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
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?
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
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%
* 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.
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."
See how misleading polls can be?
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.
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.
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.
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."
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...
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.
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
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.