rashore Posted October 17, 2017 #76 Share Posted October 17, 2017 7 minutes ago, Podo said: I agree 100% to euthanasia. I see no logical reason to forbid someone from ending their own life if they wish. But euthanasia isn't someone ending their own life. It's having someone else, typically a physician, end your life. I'm finding it interesting that this thread seems to be having suicide, assisted dying, and euthanasia as kind of the same thing. But they aren't. Suicide is taking your own life without assistance from others. Assisted dying is being provided the means, and usually the medically safe setting, to take your own life. Euthanasia is having someone else take your life through medical means. It's one thing do decide and do that to yourself, kind of another to decide you want someone else to do that to you and someone else being willing to do that to you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podo Posted October 17, 2017 #77 Share Posted October 17, 2017 52 minutes ago, rashore said: But euthanasia isn't someone ending their own life. It's having someone else, typically a physician, end your life. I'm finding it interesting that this thread seems to be having suicide, assisted dying, and euthanasia as kind of the same thing. But they aren't. Suicide is taking your own life without assistance from others. Assisted dying is being provided the means, and usually the medically safe setting, to take your own life. Euthanasia is having someone else take your life through medical means. It's one thing do decide and do that to yourself, kind of another to decide you want someone else to do that to you and someone else being willing to do that to you. But it's someone choosing to end their own life. A doctor may do it, but the person still makes the choice to make it happen. I'm still in favour of it in instances where someone can't make the decision themself, such as if someone is brain-dead, or in a coma for years and years, or [insert some other context-dependent situation here]. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aquila King Posted October 18, 2017 #78 Share Posted October 18, 2017 14 hours ago, LightAngel said: why shouldn't people get help to die with dignity? Prevention is always the best, I agree, but I'm talking about helping people die as a last option. You agree that we should help people with terminal illness, but what about for example very old people who want to die with dignity?! First off, you speak of a 'last option'. There is no 'last option', only a 'last choice'. There are always multiple options with nearly every scenario, even if we can't think of those other options at the time. Second, if someone is advanced enough in age that they thereby acquire physical impairments that will ultimately lead to nearby future death, then this is essentially what we would call 'terminal illness'. Choosing to die now rather then in the near future due to suffering caused by something to which they know will kill them, is a perfectly reasonable argument one could make. However this argument is based on the knowledge and the fact that you will die in the near future, and that you will suffer greatly during the time between now till then. And most importantly this argument has to do with internal, physical circumstances, not external, environmental circumstances that could always potentially change at any moment. Dying of a terminal illness is the same as dying of a terminal injury. The physical damage has already been done, and it is irreversible. The only two options are to live through it till you die naturally, or ease the suffering through euthanasia. If external circumstances are involved, then there is absolutely no need to euthanize, because if those external circumstances were to be eliminated, then the person in question would be able to live without suffering. There is absolutely no example that you could present to me of an external circumstance that does not have the potential of being eliminated, and therefore, I find it unnecessary and premature (and yes, possibly even immoral) to euthanize anyone due to suffering caused by external circumstances. Period. To further illustrate my point, I'd like to show you this brilliant movie clip from the movie The Mist. It's actually the ending scene so I'll wrap it in spoilers so as not to spoil the movie to anyone who hasn't seen it. (and if you haven't seen it and don't want it spoiled for you, then don't feel obligated to watch it just to respond. I think I've more than justified my position at this point, just thought that this would perfectly illustrate my point here in a way that words alone couldn't adequately convey) Spoiler To give you some background info here, the movie is about a group of people trapped in a dense mist (thus the title) in which alien monsters inhabit, that kill anyone they come in contact with in this mist. This is the ending of the movie. They've been traveling through this mist for miles in a car, but now they're outta gas. They can't see anything anywhere around them due to the mist. They can't stay in the car forever. If they hope to survive, they must venture outside the car and into the mist. Yet if they venture out into the mist, they run the risk of dying a gruesome and painful death by these monsters. So instead, they give up, and decide to end their own lives, thinking it's the better way to go. Do you see my point about ever-changing external circumstances? Your environment can always change, therefore it is completely unnecessary and premature to end your life based on this. You never know how things will change in the future. This is why euthanasia should ONLY be a viable option for those who suffer from terminal illness. Nothing else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LightAngel Posted October 18, 2017 Author #79 Share Posted October 18, 2017 2 hours ago, Aquila King said: Do you see my point about ever-changing external circumstances? I do see your point, but do you see mine? When you have time then see this video: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LightAngel Posted October 18, 2017 Author #80 Share Posted October 18, 2017 2 hours ago, Aquila King said: Second, if someone is advanced enough in age that they thereby acquire physical impairments that will ultimately lead to nearby future death, then this is essentially what we would call 'terminal illness'. Choosing to die now rather then in the near future due to suffering caused by something to which they know will kill them, is a perfectly reasonable argument one could make. However this argument is based on the knowledge and the fact that you will die in the near future, and that you will suffer greatly during the time between now till then. And most importantly this argument has to do with internal, physical circumstances, not external, environmental circumstances that could always potentially change at any moment. Dying of a terminal illness is the same as dying of a terminal injury. The physical damage has already been done, and it is irreversible. The only two options are to live through it till you die naturally, or ease the suffering through euthanasia. If external circumstances are involved, then there is absolutely no need to euthanize, because if those external circumstances were to be eliminated, then the person in question would be able to live without suffering. I hope you understand that we do agree here, but I want to look at this topic from all sides because many things in life is not a clear yes or no. There are endless variables in that grey area. I want people to have the freedom to choose, I think this is where we disagree. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aquila King Posted October 18, 2017 #81 Share Posted October 18, 2017 18 hours ago, LightAngel said: I do see your point, but do you see mine? ... I hope you understand that we do agree here, but I want to look at this topic from all sides because many things in life is not a clear yes or no. There are endless variables in that grey area. I want people to have the freedom to choose, I think this is where we disagree. We don't disagree with the freedom of choice, what we disagree on is the provision of a 'humane' way out for those who wish to. Fact of the matter is, there are dozens of 'humane' quick and easy painless ways to end one's life that are easily and readily available to those who so wish to end it. I should know, as I spent many years contemplating deeply about suicide. Now I advocate strongly against it. People already have freedom of choice, so there's no need to give them another option. You ask me to see your point of view, but I'm sad to say that I just simply don't. I understand exactly what you're saying and I firmly disagree with it. Furthermore I have thoroughly explained and supported my position, and there has been nothing you have presented to me thus far (such as the video you provided) that isn't refuted by my own previous arguments. Therefore I find it pointless to repeat myself. You're right, there are many things in life that is not a clear yes or no. There is a grey area. This just happens to be one of those issues that is not in that grey area, and that does have a clear yes or no answer. Rape for instance is not a matter of dispute. It does not exist in any sort of grey area, and it is a definite no. Period. The same is true with this. If you don't see that, then I'm sorry. It should be plain as day. Regardless, I wish you the best, and will not waste my time repeating the same point endlessly. Good day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LightAngel Posted October 19, 2017 Author #82 Share Posted October 19, 2017 (edited) 14 hours ago, Aquila King said: I find it pointless to repeat myself. You don't need to repeat yourself. We should just agree to disagree We both have good intentions here, and we both want what is best for the human race. - I want to look for the best solution here, and in order to find the solution which has the least consequences, then we have to look at this from all sides. There is no perfect answer here because no matter how much I turn this around in my mind, then there will always be some price we have to pay. I don't claim to know everything here because that would be very arrogant of me. Edited October 19, 2017 by LightAngel 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted October 20, 2017 #83 Share Posted October 20, 2017 Quote The right to die: Historic euthanasia bill PASSES after marathon 26-hour debate Health Minister Jill Hennessy reportedly called Deputy Premier a 'c***' in text Labor colleague James Merlino received the message by mistake on Wednesday It comes as tensions flared during overnight debate on divisive euthanasia laws Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4999310/Victoria-passes-historic-euthanasia-bill-debate.html#ixzz4w1ZKwDAB 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Posted October 20, 2017 #84 Share Posted October 20, 2017 On 18/10/2017 at 4:21 AM, rashore said: But euthanasia isn't someone ending their own life. It's having someone else, typically a physician, end your life. I'm finding it interesting that this thread seems to be having suicide, assisted dying, and euthanasia as kind of the same thing. But they aren't. Suicide is taking your own life without assistance from others. Assisted dying is being provided the means, and usually the medically safe setting, to take your own life. Euthanasia is having someone else take your life through medical means. It's one thing do decide and do that to yourself, kind of another to decide you want someone else to do that to you and someone else being willing to do that to you. Well after a 26 hour debate (47/37 vote), Victoria, Australia looks like it will become the first state to allow euthanasia. One term is that the person administers the drug themselves, not the doctor or anyone else. So doctors will essentially grant the access to the drug, but not administer it. I’m glad that it looks like it’s going to happen!! 1 hour ago, seeder said: So stupid and Australian(lol), on the TV news; ‘politician accidentally sends text calling other politician ‘see you next Tuesday’. It’s not seemingly as vulgar a word as it used to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted October 20, 2017 #85 Share Posted October 20, 2017 (edited) On 10/12/2017 at 4:26 AM, LightAngel said: I'm from Denmark and here it isn't allowed! It is allowed to help animals to ease their pain and help them move on, but not humans. I'm for euthanasia in extreme cases where it is purely sadistic to let a human suffer unnecessarily! What about you? Damn, thats a hard question. I recall reading about several "compasionate euthanasia" cases involving truly extreme circumstances. For example, a US soldier in Vietnam fell into a poison-tip "man-trap" of which there was zero hope for recovery. He cried-out to his buddy to kill him so that he would not suffer the excruciating pain of the effects of the poison bamboo tips. His buddy at first hesitated, but soon drew his side-arm and shot him twice in the head. Edited October 20, 2017 by pallidin 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LightAngel Posted October 24, 2017 Author #86 Share Posted October 24, 2017 On 20/10/2017 at 9:43 AM, pallidin said: Damn, thats a hard question. Yup, but an important one! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fabsx Posted October 25, 2017 #87 Share Posted October 25, 2017 Well, I am in favor of euthanasia, maybe for some extreme cases because I am sure that most people with a really deep depression would try to reach out to that method to end all the psychological pain that the troubled mind goes through, I would consider doing it myself. But we can't see it like some sort of normal doctor's appointment that you can do when you want, it is a person's life after all. It may have no meaning to some but It would still be intensively painful for families of those who would choose to perform euthanasia for the reasons that make sense to a troubled mind but don't make sense to the people surrounding the person with "saner" thinking, It might seem simple and a meaningless problem to the outside but the end of the world for the individual suffering from such mental disease. I would understand those extreme cases when someone is clinically dead but what about morality? What if a possible murderer or a possible pedophile wants to opt into euthanasia because they can't live with such thoughts that someday they may commit such crimes or those who have committed it. Would it be morally correct for those sick individuals to perform euthanasia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedutchiedutch Posted October 25, 2017 #88 Share Posted October 25, 2017 I am all for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maureen_jacobs Posted October 26, 2017 #89 Share Posted October 26, 2017 Your life is your life, if you are terminal, I don’t see why not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mysticwerewolf Posted October 26, 2017 #90 Share Posted October 26, 2017 my father has stage 4 lung cancer, the same type that my mother died from as did my grandmother. (I watched my mother die from this) if and when life becomes so painful that someone would rather be dead and gone than suffer any longer, euthanasia should not be denied. I will miss my father when he is gone but I would rather see his pain gone than see him suffer, if he ever feels he has to make that choice I will support him 200% this is something that everyone should be ready to choose, would You be so selfish that you would rather see someone in serious pain? for a month or 6 or 12. Or would you allow them to, (I.E. force them to) suffer because humanity or some god somewhere says they have to? in my opinion Euthanasia is/can be the highest form of compassion. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LightAngel Posted October 27, 2017 Author #91 Share Posted October 27, 2017 10 hours ago, mysticwerewolf said: my father has stage 4 lung cancer, the same type that my mother died from as did my grandmother. (I watched my mother die from this) if and when life becomes so painful that someone would rather be dead and gone than suffer any longer, euthanasia should not be denied. I will miss my father when he is gone but I would rather see his pain gone than see him suffer, if he ever feels he has to make that choice I will support him 200% this is something that everyone should be ready to choose, would You be so selfish that you would rather see someone in serious pain? for a month or 6 or 12. Or would you allow them to, (I.E. force them to) suffer because humanity or some god somewhere says they have to? in my opinion Euthanasia is/can be the highest form of compassion. So sorry to hear about your Father. And I agree that Euthanasia can be the highest form of compassion. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LightAngel Posted November 1, 2017 Author #92 Share Posted November 1, 2017 On 25/10/2017 at 11:35 PM, Noctil said: What if a possible murderer or a possible pedophile wants to opt into euthanasia because they can't live with such thoughts that someday they may commit such crimes or those who have committed it. Would it be morally correct for those sick individuals to perform euthanasia? Good question! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Posted November 1, 2017 #93 Share Posted November 1, 2017 On 10/27/2017 at 10:03 AM, mysticwerewolf said: my father has stage 4 lung cancer, the same type that my mother died from as did my grandmother. (I watched my mother die from this) if and when life becomes so painful that someone would rather be dead and gone than suffer any longer, euthanasia should not be denied. I will miss my father when he is gone but I would rather see his pain gone than see him suffer, if he ever feels he has to make that choice I will support him 200% this is something that everyone should be ready to choose, would You be so selfish that you would rather see someone in serious pain? for a month or 6 or 12. Or would you allow them to, (I.E. force them to) suffer because humanity or some god somewhere says they have to? in my opinion Euthanasia is/can be the highest form of compassion. I agree 100%. Two of my grandparents passed away battling motor neuron disease, a third from breast cancer. Palliative care and end-of-life plans are one thing. But the option to end the suffering IMHO is infinitely invaluable. I was young, but watching someone you love get weaker and weaker sucked, and they also try to uphold their strength and the image of how you viewed them. Mum has beaten bowel cancer, one of her sisters is clear, another is waiting on results, the fourth is fine. But one of my uncles (one of her brothers/stubborn) is now in a much more advanced stage. Visiting him with mum in NZ in a couple of weeks, he probably left it too late to get checked out, so end game isn't looking good. But fingers crossed. But yeah, as earlier stated, I'm obviously 100% behind voluntary euthanasia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Wellington Posted November 2, 2017 #94 Share Posted November 2, 2017 On 12/10/2017 at 11:26 AM, LightAngel said: I'm from Denmark and here it isn't allowed! It is allowed to help animals to ease their pain and help them move on, but not humans. I'm for euthanasia in extreme cases where it is purely sadistic to let a human suffer unnecessarily! What about you? I dont believe in euthanasia. But I also dont believe in keeping someone alive that is knackered. Let nature take its course and simply make them comfortable during the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LightAngel Posted November 7, 2017 Author #95 Share Posted November 7, 2017 This news is from Dec 2016, but I think there's a lot to discuss here: 'My alcoholic brother chose euthanasia' A man has been legally allowed to end his life because he was an alcoholic. Mark Langedijk had been fighting the condition for years and was also suffering from depression and anxiety. At the age of 41 he convinced doctors and psychiatrists in the Netherlands that he met the country's strict criteria required to be granted the life-ending treatment. His brother Marcel Langedijk has been telling the BBC's Anna Holligan about the day Mark died. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XenoFish Posted November 7, 2017 #96 Share Posted November 7, 2017 Isn't suicide the same then? I mean both are a conscious choice to end ones life. If someone chooses that's really up to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted November 10, 2017 #97 Share Posted November 10, 2017 i'm for it, in some cases it is not humane to keep a person alive, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Walker Posted November 11, 2017 #98 Share Posted November 11, 2017 (edited) Every functioning adult human has a moral and ethical right to end their life any time. It (their life) belongs to them and to no one else. Not to god, not to the state and not to relatives (once they are adult) On the other hand, to require a second person to help you end your life is more problematical, and must take into account THEIR values and ethics. The simplest solution would be for the state to set up ways in which people could painlessly end their lives any time the y choose, after being diagnosed as mentally competent Ie you could do it without assistance, but would have to gain permission to use the"facilty" first . If a person CANNOT mentally make an informed choice and give informed consent then they can not be euthanised. It is not something driven by others, or the state, only by the individual, and must not be used to weed out the elderly, mentally incompetent, or disabled etc. I don't see why a person must have some condition to justify choosing to die before euthanasia is allowed. We don't get any choice abut being born, but as intelligent consenting adults it is insulting to tell us we can't chose death anytime we want to The difficulty is in sorting out those who want to die because of a curable illness like depression, which if removed would alter their decision, and those who philosophically are genuinely ready to die Edited November 11, 2017 by Mr Walker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Walker Posted November 11, 2017 #99 Share Posted November 11, 2017 On 10/12/2017 at 0:48 PM, Essan said: Aye, humans are strange creatures. If a dog is in totally incapacitated, in abject pain, with no chance of recoveryy we euthanise it to avoid further suffering. Because we are compassionate. If a human is totally incapacitated, in abject pain, with no chance of recovery, we force it to live as long as possible, regardless of it's own desires, pumping it full of drugs to ensure the body doesn't switch itself off, often with increasing humiliation, and ensuring suffering continues for as long as absolutely possible. Because we are ...... ? Not always. In Australia the policy, especially with the elderly, is to treat the pain If this kills the patient incidentally, that is acceptable Also many elderly are asked what measures the y want used to save or extend their life from none to extreme many doctors patients and loved ones tacitly agree to increase pain medication so that a patient in a terminal condition doesn't suffer,"knowing" this will probably kill them. This can be dangerous for doctors as it is not tested in law and may be illegal in most states. Nonetheless it is universal practice. Quote Under English common law, a doctor is prohibited from taking active steps to end a patient's life - but there is an exception. A doctor who administers a pain killer to a terminally ill patient in great suffering, knowing an incidental effect will be to shorten the patient's life, will be safe from criminal liability, providing the primary reason for giving the pain killer was to relieve suffering, not to cause death. However, it is unclear whether Australian doctors have the same protection. No doctor has faced criminal prosecution here under those circumstances. Under Australian homicide laws, a doctor may be guilty of murder if he or she administered drugs knowing they might cause death, and they did in fact cause death - even if the doctor did not intend the patient to die. South Australia is the only state to have clarified the law on this issue. It appears to have followed the English common law lead. http://morningmail.org/euthanasia-safeguards/ And my experience is from within south Australia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Walker Posted November 11, 2017 #100 Share Posted November 11, 2017 On 13/10/2017 at 4:44 AM, Hammerclaw said: Euthanasia? Is that east of Burma? A very popular meme apparently From 6 years ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts