wood burning stoves*
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes Euthanasia Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Bookmark "Euthanasia" Watch "Euthanasia" New topic
Author

Euthanasia

hemanth kumar
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 15, 2001
Posts: 55
Should Euthanasia be legalised?
My view on this matter is ,Yes it should be.Of course there should be some sort of strict authority control.
What is ur opinion on this matter?
Andy Ceponis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Dec 20, 2000
Posts: 782
I think so as well. If it so happens that when i get old i get very sick with no chance of recovery then iw ant the option of taking my own life. I would never want anyone to have to suffer through what is pointless pain just to wait a few years to die.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
OOOH! Can I be the authority? Let me think, who needs to be euthanized...


Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Matthew Phillips
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 09, 2001
Posts: 2676
I have a pretty cut and dry system when it comes to issues such as this. I own my body, not the government. If I wish to do something with my body that will not harm another persons right to life, liberty, or property then I have the right to do it.
Euthanasia gets a little more tricky when the person dying isn't the one making the decision. If the person has written a legal document with some effect of "kill me when x . . . " then the executor of that document should have the responsibility of seeing to it that the document is carried out.
Just my not so humble opinion.
Matthew Phillips

[This message has been edited by Matthew Phillips (edited May 03, 2001).]


Matthew Phillips
Shama Khan
Ranch Hand

Joined: Aug 14, 2000
Posts: 185
If you didn't have a say as to when you were to arrive in this world, should you have a say in when to leave!
I think the issue of Euthanasia is so thorny. What about the people who have woken up from being in a coma. Why mess with nature!
China was accused of putting prisoners to death to be able to sell their organs. At least one hospital in U.S. was accused of letting patients die (giving up on them much sooner) so their organs could be donated.
I think euthanasia will open the doors for such crimes.
As to having some kind of authority, yeah we have some department of government here in U.S., the ones who are saving for our retirement by collecting taxes. They've done such a mighty job that so many retirees have to go back to work to support themselves. Whichever authoritative body we pick, there will be abuses. So why not leave well enough alone.
Have some faith people!

[This message has been edited by Shama Khan (edited May 04, 2001).]


Shama
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Matthew Phillips:
If I wish to do something with my body that will not harm another persons right to life, liberty, or property then I have the right to do it.
Fine, if you want to kill yourself then go ahead. But that isn't what euthansia is.
Matthew Phillips
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 09, 2001
Posts: 2676
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Fine, if you want to kill yourself then go ahead. But that isn't what euthansia is.[/B]


I intended my first paragraph as background information for my second. Every U.S. citizen has the right to life, liberty, and property; and cannot be deprived of such without due process. I think every person has a right to decide they want to die. If they decide to put that in writing in the event they cannot communicate that decision then the document should be honored. If they do not leave such a document, then no one else should be able to revoke that person's right to life without due process.
Matthew Phillips
Greg Harris
Ranch Hand

Joined: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 1012
it's called a living will. i have the horrible task of making that determination if my mom becomes incapacitated beyond a certain point (i.e. coma, major life-support). i do not like thinking about it, but i also know that i would not want to suffer like that and not be able to do anything about it... so if she (God forbid) ever gets to that point, i will have to honor her wishes.
as for me, i hope i go quietly in the night so nobody has to worry about making that decision for me.


what?
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Matthew Phillips:
I think every person has a right to decide they want to die. < ...> If the person has written a legal document with some effect of "kill me when x..."
Thomas Paul
OOOH! Can I be the authority? Let me think, who needs to be euthanized...
Ok, Thomas, I trust you. See - I am writing: �kill me when Thomas says �it�s about time...�

Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
Michal Harezlak
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 06, 2000
Posts: 185
Originally posted by Matthew Phillips:
I own my body, not the government.

Matthew:
That is very interesting approached. Many people seem to have this opinion, judging by the way they tread their body. But when you thing about the implication. Let's say: Abortion. Legislations that allow that operation assumes that your parents own your body. What's that case in the USofA?
PS
I prefer to tread my body as a rental ;-).
Best regards.

Matthew Phillips
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 09, 2001
Posts: 2676
Originally posted by Greg Harris:
it's called a [b]living will. i have the horrible task of making that determination if my mom becomes incapacitated beyond a certain point (i.e. coma, major life-support). i do not like thinking about it, but i also know that i would not want to suffer like that and not be able to do anything about it... so if she (God forbid) ever gets to that point, i will have to honor her wishes.
as for me, i hope i go quietly in the night so nobody has to worry about making that decision for me.[/B]


A living will is a nice start, but there are two problems with it. The first is that I don't believe all states recognize them, but I could be wrong on this point. The second is that they do not cover all possible circumstances in my understanding. One circumstance is if I am conscious but have completely lost all mental faculties. I would like to be able to leave a document stating that if I am in this state for more than a year to kill me. I don't believe a living will would cover that. I could be wrong, and if so please correct me.
Matthew Phillips
Matthew Phillips
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 09, 2001
Posts: 2676
Originally posted by Michal Harezlak:
Matthew:
That is very interesting approached. Many people seem to have this opinion, judging by the way they tread their body. But when you thing about the implication. Let's say: Abortion. Legislations that allow that operation assumes that your parents own your body. What's that case in the USofA?
PS
I prefer to tread my body as a rental ;-).
Best regards.


Abortion is an issue that I prefer not to discuss, but my view is that I personally think that abortion is wrong. I do not think the government has any say in the matter. Until an unborn child is not dependent on the body of its birth mother, I feel that it is a part of the birth mother's body and therefore her responsibility. Once a child is capable of living outside the body it becomes its own person.
Matthew Phillips
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Matthew Phillips:

A living will is a nice start, but there are two problems with it. The first is that I don't believe all states recognize them, but I could be wrong on this point. The second is that they do not cover all possible circumstances in my understanding. One circumstance is if I am conscious but have completely lost all mental faculties. I would like to be able to leave a document stating that if I am in this state for more than a year to kill me. I don't believe a living will would cover that. I could be wrong, and if so please correct me.
Matthew Phillips

A living will does not give anyone the right to kill you. A living will can be used to limit how much effort is used to keep you alive.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Matthew Phillips:

Until an unborn child is not dependent on the body of its birth mother, I feel that it is a part of the birth mother's body and therefore her responsibility.
Not dependent on the body of its mother... I guess that would be around 18 years old although I know a lot of guys in their 20's that would have been dead in a week without their mom taking care of them.
Seriously, when exactly is a child not dependent on the birth mother's body? And why is dependence on another so important a criteria for losing the protection of the law? Could a person in a coma be killed without punishment since they are completely reliant on others?
Mike Cunningham
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 14, 2000
Posts: 129
Originally posted by Matthew Phillips:

Abortion is an issue that I prefer not to discuss, but my view is that I personally think that abortion is wrong. I do not think the government has any say in the matter. Until an unborn child is not dependent on the body of its birth mother, I feel that it is a part of the birth mother's body and therefore her responsibility. Once a child is capable of living outside the body it becomes its own person.
Matthew Phillips

I enjoy arguements such as this. However, it appears that most people who side with Abortion can relate to one of the following:
1) Your parents are in favor of it.
2) You read/listen/watch too much mainstream media.
3) A friend or relative of yours has been through one.
4) You base decisions off of convenience.
I also understand the tables can be turned on these points...but I'm not too concerned about lightning bolts either. This is straying a bit from the main topic. Ooops.
Greg Harris
Ranch Hand

Joined: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 1012
matt,
thomas has it right. my mom's living will does not give me the right to take her life. it directs me to refuse life-support in the event she becomes brain-dead and cannot speak for herself. basically, it is a worst-case senario that will probably never happen.
i plan on having a living will as well some day, but i do not want to think about it right now. i do not want to go on "living" if i become dependant on a series of machines to perform my basic functions... what is the point of life then?
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
i do not want to go on "living" if i become dependant on a series of machines to perform my basic functions... what is the point of life then?
Let's ask Stephen Hawking about that.
Greg Harris
Ranch Hand

Joined: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 1012
let me clarify myself:
if i become brain-dead i would prefer not to go on "living" because that is not living.
stephen hawking is obviously not brain-dead.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Greg Harris:
if i become brain-dead i would prefer not to go on "living" because that is not living.
I agree with you. But I do not consider that euthanasia. You already are dead. Keeping alive the empty shell that you once occupied is pointless and cruel to your loved ones.
Andy Ceponis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Dec 20, 2000
Posts: 782
I really dont understand why it is illegal to have someone kill you if you want to die. Like the living will for example, if i was in a coma or something and there was no chance for recovery then i would want the doctors to kill me. I think people should have the option of having someone kill them if they so desire. Of course it would have to be properly documented and certified somehow. We wouldnt want people to start using that excuse as a coverup for murders.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Andy Ceponis:
I really dont understand why it is illegal to have someone kill you if you want to die.
Why does the person want to die? Are they depressed? Will they feel the same way a month from now? If you really want to kill yourself it isn't very hard. A doctor's help seems completely unneccesary.
Andy Ceponis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Dec 20, 2000
Posts: 782
What if i had no legs or arms and couldnt move? Then i would need someone's help. Or what if i was paralyzed and couldnt ever leave a bed again. I was talking about those situations and ones similar to them.
Matthew Phillips
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 09, 2001
Posts: 2676
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Not dependent on the body of its mother... I guess that would be around 18 years old although I know a lot of guys in their 20's that would have been dead in a week without their mom taking care of them.
Seriously, when exactly is a child not dependent on the birth mother's body? And why is dependence on another so important a criteria for losing the protection of the law? Could a person in a coma be killed without punishment since they are completely reliant on others?[/B]

I did not specify that dependence on another was the criteria. I stated that dependence on a specific person is the criteria. If a child can be brought into the world as a living, breathing creature, then it is not dependent on the birth mother. It is still very dependent, but the source of that care does not lie on one specific person.

The reason that I tend to avoid conversations on abortion is because I stand on both side of the fence. Abortion as a form of birth control is wrong in my eyes. I don't like the fact that people do it, but I don't think that it is a proper funtion of government to stop it. Government should not be funding it either. There are also valid reasons for abortion that cannot be easily viewed as seperate cases.
Matthew Phillips
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Andy Ceponis:
What if i had no legs or arms and couldnt move? Then i would need someone's help. Or what if i was paralyzed and couldnt ever leave a bed again. I was talking about those situations and ones similar to them.
Oh... you mean like Stephen Hawking.
Andy Ceponis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Dec 20, 2000
Posts: 782
who?
David Junta
Ranch Hand

Joined: Dec 10, 2000
Posts: 86
One problem with this issue is $$$ MONEY $$$. What about all the situations in which a non-wealthy family is paying huge sums to keep a relative alive? They will certainly have an incentive to euthanize them even when there is still some small chance of a recovery. Same goes for relatives who stand to inherit large sums of cash from a relative who is in a coma or otherwise unable to live a self-sustained life. Add to that the incentive of doctors and hospitals who want the organs for transplant. It becomes a slippery slope. Having said that, just because modern medicine has given us the ability to prolong life way beyond its natural capacity, should EVERYONE be REQUIRED to take advantage of that? It seems there ought to be a way to make a living will specific enough that there is no judgement call involved, thus eliminating whatever financial incentives might exist, but I'm no lawyer. I knew an old woman in her 80's who managed to get hold of a few pills from her doctor which he assured her would kill her if she took them. Her intention was to end her own life if she felt she was so far gone she couldn't live some semblance of a decent life anymore. She ended up dying suddenly of natural causes...her body just shut down all at once. But I think she had a right to have those pills, even though the doctor could have gotten in a heap of trouble for giving them to her.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Andy Ceponis:
who?
Stephen Hawking is one of the greatest living physicists in the world. His accomplishments in theoretical physics over the last 30 years are second to none. All the more amazing is the fact that Hawking developed ALS (Lou Gehrig's Disease) in the 60's and has been basically immobile for most of his adult life. He communicates with a special computer that detects his eye movements. He has even been featured on "The Simpsons".
http://www.hawking.org.uk/home/hindex.html
This quote by him expresses my feelings on euthanasia:
I have had motor neurone disease for practically all my adult life. Yet it has not prevented me from having a very attractive family, and being successful in my work. This is thanks to the help I have received from Jane [Dr. Hawking's wife], my children, and a large number of other people and organisations. I have been lucky, that my condition has progressed more slowly than is often the case. But it shows that one need not lose hope.
Joel Cochran
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 23, 2001
Posts: 301
People like Stephen Hawking are a great example why euthanasia and abortion shouldn't even be seriously debated. Imagine the potential lost if Stephen's mother knew 6 months prior to his birth that he would be so severly handicapped that he couldn't walk or speak. What if she decided, out of sympathy and compassion, to terminate the pregnancy. In her eyes, this is really pre-natal euthanasia. The world would be a lesser place today.
OK, I hate 'what ifs' like the one I laid out because they tend to be so ridiculous that they simply bog the conversation down. But you can't deny that deciding to terminate even a potential life (depending on your viewpoint of when a fetus becomes a person) represents countless unknowns. I won't get on the soapbox about abortion, at least not in this thread. The topic was euthanasia...
I don't agree with euthanasia, but to be fair, lets split some hairs. Euthanasia involves intentionally performing an action that will directly end a life. A living will in no way fulfills this definition since it consists of providing no further treatment. More specifically, it is the lack of action that results in the loss of life. If that course is decided by the legally deciding party (the patient or legal guardian), then so be it; but if the same party requests to actually and immediately terminate the life, then that is wrong.
A lot of things come to mind in this conversation. "Catch-22" and "Holy Grail" especially. The catch-22 is that if you are sane you would never ask to be killed and therfore cannot be killed if you ask, but only you can ask to be killed. From Monty Python, the "Bring out yer dead!" scene. "Come on, do us a favor..."
I'm not disparaging anyone's viewpoint. Topics like this are difficult and made more so by our desires to be compassionate. I guess the founding fathers never figured that the rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" could all be so perfectly contradictory in one issue. I just think that decisions like who would be better off dead are better off left to higher powers.
Ciao,
Joel


Wait a minute, I'm trying to think of something clever to say...<p>Joel
Nanhesru Ningyake
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 29, 2000
Posts: 452
>Stephen Hawking is one of the greatest living physicists in the world
He also ditched his wife, and married his nurse, who was the wife of the guy who designed his voice synthesizer. What an ingrate!
(Reminds me of Seinfeld. His wife was on a honeymoon when he met her )

Pourquoi voulez-vous mon nom?
Anonymous
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 22, 2008
Posts: 18944
I think that Euthanasia should be legallised because it is up to the patient whether he or she wants to live or die. On the other hand I do not agree at all because if the patient is suffering alot the pain at the time may be the only reason why he/she wants to kill themselves. If the disease is incurable then YES! Any one got any religious points?
Originally posted by hemanth kumar:
Should Euthanasia be legalised?
My view on this matter is ,Yes it should be.Of course there should be some sort of strict authority control.
What is ur opinion on this matter?

Scott Appleton
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 07, 2001
Posts: 195


People like Stephen Hawking are a great example why euthanasia and abortion shouldn't even be seriously debated.
Imagine the potential lost if Stephen's mother knew 6 months prior to his birth that he would be so severly
handicapped that he couldn't walk or speak. What if she decided, out of sympathy and compassion, to terminate
the pregnancy. In her eyes, this is really pre-natal euthanasia. The world would be a lesser place today.

Joel, this is exactly the sort of argument that leads to a huge slipperly slope. Let's ban ALL activities that are so dangerous that the next Stephen Hawking might be killed early. Skydiving? Rock Climbing? How about driving in traffic? How many wonderful, potentially-history-altering young people are killed participating in these and other activities? Let's ban everything.
Euthanasia is not that different, if the person affected is making the decision. He or she has decided to "participate" in this activity that may deprive the world of a fantastic person or mind. Should euthanasia be banned so that these people are forced to bless us with their existence?
Here I'm just addressing the specific logic put forth in the quote above, not any of the other arguments for or against euthanasia (and I won't touch abortion, since that's off-topic).
Ultimately, however, I demand the right to determine my own self-existence (or lack thereof), and it is absolutely no one else's right to deny me that choice, for any reason. Why I might want to be euthanized is between me and God, and the fact that Stephen Hawking and others have made a very wise decision on their part to stay alive should in no way remove the right to make that choice from me.
Peter Lyons
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 12, 2000
Posts: 202
a few quotes compiled by Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family at: http://www.family.org/docstudy/excerpts/A0014314.html
If we treat their depression and we treat their pain, I�ve never had a patient who wanted to die.
William Wood, M.D., clinical director of the Winship Cancer Center at Emory University in Atlanta, as published in Time, April 15, 1996, p. 82.

I simply have never seen a case nor heard of a colleague�s case where it (physician-assisted suicide) was necessary. If there is such a request, it is always dropped when quality care is rendered.
Linda Emanuel, M.D., Ph.D., director of the American Medical Association�s Institute on Ethics, as published in "The New Pro-Lifers," The New York Times Magazine, July 21, 1996.
In my clinical practice, I have been asked by suffering patients to aid them in death because of severe pain. I have had the opportunity to see these requests for aid in death fade with adequate pain control, psychological support, provision of family support, and with the promise that their symptoms would be controlled throughout the dying process.
Kathleen Foley, M.D., chief of pain service at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, as part of her testimony before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Washington D.C., April, 1996.
Conrad Kirby
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 17, 2001
Posts: 178
OK, you can "demand" this and "demand" that, but one thing I've learned is that you don't usually get what you demand. There are a lot of people in the world who don't care whether you live or die. Hell, there are a lot of people who don't think Stephen Hawking is the greatest Physicist. But there are also a lot of people who do care. Like the government. The government is so bent on saving lives they say so explicity. I saw a seat-belt commercial not long ago:
"Click it, or ticket. North Carolina WILL save lives!"
So, let's all get forced to save our lives...??? Human life isn't that precious of a thing for plenty of people. But a lot of people demand that it is the most important thing in the world, and do everything they can to prevent one from being lost.
Now should someone die when they want to? Sure. But usually there is no point to die even when you are brain dead and such. Will that "person" actually feel the pain when they are brain dead? There isn't much of a way to find out. On the same token, why use all that technology on some vegitable? But none of this concerns me much because time is a relative thing, hence I will never die.
Andrew Shafer
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 19, 2001
Posts: 338

Stephen Hawkings true gift
Word to your Mutha


!_I_Know_Kung_Fu_!
Anonymous
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 22, 2008
Posts: 18944
Hell yea nigro!
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Scott Appleton:
Here I'm just addressing the specific logic put forth in the quote above, not any of the other arguments for or against euthanasia (and I won't touch abortion, since that's off-topic).
Ultimately, however, I [b]demand
the right to determine my own self-existence (or lack thereof), and it is absolutely no one else's right to deny me that choice, for any reason. Why I might want to be euthanized is between me and God, and the fact that Stephen Hawking and others have made a very wise decision on their part to stay alive should in no way remove the right to make that choice from me.[/B]
If you want to commit suicide then by all means help yourself. But euthanasia is not suicide. Euthanasia is murder. There is a huge difference.
Scott Appleton
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 07, 2001
Posts: 195
Andrew -- uh, yeah...
Yo -- uh, no...
Conrad -- there's a difference between demanding something from someone, and simply demanding to be left alone to make decisions about our own persons. I agree that you rarely get the former, but I submit that the latter is our God-given right as the (very lucky) citizens of a free country. (And to those unfortunate people out there whose country is such that the government takes moral control of its citizens' and their bodies, you definitely have my sympathy. Ideally, everyone should be allowed to control their own bodies, even if said control is often illusory).
Needless to say, I am also opposed to mandatory seat-belt laws, motorcycle helmet laws, etc -- basically, any law whose purpose is to protect people from themselves. Whether I wear a seatbelt or a motorcycle helmet affects no one else's health but my own, and the choice to do so should be left up to me. (Not that I would ever fail to do either one, assuming I rode motorcycles.)
Scott Appleton
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 07, 2001
Posts: 195
Thomas (we double-posted there),
Sometimes people in extreme conditions want to die, but don't have the power to commit suicide (permanent paralyzation, terminally ill and hooked up to too many machines to be able to effect their own suicide). They need someone else's help to be able to end their suffering, and it is naive to assume that counseling or drug programs will do the job 100% of the time. Sometimes people are simply ready to die but can't because of feeding-tubes/life support/etc.
If taking someone else's life is always murder, then I might commit murder someday against an armed intruder threatening myself or my family. I would therefore argue that murder is not wrong 100% of the time, and neither is euthanasia.
Conrad Kirby
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 17, 2001
Posts: 178
Scott, ummm -- talking like this is stupid.
Demanding a "God-given right" is still demanding from someone. Basically you are just demanding it from everyone that "I will have control over my body." I agree that we shouldn't have laws that control how we protect ourselves.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Scott Appleton:
If taking someone else's life is always murder, then I might commit murder someday against an armed intruder threatening myself or my family. I would therefore argue that murder is not wrong 100% of the time, and neither is euthanasia.
Killing someone who is a danger to you is self defense. Euthanasia can not possibly be described as self defense. We can justify anything if we are willing to stretch our morals far enough.
 
wood burning stoves
 
subject: Euthanasia
 
Similar Threads