After reading about the American woman who's name I can't spell I thought I'd open up a zone popular debate. Is Euthenasia ever justified? Why do we think it is kinder to an animal to put it down rather than let it suffer but allow humans to continue to breath through machines and live in pain? What do we think?

Yes, Under very special circumstances it should be allowed.

It should be licensed so that only very qualified people can with the person or persons involved make the decision, in that way it is a lot less likely to be abused/misused.

It should also be as humane as possible, the idea is to end suffering when someone is beyond all medical help and is either no longer truely alive or is in so much pain that living becomes unbearable. So examples would be the case of the late Terry Schevago (sp), for someone such as Diane Pretty who had severe motor neurone (or something like that) and for terminal cancer sufferers, that sort of thing.

In all cases the decision should not be taken lightly, counciling should be offered to the person/persons involved so that they understand fully what they are asking for and without medical evidence to substanciate the request it should not be allowed.

I think that in certain cases, an individual should be able to choose whether or not to continue living. However, it is difficult for me to accept that a person can decide for somebody without the capacity to express their wishes, without the consent of the incapacitated person before being incapacitated. In other words, I think that if a person has made no indication that they would rather be dead than incapacitated, then we should err on the side of life.

I think we should go for something like the 'assissted suicide' system that is used in some countires, that is where the patient has to be tested and seen to be mentally capable of making a rational desicion about it, then they have to sign a consent form, then the doctors put the drugs in front of them and it is up to them to take them.

Of course this only deals with those people who can make and communicate their descision. If they can't then I beleive we should not let others make that descision for them.

This post was brought to you by the campaign for not being able to spell 'descision' (sic)

I too agree that if a person can make the decision for themselves then their decision ought to be respected and carried out. However, if a person is terminally ill and cannot make concious decision, then they aren't contributing to society and for their family, it must be greatly saddening to see the person in such a state where they do not even recognise them. In this case, I think that their life ought to be ended. But only in the most extreme of cases.

I'm a little uncomfortable with killing people being made any easier than it is. It seems a dangerous thing and one that can't be taken back after the fact. Terri Schiavo certainly wasn't one of those, but that doesn't mean all such cases are handled correctly. I would rather see diseases treated as necessary for pain/symptoms and if such treatment could potentially result in death, have the patient make the choice to go ahead or no.

Yeah but in some cases the patients last days will be unbelieveably horrible and while they are nolonger physically capable of taking their own lives they are able to desire death, and in thosecases their wishes ought to be respected.

The problem I have is with people "being allowed to die" where they remove feeding tubes and liquids. Now in some cases it's debateable whether the patient can feel this, and infact there was a case recently where a man was arguing for his right to continued treatment against his doctors decisions, because although he will not be able to respond to any stimuli he will be conscious and will be able to feel himself die of thirst. In these cases we are ending their lives, but we don't end their lives quickly and painlessly with an injection, we starve them to death. In a case where the person could possibly be aware of what was happening I think this is much more evil than euthenasia, atleast euthenasia actually ends suffering quickly; but euthenasia is considered murder and these people are allowed to die a much more cruel "natural death".

I think I have complete ownership and right to my own life. This includes choosing whenever I want to end it. No one owns me and so can not force me to endure an existance that I no longer want. For this reason I support euthanasia.

Saying that, I believe it should be limited to those who are mentally capable at the time. People who are legally sane and free from illnesses that may cloud judgement. Simply for reasons stated above, once it's done you can not take it back if you change your mind.

Practically it happens all the time though. Around the world and in this country doctors and nurses help their patients die if they want it and are suffering, however they are deemed criminals if caught. And it must be better than dying slowly of thirst and hunger.

Thank you the conservative types, but I would much rather have a bullet through my skull than have to suffer in abject pain and misery for the rest of my natural life...

I'm thinking about writing a living will so that if I should end up in a situation similar to Terri Shiavo I will not be forced to endure.

Absolutly Euthenasia should be legal: The reason it's not is that noone can currently say "they're vegies let em die" and even if they could there are families emotional attachments to get around AND People don't like the idea of actual kill killing people so much as allowing them to die which is off.
Currently in hospitals the world over there are terminally ill patients dieing faster than they would normaly, People turn up thier pain killers not enough to kill them strait up but it ends thier life quicker aren't they being partially euthenised in that they they would allmost certainly live longer were they deprived of pain relief (never mind the pain they would live in)?
The issue here is where to draw the line at when a person is no longr a valid life, when it is kinder to euthenise them etc If it was possible that tests be down to determine exactly what brian funtion there was it would be concievable to make euthenasia laws however as science stands there is not a clear enough cut off line or room for a families personal feelings, finances, or mental state.

So what are the arguments against euthanasia?

Any argument based on religious grounds is all well and good with me, but only for members of that religion. I'm not Jewish, so I happily eat bacon. I'm equally happy for Jews to not eat bacon. Therefore, I'm happy for Christian pro-lifers to refuse euthanasia, but that's no reason to refuse it to everyone.

There is a strong argument for regulation. I strongly support that argument. I think that it's acceptable in a strictly defined set of circumstances only. Any system authorising euthanasia must be run on a cast-iron 'opt-in' system. That is to say, without the patient legally authorising euthanasia while in proven sound mind, or legally abdicating responsibility to a family member or friend or doctor to make that call at some point in the future, based on defined situations (i.e. when I can no longer feed and clean myself, and with no realistic hope of recovery).

The recent Shaivo case has done nothing but strengthen my resolve to do whatever I can to ensure that I don't end up being a crushing drain on my family when all that's left of me is a screwed up body with no 'me' left. The last thing I want to do is put that kind of burden on my family.

Similarly, I can 100% identify with Michael Schaivo. His wife died 12 years (or however long ago it was) ago. All that's left is the flesh she used to live in. Prolonging that situation for years must've been hell. Equally, I can understand the desperate hope that her parents held out, but I can't condone their blind refusal to accept medical testimony based on observational fact.

end rant

I don't think we have a lot of arguments againt euthenasia because it's still being seen as a last resort.
Having had some time to think I've been thinking that anyone who has been in an unassisted coma or vegatative state who have not changed for 6 months should be put on some kind of list to suggest that they have X amount of time to get X amout of better or they can either be released onto their families care or euthenised (not allowed to die)

So, what exactly would we consider to be the difference between euthenasia and suicide? Is it okay for anybody, at anytime, to kill themselves, or is it only okay when someone else thinks that they should have the right to die?

If they are in a coherent mental state, then yes. If anyone wants to end their own life, and can make a rational descision to do so, then, in my opinion, they should be able to.

Exept that by defenition if you wish to end your life you're probably not in a coherant and rational mental state.

Not necessarily. You could say that giving to charity shows you are not in a good mental state as you are willingly throwing away your financial security. The criteria go deeper than that.

But, who gets to decide what a 'coherent mental state' is? Not many people know whether or not they are mentally unstable, so would it take someone else to judge that? Of course, THEY might be unstable too, so we would need some sort of definite criteria to define 'coherent mental state'.

Thing is, it's not illegal to commit suicide so assited suicide should not be a crime as generally in cases where it is necessary for the person to have help there is a much more compelling reason to commit the act.

My basic thoughts:
Assisted scuicide is wrong and should not be tolerated.
Scuicide is wrong and should be prevented.
People should provide others (especially old parents) food, water, and shelter to encourage life.
In some cases, a comfortable death is the best thing somebody can provide to a person.
The Terry Schaivo case is something that proves that American media is morally corrupt.

Actually, in many places, including my state, it IS illegal:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/040326.html


Why?


To what extent?


Under what circumstances?


How did they prove this?

Euthanasia is fantastic and we need to take it a lot more seriously. And perhaps more frivolously.

We have too many people in the world, and most of these people, as evidenced by many posts on this very forum, are stupid and intolerable. They are surplus, chaff, unneeded, unwanted, uninspiring. Many of them have genes that should never be passed on, and many should never have even been born.

Others are fabulous, but sickly, and should be allowed to die with dignity. Some people may want to die as and when they choose, at their own hand or by anothers. We should not frown on this, but rather we should accept that not all people see death in the same light; where some people see an abomination against man and god, others see a release from an inhibiting, dissatisfactotry mortal existence, and if they don't believe in an Almighty, then why should they worry about the miserable, shallow and self-serving posturing of those that do, or at least purport to?

In regards to Ms. Schiavo: the President of the United States of America talks utter arse about a 'Culture Of Life'; how narrow-minded and overly simplistic! And what a soundbite! So marketable! But, like his fundamentalism and black-and-white us-against-them points of view, it excludes a great many people, people who struggle to garner the respect they so deserve. It also allows like-minded proles, rednecks, the aimless, worthless, feckless dregs to wander stupidly about the planet without any retribution from the refined corners of society.

Wars are crass, murder repulsive, but existence is a privilege and death an empty void, much like so many minds; that these empty spaces see fit to occupy bodies is upsetting. We have too many bodies and not enough minds; too much breeding, not enough reading. The reticent and the retarded would restrain the ready from reaching for their release for their own sake, without a thought for those innocents ready to embrace the end; and the guilty will continue to pollute and infect, dragging the species down for their own futile gain and illogical beliefs.

Wonderful rhetoric, but ultimately, just a load elitist crap. Perhaps it is your mother, or your great grandfather who shouldn't have been born, or should have been killed to make room for more intelligent people.



Such wonderful rhetoric (even includes alliteration, rhyme, and rhythm!) worthy of a song! And what a soundbite! So marketable! Just think how many deaths could be condoned by you, o wise one, who has shown us the way to perfection through death of those undeserving....hmm...you know...I seem to recall other people thinking that same thing, that for the good of the human race, we should kill the [insert group here].

i am not from america/europe/wherever this case occurred, and so i cant comment on that.
however, many countries around the world are in favour of and use capital punishment. in my opinion, this is worse than euthanasia, as at least someone who is being euthanised wants to die.
while i dont condone euthanasia, i dont fully support it either. i dont think someone should be able to choose exactly when they should die, but under certain circumstances it is fully understandable. if a person who has a terminal disease wants to die with what little dignity they have left, why should they be denied that?
the law doesnt allow people that want to die to die, but criminals dont get a say in the matter. im not saying that criminals should have a say in their punishment, but why should they get the easy way out. if they're dead, they arent going to suffer.
which is basically what this thread is about. death and suffering

Aside from being the most obvious response, of course it's wonderful rhetoric and elitist crap. But the key word is wonderful.



And for the second most obvious response (ooh, Nazis!), I'm not suggesting killing any one group of people; all I'm saying is we need to seriously consider euthanasia (it's so much more palatable than "killing") for the societal deadweight.

Culture Of Life is empty rhetoric at it's worse; I'm suggesting a counter-culture! It'll be fun, and we'll make short films and start a record label! Yeah!

Wookiee: Leaving aside the wonderful rhetoric, do you have a reason for your position besides personal annoyance at people/movements/ect?

Having nursed an old man dying of terminal prostate cancer for the last 6 months of his life, I'm pro euthanasia because all he wanted was to end not only his suffering, but the suffering of the family around him too. It's not pleasant watching someone die very slowly and very painfully.

In the end he was granted euthanasia (he was my grandfather, resident in the Netherlands) and he was happy for it. He didn't deserve to suffer for as long as he did. Maybe I'm biased, but this is just my opinion. I was only 16 at the time so maybe I'm still remembering it through a child's eyes. But I do know that if I was in his position, I'd want to end it. I don't want my loved ones remembering me as a hollow shell, an imitation of what I used to be.

It's my life, it's my body and it should ultimately be my choice.

What if it isn't your choice?

If euthenasia is accepted generally then it becomes easier to say. "Well, that person is old/sick/handicapped/useless drain on society lets end their suffering."

Steven Hawking needs tremendous amounts of care from his wife/family. Should we help him along to the next life? We'd lose a phenomenal theorist in physics. There is a fantastic painter in Newfoundland who's parents may have decided (if handicapped could be killed without stigma) that his quality of life would never be as good as a person without Downs syndrome.

There's a nurse on trial in the U.S. at the moment. He made that choice for the very sick under his care without expressed consent. Our current society calls him a killer.

I think we should be careful before considering making euthenasia legal.

Well, strictly speaking, that's the difference between euthanasia (putting someone out of their misery) and assisted suicide (helping someone to end their own life). The difference is, of course, the intent of the person doing the dying.

Should Steven Hawking decide that he's had enough of sounding like Tweeky, then by all means, help the dude along to where he's going. I don't think anyone (except Wookie, who I think has had his tongue surgically implanted into his cheek) is proposing knocking off anyone who isn't 100% perfect, or simply too old.

*is suddently reminded to watch Logan's Run again soon*

I have to admit, I'm a little hazy on the difference between assisted suicide and euthanasia.

I certainly agree there would have to be several security procedures in place to prevent the patient's life being ended against their will. Needing the agreement of two or three doctors for example, like the patient's GP (who'd have a good idea of their character) and a specialist (who'd be able to verify that the illness is indeed terminal) for example. If the patient cannot speak for themselves, maybe a close relative, like the executer of their will (so they don't benefit from the death) could confirm or deny whether it would be in the patient's character to WANT to die. Everyone around me knows my views, so if I should become terminally ill, or brain damaged or anything like that, they'll all know what I want.

On the flip-side is of course the "I've changed my mind" argument. That one I haven't really got an opinion on, other than that I personally would rather die before I'm ready than be trapped in my own body.

Speaking of which, tonights South Park was all about the issue of euthanasia. Kenny was being kept atrificially alive.

In the case of people who have been on comas or brain dead for a long time, I think it is far more 'playing God' to keep them alive then to let them die. I certainly would rather die than be trapped in my body. I'm not a fan of simply removing the food drip and letting them die, if they are going to die then why not prolong it even less by putting oxygen in their blood or something (I don't know, I'm not a doctor.)

I don't believe in the right for anyone at any time to end their life- I think that is an incredibly selfish thing to do- but I do believe in the right for a terminally ill patient to decide not to go through months of pain and be allowed to die, or aided to death by someone who agrees with their choice.

Doctors should never be forced to perform euthanasia/ assisted suicide if they morally or medically disagree.


One of the biggest arguments against euthanisia is the leap to forced euthanasia. This is a fear largely borne out of the Nazi regieme and I must say It would never get that far in this society.
Nobody should be killed if they don't want to be.

(Odd that, as I am entirely pro -choice in the abortion debate. Actually, its not so odd. But thats a different debate. Lets just say I'm pro choice in both issues.)