Euthanasia/Physician Assisted Suicide

[Bagel of Death]

What are your thoughts on euthanasia and physician assisted suicide? Do you think both should be outlawed or is one more 'just' than the other? Although both result in the freedom from physical pain through death, euthanasia may not have a consent from either the client or if the client is unable, from the person with the power of attorney for personal care (PAPC.) The management may not be directly given by the doctor. Physician-assisted suicide requires the active assistance of the doctor to bring about the result and has a consent from either the client or the person with the PAPC.

 

In the case of euthanasia, it is illegal in the US. However, PAS is legal in the states of Oregon, Washington, and Montana.

 

How are the laws of euthanasia/PAS in your country? Do you agree?

 

(You may pick more than 1 answer, btw)

[130671]

Tough topic.

Here, euthanasia is illegal. PAS is also illegal but since care for terminally ill opens up so many ways of influencing life expectancy....some doctors will make it easier for their patients than others.

 

I think PAS should be legalized. In public debates about it there's generally far too many ppl who feel they have the right to decide for me since I (like almost anyone apparently) am obviously too retarded to do so myself.

 

Euthanasia is an even more complex issue. To me it is not so much an individual thing but more a radical way to influence the composition of your society in the long run. Living in a society that allows it probably means living in a society that none of us can imagine.

[flying kiwi]

I think in theory euthanasia is great, you can stop someone suffering, give them a dignified death.ect.

 

However I can completely understand why it is illegal, it would be too easy for people to manipulate vunerable relatives. People who want a quick inheritance could talk someone into agreeing to it when they dont really understand what it is they're doing.

also you may say you wouldnt want to live if something happened to you, but when that happened you could find you change your mind. For example my boyfriend has a weird thing about loosing limbs, we were watching house of wax the other day and he actually said that the girl loosing her tip of her finger was awful and one of the worse things he could ever imagine happening.... Now im pretty sure if he ever did loose an arm or leg he would rather live then die, fair enough if that happened he could just say so, but what if you've said ''well if I ever loose my voice I wouldnt want to live'' but when you do you might change your mind, however a dr would have had your concent.(i kno www.thats a bad example but yu get my drift.

 

Another problem is if they legalize it in anyway, whats the next step... Would people be campaigning to legalize killing people with certain problems we feel they shouldnt have to live with. Could parents kill their child because it had downs an dc they dont feel its quality of life is high enough?

[Emmas Friend]

This is a tough one, there are so many issues to deal with. Personally I don't agree with the concept of euthanasia, it just seems wrong somehow. Don't really know much about PAS, so I wouldn't like to comment on that. Had an elderly relative that was close to death. The doctor just gave him something to ease the pain, and let nature take its course, but I guess thats not assisted suicide.

 

 

Changing the subject slightly, what are your views on the turning off, of Life Support Machines, is that assisted suicide ?

[Bagel of Death]

However I can completely understand why it is illegal, it would be too easy for people to manipulate vunerable relatives. People who want a quick inheritance could talk someone into agreeing to it when they dont really understand what it is they're doing.

 

That's a good way to look at it (and true in some cases.) However, I don't think it is just about money. I fear that it is more likely to be the poor and vulnerable who are exposed to relative pressure to end a life as they will be a burden.

 

I don't know if I would have the guts to end my own life, however much pain I am in, but I do believe others should have that right. The question remains how do we protect those who are bullied into it by relatives for whatever reason--and that question needs answering first. =/

 

Another problem is if they legalize it in anyway, whats the next step... Would people be campaigning to legalize killing people with certain problems we feel they shouldnt have to live with. Could parents kill their child because it had downs an dc they dont feel its quality of life is high enough?

 

I'm not so sure about that. There's voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. One doesn't have to necessarily lead to the other. And I would hope that it would be written into the law that it would be only in cases of a non curable fatal ailment.

 

That being said, PAS should be legalized. In most countries property rights should be absolute. The first property we own is ourselves. As sovereign individuals no one else owns us. This should be the case for everyone. Therefore we have the inalienable right to do what we will with ourselves. It simply isn't anyone else's business.

 

In the case of euthanasia, it is still very gray. If if you mean life taken by the hand of another then at the very least it should be at the will of the infirm. Only by advance directives; a living will. In that case, yes. However, if I loose the ability to move for myself, I loose the ability to do whatever I wish with my own body.

 

I agree that the very very best care should be given to people who are suffering with illness, and there can be a great deal of dignity for someone who stays alive until their illness kills them. It's their very own choice.

 

However, there are a lot of people who want to choose what is "dignified" for me and for you. Dignity is in the eye of the individual.

[Bagel of Death]

Changing the subject slightly, what are your views on the turning off, of Life Support Machines, is that assisted suicide?

 

There's 2 kinds of euthanasia: active and passive. Active euthanasia is essentially a lethal injection--giving someone a drug which will end their life. Passive euthanasia is withholding medication or treatment which would be otherwise necessary to prolong someone's life. It is "letting nature take its course". Life support is considered passive.

 

Life support systems can be a blessing or a curse depending on your perspective. A 'vegetable' (for lack of a better term) living solely due to the presence of machines. Is that living? An individual who is being sustained by machines until his/her body can heal/recover. That is understandable.

 

I believe that all individuals should have a living will to ease the burden of loved ones.

 

Costs, unfortunately, are driven by supply and demand. The less demand for a product, the more likely it will increase in price. Life support systems do not differ from other products in regards to this.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Bagel of Death

[Emmas Friend]

I think it would be difficult to make a law about this, I think there would be a lot of opposition to it. Doctors might feel that their advice/treatment will be ignored by the patient and their family. Religious groups will also want to have their say on the matter. It is a very complex issue.

[Imagine]

I agree with Euthanasia, always have done.

 

However i only think that if it ever got legalised, that it would only be allowed if the indivdual has given full conscious consent to it, a panal evaulates the illness etc. I do not agree with the idea that someone could just turn up at a clinic suffering from a bad day or depression and ask for their life to end.

 

The indivdual must have a grave illness that they will eventually die from, or a illness won't kill them but is giving them a great deal of pain and suffering. Unless stipulated in someone's proxy that they want to die if they suffer from a stroke that bounds them a vegatable or in a coma - then the indivdual has given consent it is just to a lawyer and not to the team of doctors who let the person die in a facility.

 

What do you guys think about "DO NOT RESUSCITATE"?

Edited July 13, 2011 by Imagine

[Bagel of Death]

Religious groups will also want to have their say on the matter. It is a very complex issue.

 

It's funny you mentioned this, because I went back to read the Bible to read passages about references to the 'right to die.' On one end, we do not want to take a person’s life into our own hands and end it prematurely. On the other end, at what point do we simply allow a person to die and take no further action to preserve life?

 

The overriding truth that drives the conclusion that God is opposed to euthanasia is His sovereignty. We know that physical death is inevitable (Psalm 89:48; Hebrews 9:27). However, God alone is sovereign over when and how a person's death occurs. Job testifies in Job 30:23, “I know you will bring me down to death, to the place appointed for all the living.†Ecclesiastes 8:8a declares, “No man has power over the wind to contain it; so no one has power over the day of his death.†God has the final say over death (see also 1 Corinthians 15:26, 54-56; Hebrews 2:9, 14-15; Revelation 21:4). Euthanasia is man's way of trying to usurp that authority from God.

 

Death is a natural occurrence. Sometimes God allows a person to suffer for a long time before death occurs; other times, the person's suffering is cut short. No one enjoys suffering, but that does not make it right to determine that a person is ready to die. Often God's purposes are made known through a person's suffering. “When times are good, be happy; but when times are bad, consider: God has made the one as well as the other…†(Ecclesiastes 7:14). Romans 5:3 teaches that tribulations bring about perseverance. God cares about those who are crying out for death to end their suffering. God gives purpose to life even to the end. Only God knows what is best, and His timing, even in the matter of one's death, is perfect.

 

At the same time, the Bible does not command us to do everything we can to keep a person alive. If a person is being kept alive only by machines, it is not immoral to turn off the machines and allow the person to die. If a person has been in a persistent vegetative state for a prolonged period of time, it would not be an offense to God to remove whatever tubes/machines that are keeping the person’s body alive. Should God desire to keep a person alive, He is perfectly capable of doing so without the help of feeding tubes and/or machines.

 

Making a decision like this one is very difficult and painful. It is never easy to tell a doctor to end the life support of a loved one. We should never seek to prematurely end a life, but at the same time, neither do we have to go to extraordinary means to preserve a life. The best advice to anyone facing this decision is to pray to God for wisdom (James 1:5).

 

It is a complex issue, even from a Biblical point of view.

[Bagel of Death]

What do you guys think about "DO NOT RESUSCITATE"?

 

Personally, I think it's a good idea and I'm planning on signing one in the future years.

 

I would not want people trying to revive me once my heart and lungs were not functioning. I would also not like to be kept alive for a prolonged period of time via articifical means once I had been in a persistent vegetative state for a period. I see no quality of life in such an existence. I would either be suffering or unaware of myself so I don't see the point of going above and beyond preventing nature from taking its course at great expense.

 

That being said, whoever is contemplating signing a DNR order needs to make that decision on his or her own. Often, the DNR order feels easier when the person in question has previously signed a number of other legal documents, including a living will. It is a good thing to do this (the living will) with the guidance of a lawyer, and with witnesses in the lawyer's office, even though it may not be legally necessary in your state (or country). That way, others also have heard the wishes of the client stated and have witnessed the signing of the document. Knowing that formality has been carried out makes going through with the DNR easier when the time comes to do so.

 

Some people believe it's a form of passive suicide, but I don't think so. I remember my ex-boyfriend's grandmother telling me about her experience some years ago, how she woke up halfway through an operation. Although she didn't feel pain, she spent 30 minutes--30 "damned uncomfortable minutes" as she said--breathing through the ventilator, fully awake, unable to move, unable to breathe on her own, unable even to twitch, till the operation was finished, and the surgeon brought her out of anesthesia.

 

She doesn't want that again, so she told me that in her living she specifically mentioned "NO!" to that treatment--and to certain others--there are choices within the living will form as to what you do, or don't want. So if the DNR means she doesn't have to be afraid of having that happen again down the line, she's happy about it. And perhaps so are others that make the same decision.

 

In the words of my big brother "If I can't wipe my own butt, I'm ready to check out."

[Emmas Friend]

I think an important issue, is the quality of life the patient has, but who would be the judge of that, if the person who is ill cannot understand the situation they are in. The doctor , the family or a judge ?

Legal documents are all very well, but its a natural instinct of ours to try and save a family member. Could/should you let someone die, because they signed a piece of paper years ago, even if they might live for another few months ?

 

God gave you life, and only God can take it away.

 

Everybody has to die sometime, I think people worry about how they are going to die, more than they do when they will.

 

[sorry to be so morbid]

[Bagel of Death]

I think an important issue, is the quality of life the patient has, but who would be the judge of that, if the person who is ill cannot understand the situation they are in. The doctor , the family or a judge ?

Legal documents are all very well, but its a natural instinct of ours to try and save a family member. Could/should you let someone die, because they signed a piece of paper years ago, even if they might live for another few months ?

 

I understand where you're coming from, but trying to stop a loved one from departing this life is selfish of us. It's selfish in the fact that we worry about ourselves not being okay without the person, not the person not being okay without us. And it's selfish and letting them suffer the agonizing pain that we can't possibly imagine. =/

[130671]

One of the things I can never understand is how can people argue that "you're playing god" when you turn off the machines or actively end a life that is impossible without the advances of modern medicine.....

 

....when the act of "playing god" really started the moment someone is subjected to this same modern medicine? If "god" decides when a life ends, how can these people ever allow someone to be hooked up to life supporting machines and be bombarded with meds? That is not "god"?

[Bagel of Death]

^

 

Good question, 130671. Another thing that confuses us (and annoys me) is why have we convinced ourselves that "God wants" us to extend quantity of life over quality? What a double standard is set when we say that we do not have enough money and resources to provide routine medical care to the poor working class, but we must spend hundreds of thousands of dollars extending the life of a brain dead middle class person because we would be playing God otherwise.

 

Pardon me, but what a load of bull. Aren't these people already playing God by determining who is and who is not worthy of medical care in the first place? Is it better to bankrupt a family? I'm putting it in financial terms becasue that seems to get more attention, but the concept is much bigger. I think we are facing a national crisis of compassion bankruptcy. It is so much easier to get on a soap-box and point the finger at people making difficult decisions, whether or not to end life support, than it is to propose solutions for greater social problems. Now that we've felt compassion for someone, doesn't that make us feel better to tell someone what they did was wrong? Meanwhile, down the block...

 

We should be more concerned about improving the quality of life. A person has a right to a joyful life and a dignified death. I can guarantee this--whether or not it is 'acceptable', I will use my medical background to find a way to end mine and my family's suffering if things get to a terminal point. I refuse to marry anyone who would not respect my final wishes...how about you?

 

The "Creator" (or God, however you want to put it) gave us brains to recognize our choices, and the wisdom to know when it is time to make that decision. Death is one of the most private acts you perform, and your covenenant is with the one who made you when your time is up, not the state.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Bagel of Death

[130671]

 

 

We should be more concerned about improving the quality of life. A person has a right to a joyful life and a dignified death. I can guarantee this--whether or not it is 'acceptable', I will use my medical background to find a way to end mine and my family's suffering if things get to a terminal point. I refuse to marry anyone who would not respect my final wishes...how about you?

 

 

 

I'm a 100% with you on that.