The Euthanasia Thread
- Thread starter holy king
- Start date
Gustave5436
Emperor
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2008
- Messages
- 1,319
Euthanasia sucks because it's basically admitting, "modern medicine can't do anything to help you, sorry." As sad as that is, it's a truth we need to accept. Making people suffer needlessly just because we're too cowardly to admit it, or because we feel the need to force others to comply with our social mores, is wrong.
holy king
Deity
i'd say not able to consent.
Lovebird
Warlord
I have huge respect for the value of life, and human life is the most valuable of all life, so I would never ask for euthanasia even if it were legal and I were in pain from a terminal disease. I dont think there's any rational reason why someone else shouldnt be allowed to choose euthanasia if the situation warranted it. It should be legal but with lots of regulation and stuff to make sure people arent dying unnecessarily.
But again its not something I would ever do or recommend.
But again its not something I would ever do or recommend.
Not allowing active euthanasia strikes me as rather discriminatory; the only reason some people cannot end their life quickly of their own volition rather than having to, for example, starve to death, is because they are handicapped in some way. Denying those people the same ability to control their lives as others have seems wrong, even if I don't think that making the choice to give up your life is the best one in a given situation.
Disgustipated
Deity
Wasn't there some woman in Australia last week who recovered from being "brain dead"? I don't know the details, but I have a feeling the article wasn't telling the whole truth. Obviously she wasn't actually brain dead. When I have more time, maybe I'll see if I can find the article.
But generally I support. Euthanasia.
But generally I support. Euthanasia.
NickyJ
Retired Narrator
Should we euthanize people who can recover?
There's some problems with the physically healthy person doing that though. Things like jumping off a bridge have a big risk of not dying but sustaining serious injury, such as spinal stuff. It's also very messy, some random person is going to find you. I don't want to inflict that sort of thing on somebody, have them find me under a bridge, or have me bounce off the front of their truck. Hard for others to know about your choice, say goodbye, etc, too. If I kill myself, I don't want to screw up anybody else anymore than I need to.
bernie14
Filter Manipulator
no evidence?....sure..and cuba has a top notch healthcare system
i have no problem with both active and passive euthinasia as it is now practiced, but the ASSISTED part of active euthinasia is a legal nightmare....this "tribunal" supposedly made up of "professionals"...that is BS...who is paying these people?...that is where thier interest will be....if you want to throw yourself off a bridge cuz u r terminaly ill go ahead..if not, it will just be another institutional money grab to legislate this mockery
Disgustipated
Deity
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/br...fter-husband-refuses-to-withdraw-life-support
The problem with this story, is every link I can find seems to be some conservative or religious affiliated website. So I don't know how true this story is or how accurate the details.
This should be obvious. Is it morally right to euthanize someone who may recover further down the line? I would think not. But this would depend on a case by case basis. Not every brain injury is the same.
Another interesting thing to consider is if it's morally right to euthanize someone when technology in the future may possibly help them. Obviously with older people, this is less of a concern. But perhaps in 10 or 20 years we may be able to help people with serious brain damage. Is it right to kill these people now when there may be help in the future? Personally I'm still for euthanasia, but I do think this is a good question to be asking.
The problem with this story, is every link I can find seems to be some conservative or religious affiliated website. So I don't know how true this story is or how accurate the details.
This should be obvious. Is it morally right to euthanize someone who may recover further down the line? I would think not. But this would depend on a case by case basis. Not every brain injury is the same.
Another interesting thing to consider is if it's morally right to euthanize someone when technology in the future may possibly help them. Obviously with older people, this is less of a concern. But perhaps in 10 or 20 years we may be able to help people with serious brain damage. Is it right to kill these people now when there may be help in the future? Personally I'm still for euthanasia, but I do think this is a good question to be asking.
Slightly tangentially -- HK, please let me know if you'd rather I delete this, and I certainly will -- is there anyone here willing to defend the distinction between euthanasia/physician assisted suicide for the terminally ill but not legalized suicide for the non-terminally ill? It seems like it's a popular point for many right-to-die advocates, but I think it seems like a rather dubious principle.
After all, everyone is dying -- some of us just a bit faster or slower than others, and some are a bit closer to death than others. Besides, if it's a matter of humanitarianism, then there are a lot of genuinely miserable people out there who might not like being alive, but lack the resources or opportunity to end their own lives. (And not all of them due to mental illness, and even that I think is often a rather weak objection.) How can we seriously judge some people's lives as bad enough that they can rationally decide they're not worth living, but others are not? What sort of objective criteria could be actually use? I can't think of any standard I've heard proposed that wouldn't unfairly favor those suffering from physical pain over those who suffer from psychological anguish.
And besides, if it's a matter of principles -- if you have the right to life, then you have the right to end your own life -- then it shouldn't matter whether you're terminally ill or not. To say otherwise is to effectively grant those dying faster a stronger right to life, which is, at best, a really odd way of going about things.
I can think of plenty of reasons for or against euthanasia/suicide, but the only reasons I can think of for only allowing it for terminally ill people is because it's more socially beneficial in those cases and because people in general are more comfortable with it. The first seems cold-blooded, but valid to some degree -- but also not at all what anyone is really arguing, so I'm inclined to dismiss it. (I very, very rarely hear any variant of "We should let grandma die because her living another six months is going to make my taxes go up to pay for her stinking medicare!") And the second, mere social comfort with the idea, seems hardly useful.
I realize this may be a slight threadjack, but I think it's valid: if you favor euthanasia, under what conditions do you think it's acceptable? Again HK, if you think this is too much of a threadjack and doesn't belong, just post or PM me and I'll delete this, and start my own thread.
After all, everyone is dying -- some of us just a bit faster or slower than others, and some are a bit closer to death than others. Besides, if it's a matter of humanitarianism, then there are a lot of genuinely miserable people out there who might not like being alive, but lack the resources or opportunity to end their own lives. (And not all of them due to mental illness, and even that I think is often a rather weak objection.) How can we seriously judge some people's lives as bad enough that they can rationally decide they're not worth living, but others are not? What sort of objective criteria could be actually use? I can't think of any standard I've heard proposed that wouldn't unfairly favor those suffering from physical pain over those who suffer from psychological anguish.
And besides, if it's a matter of principles -- if you have the right to life, then you have the right to end your own life -- then it shouldn't matter whether you're terminally ill or not. To say otherwise is to effectively grant those dying faster a stronger right to life, which is, at best, a really odd way of going about things.
I can think of plenty of reasons for or against euthanasia/suicide, but the only reasons I can think of for only allowing it for terminally ill people is because it's more socially beneficial in those cases and because people in general are more comfortable with it. The first seems cold-blooded, but valid to some degree -- but also not at all what anyone is really arguing, so I'm inclined to dismiss it. (I very, very rarely hear any variant of "We should let grandma die because her living another six months is going to make my taxes go up to pay for her stinking medicare!") And the second, mere social comfort with the idea, seems hardly useful.
I realize this may be a slight threadjack, but I think it's valid: if you favor euthanasia, under what conditions do you think it's acceptable? Again HK, if you think this is too much of a threadjack and doesn't belong, just post or PM me and I'll delete this, and start my own thread.
It's really really not about resource allocation, it's about autonomy and choice, and the state's relationship to those things. The thing to appreciate is that the state cannot stand back from this, it is taking a position either way - currently in most countries it actively compels people to live.
The distinction to be drawn between medically-related euthanasia and suicide in other circumstances is basically autonomy and choice. We tend to generally deem suicidal tendencies in healthy people a form of mental illness (particularly for teenagers). This makes it evidence of impaired rationality, and impels the state to try to prevent the potential harm to the individual. The same sorts of paternalistic transfer of decision-making occurs as occurs with such cases as occurs with, say, children - either the state or next of kin gets to make the decisions.
Yet, despite that conceptual argument for stopping non-medical suicides, aside from putting people on death watch, we actually pretty much let people who have psychological burdens kill themselves with impunity. If they're of able body and a degree of shrewdness that means they don't just get locked up and strapped down 'for their own good' then they're pretty much free to kill themselves.
Now maybe it's actually wrong that we prevent people who are healthy but want to die from exercising their full autonomy even to the limited extent that we do. I'm certainly open to the argument that suicide is a perfectly rational response to the human condition and what we call mental illness is usually just a different reaction to the futility and pointlessness of existence. Also, it does seem that if you have a right to life you must have a right to waive it (otherwise it's actually an obligation to life). But even then, there's also the collateral damage a suicide inflicts on loved-ones, so perhaps those third party harms are another justification for separating medical euthanasia and suicide from regular suicide (although this would also be an argument for allowing next of kin to override an assisted suicide decision...).
------
But going back to your question, Elrohir, under the status quo I'd argue you've got it backwards, we're actually not "unfairly favouring" physical pain but the reverse. People who are incapable of doing themselves in autonomously, cannot do so, even though they have what we would, as humans, generally consider a far better case for the rationality of suicide than the random suicide by bridge. Legalising assisted suicide and euthanasia would seem to be redressing this imbalance.
Now, I accept that, in these end-of-life "lots of pain" or "preserve my dignity" or "don't want loved ones to see me suffer" are states of mind which may a result of impaired rationality in a similar way to suicidal tendencies in other situations. But I don't buy that there's enough of an impairment to allow the state to make decisions on the patient's behalf (ie, defaulting to obliging the person to live). Mental illness is altered cognition with a medical basis, not mere emotional pressure or suffering which we all face to some degree.
Finally, as further support to the rationality basis for separating medical suciide from the regular kind, I'd submit the example of the doomed dictator or criminal killing themselves to escape capture and punishment. They, like the teenage girl, are perfectly healthy people, yet most of us can see an element of understandability that is simply lacking in a regular depression-related suicide by an ordinary citizen.
And a further personal example. A few years ago at another forum, a regular poster killed herself. She'd been depressed for as long as anyone knew her, and had recently diagnosed as bipolar and schizophrenic. Her life was suffering, she knew she couldn't get better, that she'd never be happy, that the best she could hope for was drugs, medically-induced oblivion of her personality and an inability to feel anything at all. I find it hard to consider her decision to kill herself irrational or unfounded in objective suffering. So you're right that it's not just physcial suffering which can make suicide seem fairly understandable - but as I say, people who are able-bodied are capable of suicide by thier own hand and the state doesn't really do much to stop them.
It's extremely tricky terrain, but the key lens to see things through is what is the state's role, and I'd argue that if there's even a small amount of rationality there, the state already leaves regular suicide alone (despite what the law may say) and should do likewise with the medically-induced kind, it should enable choice instead of obliging people to live.
The distinction to be drawn between medically-related euthanasia and suicide in other circumstances is basically autonomy and choice. We tend to generally deem suicidal tendencies in healthy people a form of mental illness (particularly for teenagers). This makes it evidence of impaired rationality, and impels the state to try to prevent the potential harm to the individual. The same sorts of paternalistic transfer of decision-making occurs as occurs with such cases as occurs with, say, children - either the state or next of kin gets to make the decisions.
Yet, despite that conceptual argument for stopping non-medical suicides, aside from putting people on death watch, we actually pretty much let people who have psychological burdens kill themselves with impunity. If they're of able body and a degree of shrewdness that means they don't just get locked up and strapped down 'for their own good' then they're pretty much free to kill themselves.
Now maybe it's actually wrong that we prevent people who are healthy but want to die from exercising their full autonomy even to the limited extent that we do. I'm certainly open to the argument that suicide is a perfectly rational response to the human condition and what we call mental illness is usually just a different reaction to the futility and pointlessness of existence. Also, it does seem that if you have a right to life you must have a right to waive it (otherwise it's actually an obligation to life). But even then, there's also the collateral damage a suicide inflicts on loved-ones, so perhaps those third party harms are another justification for separating medical euthanasia and suicide from regular suicide (although this would also be an argument for allowing next of kin to override an assisted suicide decision...).
------
But going back to your question, Elrohir, under the status quo I'd argue you've got it backwards, we're actually not "unfairly favouring" physical pain but the reverse. People who are incapable of doing themselves in autonomously, cannot do so, even though they have what we would, as humans, generally consider a far better case for the rationality of suicide than the random suicide by bridge. Legalising assisted suicide and euthanasia would seem to be redressing this imbalance.
Now, I accept that, in these end-of-life "lots of pain" or "preserve my dignity" or "don't want loved ones to see me suffer" are states of mind which may a result of impaired rationality in a similar way to suicidal tendencies in other situations. But I don't buy that there's enough of an impairment to allow the state to make decisions on the patient's behalf (ie, defaulting to obliging the person to live). Mental illness is altered cognition with a medical basis, not mere emotional pressure or suffering which we all face to some degree.
Finally, as further support to the rationality basis for separating medical suciide from the regular kind, I'd submit the example of the doomed dictator or criminal killing themselves to escape capture and punishment. They, like the teenage girl, are perfectly healthy people, yet most of us can see an element of understandability that is simply lacking in a regular depression-related suicide by an ordinary citizen.
And a further personal example. A few years ago at another forum, a regular poster killed herself. She'd been depressed for as long as anyone knew her, and had recently diagnosed as bipolar and schizophrenic. Her life was suffering, she knew she couldn't get better, that she'd never be happy, that the best she could hope for was drugs, medically-induced oblivion of her personality and an inability to feel anything at all. I find it hard to consider her decision to kill herself irrational or unfounded in objective suffering. So you're right that it's not just physcial suffering which can make suicide seem fairly understandable - but as I say, people who are able-bodied are capable of suicide by thier own hand and the state doesn't really do much to stop them.
It's extremely tricky terrain, but the key lens to see things through is what is the state's role, and I'd argue that if there's even a small amount of rationality there, the state already leaves regular suicide alone (despite what the law may say) and should do likewise with the medically-induced kind, it should enable choice instead of obliging people to live.
Nobody
Gangster
What about old people feeling they need to commit suicide for the family. For example they are old, sick but don't really want to die, but it is costing $6000 a month which is coming out of their children's inheritance to look after them, and taking a lot of their family time to come and visit them, and worry about them. So they feel obliged to die even though they don't really want to.
Switzerland allows aid to suicide (handing the lethal medicine to the patient, but not acitvely giving it). Personally, I think it's good that way, a person should be able to decide for himself if he wants to die.
The main problem with it in Switzerland seems to be death tourism - people coming to Switzerland to die (which has gotten some quite negative reactions from the countries of origin of the people who chose to die...Germany and the UK IIRC)
The main problem with it in Switzerland seems to be death tourism - people coming to Switzerland to die (which has gotten some quite negative reactions from the countries of origin of the people who chose to die...Germany and the UK IIRC)
Akka
Moody old mage.
Meh, if someone is willing enough to go to the country to die, it tends to mean that they really wished it. Why would anyone would have a negative reaction about this ? It's not like if Switzerland would kidnapp foreigners to force-inject them some lethal poison...
azzaman333
meh
If I want to die, it should be legal for me to do so.
Similar threads
