also have to decrease and less and less people will prefer medical Insurance.

Who would pay for treatment they wouldn't get, life they wouldn't live and risk which wouldn't be covered, would you? Contrary to what you think, if euthanasia is accepted worldwide, it will actually mean lesser money for the Insurance companies.


It would be cheaper however for insurance companies if people choose euthanasia. A lethal dose combo of drugs is much cheaper then for say years on life support, in the case of comas or brain dead and still cheaper then months for terminal patients getting treatment, drugs and care. That would save the insurance companies money, not losing money.

Their bills will be paid however if they have the insurance coverage. That doesn't stop because you simply choose euthanasia. As long as you kept your payments up there is no reason for the insurance company to cut off payment.

To say just because of euthanasia people are fearing they will get ripped off, that's not the case. There are plenty of other reasons to have medical insurance. Everything from the common cold to a broken bone. People will still get medical insurance regardless.

Oh come on kratos, I know what euthanasia means. Do you think I'm brewing all this up without actually knowing the defeniition of euthanasia? What I said only meant to theoretically suggest that euthanasia is actually not much different from suicide.


It is similar to suicide but it is not suicide. You can't call an apple an orange and still be right.

What a majority of people think to be right today might be considered wrong tomorrow, similarly, what people might have considered to be right in the past might be considered wrong today.

Right or wrong are relative terms kratos, nothing is univerally accepted, I repeat ...nothing. Standards change from time to time; whatever the majority of the world considers to be good at a given moment of time is exactly what will prevail at that time.


Interesting you should say that since you were pushing for the majority being right here:

Quote

That probably answers quite a few questions all by itself: a vast majority of the world still believes euthanasia is unethical and inhuman.
and here

Quote

A majority of the world thinks so, that's probably why suicide is still illegal everywhere in the world.
Rethinking your position on majorities?

Standards seem to be changing as euthanasia is gaining ground in the world. Here are some examples:

------------------------------------------------------------  
China delegate suggests euthanasia experiments

Some quotes from the articles:

A survey done in several areas of the country showed more than 80 percent of people supported euthanasia for those with incurable, painful illness, with approval rates especially high among the elderly, Zhao Gongmin, a researcher with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said.

80 percent is a very a lot of support. yes.gif

"I think it is only a matter of time for euthanasia to become legal," he added.

With those numbers and the revamping of the Chinese medical system it will be a good chance that a country with 1 billion plus people will be able to get euthanasia. thumbsup.gif
------------------------------------------------------------

Netherlands to allow 'baby euthanasia'

They struggled around the clock against their baby's pain. "We tried all sorts of things," said Anita, a 37-year-old local government worker. "She cried all the time. Every time I touched her it hurt."

Chanou was suffering from a metabolic disorder that had resulted in abnormal bone development. Doctors gave her no more than 30 months to live. "We felt terrible watching her suffer," said Anita at their home near Amsterdam. "We felt we were letting her down."

Frank and Anita began to believe that their daughter would be better off dead. "She kept throwing up milk that was fed through a tube in her nose," said Anita. "She seemed to be saying, 'Mummy, I don't want to live any more. Let me go'."


crying.gif That is just horrible and terribly sad. If that's not a case for euthanasia, I really don't know what is.

Others welcome more openness about a practice that, according to doctors, goes on secretly anyway even in Britain regardless of the law. "It is a giant step forward and we are very happy about it," said Eduard Verhagen, clinical director of paediatrics at the University Medical Centre in Groningen, northern Netherlands.

Doctors even see it is right.

A visit to Groningen's intensive care unit for children last week demonstrated how rare it is for infants, in an age of extremely sophisticated, high-tech medical treatment, to experience extreme pain. Even so, life and death decisions are made by doctors every day.

Rare, but it still happens and is there.

Verhagen, a 42-year-old father of three who has spent years tending sick children in underdeveloped countries, became a pediatrician with the intention of saving children's lives, not ending them. Then along came a case that changed his entire way of thinking.

Sanne had a severe form of Hallopeau-Siemens syndrome, which meant that her skin would detach itself from her body if anyone touched it. The membranes inside her mouth and oesophagus fell away whenever they tried to feed her through a tube.

To experts, it is obvious when babies are in pain, and not only because of the type of shrieking. The way they clench their fists is another indicator. This was a child in great pain but pain relievers seemed to make no difference; and every time nurses replaced her bandages a little more of her skin fell off. She came to resemble a mummy. Verhagen did not know what to do.

Her parents demanded an end to her suffering and, for the first time in his career, Verhagen considered euthanasia. Fearing prosecution, however, he sent the child home, where she died of pneumonia six months later.


I cannot even begin to understand living like that in any way. That poor baby sentenced to a life of unbearable pain just for being born. no.gif That is just heart breaking.

Each year in Netherlands at least 15 seriously ill babies, most of them with severe spina bifida or chromosomal abnormalities, are helped to die by doctors acting with the parents' consent.

That would be so hard of a thing for a parent to go through but they want what's best for their child. I'm not a father but I would assume that is a major part of having children is all about, doing what's best for them.

"Ultimately, why should such a tiny little girl have to suffer such unbearable pain?" said Frank.

She shouldn't have to. Why should she or any other person? sad.gif
------------------------------------------------------------

Chinese First Euthanasia defendant dies  

In an interview with a Chinese newspaper journalist July 30, Wang said he was very sorry he had been unable to get euthanasia. Tortured by the disease, he had been reduced to little more than a skeleton at the time. "I cannot bear the suffering and want to die in the same way as my mother," Wang said with a weak voice from his hospital bed.

With all the medical problems, his own long time support for euthanasia, his request and his suffering, he should have been giving euthanasia.
------------------------------------------------------------

Where have I said that the body controls the mind? However, I believe our mind is greatly influenced by our bodies.

Here:

Quote

It is common understanding and a known fact that our bodies know more about themselves than what our brains can possibly perceive about it.


Also, you seemed to skip over my question in the same area of this that is relevant to the paragraph of your pervious post. here it is again:

Quote

So if you are a minority, you get screwed right away?


I have said time and again that patients take such decisions under extreme physical and mental pressures and that such decisions should not be taken by the word for they are not taken with a balanced mind. A 'will' made under such circumstances by a patient is no different.

It is however the pain and circumstances that brings up the question of euthanasia. People should have legal papers and living wills stating they are in favor of euthanasia so when it is requested it can be granted. Just like a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) it is signed and made out before hand so that person's wishes may be carried out.

However if someone is in such unbearable pain, no hope of recovering, even without those papers and they ask for euthanasia, I believe it should be granted out of mercy.

The checks come in to keep the person alive -for his/her medicine, treatment and such, not for a family member's own use; insurance companies and the government are not plain dumb.

That can't be abused? If the people are on welfare the more people in the house equals more money per a month given to them. Also if they are taking care of the person that gets put on their taxes as a deduction for dependent.


Talking of the statistics that you presented...

Kratos, did I read it right, what was the number of people surveyed in the charts and graphs that you posted? 525? 885? 1000? 2000?

They do not even form 1% of the total population of a country, let alone the whole world. Forget 1%, to be precise, the number of people surveyed account to 0.00067% of the poulation of United States.

Calculation: (2002/295734134)*100 =0.00067%
Note:

* 2002 is the largest number of people surveyed in the polls and charts you posted.
* 295,734,134 is the population of United States.

Small sample surveys can be very misleading and can never be generalized for an entire population.

But then, if you still want to see some polls and statistics, I'll be glad to give you some.
Here goes...


That's a good handful of people. It is a common practice. Just like drug companies taking a group of people and testing on them for the entire population. Like for example: pain drugs.

If you also noticed my polls are from different sources, they mix up the questions, ages, religion and political stance. Why the numbers were not all the same. thumbsup.gif


* In a nutshell, what the survey found was that people change their minds about assisted suicide when they have all the facts.

* Figures would drop drastically if those surveyed were informed first of their options.

* The AMA poll reveals that, five-to-one, Americans, when fully informed of available options, would choose comfort care and natural death over "death assistance."


Even so, this "poll" that is suppose to be from '97 the "AMA Poll: Most Americans Would Not Choose..." when searched only brings up your source site and no other relevant site. Why I look for credible sources rather then personal pages.


* What may matter most, actual ballot votes on the subject, have Americans strongly opposed.

* An August 2005 poll conducted by the Pew Research Center found Americans opposed assisted suicide by a 48-44 percentage margin.

* The numbers in that survey indicated the level of support for the grisly practice is dropping.

* In Michigan in 1998, voters overwhelmingly rejected a measure to legalize assisted suicide by a wide 71 to 29 percent margin. In 2000, Maine voters defeated an assisted suicide proposal by 51-49 percent.

* California voters rejected an assisted suicide proposal by a 54 to 46 percent margin in 1992.


Even so with those numbers, Americans are still basically on the fence with euthanasia. That same page has this:

In 1993, 58 percent said yes to the question and 52 percent backed assisted suicide when asked the question in a similar 1998 poll. The level of opposition to assisted suicide has risen with only 36 percent saying no in 1993 and 37 percent opposing it in 1998.

Still a lot of support for euthanasia. Much more in past years. thumbsup.gif


* An April Zogby poll showing 79 percent said the patient should not have food and water taken away while just 9 percent said yes.


Why instead the patient should be given a lethal dose of drugs to make it quick and painless.


"From the very start of this debate, Americans have sat on one of two sides," Concerned Women for America's Lanier Swann said in response to the poll. One side "believes Terri's life has worth and purpose, and the side who saw Michael Schiavo's actions as merciful, and appropriate."
Source Provided

That part is interesting.


According to a report in the Chicago Sun-Times, "Doctor assisted suicide is losing moral support  from moral to immoral," with 49 percent of those polled now viewing PAS as "wrong" and only 45 percent considering it "acceptable."

Source
I can list tons of such stuff but I think what I listed is quite enough for this post.  


You could. Still showing a large amount of people in favor of euthanasia today then in the past. original.gif


I'll list some more important points:

* The latest annual report indicates that reported assisted-suicide deaths have increased by more than 225% since the first year of legal assisted suicide in Oregon. The number of deaths, however, could be far greater.

* The DHS had to rely on the word of doctors who prescribe the lethal drugs.

* The Death with Dignity law contains no penalties for doctors who do not report prescribing lethal doses for the purpose of suicide.

* Physicians who prescribe the lethal drugs for assisted suicide were present at fewer than 16% of reported deaths.

* Assisted-suicide advocacy group involved in majority of assisted-suicide deaths

* Oregon's law provides greater protection for doctors than for patients.

* Family members do not need to be informed before a doctor helps a loved one commit suicide.

Consider some horrendous situations that euthanasia gave rise to.


Should there be a reporting system to the public about it and why?

On the word of doctors, are you saying we can't trust doctors now?

A doctor requests, but doesn't require, a patient to let the next of kin know. yes.gif

Some info on Oregon's law:

Eligibility
Terminally-ill patients who wish to obtain a lethal prescription under the Oregon law often do so only for peace of mind. Oregon's Department of Human Services provides the required documents and monitors the law's use, but it is up to qualified patients and Oregon-licensed physicians to implement the law.
Who can request physician-assisted suicide?
To use the Oregon law, a patient must be: 18 years of age or older, an Oregon resident, able to make and communicate their own health care decisions, and diagnosed with a terminal illness with six months or less to live. The attending physician must decide whether these criteria have been met.

Can a non-Oregonian use the law?
No. Only patients who establish Oregon residency can use the law if they meet certain criteria.

How does a patient establish residency?
A patient must provide the attending physician proof of Oregon residency. Proof can include an Oregon drivers license, documentary proof that the patient rents or owns Oregon property, an Oregon voter registration, a recent Oregon tax return, etc. The attending physician must decide whether the patient has adequately established residency.

How long does it take to establish Oregon residency?
There is no minimum residency requirement. A patient must simply be able to prove he or she is a current, bona fide Oregon resident.

Can a non-resident move to Oregon to use the law?
The law does not prevent anyone from moving to Oregon. However, reports show that few, if any, patients had moved to Oregon to use the law.

Safeguards
Several safeguards ensure that patients who wish to use the law are protected and in full control of the process. The Oregon law requires that the patient...

make two verbal requests -- separated by 15 days -- to the physician,
make a written request to the attending physician and the request is witnessed by two individuals who are not primary care givers or family members,
is able to rescind the verbal and written requests at any time, and
is able to self administer the prescription.

The law further requires that...

The attending physician must be Oregon-licensed.
The physician's diagnosis must include terminal illness, with six months or less to live.
The diagnosis must be certified by a consulting physician, who must also certify that the patient is mentally competent to make and communicate health care decisions.
If either physician determines that the patient's judgment is impaired, the patient must be referred for a psychological examination.
The attending physician must inform the patient of alternatives, including palliative care, hospice and pain management options.
The attending physician must request that the patient notify their next-of-kin of the prescription request.

Source

Finally, the managed care ethicist, who was overseeing her case, determined that she was qualified for assisted suicide, and the drugs were prescribed.


And do you think all those doctors knew of the first one? People shouldn't be punished as a whole because of the actions of a few that have abused the system.


There are several, several more cases and points that I could make; the evidence against euthanasia is just overwhelming. It is crysrtal clear: the abuse and pain it caused innumerable people is undeniable. Statistics and reports only confirm worst fears to be true and stand testimony to the fact that legalizing euthanasia is woefully wrong.


Those numbers are very few compared to the millions of people each year that suffer.

Imagine euthanasia is legal everywhere in the world: all patients suffering from several chronic ailments and such are put down without giving them a chance to fight; the trend will catch on, more and more people will be taking this option because they will be 'asked' to die and 'not be a burden.' But this is not the point I'm talking about here; this is my point: it will be impossible for us to study illnesses pertaining to several chronic diseases and other bodily complications and discover cures for them if our entire test/study population is dead. Understand what I mean?

People have the choice not to stand by the patient during the time of cancer. yes.gif asked to die and not to be a burden can be asked today legally. It's called suicide. It wouldn't matter if euthanasia was made legal tomorrow. It's happening today already.

So instead of giving these people mercy, we should force them to suffer and become test rats for us? Isn't that a cheerful thought? There will already be a number of people that won't choose euthanasia that could take part in drug trials and programs. You have to remember all those medical studies are by volunteers. You just can't go down to the hospital, round up some cancer patients and shove drugs down their throats to see what happens!

By allowing people to murder themselves or by giving permission for some one to murder them, we would be indirectly killing people who may develop certain health problems in the future. We will no longer know how patients will react and respond to different treatments in the long run. Medical treatment will weaken and so will our understanding of the ailment itself. The worst thing is that we will sound a death bell for people who develop health complications in the future.


There will still be people around that will be willing to take the drugs and give reports back as volunteers. You simply can't force people to stay alive to suffer and force them to take drugs to see what happens to them. If they want to do so, that is their choice. There are also a number of people that don't want to and they shouldn't be forced to.

This isn't a black and white issue saying "Oh, but if they live 6 months more we'll get better drug feedback." It's how they are living.

The consequences of legalizing euthanasia can be disastrous. We cannot afford to simply think of ourselves when countless more lives could be saved in the future.

It all seems very noble and brave to you, doesn't it? The fact is not everybody cares about other people and that is a freedom of being human. Why should they be forced to live in agony till death for someone else?

We all can't be heroes. Somebody has to sit on the sides and clap as they go by. yes.gif

There is no dignity in death or in murder. Think about it.

You just went on about how countless lives could be saved in the future by forcing someone to stay alive but to you that's not dignity in death?

Euthanasia is about mercy and showing that a person shouldn't have to be forced to the rest of their life in pain or loss of dignity because in the end they can't simply help themselves in any way and the only they are doing is waiting for death.

The spotlight is all yours, Bone_Collector.


"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." ~Philip K. Dick

#18    AztecInca

AztecInca

    Martian

  • Member
  • 9,013 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

  • All it takes for evil to triumph, is for good people to do nothing.

Posted 27 March 2006 - 09:22 AM

Bone_Collector the first week of your two-week time limit has passed, I am now forced to deduct points from your score for every day you do not post.

If you are unable to post a reply please let myself, Lottie or Tiddlyjen know.

EDIT: I have spoken with Bone_Collector and he has informed me that he will be posting within a matter of hours.

Edited by AztecInca, 27 March 2006 - 09:50 AM.


#19    Bone_Collector

Bone_Collector

    -> SkEpToMaNiAc <-

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,334 posts
  • Joined:05 Oct 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • You savvy?

Posted 27 March 2006 - 01:17 PM

Body Post 5

Kratos, in this post I will talk about euthanasia cases and laws in Oregon. I will also discuss about medical insurance, present new arguments against euthanasia and defend my earlier ones too.

Note: your quotes are in red.

The trick is finding the right drug for the right person. That can sometimes take years of touch and goes. Even still there will always be someone that will reject all the drugs and cannot be helped. That is fact. I for one do not want that one person to suffer because some other people think it's wrong for them to let go.

Each and every single case of a patient is different,  you just cannot make general statements about all of them by taking one case as an example. A drug might work out for a patient on the very first attempt, for another, it might take more doses, and for somebody else it might not work at all and some other alternatives may be needed. You cannot say it would take like 1 day, 2 days, 6 months, years and such for a patient to get cured, or even say he/she cannot be cured. Your general statements sound exactly like what euthanasia advocates: "death for all" -another general statement that is supposed to be a good thing.  

Hopefully... That gives me comfort for the thousands of children sitting in a hospital bed right now in agony. What does hope do for them right now while these drugs are still in the testing process?

As I said before, these are not the ONLY drugs available in the market, there are several other effective alternatives. It doesn't take forever for this testing to get over. You should see the results soon.

Yes, all medical products do. There is still a chance of mess-ups however. Look at Vioxx as a prime example, the FDA passed it and now it's off the market because of deaths and bad side effects.

Just because one drug went bad, doesn't mean every drug should.

A few frogs? I bet it's a lot more then a few for testing and for lab studies being killed.

You bet? How do you know that these frogs are being killed for sure? You don't need to kill them to extract some poison out of them.

You're more then willing to sacrifice a good handful of frogs but you are against a human that will die in a matter of months in great suffering and loss of dignity to cut short their life?

Not to get personal, but coming repeatedly from a non-vegetarian, I find that rather surprising. Even if we have to sacrifice a few frogs, it is  done only to save people's lives, which is a pretty justifiable reason if you ask me; it's not like having chicken or ham just for their taste, don't you think?

human that will die in a matter of months in great suffering and loss of dignity to cut short their life?

Euthanized people should be given euthanasia before they are rotting bodies. That's the whole point of it. To die with dignity and lack of suffering.

Again, general statements. You can never be sure that all people considering euthanasia will surely die anyways.  Also, the rotting bodies talk is beginning to sound hackneyed; the people who have been euthanized already and a majority of people who are considering euthanasia are not exactly rotting bodies as you conveniently put most of the times.

Not a major factor, but still it is a factor as you say. That "ocean" of money could be put towards more medical research and could potentially save more lives in the long run then hoping on the chances of someone actually waking up against all the odds that are very much stacked against them.

Medical research is not greatly hampered for the lack of money. If the promise is good enough, the funds will surely come.

The money then saved would out weight the cost of keeping those people alive now not to mention the medical benefit.

The "money saved" is equal to the "cost of keeping patients alive + money spent on their medical benefits." Both are the same, "equals" do not outweigh each other.

You are contradicting yourself. You say people are not being stripped of their money but they are still not a major financial burden... Just because it isn't major, it is still a taxpayer burden and money is being taken away to fund the live support of said patients.

I'm not contradicting myself. Generally, one doesn't exactly refer to a mere few dollars of tax cut towards this purpose as getting "stripped."

Money used to fight for freedom and promoting democracy is an investment for the citizens and legal immigrants of the US for the long run. Without that, things would be worse off in the medical world for them then now. Even so, the people that have many of the odds stacked high against them are a drain on the system. Priorities should be made. Also the money used for the military is federal taxes, not state. Each state has a budget it must keep to keep the place running. Many states are strapped for cash these days and must pick and choose what gets funded and what doesn't. Money going to those patients could be spent on community projects, schools and/or improvements for society

In other words, you are saying the funds are properly utilized by the  government and the comparatively little money spent on providing medical care for suffering patients is a burden on a taxpayer, and what you consider a waste. Okay, that's just shocking.

Just look at some US expenditure details...

US spent: $ 12, 269, 199, 040(as on Sun, Mar 26, 2006, 11: 53 : 07 AM) so far this year(just three months) on war and drugs(not medicinal). This figure does not include the other billions spent on the other not so justifiable reasons.

Source
You decide what is a waste.

It would be cheaper however for insurance companies if people choose euthanasia. A lethal dose combo of drugs is much cheaper then for say years on life support, in the case of comas or brain dead and still cheaper then months for terminal patients getting treatment, drugs and care. That would save the insurance companies money, not losing money.

You have no idea what you are speaking of here Kratos. I'll explain why.
Consider the example of an Insurance company providing medical Insurance when there is no euthanasia. Their premium is $300(say) per month for single coverage. Consider a sample of 1000 people who consider this, because they want to be protected against any health complications that may arise in the future.

The annual income for the insurance company would then be 1000 x 300 x 12=$3600000.

It's a known fact that only a fraction of healthy people would actually need intensive care in the future. The fraction is very small, since the probability of healthy people falling seriously ill is very less compared to the probability of healthy people still remaining healthy; that's why insurance companies earn such huge profits.

Say, 5%(yes, probability can be that low) of people need intensive treatment; making thier number 50. And, say on average, their individual bills amount to $50000 annually.

The insurance company would then need to pay out 50 x 50,000= $2500000.
So, the insurance company earns  $3600000 - $2500000= $1100000 for every 1000 people a year. Imagine how much the company earns, considering the millions of people taking medical insurance each year.

Now the same insurance company, would have to lower the premium to $275(say) if euthanasia is to be made legal.  It will have to, because, they will no longer be needed to pay bills for prolonged treatment for chronic patients and such, since a good number of them will anyways consider euthanasia, reducing the risk factor greatly for the company. So, lesser the risk, lesser will have to be the premium. If euthanasia is introduced globally, this will have to happen.

When the risk reduces, so would the number of people who would consider the insurance. So if even  95% people would consider this insurance, making it 950.  

The annual income for the company will then be 950 x 275 x 12 = $3135000.

People seeking intensive treatment (at 5%) would now be 48.
The insurance company would need to pay 48 x 50000 = $2400000.

So, the company earns  $3135000 - $2400000 = $7350000; a loss of $3650000 for every 1000 people. There will be furthter expense on the insurance company's part towards payments to people's common ailment's bills, but that would remain constant, whether euthanasia is legal or not.

Imagine the loss considering the millions of people who take medical insurance, clearly showing why I said they would be losing big money.

Their bills will be paid however if they have the insurance coverage. That doesn't stop because you simply choose euthanasia. As long as you kept your payments up there is no reason for the insurance company to cut off payment.

The bills don't stop till they die but if you chose euthanasia you would also loose the chance of getting your bills paid had you not considered euthanasia.

There are plenty of other reasons to have medical insurance. Everything from the common cold to a broken bone. People will still get medical insurance regardless.

There will be a drop, not a huge one but a drop nonetheless. An average person does not see a doctor that often as you think.

Interesting you should say that since you were pushing for the majority being right.

I think you misunderstood, what I meat was that, what a majority of the world thinks today will have to be accepted as correct today. After all, a general law made for all people should do justice to the majority, if not all, shouldn't it?

Rethinking your position on majorities?

No.

Also, you seemed to skip over my question in the same area of this that is relevant to the paragraph of your pervious post. here it is again:

So if you are a minority, you get screwed right away?


General laws are always made keeping the majority in view, that's life. If you can't please all, at least please most of them.

A survey done in several areas of the country showed more than 80 percent of people supported euthanasia for those with incurable, painful illness, with approval rates especially high among the elderly, Zhao Gongmin, a researcher with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said.

I 've clearly shown you how statistics can be misleading. Two of the very important factors affecting small sample polls: the method of selection of the sample population and the wording of the questions asked. The chinese survey doesn't give any details at all. Chinese releases to international press is always lacking in detail. There is no mention of the questions asked, number of people surveyed and such.

However, a couple of statements in the article really caught my eye.

CODE

Zhao's point comes as the government has pledged to put massive new investment in its decaying rural health care system, which is leaving many millions with no access to or money for medical treatment.

It is not uncommon for rural people with serious illnesses to kill themselves, often to avoid burdening their families with unbearable medical bills.


If these two statements are not suggestive, what else is? hmm.gif
It's clear that the problem is not illness that's making people choose euthanasia, it's poverty. sad.gif

With those numbers and the revamping of the Chinese medical system it will be a good chance that a country with 1 billion plus people will be able to get euthanasia.

Yeah, more deaths due to poverty. Wow! disgust.gif

CODE

They struggled around the clock against their baby's pain. "We tried all sorts of things," said Anita, a 37-year-old local government worker. "She cried all the time. Every time I touched her it hurt."

Chanou was suffering from a metabolic disorder that had resulted in abnormal bone development. Doctors gave her no more than 30 months to live. "We felt terrible watching her suffer," said Anita at their home near Amsterdam. "We felt we were letting her down."

Frank and Anita began to believe that their daughter would be better off dead. "She kept throwing up milk that was fed through a tube in her nose," said Anita. "She seemed to be saying, 'Mummy, I don't want to live any more. Let me go'."

That is just horrible and terribly sad. If that's not a case for euthanasia, I really don't know what is.

It's so easy for people to cry wolf over pain -to see pain and to feel pain. The fact is that they just killed that baby. Yes, it is difficult to see people suffer but it is more important not to let your emotions rule your judgement. Why, the baby might be saying 'Mummy, don't let them kill me. Give me a chance, let me live.'

It's funny when you say suggest that the baby is going through excruciating pain when you yourself quote this...

Quote


A visit to Groningen's intensive care unit for children last week demonstrated how rare it is for infants, in an age of extremely sophisticated, high-tech medical treatment, to experience extreme pain.


I cannot even begin to understand living like that in any way. That poor baby sentenced to a life of unbearable pain just for being born. That is just heart breaking.

Kratos, it is just so pathetic that the doctor sent the child home without treatment- it's actually appalling. It is clear he did not have a proper understanding of the extremely rare condition. He just assumed she would die and sent her home. Had she been given better treatment in the hospital, who knows, she may have recovered.hmm.gif

That can't be abused? If the people are on welfare the more people in the house equals more money per a month given to them. Also if they are taking care of the person that gets put on their taxes as a deduction for dependent.

Kratos, that is just not the case. The benefit money would have to be used to look after the sick person. What part of it can possibly be left for other family members to exploit? It's not like whole families are totally living out of a sick man's benefit fund, is it?

That's a good handful of people.

Handfuls will not be sufficient I'm afraid Kratos.

If you also noticed my polls are from different sources, they mix up the questions, ages, religion and political stance. Why the numbers were not all the same.

Your first six charts are from "trinity,"  the next four are from "publicagenda." Two sources aren't that many(not that I'm asking for more). Also, one of the sites clearly mentions that the results varied a lot on the way the questions were worded- which is exactly what I've been saying all the while.

You could. Still showing a large amount of people in favor of euthanasia today then in the past.

If you check on the wordings of the questions in the "for euthanasia" kind of polls, you will see why.

Should there be a reporting system to the public about it and why?

Everybody is accountable for what they do, why not doctors, especially when euthanasia puts down lives? The public has a right to know.

On the word of doctors, are you saying we can't trust doctors now?

No, just accountable. I believe when you have to take lives, the reasons should also be justifiable.

A doctor requests, but doesn't require, a patient to let the next of kin know.

Why not? You see kratos, it's not just the patient who suffers, their close ones also do suffer mentally. It is their right to know, for they are the ones who have to live with this truth.

Now, let us look at a few euthanasia cases from Oregon...

COMPLICATIONS OCCURRING DURING ASSISTED SUICIDE

1) Patrick Matheny received his lethal prescription from Oregon Health Sciences University via Federal Express. He had difficulty when he tried to take the drugs four months later. His brother-in-law, Joe Hayes, said he had to "help" Matheny die. According to Hayes, "It doesn't go smoothly for everyone. For Pat it was a huge problem. It would have not worked without help.

2) The patient was at home. There was no doctor. The man took the lethal dose and began to have some physical symptoms he could not control. The symptoms were hard for his wife to handle. She called 911. The guy ended up being taken by 911 to a local Portland hospital and was revived in the middle of it and then taken to a local nursing facility. He died later.

Overdoses of barbiturates are known to cause vomiting as a person begins to lose consciousness. The patient then inhales the vomit. In other cases, panic, feelings of terror and assaultive behavior can occur from the drug-induced confusion.

That's just wrong, and exactly what'll happen if you let people kill themselves. Euthanasia, is bringing upon situations where common people are needed to help kill their own. In this case the fatal dose has not worked possibly because of an incorrect administration. Horrible. Can you just imagine the chaos and horror at these people's homes, which will leave an unforgettable print in their entire lives?

And to think this is the so-called painless death. How true. disgust.gif

ASSISTED SUICIDE DEATHS OF DEPRESSED PATIENTS

1) The first known assisted-suicide death under the Oregon law was that of a woman in her mid-eighties who had been battling breast cancer for twenty-two years. Two doctors, including her own physician who believed that her request was due to depression, refused to prescribe the lethal drugs. Then Compassion in Dying (CID) became involved.  Dr. Peter Goodwin, medical director of CID,(16) determined that she was an "appropriate candidate" for death and referred her to a doctor who provided the lethal prescription. In an audiotape, made two days before her death and played at a CID press conference, the woman said, "I will be relieved of all the stress I have."

2) During the last year for which reports are available, only 5% of patients were referred for a psychological evaluation or counseling before receiving a prescription for assisted suicide.  Under the assisted-suicide law, depressed or mentally ill patients can receive assisted suicide if they do not have "impaired judgment."  Concerning the decision to refer for a psychological evaluation, Oregon epidemiologist Dr. Mel Cohn said, "According to the law, it's up to the docks' discretion."

See, even if the laws are there for such a horredous practise, it's clear how easily they can be misused, and in some cases not used at all.

PATIENTS WHO RECEIVED LETHAL DOSE MORE THAN 6 MONTHS BEFORE DEATH

Lethal prescriptions under the "Death with Dignity Act" are supposed to be limited to patients who have a life expectancy of six months or less. However, one patient was still alive 17 months after the lethal drugs were prescribed.

Now just look at the overwhelming negative factors that came forth during 7 years of assisted suicide in Oregon:

* During the seventh year, physicians who prescribe the lethal drugs for assisted suicide were present at fewer than 16% of reported deaths.

* The DHS(Department of Human Services) is not authorized to investigate how physicians determine their patient diagnoses or life expectancies.

*If physicians are prescribing for patients who do not have a terminal condition, there is no way to find out since the same doctors who are violating the guidelines would have to report their own violations.  

* During the last year for which reports are available, only 5% of patients were referred for a psychological evaluation or counseling before receiving a prescription for assisted suicide.

* Under the assisted-suicide law, depressed or mentally ill patients can receive assisted suicide if they do not have "impaired judgment."

* For the 3rd through the 6th years, the doctor-patient relationship in some assisted suicide cases was under one week. Thus, either some physicians are not complying with the 2 week requirement or they stepped in to write an assisted-suicide prescription after other physician(s) refused.

* Family members do not need to be informed before a doctor helps a loved one commit suicide.

* Oregon's law provides greater protection for doctors than for patients.

My Oregon information Source

Those numbers are very few compared to the millions of people each year that suffer.

No, they are not. Most cases are not reported.
What do you suggest, put down all the millions at the drop of a hat, the moment they say pain? huh.gif

So instead of giving these people mercy, we should force them to suffer and become test rats for us? Isn't that a cheerful thought? There will already be a number of people that won't choose euthanasia that could take part in drug trials and programs. You have to remember all those medical studies are by volunteers. You just can't go down to the hospital, round up some cancer patients and shove drugs down their throats to see what happens!

They are not test rats. Christ! There is more than just one reason to justify a ban on euthansia.

There will still be people around that will be willing to take the drugs and give reports back as volunteers. You simply can't force people to stay alive to suffer and force them to take drugs to see what happens to them. If they want to do so, that is their choice. There are also a number of people that don't want to and they shouldn't be forced to.

There are several times when you need to step in and take a decision that might sometimes be against their current wishes but still for their own good; just like in the case of a physically and mentally ill patient considering euthanasia.

It's how they are living.

It's not just about the pain they are undergoing today, it's also about a better life tomorrow.

It all seems very noble and brave to you, doesn't it?

There is nothing more precious than life, you just have one chance.

Why should they be forced to live in agony till death for someone else?

Think of it this way: why should they be forced to die for somebody else? Yes, somebody else; they are fored to die because somebody else feels they are a burden.

You just went on about how countless lives could be saved in the future by forcing someone to stay alive but to you that's not dignity in death?

How is preventing someone from dying related to dignity in death?

We all can't be heroes. Somebody has to sit on the sides and clap as they go by.

Death to you sounds like a brave and a dignified thing, doesn't it? Just like people in the olden days used to think about dying in war and attaining some kind of martyrdom.

Dying get's no glory kratos, for once you're gone you will be no longer alive to see any glory, so it doesn't really matter to you what happens after your death. Life is all about glory, not death.

Life is precious, every life and every single moment of it. Stand by the  sick patients and help them realize the importance of life. We have the gift of life, let us help people live, let us make them feel they are wanted, let us show them hope. Give them a chance -their only chance to recover and live.

When you make mistakes, you will more likely than not, have a chance to correct them, but for people who are made to consider euthanasia, there will be no second chance, even to regret.  Ban euthanasia!

Your turn now kratos.

Edited by Bone_Collector, 28 March 2006 - 07:45 AM.

The woods are lovely, dark and deep, but I have promises to keep and miles to go before I sleep... and miles to go before I sleep ~Robert Frost

#20    AztecInca

AztecInca

    Martian

  • Member
  • 9,013 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

  • All it takes for evil to triumph, is for good people to do nothing.

Posted 02 April 2006 - 04:46 AM

Kratos we are awaiting your reply! thumbsup.gif


#21    __Kratos__

__Kratos__

    -Staring-

  • Member
  • 25,876 posts
  • Joined:13 Oct 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Inside the moon

Posted 03 April 2006 - 12:42 AM

Body Post 5


Bone_Collector your quotes are in green. In this post I'm going to rebut and show why euthanasia should be pushed forward.

Each and every single case of a patient is different, you just cannot make general statements about all of them by taking one case as an example. A drug might work out for a patient on the very first attempt, for another, it might take more doses, and for somebody else it might not work at all and some other alternatives may be needed. You cannot say it would take like 1 day, 2 days, 6 months, years and such for a patient to get cured, or even say he/she cannot be cured. Your general statements sound exactly like what euthanasia advocates: "death for all" -another general statement that is supposed to be a good thing.

When a person only has months left to live because of cancer or some other illness each day is long for them. To keep going all the way to the end trying to get the right drug for the right patient, which in some cases can be impossible, they are there suffering because of it. Babies born with genetic or birth disorders can experience horrible and insane pain that can't be stopped. Burn victims that have limited time with their body savaged by 3rd degree burns. So many more.

Euthanasia should still be on the table of options for those that wish not to suffer, degrade and depend on others in the end because they are too weak.

Euthanasia isn't so much about death, as it is mercy and seeing the reality of this world.

As I said before, these are not the ONLY drugs available in the market, there are several other effective alternatives. It doesn't take forever for this testing to get over. You should see the results soon.

Yes, indeed. One test trial for the drug. It can take long years and many tests before the FDA will approve a drug for commercial use.

Quote

FDA estimates that it takes approximately eight-and-a-half years to study and test a new drug before it can be approved for the general public. This estimate includes early laboratory and animal testing, as well as later clinical trials using human subjects

Source

Just because one drug went bad, doesn't mean every drug should.

Indeed, but it shows there are/can be flaws in drugs. There are always new cases of drugs gone bad.

You bet? How do you know that these frogs are being killed for sure? You don't need to kill them to extract some poison out of them.

I don't. Just find it curious. I understand the need for research. With that said, I can still feel sad and mercy towards them,

Not to get personal, but coming repeatedly from a non-vegetarian, I find that rather surprising. Even if we have to sacrifice a few frogs, it is done only to save people's lives, which is a pretty justifiable reason if you ask me; it's not like having chicken or ham just for their taste, don't you think?

I respect life. Something I learned as a young child when I first learned to hunt. There is a cycle of life. Sacrifices and animals eating each other is nature.

Let children walk with Nature, let them see the beautiful blendings and communions of death and life, their joyous inseparable unity, as taught in woods and meadows, plains and mountains and streams of our blessed star, and they will learn that death is sting less indeed, and as beautiful as life.
- John Muir

Again, general statements. You can never be sure that all people considering euthanasia will surely die anyways. Also, the rotting bodies talk is beginning to sound hackneyed; the people who have been euthanized already and a majority of people who are considering euthanasia are not exactly rotting bodies as you conveniently put most of the times.

You can never be sure they will live either. Once it gets to a point and time where it's going downhill and digging euthanasia should be on the options list. It's not fair to someone to deny them the right to die when their days are extremely limited compared to the normal human.

No, indeed they are not. That would be the point for them to have dignity left when they die rather then get to that stage of the process of dying.

Medical research is not greatly hampered for the lack of money. If the promise is good enough, the funds will surely come.

No, some areas are not. Others wouldn't hurt to have some cash around to spend. The more money to science, the better in researching. There is no harm in giving more money to science. thumbsup.gif

The "money saved" is equal to the "cost of keeping patients alive + money spent on their medical benefits." Both are the same, "equals" do not outweigh each other.

I'm saying hypothetically the money from cutting off life support going to science to research more life saving medical stuff saving many more people would outweigh keeping a person on life support with nearly zero chance of ever recovering.

Sacrificing the few to save the many, kind of deal.

I'm not contradicting myself. Generally, one doesn't exactly refer to a mere few dollars of tax cut towards this purpose as getting "stripped."

Tax money is suppose to be used to help the community, people, country. If spent on some person with an almost zero chance of living that money is going to waste.

The reality is, they do have less of a chance to survive or in some cases never recover, such as a vegetative state.

In other words, you are saying the funds are properly utilized by the government and the comparatively little money spent on providing medical care for suffering patients is a burden on a taxpayer, and what you consider a waste. Okay, that's just shocking.

Just look at some US expenditure details...

US spent: $ 12, 269, 199, 040(as on Sun, Mar 26, 2006, 11: 53 : 07 AM) so far this year(just three months) on war and drugs(not medicinal). This figure does not include the other billions spent on the other not so justifiable reasons.

Source
You decide what is a waste.


I consider some of it a waste, but I'd still respect their wishes if they didn't want the plug to be pulled, unless they were in like a vegetative state.

The war on drugs and war on terror are rightful. However I'm not here to debate if they are a waste or if they are not.

You have no idea what you are speaking of here Kratos. I'll explain why.
Consider the example of an Insurance company providing medical Insurance when there is no euthanasia. Their premium is $300(say) per month for single coverage. Consider a sample of 1000 people who consider this, because they want to be protected against any health complications that may arise in the future.

The annual income for the insurance company would then be 1000 x 300 x 12=$3600000.

It's a known fact that only a fraction of healthy people would actually need intensive care in the future. The fraction is very small, since the probability of healthy people falling seriously ill is very less compared to the probability of healthy people still remaining healthy; that's why insurance companies earn such huge profits.

Say, 5%(yes, probability can be that low) of people need intensive treatment; making thier number 50. And, say on average, their individual bills amount to $50000 annually.

The insurance company would then need to pay out 50 x 50,000= $2500000.
So, the insurance company earns $3600000 - $2500000= $1100000 for every 1000 people a year. Imagine how much the company earns, considering the millions of people taking medical insurance each year.

Now the same insurance company, would have to lower the premium to $275(say) if euthanasia is to be made legal. It will have to, because, they will no longer be needed to pay bills for prolonged treatment for chronic patients and such, since a good number of them will anyways consider euthanasia, reducing the risk factor greatly for the company. So, lesser the risk, lesser will have to be the premium. If euthanasia is introduced globally, this will have to happen.

When the risk reduces, so would the number of people who would consider the insurance. So if even 95% people would consider this insurance, making it 950.

The annual income for the company will then be 950 x 275 x 12 = $3135000.

People seeking intensive treatment (at 5%) would now be 48.
The insurance company would need to pay 48 x 50000 = $2400000.

So, the company earns $3135000 - $2400000 = $7350000; a loss of $3650000 for every 1000 people. There will be furthter expense on the insurance company's part towards payments to people's common ailment's bills, but that would remain constant, whether euthanasia is legal or not.

Imagine the loss considering the millions of people who take medical insurance, clearly showing why I said they would be losing big money.


I really don't think a business bent on making money is going to reduce it's premium.

Even so if they did, more people would get the coverage under that company because it's cheaper then. The cheaper things are the more people will buy them. A good example of this is Wal-Mart vs. local stores in the US, such as Shopko and small businesses. More people go to Wal-Mart because it is cheaper. Health insurance is always recommended to have just in case.

Still, if people pay for the coverage of the insurance company - tough cookies for the insurance company when they have to pay. It's an agreement.

The bills don't stop till they die but if you chose euthanasia you would also loose the chance of getting your bills paid had you not considered euthanasia.

No. When Euthanasia is made legal, other legal documents and agreements would have to be reformed in that matter. Till you die, whatever the cause, the medical bills should be pretty much covered by insurance.

There will be a drop, not a huge one but a drop nonetheless. An average person does not see a doctor that often as you think.

Oh, I know. I avoid doctors unless it's something serious. Still, it's always good to have insurance around for just in case. Cheaper means more people will buy it though.

I think you misunderstood, what I meat was that, what a majority of the world thinks today will have to be accepted as correct today. After all, a general law made for all people should do justice to the majority, if not all, shouldn't it?

Alright.

Laws should do that. Support for euthanasia is growing with each new year. It's already in many studies, including the sources you've provided earlier, the upper half and the majority.

No.

Alright then.

General laws are always made keeping the majority in view, that's life. If you can't please all, at least please most of them.

Indeed they are. Governments don't rule their people, people rule their governments.


I 've clearly shown you how statistics can be misleading.Two of the very important factors affecting small sample polls: the method of selection of the sample population and the wording of the questions asked. The chinese survey doesn't give any details at all. Chinese releases to international press is always lacking in detail. There is no mention of the questions asked, number of people surveyed and such.


I've shown in my own posts that different worded questions can lead to different statistics as well. Small sampling polls are taken every day, all over the world for issues. These are no different.

The Chinese are private towards the world. They did say the number 80% with areas around the country.


If these two statements are not suggestive, what else is? hmm.gif
It's clear that the problem is not illness that's making people choose euthanasia, it's poverty. sad.gif


I would think a modern health care system to the rural, would be a good thing.

They are already choosing suicide without euthanasia. Though, I don't agree with anybody using euthanasia just not to burden their family with medical bills because euthanasia is suppose to be for people with little chance of recovery and time is limited for them.


Yeah, more deaths due to poverty. Wow! disgust.gif


Maybe so under Chinese law, which shouldn't happen. There is also going to be a lot of people getting euthanasia that would qualify for it.

Still, 80% of people agreeing with it is the majority and laws should do justice to the majority.


It's so easy for people to cry wolf over pain -to see pain and to feel pain. The fact is that they just killed that baby. Yes, it is difficult to see people suffer but it is more important not to let your emotions rule your judgment. Why, the baby might be saying 'Mummy, don't let them kill me. Give me a chance, let me live.'

It's funny when you say suggest that the baby is going through excruciating pain when you yourself quote this...


Even the doctors said it was pain and the reactions from the little baby. That little baby was going to live a life of pain for around 30 months of agony and horrible suffering due to her disorder. It was mercy to give her euthanasia.

Why wouldn't I quote that? It's clearly and openly showing that even in this day and age the most advanced medical technology cannot help everybody to suit his or her needs. That is the dawning reality.


Kratos, it is just so pathetic that the doctor sent the child home without treatment- it's actually appalling. It is clear he did not have a proper understanding of the extremely rare condition. He just assumed she would die and sent her home. Had she been given better treatment in the hospital, who knows, she may have recovered.hmm.gif


What more could he or the nurses do? Keep the baby in a a mummy of wraps, while each time they change they rip off more of her skin and give her more and more and more pain? She did get treatment at home for those 6 months, till then she finally died. At the state at which her body was in, I doubt it could have put up much of a fight at all against pneumonia.

There is no known cure for Hallopeau-Siemens syndrome and she had the most severe form. So there was no chance of her recovering. hmm.gif


Kratos, that is just not the case. The benefit money would have to be used to look after the sick person. What part of it can possibly be left for other family members to exploit? It's not like whole families are totally living out of a sick man's benefit fund, is it?


Funny, I thought welfare and pension where for the patient. If they want to get paid to take care of the patient they would have to go through the insurance company for medical care. Insurance and many programs also offer a nurse that comes by to help.

No, not totally living but extra cash is always a good motivator for people. It could also be paying for some drug habit or new toys for them. Keep the patient alive and take the cash to some people is acceptable. This world isn't an utopia where everybody is nice to one another. That is a reality.

Even still, the person might be depending on that cash to pay the rent or some debt so it would be very much in their favor to keep the patient alive to milk them of money.


Handfuls will not be sufficient I'm afraid Kratos.


The rights of minorities should still be considered as it effects them. Just like the courts ruling in favor if homosexuals, civil rights movement for blacks, and against discrimination against minorities, just to name a few examples.


Your first six charts are from "trinity," the next four are from "publicagenda." Two sources aren't that many(not that I'm asking for more). Also, one of the sites clearly mentions that the results varied a lot on the way the questions were worded- which is exactly what I've been saying all the while.


I've given other studies and accounts as well. Even your attempt to debunk the statistics showed that euthanasia still has more then a 50% approval rating in nearly all cases. I made no attempt to hide different varied questions to show it can go up and down, even still those words still yielded approval ratings as the majority.


If you check on the wordings of the questions in the "for euthanasia" kind of polls, you will see why.


Even in the different wording, euthanasia comes out ahead with nearly every time over 50%. Again, even your own sources showed support for euthanasia is above 50% or close to.

The source on denying the patient food, is not euthanasia. As that is legal today. So, I'm not sure why you threw in that study.


Everybody is accountable for what they do, why not doctors, especially when euthanasia puts down lives? The public has a right to know.


We also have patient rights about treatment and privacy. The public won't know unless there is something criminal or wrong. Other then that the hospital and medical community would only know, so the doctors would still be held accountable. The public has no right to know what medical treatment you are getting. thumbsup.gif


No, just accountable. I believe when you have to take lives, the reasons should also be justifiable.


Just like other medical procedures like surgeries, prescribing medicine and seeing a patient - Doctors are held accountable. thumbsup.gif There is also protocol to consider to protect patients privacy.


Why not? You see kratos, it's not just the patient who suffers, their close ones also do suffer mentally. It is their right to know, for they are the ones who have to live with this truth.


Nope, they have no right to know. It's the rights of the patient that allows that. Just as a person that is laying there dieing naturally doesn't have to tell their next in kin about their condition.


1) Patrick Matheny received his lethal prescription from Oregon Health Sciences University via Federal Express. He had difficulty when he tried to take the drugs four months later. His brother-in-law, Joe Hayes, said he had to "help" Matheny die. According to Hayes, "It doesn't go smoothly for everyone. For Pat it was a huge problem. It would have not worked without help.


Maybe he should have taken the drugs at the hospital and it could have been corrected.

I also noticed you skipped my question about why they should suffer. I would like that answered please, and this time just don't ignore it as if it wasn't there. thumbsup.gif


2) The patient was at home. There was no doctor. The man took the lethal dose and began to have some physical symptoms he could not control. The symptoms were hard for his wife to handle. She called 911. The guy ended up being taken by 911 to a local Portland hospital and was revived in the middle of it and then taken to a local nursing facility. He died later.


I have no idea why they revived him. That was the fault of the hospital that did so. When choosing any treatment the doctor fills you in on the side effects, what it will do and how long it will take. This guy choose to do so.


Overdoses of barbiturates are known to cause vomiting as a person begins to lose consciousness. The patient then inhales the vomit. In other cases, panic, feelings of terror and assaultive behavior can occur from the drug-induced confusion.


Hmm...lets look at the symptoms of barbiturates:
Symptoms of acute barbiturate intoxication include sluggishness, incoordination, difficulty in thinking, slowness of speech, faulty judgment, drowsiness or coma, shallow breathing, and ataxic gait (staggering).
Source

However, if nausea or vomiting continues, check with your doctor.
Source

It's not common, but does however happen. Not sure why they were taking it outside the hospital or without a doctor though. Maybe such things wouldn't have taken place if a doctor was there.


And to think this is the so-called painless death. How true. disgust.gif


Indeed, then the drugs for euthanasia should be changed for the best result and monitored by doctors. The patient, or legal guardian know the risks because they doctor tells them, as they do all patients, what the drugs do. Despite these rare side effects people still are choosing euthanasia.


1) The first known assisted-suicide death under the Oregon law was that of a woman in her mid-eighties who had been battling breast cancer for twenty-two years. Two doctors, including her own physician who believed that her request was due to depression, refused to prescribe the lethal drugs. Then Compassion in Dying (CID) became involved. Dr. Peter Goodwin, medical director of CID,(16) determined that she was an "appropriate candidate" for death and referred her to a doctor who provided the lethal prescription. In an audiotape, made two days before her death and played at a CID press conference, the woman said, "I will be relieved of all the stress I have."


Maybe then the doctors should have recommended to psychologists rather then just denying her. Is there any psychologists saying she was depressed and unfit for being a candidate. In order for euthanasia to work on a large scale, doctors must do their jobs rather then slack. That means going that extra mile.


2) During the last year for which reports are available, only 5% of patients were referred for a psychological evaluation or counseling before receiving a prescription for assisted suicide. Under the assisted-suicide law, depressed or mentally ill patients can receive assisted suicide if they do not have "impaired judgment." Concerning the decision to refer for a psychological evaluation, Oregon epidemiologist Dr. Mel Cohn said, "According to the law, it's up to the docks' discretion."


Impaired judgment and being mentally ill are different. Just because someone has a mental illness does not mean they do not understand. I find it a shame most people hear mentally ill and think a person is just stupid, when that is not true. no.gif


See, even if the laws are there for such a horredous practise, it's clear how easily they can be misused, and in some cases not used at all.


Get the doctors to do their jobs then and have hospital enforce their policies.

Doctors don't always follow the rules when treating other patients, euthanasia is no exception. Doctors are only human.


* During the seventh year, physicians who prescribe the lethal drugs for assisted suicide were present at fewer than 16% of reported deaths.


They don't have to report the deaths though to the public, only on the death certificate and to the hospital to protect patient rights.


* The DHS(Department of Human Services) is not authorized to investigate how physicians determine their patient diagnoses or life expectancies.


That should be changed to allow them so. Just because one state does it, doesn't mean making euthanasia completely legal will follow the same guidelines.


*If physicians are prescribing for patients who do not have a terminal condition, there is no way to find out since the same doctors who are violating the guidelines would have to report their own violations.
[color]

So now they are not trusting doctors?

That's basically the same as any other treatment. yes.gif Why is euthanasia any different? Other treatment can cause death.

[color=#33CC00]
* During the last year for which reports are available, only 5% of patients were referred for a psychological evaluation or counseling before receiving a prescription for assisted suicide.


That should change as well, since a doctor is not qualified. The state of mind should be able to understand. This percent, I wonder if it also takes into account the number of people that were unable to communicate because they were in a vegetative state or coma.


*  Under the assisted-suicide law, depressed or mentally ill patients can receive assisted suicide if they do not have "impaired judgment."


Mentally ill does NOT mean stupid! If someone is mentally ill, they can still understand. yes.gif


*  For the 3rd through the 6th years, the doctor-patient relationship in some assisted suicide cases was under one week. Thus, either some physicians are not complying with the 2 week requirement or they stepped in to write an assisted-suicide prescription after other physician(s) refused.


I'd like to see a source for this claim.


*  Family members do not need to be informed before a doctor helps a loved one commit suicide.


Patient privacy rights says they don't. If they are getting any medical treatment they don't have to tell anybody. This is about the patient, not the family.


* Oregon's law provides greater protection for doctors than for patients.


Both should be protected. Doctors need to be protected in any and all treatments to a degree. As should the patients.


No, they are not. Most cases are not reported.
What do you suggest, put down all the millions at the drop of a hat, the moment they say pain? huh.gif


The doctors are not required to.

Yes, I mean that. rolleyes.gif Have you just ignored me this entire time? It would have to be long term suffering and/or they're going to die within months because of an illness. It's mercy to allow them to do so.


They are not test rats. Christ! There is more than just one reason to justify a ban on euthansia.


That's a reason to ban euthanasia? No... I think it is a reason to allow euthanasia. You proposed keeping them alive to be used in drug trials and such, not me.


There are several times when you need to step in and take a decision that might sometimes be against their current wishes but still for their own good; just like in the case of a physically and mentally ill patient considering euthanasia.


Let personal feeling or doctors choose... I'll choose the doctors as they are trained.


It's not just about the pain they are undergoing today, it's also about a better life tomorrow.


A better life? I didn't know doctors owned a magic wand to make things all better. Patients that consider euthanasia are doing so for a reason. original.gif


There is nothing more precious than life, you just have one chance.


It's how it is lived that make that one chance the best it can be.


Think of it this way: why should they be forced to die for somebody else? Yes, somebody else; they are fored to die because somebody else feels they are a burden.


Maybe they should have living wills and legal documents outlining their wishes rather then blaming someone else.

Nobody should be forced to stay alive in agony, suffering and loss of dignity. no.gif


How is preventing someone from dying related to dignity in death?


If they don't die, their bodies will break down and won't be able to take care of themselves. That's degrading and a loss of dignity to them.


Death to you sounds like a brave and a dignified thing, doesn't it? Just like people in the olden days used to think about dying in war and attaining some kind of martyrdom.

Dying get's no glory kratos, for once you're gone you will be no longer alive to see any glory, so it doesn't really matter to you what happens after your death. Life is all about glory, not death.


It is a big step, brave indeed and to die with dignity should be a human right. You're proposing to keep them alive to rot away and I can't agree with that. Euthanasia is about giving people mercy, not to give them glory for choosing it.

Death is a natural part of life, and life should be lived as best as you want and how you want. If someone doesn't want to live in suffering, to not take care of themselves or even enjoy life - Who are you to say that is wrong? Life should be enjoyed.


Life is precious, every life and every single moment of it. Stand by the sick patients and help them realize the importance of life. We have the gift of life, let us help people live, let us make them feel they are wanted, let us show them hope. Give them a chance -their only chance to recover and live.


Life is precious, and it should be enjoyed how someone wants. It would be nice to stand by patients and show them people care, but that is not a reality of many people or families. It would be nice but it's just not reality.

Not everybody can recover or heal - that is fact. We should make laws based on reality rather then false hopes and wishes. thumbsup.gif


When you make mistakes, you will more likely than not, have a chance to correct them, but for people who are made to consider euthanasia, there will be no second chance, even to regret. Ban euthanasia!


Laws need to reflect what people want and reality rather then basing them on false hopes, wishes and not being able to let go. We are human beings, we live and we die. We all want to live nice, enjoyable lives and live them how we want and not be forced to suffer to wait to die. It is emotion, compassion and our thoughts that make us human; to give mercy to someone is human and rightfully so.

May we all see mercy is within our grasps as evolving as a society. thumbsup.gif

Back to you Bone_Collector.

Edited by __Kratos__, 03 April 2006 - 12:45 AM.

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." ~Philip K. Dick

#22    Lottie

Lottie

    The Nappy Ninja !!

  • Member
  • 7,516 posts
  • Joined:13 Oct 2003
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

  • "I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people who annoy me." - Noel Coward

Posted 05 April 2006 - 09:57 AM

BC has been granted a weeks extension. He should be ready to post  his conclusion by next tuesday. thumbsup.gif


#23    Bone_Collector

Bone_Collector

    -> SkEpToMaNiAc <-

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,334 posts
  • Joined:05 Oct 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • You savvy?

Posted 10 April 2006 - 12:09 PM

Concluding post

Kratos, I will answer the questions raised by you in your earlier post before keying in my conclusion, but before all that I would like to express my happiness in participating in what has been a fantastic debate in my opinion. I hope you enjoyed participating in it as much as I have.

Also, I would like to express my thanks to debate organizers "Lottie" and "AztecInca" for allotting me some extra time to post when I was held up with work.

Note: Kratos, your quotes are in red again.

When a person only has months left to live because of cancer or some other illness each day is long for them. To keep going all the way to the end trying to get the right drug for the right patient, which in some cases can be impossible, they are there suffering because of it. Babies born with genetic or birth disorders can experience horrible and insane pain that can't be stopped. Burn victims that have limited time with their body savaged by 3rd degree burns. So many more.

We cannot have general laws for all patients and say that all people considering euthanasia are definitely going to die. People only consider euthanasia due to physical and psychological pressures; these people are generally not in a balanced state to make a sound decision for themselves, and honoring such decisions or even forcing such decisions down them is totally unethical, inhuman and just unacceptable.

While it is understood that infants do feel a little pain but it is proven that they are not actually developed enough to sense extreme pain, so pain is still not a valid reason to euthanize them; not to mention the advanced pain killing technology available today. Most extreme burn victims do not endure pain for long, they just die of it very soon. So euthanasia cannot even be considered for them(not that it can be considered for other cases), but still some people live through extreme burns and recuperate.

I don't. Just find it curious. I understand the need for research. With that said, I can still feel sad and mercy towards them

I respect life. Something I learned as a young child when I first learned to hunt. There is a cycle of life. Sacrifices and animals eating each other is nature.


No, that really does not cover my point. You said in your earlier post that you were really sad for the frogs that would be used for testing(though you were not even sure if they were being killed in the first place). Isn't it ironic that you being a non-vegetarian are saying that you are not satisfied with my reasoning that the frogs used for testing(to save lives, I might add) is justifiable, while you are totally OK with consuming meat that comes from killing several animals on a regular basis, just for taste.

By your reasoning it sounds as if, you would find it more justifiable if the frogs landed up in some fancy Chinese soup rather than helping scientists in preparing a life saving drug. And to top it all, you say you respect life. Wow! disgust.gif

Let children walk with Nature, let them see the beautiful blendings and communions of death and life, their joyous inseparable unity, as taught in woods and meadows, plains and mountains and streams of our blessed star, and they will learn that death is sting less indeed, and as beautiful as life.
- John Muir


Nobody has lived to tell what death actually is, hell it might be very painful, who knows, do you or does the author of the above poem? I sometimes find your attempts of glorifying death rather disturbing.

You can never be sure they will live either.

Please make a note, you have said this, I have not. When you are not quite sure Kratos, you give people a chance - the benefit of doubt, you just don't go and kill.

Sacrificing the few to save the many, kind of deal.

Correction: forcing people to sacrifice themselves to save money; not a fair deal in my opinion.

I really don't think a business bent on making money is going to reduce it's premium.

I just told you why they have to.

Even so if they did, more people would get the coverage under that company because it's cheaper then. The cheaper things are the more people will buy them. A good example of this is Wahl-Mart vs. local stores in the US, such as Shopko and small businesses. More people go to Wal-Mart because it is cheaper. Health insurance is always recommended to have just in case.

Most people take health insurance to cover any health complications in the future. If euthanasia becomes legal, more and more people would stop considering this insurance because it won't help them anyways. People will think that if their health complicates in the future, then they'll be made to consider euthanasia so why bother paying so much money to get health insurance?

If something becomes a little cheaper, it doesn't necessarily mean that the demand will increase. Demand is the key and I've shown how it can drop if euthanasia is made legal.  

The war on drugs and war on terror are rightful.

Look again, that amount is spent by US on war and drugs, not war on drugs. blink.gif

Till you die, whatever the cause, the medical bills should be pretty much covered by insurance.

Yes, but you will lose out on having your medical bills paid for your prolonged and intensive medical treatment ahead from the point where you considered euthanasia.

Imagine a patient chosing euthanasia on 10th April; his bills upto this point were say: $20,000. Now, had he not considered euthanasia, he would've lived on and had his future medical bills also paid, say: $20,000 more. Wouldn't he loose out on this, if he chose euthanasia?

They are already choosing suicide without euthanasia

Yes they are, but not as much as it is still illegal.

The Chinese are private towards the world. They did say the number 80% with areas around the country.

80% is quite a significant figure to accept without proof. The lack of proper poll details make this figure very unbelievable.

Why wouldn't I quote that?

Because what you quoted says that babies rarely endure extreme pain, hence contradicting your point.

Maybe so under Chinese law, which shouldn't happen. There is also going to be a lot of people getting euthanasia that would qualify for it.

A majority of people are considering it because of poverty. So, if 8 out of 10 are considering it due to poverty, it's still justifiable to you? You amaze me Kratos! huh.gif

The rights of minorities should still be considered as it effects them. Just like the courts ruling in favor if homosexuals, civil rights movement for blacks, and against discrimination against minorities, just to name a few examples.

Yes, but homosexuals' laws shouldn't be forced on straight people, should they? It's just like you cannot force euthanasia laws on people with potential to live.

Even in the different wording, euthanasia comes out ahead with nearly every time over 50%. Again, even your own sources showed support for euthanasia is above 50% or close to.

Kratos, you tell me the percentages(for and against euthanasia) you want, and I will get them for you from one corner of the net or the other. I posted several polls to show how contradicting and ridiculous small sample polls can be.

The public has no right to know what medical treatment you are getting.

The public has every right to know, especially when you are basing such appalling laws on public opinion. Things like this need to be tracked so that they are not misused. Deaths affect a lot of people either directly or indirectly, not just the person dying. From what you said above, the doctors can do pretty much whatever they want; just no transparency at all.

Nope, they have no right to know. It's the rights of the patient that allows that. Just as a person that is laying there dieing naturally doesn't have to tell their next in kin about their condition.

NO, NO, NO Kratos, the dearest ones of a patient HAVE a right to know, I repeat...RIGHT. These people have to live with this painful fact all their lives, it's not over for them as in the case of the one who's dead; it is only moral that they should know.

I'd like to see a source for this claim.

The same Oregon source I gave in my earlier post.

I also noticed you skipped my question about why they should suffer.

They should suffer because they have to recover. Pain and life come hand-in-hand; it's one of the laws of life. They suffer even less with the aid of advanced technology, and they suffer to live and see a better tomorrow.

Though, I don't agree with anybody using euthanasia just not to burden their family with medical bills because euthanasia is suppose to be for people with little chance of recovery and time is limited for them.

But that is exactly what will happen Kratos, it will be used not for the purposes intended but for something entirely different. The vast majority of the world is still poor and underdeveloped. This law if passed, will be very very bad for them. I think you are beginning to see my point now. original.gif

Conclusion

It is clear that euthanasia is a highly charged and extensively debated topic all around the world. It is also clear that the most people advocating euthanasia do not actually understand the true long term implications of making such a gruesome practice legal.

While it is only natural for people to feel sympathy towards the suffering patients and see euthanasia as their liberation, it is more important to check emotions and think logically. Innumerable patients have fought pain and disease to recover completely and see a better tomorrow. All the patients need is a chance to fight; the chance as we call it now is also their right.

Theoretically speaking, suicide and euthanasia are just the same. Emotional factors play a very important role in people's decisions to consider euthanasia just as suicide. It is strange that we find suicide unacceptable, while euthanasia is still debated.  

Small sample polls are highly misleading, also they depend on how the questions are framed and number of people surveyed. Polls on the internet are hardly conclusive. However, it s clear that a majority of this world is against euthanasia, perhaps the main reason why it still remains illegal in most countries.

Medical  technology has come a long long way providing cure for several diseases that were thought to be fatal previously. Pain killing technology has come leaps and bounds too, providing effective alternatives to pain, and holding immense promise for the future. Pain can now be controlled to a large extent, thus nullifying the only reasonable argument for euthanasia.

Psychologists help should be more and more recommended to people with pain, they can prescribe state-of-the-art procedures which will help patients cope with pain better.

If the struggle for life becomes too much for the body to bear, then it will give up itself, there is no need to force it to give up, it will happen anyways. Let us stand by people in their darkest moments, show them hope and see them through. Let life take its course. Let us not play god.

It is clear how euthanasia implementation has gone woefully wrong in Oregon and other countries. The laws have been vastly misused and in some cases not used at all. The is just no transparency, accountability and the statistics still vastly go unreported. It has created nothing but havoc and been so prone to misuse.

Making euthanasia legal will only make more and more sick people consider this option, It will also encourage a growing tendency of promoting premature death as a solution to rising health costs.

The acceptance of euthanasia will only make it even more acceptable for people to check out of all kinds of uncomfortable situations in their lives: physical, emotional and even psychological. Euthanasia creates situations wherein the patient is asked to die and not be a burden.

It is often seen in suicide attempts in which the person's body attempts to throw the poison out by vomiting; clearly indicating that the patient's body overrules his mind. If there can be such an internal miscommunication between mind and body, then how can we possibly think of trusting the communication between a person and the physician ready to assist the patient's suicide?

There will be huge psychological stress on the doctors as well for they will have to basically go against the aims of medicine; they are taught to save lives, not take them. Patients will fear approaching doctors even more resulting in late approaches and preventable deaths. They will also have this fear that they might be put down against their wishes when they are not conscious.

Euthanasia is just going to be a quicker and easier alternative for the society to get rid of its weak -a rash and an irresponsible alternative I might add. Euthanasia only saves money for the government and the patient's family members. In my opinion money should NEVER be a factor when we are dealing with decisions concerning peoples lives...never. A little less money spent on war, show off and drugs by countries would surely help a more justifiable cause.

Kratos, consider the worst moment in your life, really the most depressing and heartrending moment of your life: emotional or even physical, and just ask yourself this: if anybody had offered you a cyanide pill then, at that very moment - a weak moment when you actually felt like dying , would you or would you have not taken that pill?

Of course, it depends on what your worst moment really is, but most people in their weakest moment would take that pill Kratos, if you actually offer it to them, trust me on this Kratos. Euthanasia is just that; it's just offering cyanide pills to people in their weakest and toughest moments in life. While you should really be standing by them and seeing them through, you are actually helping them murder themselves.

Still want to offer that cyanide pill Kratos?

Edited by Bone_Collector, 12 April 2006 - 07:52 AM.

The woods are lovely, dark and deep, but I have promises to keep and miles to go before I sleep... and miles to go before I sleep ~Robert Frost

#24    __Kratos__

__Kratos__

    -Staring-

  • Member
  • 25,876 posts
  • Joined:13 Oct 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Inside the moon

Posted 16 April 2006 - 01:05 AM

End Post

In this final posting, I will make the final rebuttal against Bone_Collector. Then I will present my conclusion. It's been fun to take part in this debate with you, Bone_Collector.

I thank Lottie, AztecInca, and Tiddlyjen for putting together and watching the debate and for their time.

Bone_Collector, your quotes are in green.

We cannot have general laws for all patients and say that all people considering euthanasia are definitely going to die. People only consider euthanasia due to physical and psychological pressures; these people are generally not in a balanced state to make a sound decision for themselves, and honoring such decisions or even forcing such decisions down them is totally unethical, inhuman and just unacceptable.

While it is understood that infants do feel a little pain but it is proven that they are not actually developed enough to sense extreme pain, so pain is still not a valid reason to euthanize them; not to mention the advanced pain killing technology available today. Most extreme burn victims do not endure pain for long, they just die of it very soon. So euthanasia cannot even be considered for them(not that it can be considered for other cases), but still some people live through extreme burns and recuperate.


It is possible that they will die though, some with better chances of death then others. That is fact. The physical pressures are something aren't they? Losing your pride and dignity because your body is breaking down or too weak to do anything yourself is not fun. Maybe if you had the chance to think you were dying, laying there, rotting away waiting for the Reaper to come a rapping on your door you would think differently. Psychologically, there is already stops in the system to stop depression euthanasia when someone looking for a way out. As you said, this isn't perfect, but we are only human. Just as millions each year die because of medical errors on a global scale, the euthanasia system is no different. To simply say "because they're are mistakes it shouldn't be legal" is void because then you would have to condemn nearly all medical treatments and medicine.

Honoring someone's wishes is right. More so then disobeying them, sentencing them to their final days in pain you cannot even begin to understand, the waiting to die, in some case their own thoughts sway and even in case they just take their lifes by their own hands. It's their life, and they should have the right to die when the future holds them loss of dignity, suffering, pain and just the waiting to die.

Baby's can feel pain though. Many studies have shown that:

Researcher: Premature Babies Feel Pain   

Babies' Pain Has Long Effect, Study Hints

Babies feel pain more than adults: study

Baby's pain sensitizes it to future trauma

Premature babies can feel pain, scans show  

Even with that advanced technology you speak of, we are not gods. Still today there are many things we do not know about the human body and with that said, how to control the pain that has haunted humans from the beginning of our time.

Those burn victims you speak of, just because they don't live long in pain that makes them right to let them live that short period in agony? That is just cruel and barbaric to allow them to do so because they won't experience the pain long. no.gif What I want to do is give them mercy to their situation because as horrible as it is, they are in that situation.

No, that really does not cover my point. You said in your earlier post that you were really sad for the frogs that would be used for testing(though you were not even sure if they were being killed in the first place). Isn't it ironic that you being a non-vegetarian are saying that you are not satisfied with my reasoning that the frogs used for testing(to save lives, I might add) is justifiable, while you are totally OK with consuming meat that comes from killing several animals on a regular basis, just for taste.

By your reasoning it sounds as if, you would find it more justifiable if the frogs landed up in some fancy Chinese soup rather than helping scientists in preparing a life saving drug. And to top it all, you say you respect life. Wow!  disgust.gif


I do however see the reason for using the frogs for testing. I am sad for them however because they live their life’s in such a manner of tests and experiments while probably being bred inside a lab. That is no way to live but sacrifices must be made.

What I mean, is that I am sad for the way they will live. Doesn't mean, I don't understand the need for the tests.

Nobody has lived to tell what death actually is, hell it might be very painful, who knows, do you or does the author of the above poem? I sometimes find your attempts of glorifying death rather disturbing.

Nobody? Everyday people are brought back by life through CPR, the paddles, a heart transplant where they are dead for a short period of time and so on.

I don't know. I haven't had the chance to die yet.

I do not glorify death, I just see it as a part of life. Birth is the messenger of death. - Syrian proverb

Please make a note, you have said this, I have not. When you are not quite sure Kratos, you give people a chance - the benefit of doubt, you just don't go and kill.

I have said it. As in the past I have said there is a reality to consider rather then basing opinions and ideas on false hopes. I'm not saying if they have a 50/50 chance of living or dieing, give them euthanasia. I am saying when the time has passed and so has the chances, it is time to consider the reality of the situation.

Correction: forcing people to sacrifice themselves to save money; not a fair deal in my opinion.

You're the one that brought up the idea of killing to save money, not I. As I said I didn't agree with insurance companies or the government. However you are still assuming they will do this. The insurance company doesn't make medical choices, and the government would be only able to in a handful of patients, as it is the taxpayers’ money.

In your last posts you wanted to keep people alive to use for tests, trials and experiments. That's not a fair deal in my opinion.

I just told you why they have to.

They wouldn't though. Businesses don't make policies on purpose to lose money and survive while losing money.

Most people take health insurance to cover any health complications in the future. If euthanasia becomes legal, more and more people would stop considering this insurance because it won't help them anyways. People will think that if their health complicates in the future, then they'll be made to consider euthanasia so why bother paying so much money to get health insurance?

If something becomes a little cheaper, it doesn't necessarily mean that the demand will increase. Demand is the key and I've shown how it can drop if euthanasia is made legal.


That logic is flawed only because most people want to live. They are not going to ignore the gauntlet the universe throws at them in many cases but rather bend down, pick it up and give the battle for their life’s. With that said, the insurance just won't drop because euthanasia is made legal. People still want to live regardless.

Look again, that amount is spent by US on war and drugs, not war on drugs. blink.gif  

Money spent on drugs that are not medical, you said. I would assume that is the war on drugs mainly focusing on South American countries. If you meant something else, you should have said so rather then keeping people guessing.

Yes, but you will lose out on having your medical bills paid for your prolonged and intensive medical treatment ahead from the point where you considered euthanasia.

Imagine a patient chosing euthanasia on 10th April; his bills upto this point were say: $20,000. Now, had he not considered euthanasia, he would've lived on and had his future medical bills also paid, say: $20,000 more. Wouldn't he loose out on this, if he chose euthanasia?


Why would you lose out though? As you will be dead and the bills up till then will be covered by the insurance or whatever coverage you have. yes.gif

That is a risk with taking any kind of insurance. You still pay, but if you don't get sick are you losing out on it? Insurance is the net that catches you, not the rope that hangs you. Even still you said, "choose" if he wants to choose that, that is his choice. thumbsup.gif

Yes they are, but not as much as it is still illegal.

How many people do you think don't commit suicide because it is illegal? They are taking their life’s, not reviewing the law books to see if they'll get fined in death. Kind of an oxymoron, don't you think?

80% is quite a significant figure to accept without proof. The lack of proper poll details make this figure very unbelievable.


I never asked you to believe, just asked you look at it. If you don't want to believe, that's your choice.

Because what you quoted says that babies rarely endure extreme pain, hence contradicting your point.

No, it showing that even the most advanced medical technology we have cannot help everybody. This extreme pain is rare, yes but high levels of pain are not. There are volumes of books out there on diseases, genetic disorders, infections and more that can lead to such happenings.

A majority of people are considering it because of poverty. So, if 8 out of 10 are considering it due to poverty, it's still justifiable to you? You amaze me Kratos!  huh.gif

First you don't believe the report, and now you want to, so you may go against it?

They said some did it out of poverty and that isn't alright with me because that isn't the euthanasia in general, rather a economic suicide that the culture has. My euthanasia will have no part in that because 1. The patient isn't dying from an illness 2. There is no need for them to die, and  3. They do not fit within the guidelines.

Even still the Chinese said that the 80% are for it, and you've said in pervious posts that laws should reflect the majority. So is it only wrong when you disagree with the majority? huh.gif

Yes, but homosexuals' laws shouldn't be forced on straight people, should they? It's just like you cannot force euthanasia laws on people with potential to live.

huh.gif That is why they have the laws, to protect the homosexuals and yes, they are to be obeyed by straight people. The potential to live can be outweighed by the potential to die. Just as in a game of chess, when the game gets to out of control and your chances dwindle you put down your king to resign. Still the smallest chance in the world you could win but facts say otherwise.

Kratos, you tell me the percentages(for and against euthanasia) you want, and I will get them for you from one corner of the net or the other. I posted several polls to show how contradicting and ridiculous small sample polls can be.

You have done that though! Your very own sources had high levels of support for euthanasia! Your small sample polls even showed around a 50 - 50 support for and against euthanasia. That is a great deal higher then years ago, and support is still rising for euthanasia. thumbsup.gif

The public has every right to know, especially when you are basing such appalling laws on public opinion. Things like this need to be tracked so that they are not misused. Deaths affect a lot of people either directly or indirectly, not just the person dying. From what you said above, the doctors can do pretty much whatever they want; just no transparency at all.

We have patient rights and confidentiality for a reason. You yourself brought up the ethical code for doctors and patient rights is one of those things. You just cannot argue for the doctors then later on, turn against them. Flip flopping back on forth on the issues is not something that will just go unnoticed.

NO, NO, NO Kratos, the dearest ones of a patient HAVE a right to know, I repeat...RIGHT. These people have to live with this painful fact all their lives, it's not over for them as in the case of the one who's dead; it is only moral that they should know.

No, they have no right at all to know. This is about the patient first most. If the patient does not want to have people told, that is their choice. Patient rights are a must, not something that can just be tossed aside. As I've stated in earlier posts, not every family is a happy, go lucky, tightly woven family. So, the family has no right to know.

The same Oregon source I gave in my earlier post.

The gave a list in text (no hyperlinks) of sources they got it from but nothing to view to show their claims. hmm.gif

They should suffer because they have to recover. Pain and life come hand-in-hand; it's one of the laws of life. They suffer even less with the aid of advanced technology, and they suffer to live and see a better tomorrow.

That's odd because I was referring to the quote from the doctor about why that little girl should suffer or why should anybody else? That girl wasn't recovering, and that is fact as she is dead now. No better tomorrow for her, and millions of other people yearly.

Technology is made by humans, not forged by the gods. Technology can only do so much in aiding people. The rest is in the hands of the universe.

But that is exactly what will happen Kratos, it will be used not for the purposes intended but for something entirely different. The vast majority of the world is still poor and underdeveloped. This law if passed, will be very very bad for them. I think you are beginning to see my point now.  original.gif

You are redefining euthanasia though to allow the legal use of it to be for the poverty stricken people that don't want to burden family with bills. That is not euthanasia.

Euthanasia: “The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal; injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment” (American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition).
Source

It will not be bad at all for them, if the officials, and lawmakers see that euthanasia for it's real purpose and not made up definitions that give euthanasia a bad light.


Conclusion

When euthanasia is brought up any place in the world, the ground will shake from both sides coming together in a heated debate/argument. It truly will be a major topic in our time.

Anti-Euthanasia groups put out major operations of propaganda each year, skewing the true meaning of euthanasia and putting it in a bad light. What they fail to see, as you will see them not even admit it, is that euthanasia is about mercy.

The anti-euthanasia people try to put euthanasia away from medical world, and put it as a crime. When in fact there are doctor's today already trained in the ways of euthanasia and support it. Mistakes, faults, wrongs and crimes will be the result of euthanasia becoming legal, is another common thing put out there for food for thought. But in reality, every single medical treatment has that risk. They seem to want to cut off their own nose to spite their face.

Euthanasia should be legal for the people that want to hold their dignity in death, not want to suffer though an illness in pain, when there is just a staggering amount of facts saying there is nearly zero hope. False hope cannot be allowed be use to let people suffer without their permission. It is cruel.

Euthanasia is for seeing the reality, facts and the cold hard truth that someone can/will die. Death is just a part of life just as birth. Nobody can deny death does not exist on the standpoint of physical facts. It is giving the choice to end life for the better of that person. It is not murder, a crime, or anything else. It is about that patient that does not want to have their final days in pure agony, not even able to help themselves in any way and just lay there waiting for death to take them.

I completely see the need to laws and enforcement for euthanasia to be legal but with limits. You cannot stomp on patient rights for this. Just because a patient wants to have euthanasia considered or done, does not mean they are not still human.

I ask for people not to be swayed by false sayings on euthanasia and actually see what it is. It is not a way out for depression, financial burden, not looking at treatment or the pain without trying. You cannot get euthanasia at the drop of a hat. I stress that because it is a very common misconception.

I've shown that people can avoid problems, legal and moral, by making living wills, legal documents and just in general letting people know. The wishes of people should be known, but without them the legal guardian can only make the best choice possible that they believe is rightful.

In today we have made leaps and bounds by light years in medical technology and knowledge from the beginning of mankind. It is truly amazing how rapidly research, is finding new and helpful things for humans to use. With that said, we are not gods. We cannot cure, help, aid or fix everything wrong with the human body. As much as I and many others wish w e could live in that perfect world were there was no wrong, pain or suffering, that just isn't the world we live in. We have to do the very best we can with the tools the gods gave us.

As shown in the very early stages of this debate, Bone_Collector agreed with the euthanasia being used on animals. Now as the course of the debate has gone on, it has been mainly on the larger, more intelligent animal: Homo sapiens. I sincerely hope that in the coming future that euthanasia options will be given to patients for the mercy that should be a human right. It is not a crime to see facts.

Euthanasia is and always will be about mercy. thumbsup.gif


"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." ~Philip K. Dick

#25    AztecInca

AztecInca

    Martian

  • Member
  • 9,013 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

  • All it takes for evil to triumph, is for good people to do nothing.

Posted 16 April 2006 - 07:08 AM

Thank-you to both our debaters! They have done a terrific job and I must say I hope to see both competing in future debates.

I shall now hand this debate over to our fantastic debate judges!

Edited by AztecInca, 16 April 2006 - 07:09 AM.


#26    Kryso

Kryso

    Always watching...

  • Member
  • 3,943 posts
  • Joined:21 Sep 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England

  • Truth titillates the imagination far less than fiction.

Posted 17 April 2006 - 11:42 AM

Congratulations to both of you for such a strong debate! The amount of information and research that has gone into both your debates is staggering.

Debator 1: __Kratos__
Relevancy: 10
Countering: 10
Style: 10
Persuasiveness: 9
Total: 39

Debator 2: Bone_Collector

Relevancy: 10
Countering: 10
Style: 9
Persuasiveness: 9
Total: 38

This was possibly the hardest debate I have yet judged. To me you’re both winners!  



#27    Irish

Irish

    “The Mod Father”

  • Member
  • 4,935 posts
  • Joined:17 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary Alberta

  • Practice Random Acts of Kindness, they return to you!

Posted 18 April 2006 - 03:30 PM

Well done both of you. Kudos, Bone_Collector on a great first time debate. You both write with solid conviction and well researched. One of the toughest I’ve had to judge.


Debator 1: __Kratos__
Relevancy: 10
Countering: 8
Style: 8
Persuasiveness: 8
Total: 34

Debator 2: Bone_Collector
Relevancy: 10
Countering: 9
Style: 8
Persuasiveness: 8
Total:35
thumbsup.gif
Irish

Most people do not want to know the truth they only want confirmation for what they think is truth.

#28    TooFarGone

TooFarGone

    Blissfully Chaotic

  • Member
  • 3,682 posts
  • Joined:21 Sep 2004

  • I am chaos at its finest


Posted 27 April 2006 - 11:54 PM

Wow, I must say, this is one of the best debates I have ever read. Both of you were amazing, and there was such a massive amount of information supporting each.

Debator 1: __Kratos__
Relevancy: 10
Countering: 10
Style: 8
Persuasiveness: 10
Total: 38

Debator 2: Bone_Collector
Relevancy: 10
Countering: 10
Style: 8
Persuasiveness:10
Total: 38



Too / FarGone
TooFar_Gone
TooFa/ rGone
TooFarG_one
T_oo/FarGone
Too/Far_Gone
Too_Far_Gone

#29    AztecInca

AztecInca

    Martian

  • Member
  • 9,013 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

  • All it takes for evil to triumph, is for good people to do nothing.

Posted 28 April 2006 - 12:59 AM


Kratos finishes this debate with a final score of 37.

Bone_Collector finishes this debate with a final score of 37.

So we have a draw folks, both participants did such a good job that they just could not be seperated. We are all looking forward to seeing them in action again. thumbsup.gif






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users