Pages: 1 2 3

 

2008-04-16 16:44:05
PuckMercury
6 x 9 = 42
+298|6952|Portland, OR USA

CameronPoe wrote:

If I contracted Alzheimer's I would want to be put out of my misery. The same would apply for several other ailments. I would travel to a country where I could receive the treatment legally. Everybody should be entitled to a humane death.
At the risk of sounding arrogant, I think my greatest fear is losing my mind and level of intellect but remembering what it was like to have it ... to be a prisoner of my own mind while I addle onward.

Ultimately, no matter how you slice it, ignorance is bliss.  I wouldn't trade into it for the world, but to be a mindless bumbling simpleton with no concept of what it's like to be otherwise would have some upshots.
2008-04-16 16:46:09
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6980

PuckMercury wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

If I contracted Alzheimer's I would want to be put out of my misery. The same would apply for several other ailments. I would travel to a country where I could receive the treatment legally. Everybody should be entitled to a humane death.
At the risk of sounding arrogant, I think my greatest fear is losing my mind and level of intellect but remembering what it was like to have it ... to be a prisoner of my own mind while I addle onward.

Ultimately, no matter how you slice it, ignorance is bliss.  I wouldn't trade into it for the world, but to be a mindless bumbling simpleton with no concept of what it's like to be otherwise would have some upshots.
You really wanna lay that burden on others when you have essentially ceased to actually be yourself? Why put your family through the mental death and then the physical death - get it done in one.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-04-16 16:47:17)

2008-04-16 16:51:26
BVC
Member
+325|7120
I support it in principal, though only in cases of terminal illness/extreme suffering.  I believe counselling should be manditory, and the family/friends/loved ones of those who decided to go through with it should have enough time to say their goodbyes while the person is still alive.  You know death notices/obituaries in newspapers?  Think of euthanasia notices and you get the idea.

Needless to say, I also support the right to opt-out at any time.
2008-04-16 16:51:40
Protecus
Prophet of Certain Certainties
+28|6946
If it means less suffering for the patient, euthanasia should most definitely be a legal option.

But one thing I find stupid is that there is a law against suicide. If their life is really that bad, and someone is weighing whether they are going to take their life or not, I doubt thinking about whether they are going to break a law or not is going to sway them. If anything, it seems as if you're kicking someone while they are down. If they do survive the attempt, they get to be dragged in front of a judge to be fined or sentenced to jail. Maybe a stint in a rehab clinic if they're lucky.

I bring this up because, it seems, euthanasia and suicide are linked. Chantal Sebire, a 52 year old French woman, was diagnosed with a rare form of sinus cancer. Despite fighting it for 8 years, it eventually left her so disfigured that children ran in fear when she came near, as well as taking her senses of sight, hearing, and taste. She asked for the right to die bu euthanasia, but the French government said no.

She ended up taking her own life in March of this year.
She was a mother of 3, so I highly doubt she just "gave up." She just wanted to go with a shred of dignity.

I'd rather we allow patients the right to decide their own fate and let doctors administer it safely and peacefully.
2008-04-16 16:53:55
PuckMercury
6 x 9 = 42
+298|6952|Portland, OR USA

CameronPoe wrote:

PuckMercury wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

If I contracted Alzheimer's I would want to be put out of my misery. The same would apply for several other ailments. I would travel to a country where I could receive the treatment legally. Everybody should be entitled to a humane death.
At the risk of sounding arrogant, I think my greatest fear is losing my mind and level of intellect but remembering what it was like to have it ... to be a prisoner of my own mind while I addle onward.

Ultimately, no matter how you slice it, ignorance is bliss.  I wouldn't trade into it for the world, but to be a mindless bumbling simpleton with no concept of what it's like to be otherwise would have some upshots.
You really wanna lay that burden on others when you have essentially ceased to actually be yourself? Why put your family through the mental death and then the physical death - get it done in one.
no, I absolutely don't.  I was merely acknowledging that there are personal benefits.  I'm not that selfish.  If I were, I'd just fry my brain via some mechanism or another.  As I said - to lose my mental faculties while remembering their presence is my definition of terror and hell.
2008-04-16 20:02:28
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6830|North Carolina
Euthanasia is a necessary practice given the fucked up situations some people face in this life.

As morbid as it sounds, sometimes death is better than continuing life, but usually, when that actually is true, the person involved is incapable of actually offing themselves.

There just needs to be a legal framework for this....
2008-04-17 01:01:40
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7266|Cologne, Germany

yes, I support euthanasia.

Every individual should have the right to decide on his own death, especially in those cases when the alternatives would be a long, painful martyrium
2008-04-17 01:49:02
Little BaBy JESUS
m8
+394|6573|'straya
Yes i believe in euthanasia.... the world is over populared anyway.... if people make a concious decision that they would like to die i see no problem with that.... but not in all circumstances...

i might sound like an asshole... but the amount of money saved from not having to support many people who really dont have a chance of living... or being stuck in a hospital bed for years must be a fair bit...

Last edited by Little BaBy JESUS (2008-04-17 01:51:08)

2008-04-17 11:47:47
Ajax_the_Great1
Dropped on request
+206|7071

B.Schuss wrote:

yes, I support euthanasia.

Every individual should have the right to decide on his own death, especially in those cases when the alternatives would be a long, painful martyrium
What about perfectly healthy individuals?
2008-04-17 14:18:51
Masques
Black Panzer Party
+184|7147|Eastern PA
Yes, I have great faith in the Youth of Asia.[/bad joke]

Otherwise I'm for it.
2008-04-17 14:23:38
kylef
Gone
+1,352|6918|N. Ireland
I think that they should be asked three times over the course of say...a week. After a third time, if they still say "yes" then it is entirely their choice - and should be recognized and achieved.
2008-04-17 14:50:42
Aries_37
arrivederci frog
+368|7000|London
Even if it was legal I could never intentionally kill another living human, call me selfish.

There are alternatives, many of which have the same ultimate effect but carry much less moral and ethical ambiguity.
2008-04-17 17:22:08
oldgoat
Alcohol & calculus don't mix. Never drink & derive
+5|6942
Well if it was a disease and you wanted to take it the easy shortcut way and just kill urself, that sounds kind-of being liek a pig. But if ur like gonna die a painful way... then why cant you just do it?  But then its like suicide and getting rid of the pain so i think the best solution is to keep deciding on what it is your gonna do then die in the process.
2008-04-18 01:08:12
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7266|Cologne, Germany

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

yes, I support euthanasia.

Every individual should have the right to decide on his own death, especially in those cases when the alternatives would be a long, painful martyrium
What about perfectly healthy individuals?
they can simply commit suicide, as they are not incapacitated by a terrrible medical condition.

As I said, the decision when and how to end one's life should be a basic right, without anyone else interfering. I am not saying that the morality of that decision can not be questioned, of course. There are some cases where people committed suicide to chicken out of life itself, and left family behind they were supposed to take care of, for example. Deplorable, cowardly acts, for sure.

But that doesn't take away the fact that it is everyone's right to kill himself at the time that he/she deems appropriate.
2008-04-18 02:54:09
Pierre
I hunt criminals down for a living
+68|7100|Belgium

Stingray24 wrote:

I oppose it.  If we can just march down the hospital and ask them to hook up a lethal injection that isn't very healthy for society.  We as humans tend to follow the path of least resistance and sometimes death appears to be easier than pressing on through life.
Wait a minute... 'Soylent green" was a movie, you know. It was not depicting the real world.  In the real world this does not happen, except in some fascist state (you know, extreme right wing?).

Stingray24 wrote:

People choosing to die is not the only issue in the euthanasia debate.  What about physicians making the decision for the individual without their consent?
Well, this is called murder, and is being dealt with. But again, in a fascist state this could be possible.
2008-04-18 03:07:30
Pierre
I hunt criminals down for a living
+68|7100|Belgium

kylef wrote:

I think that they should be asked three times over the course of say...a week. After a third time, if they still say "yes" then it is entirely their choice - and should be recognized and achieved.
That's exactly what the law in my country states:
- you have to be an adult and fully conscious,
- you have to have an incurable disease, with unbearable pain,
- you have to express yourself explicitly and repeatedly to two or three doctors (of which at least one of them is not your own doctor) demanding euthanasia,
- in writing,
- over a period of several weeks.
2008-04-18 16:17:11
Marconius
One-eyed Wonder Mod
+368|7119|San Francisco
Remember to fill out a living will, guys, so you don't end up stuck in the veritable shitstorm that was the Terry Schiavo case.  If anything terrible happens to you that leaves you bedridden and living only on machines, you can already have a say in how you want to be treated from that stage on.
2008-04-20 03:44:31
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7076|USA
Here is my take on it. Cuz, I know you care.

I believe in it, but it needs to be with consent of the person wishing to die. Now, IF that person REALLY REALLY wanted to die, why involve others to kill you? Just take your pills and go to sleep. Or walk out into the woods and end it. I do not see any reason why a person should ask another to kill them, short of someone who physically can not pull the trigger. Talk about a favor.
2008-04-20 04:08:57
Pierre
I hunt criminals down for a living
+68|7100|Belgium

lowing wrote:

Here is my take on it. Cuz, I know you care.

I believe in it, but it needs to be with consent of the person wishing to die. Now, IF that person REALLY REALLY wanted to die, why involve others to kill you? Just take your pills and go to sleep. Or walk out into the woods and end it. I do not see any reason why a person should ask another to kill them, short of someone who physically can not pull the trigger. Talk about a favor.
What you're describing is suicide. We're talking about euthanasia.

wiki wrote:

Euthanasia is the practice of medically-assisted death.

Euthanasia by consent
Euthanasia may be conducted with consent (voluntary euthanasia) or without consent (involuntary euthanasia). Since involuntary euthanasia is conducted without an individual's specifically given acquiescence, in the opinion of some this equates involuntary euthanasia to murder. Involuntary euthanasia may be conducted when the person is incapable of making a decision and it is thus left to a proxy. Euthanasia by proxy consent is highly controversial, especially because multiple proxies may claim the authority to decide for the patient. While voluntary euthanasia is euthanasia with the person’s direct consent it is still controversial for reasons discussed below.[1]

Euthanasia by means
Euthanasia may be conducted passively, non-aggressively, and aggressively. Passive euthanasia entails the withholding of common treatments (such as antibiotics, pain medications, or surgery) or the distribution of a medication (such as morphine) to relieve pain, knowing that it may also result in death (principle of double effect). Passive euthanasia is the most accepted form, and it is a common practice in most hospitals. Non-aggressive euthanasia entails the withdrawing of life support and is more controversial. Aggressive euthanasia entails the use of lethal substances or forces to kill and is the most controversial means.
2008-04-20 04:22:21
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7076|USA

Pierre wrote:

lowing wrote:

Here is my take on it. Cuz, I know you care.

I believe in it, but it needs to be with consent of the person wishing to die. Now, IF that person REALLY REALLY wanted to die, why involve others to kill you? Just take your pills and go to sleep. Or walk out into the woods and end it. I do not see any reason why a person should ask another to kill them, short of someone who physically can not pull the trigger. Talk about a favor.
What you're describing is suicide. We're talking about euthanasia.

wiki wrote:

Euthanasia is the practice of medically-assisted death.

Euthanasia by consent
Euthanasia may be conducted with consent (voluntary euthanasia) or without consent (involuntary euthanasia). Since involuntary euthanasia is conducted without an individual's specifically given acquiescence, in the opinion of some this equates involuntary euthanasia to murder. Involuntary euthanasia may be conducted when the person is incapable of making a decision and it is thus left to a proxy. Euthanasia by proxy consent is highly controversial, especially because multiple proxies may claim the authority to decide for the patient. While voluntary euthanasia is euthanasia with the person’s direct consent it is still controversial for reasons discussed below.[1]

Euthanasia by means
Euthanasia may be conducted passively, non-aggressively, and aggressively. Passive euthanasia entails the withholding of common treatments (such as antibiotics, pain medications, or surgery) or the distribution of a medication (such as morphine) to relieve pain, knowing that it may also result in death (principle of double effect). Passive euthanasia is the most accepted form, and it is a common practice in most hospitals. Non-aggressive euthanasia entails the withdrawing of life support and is more controversial. Aggressive euthanasia entails the use of lethal substances or forces to kill and is the most controversial means.
Uhh yeah, I know what we are talking about. It is still death and if it is done without consent, it is then murder. I am saying if you are able to give consent, then you are probably able to kill yuorself without involving anyone else. IF you really wanted to die that is.
2008-04-20 04:24:08
twiistaaa
Member
+87|7093|mexico
only if the person is being kept alive by machines. if they are terminal then give them as many drugs as you can, take them off the machines and let them go naturally.

if the person is only alive because of technology then its people intervening, i don't think its gods will that they be hooked up while they are brain dead.

in the case of medication or treatment (chemo) being responsible for keeping them alive a person should have the right to decide whether they want to take it or not.
2008-04-20 04:36:28
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7006|SE London

lowing wrote:

Here is my take on it. Cuz, I know you care.

I believe in it, but it needs to be with consent of the person wishing to die. Now, IF that person REALLY REALLY wanted to die, why involve others to kill you? Just take your pills and go to sleep. Or walk out into the woods and end it. I do not see any reason why a person should ask another to kill them, short of someone who physically can not pull the trigger. Talk about a favor.
That's the whole point of euthanasia. It's for those who can't physically kill themselves, yet live in a lot of pain.

Stingray24 wrote:

I oppose it.  If we can just march down the hospital and ask them to hook up a lethal injection that isn't very healthy for society.  We as humans tend to follow the path of least resistance and sometimes death appears to be easier than pressing on through life.
If they can march down to the hospital they wouldn't need their suicide to be assisted, would they?

Stingray24 wrote:

People choosing to die is not the only issue in the euthanasia debate.  What about physicians making the decision for the individual without their consent?
That's really a separate debate. But the decision really shouldn't be the doctors, if the patient can't communicate to make such a decision it should rest with the family. Of course if someone is only living due to being hooked up to life support machines and is not concious, the doctors are well within their rights to turn these off once they consider there is no realistic chance of the patient regaining conciousness.
2008-04-20 05:13:56
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7076|USA

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Here is my take on it. Cuz, I know you care.

I believe in it, but it needs to be with consent of the person wishing to die. Now, IF that person REALLY REALLY wanted to die, why involve others to kill you? Just take your pills and go to sleep. Or walk out into the woods and end it. I do not see any reason why a person should ask another to kill them, short of someone who physically can not pull the trigger. Talk about a favor.
That's the whole point of euthanasia. It's for those who can't physically kill themselves, yet live in a lot of pain.

Stingray24 wrote:

I oppose it.  If we can just march down the hospital and ask them to hook up a lethal injection that isn't very healthy for society.  We as humans tend to follow the path of least resistance and sometimes death appears to be easier than pressing on through life.
If they can march down to the hospital they wouldn't need their suicide to be assisted, would they?

Stingray24 wrote:

People choosing to die is not the only issue in the euthanasia debate.  What about physicians making the decision for the individual without their consent?
That's really a separate debate. But the decision really shouldn't be the doctors, if the patient can't communicate to make such a decision it should rest with the family. Of course if someone is only living due to being hooked up to life support machines and is not concious, the doctors are well within their rights to turn these off once they consider there is no realistic chance of the patient regaining conciousness.
I believe many of Dr. Kavorkian's patients had the physical ability to kill themselves. They just wanted someone else to pull the preverbial trigger
2008-04-20 07:01:16
Pierre
I hunt criminals down for a living
+68|7100|Belgium

twiistaaa wrote:

if they are terminal then give them as many drugs as you can, take them off the machines and let them go naturally.
Technically this is considered murder. And I do know the DA will prosecute.
2008-04-20 07:41:04
Doctor Strangelove
Real Battlefield Veterinarian.
+1,758|6893
Only if the person is very, very ill. Otherwise people would just use it as legal suicide.

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard