Euthanasia

fonso · Post by **fonso** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 12:24 am

Is physician assisted mercy-killing acceptable in your opinion?

For me, I would have to say yes. I would knowingly take the life of a friend or relative if it would ease them of immense suffering.

Piper Plexed · Post by **Piper Plexed** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 6:18 pm

Amadeus wrote:We are ALL heading toward our own deaths. Some of us have a very painful way of getting there, too. Some of those people choose suicide.
It is all the same philosophy.

Euthenasia=suicide.

PS, I haven't ever been comfortable with killing my animals, either.

You may think you are dying though I am quite sure I am not.

To Live and to Die are very distinct state of existance in my opinion.

Corvus · Post by **Corvus** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 7:04 pm

Amadeus wrote:Piper Plexed:
I don't see how suicide is dying with dignity. It is the COWARD'S way out.

There's no need to be so condescending towards those who commit suicide. Living is a state of cowardice where one constantly runs from death. When the terrors of this world are believed to crowd out the terrors of the next, instead of the normal condition where the strength of the terrors are opposite, this is when someone is willing to commit suicide. I do not see how one is "better" than the other.

That someone should be forced to live their lives against their will is disturbing to me. If someone dear to me chose to end their life, it is pity I would feel, not this contempt at choosing a fictitious "easy way out".

mrmufin · Post by **mrmufin** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 7:34 pm

Hey Piper!

Piper Plexed wrote: You may think you are dying though I am quite sure I am not.
To Live and to Die are very distinct state of existance in my opinion.

That's kind of interesting...

I think that some folks live long and others die slowly. The difference between those two states can get kinda fuzzy; like green smudged into blue. In some areas it's definitely green, in others it's definitely blue, but at any given point in the transition, things may be inconclusive.

As for my spin on euthanasia, ultimately, the decision to live or die is personal. I know that at some point I'm going to be dead. Whether or not you would like have some say in the matter is an individual choice. I should never be compelled to live against my will. As well, I could never be convinced to take the life of another against my will.

Regards,
mrmufin

Piper Plexed · Post by **Piper Plexed** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 11:37 pm

mrmufin wrote: I should never be compelled to live against my will. As well, I could never be convinced to take the life of another against my will.mrmufin

Correct me if I am wrong...are you saying that your will should guide yourself as well as others?

Or I am MrMufin and I am master of my universe, and that is said with a capitol M for you missy

All kidding aside, I will concede that some may see life and death as birth and dying, though I have always been a glass half full kinda gal.

mrmufin · Post by **mrmufin** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:33 am

Piper Plexed wrote:
mrmufin wrote: I should never be compelled to live against my will. As well, I could never be convinced to take the life of another against my will.mrmufin
Correct me if I am wrong...are you saying that your will should guide yourself as well as others? Or I am MrMufin and I am master of my universe, and that is said with a capitol M for you missy

I s'pose I should clearify that statement; its proper context was in my head, but not in my post. "I could never be convinced to take the life of another against my will" -- I was thinking about how a family member, loved one, or even medical practitioner might respond to a patient's wishes to have their life ended. Suppose (for a most tragic example) that the very lovely msmufin had a terminal illness with little or no chance for recovery. She has made it abundantly clear that she does not want to be "kept alive" in such circumstance. However, in the event that she was unable to take her own life, I could not fathom being the one responsible for ending her life. Doing so may well violate my will. Tersely expressed, I believe that if someone wants to die, they can not compell others to act toward their death.

Expressed even more concisely, "Find someone else to pull the plug, 'cause I don't think I can do it." I hope I clearified that... ? Maybe a little?

Regards,
mrmufin

Piper Plexed · Post by **Piper Plexed** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:51 am

mrmufin wrote: Expressed even more concisely, "Find someone else to pull the plug, 'cause I don't think I can do it." I hope I clearified that... ? Maybe a little?

Exactly what I suspected the point was.

I apologize, I really couldn't resist poking fun, I was feeling a bit capricious when I responded, I hope it gave you a chuckle

I certainly can relate to that sentiment. I wonder, if your loved one had a sort of "living will" that allowed the Doctors to proceed, would you allow it?

mrmufin · Post by **mrmufin** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 9:34 am

Piper Plexed wrote:Exactly what I suspected the point was. I apologize, I really couldn't resist poking fun, I was feeling a bit capricious when I responded, I hope it gave you a chuckle I certainly can relate to that sentiment.

We're cool!

Piper Plexed wrote:I wonder, if your loved one had a sort of "living will" that allowed the Doctors to proceed, would you allow it?

Yes. However, I think that a doctor also reserves the right to not proceed --to say, "I'm not going to (intentionally

) end a person's life for any reason. I don't want that on my conscience."

Regards,
mrmufin

Piper Plexed · Post by **Piper Plexed** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 12:21 pm

mrmufin wrote:Yes. However, I think that a doctor also reserves the right to not proceed --to say, "I'm not going to (intentionally ) end a person's life for any reason. I don't want that on my conscience."

I can agree with that. My guess is that if somebody really felt that strongly about ending their death, they most likely would have addressed the necessary legalities, acquired an agreeable physician and facility long before they became incapacitated. I would hope that the only challenge a loved one would have to face is to accept the wishes of the dying..

potwalloper. · Post by **potwalloper.** » Sun Dec 12, 2004 2:41 am

Amadeus wrote

Piper Plexed: I don't see how suicide is dying with dignity. It is the COWARD'S way out.

This is an interesting view. Out of interest how many people have you spoken to who are dying and in the most extreme agony? (no this isn't a headache - imagine a red-hot poker being pushed into your body every minute and facing this for a year before the certainty of drowning in your own vomit/phlegm/blood)

How many families have you spoken to in depth who have fallen into a pit of despair due to the suffering of their loved ones and their inability to intervene or alleviate their pain?

How many people have begged you to end their lives for them?

How many people that you know have progressively drifted away into dementia so that all you can see of your loved one is emptiness - a physical presence with their very consciousness cruelly removed?

How many people have you spoken to who were proud and dignified but have lost all physical control following a stroke and now even their most basic physical functions have to be dealt with by strangers? Have you seen the tears of such a person when they lack even the ability to raise a hand to wipe them away?

Now you may have experienced some of these things - I know nothing of your background...however from your stance on this I guess not.

I have experienced all of these things - a less positive aspect of growing older I suppose and this may explain my view on euthanasia.

It is easy to judge such people or their families as cowards from the lowly aspect of youth or from a black and white interpretation of religious writings/teachings.

Suicide is cowardice?

"I am just going outside and may be some time". After quietly saying these words, 32-year-old Lawrence "Titus" Oates, suffering horribly from frostbite, cold, pain and hunger, stepped out into an Antarctic blizzard that would finish him off within minutes. When the tent flaps closed behind him, Scott wrote in his diary: "We knew that poor Oates was walking to his death... the act of a brave man We all hope to meet the end with a similar spirit, and assuredly the end is not far."

Oates committed suicide to give his friends a greater chance of life. Was he a coward or was this bravery of the greatest kind? A person who commits suicide to releave his/her family of the pain of watching them die is no different in my view.

Tigerlilly · Post by **Tigerlilly** » Sat Dec 18, 2004 6:35 pm

I believe Euthanasia is an important concept, and I believe that it should be allowed based on several principles

1. Principle of Justice
2. Principle of Mercy
3. Principle of Autonomy

In some circumstances, the most utiltarian thing to do in this case would be to see who's involved, what the circumstances are, and what is at stake. In Euthanasia, the concept is Good Death.

What we want to accomplish is to give the terminally ill or those who are in severe, incurable pain a chance to end their own life. This may even extend to those who are not terminally ill, but terminal, mind denegrating processes are forseeable on the horizon.

A. Derrived from a feminist perspective, if Euthanasia is to be allowed, there need to be some more precautions which benefit both hospital and the patient. As many Feminists agree, like Carol Gilligan, a major problem is that there is very little communication or rappor between patient and the doctor, and many times, the doctor really doesn't know any significant information about the patient, and the patient doesn't about the physician. This needs to be remedied. There needs to be some type of evaluation of patients to make sure they are competently choosing their own end, and the Physician isn't just taking the word of the patient at face-value. Sometimes, it is very difficult to see if the patient is actually serious

In Other circumstances, it is problematic that the patient is often depressed and suffereing from tunnel-vision, and sometimes women are not fully made aware of the other options available, the fullest extent of treatment.

1. What should be done?

1a For Euthanasia to be legal, each candidate should undergo some type of psychological evaluation to eliminate the incoherency factor.

2b For Euthanasia to be legal, each candidate should be made aware of other alternatives which can help them, including, but not limited to, Palliative care and hospice programs. Medicine can eliminate a great deal of pain/suffereing, and Palliative care measures are very successful, but not all of the time. THere are still many cases in which medicine cannot relieve pain, suffereing is horrible, and the body denegenerates into a sick, disgraceful, incompetent person. Many times, a Hospice cannot fix this problem without completely druggin the individual into a Coma.

3c Euthanasia should only be allowed for those who are of sound mind, incorporating some type of limite, soft paternalism tomake sure they are, or act in their best interest if they aren't. If they are of sound mind, they are a rational, Autonomous being. Utility-wise, one should respect their right to self-determination in the event that doing so hurts/harms no one else or costs a great deal, they should be allowed to end their own life.

2. From a Utilitarian Justice perspective, when the cost of treatment becomes Outrageous, the hospital should no longer have the responsibility to take care of the individual. Outrageous care is care which is not normal and would have no realistic chance of helping or benefitting the patient other than extending the life (probabalisticaly) weeks or days. Outrageous care is usually expensive and invasive, but will yeild few results. TO do so would waste funds which could be diverted to others.

Sometimes, the individual, when he see's this comming along the horizon, or if he sees that he will be an overwhelming burden to his family and society, should ask for Euthanasia, especially if the family cannot afford to engage in procedures which will have little realistic gain. There are many examples of how patients ruin the lives of their families because they want to stretch their lives a few extra weeks with rigerously invasive, expensive procedures. One Woman, for example, never wanted to be taken off of life support, and she stayed on it, in a Coma, for over 5 years, costing her only daughter her Job, her family, and all her life savings.

In aother case, a woman on a coma cost 6 million dollars for the hospital, and yet she had no realistic chance of ever comming out of the Coma. People who are so mentally incapacitated and the chances of them comming out of it are slim, they should not be kept on outrageous life support that could be diverted to someone more needed, and their organs should be used to the fullest extent for helping others.

3. From another Utilitarian perspective, one could use Euthanasia in combination with genetic engineering and screening prior to birth. It would be approrpriate to eliminate Fetuses which are so heavily brain damaged or suffering from debilitating genetic diseases or other problems like

1. FAS.

From a negative Utilitarian perspective, you would be eliminating a considerable problem costwise, life denegration-wise, and pain-wise. It would be best for everyone, and the mother can always have another child, who can and will have a much better life without these problems.

4. From another Utilitarain perspective, one must take a look at who can be allowed to have Euthanasia once again. Can anyone have it, even if that person is not terminally ill, due to the principle of AUtonomy? Autonomy must be limited in some circumstances, when engaging in self-determination would destroy the life of your family or destroy society. It is also limited in circumstances in which you would have to hurt other's to achieve your own personal ends. In light of this, this would mostly not be a problem in terminal cases, becuase peole who are in such conditions are not much of a contribution to the family. If they are willing to take care of the patient, and the patient wants to live, fine. But if not, the best course of action is Euthanasia.

FOr those who aren't terminally ill, they can do what they want if the biggest result would be some hurt emotions, which people can get over given time. Economic collapse of the family, however or deaths as a result, are far more serious and should be limiting factors to self-determination.

5. Mercy: the purpose of Euthanasia is mercy. It should act alongside Hospice programs and other secondary methodologies, and all avenues should be given to the patient prior to choosing. Pain and suffereing must be eliminated both Under Utilitarianism as well as Prima Facie Deontology, according to the principle of beneficence.