Euthanasia
 

Some years ago when my father was dying of lung cancer he was in such extreme pain that we couldn't even touch him to wash him without his screaming in agony. My brothers and I took it in turns to care for him and we had a wonderful hospice nurse who would come to the house twice a day to give him his morphine injection but towards the end nothing could alleviate his pain. Watching him die like that, slowly and in unimaginable agony, was torture to the family, and I almost had a nervous breakdown because of it. That experience convinced me that no-one has the right to prolong the suffering of another human being in a situation where there is absolutely no hope of recovery.

Why is it we can put an animal down for humane reasons, but not a fellow human being who must suffer to the bitter end because of someone else's idea of morality?

I wouldn't be surprised if it had something to do with pharmaceutical companies fearing competition from the introduction of of lethal injection drugs onto the market.

It's all I can think of. Most people, save a minority of religious fundamentalists, don't give a monkeys about how "moral" euthanasia is. There again, politicians are always careful not to offend religious sensitivities.

Euthanasia is a tricky issue I think. If a person is in such extreme agony and suffering then I think euthanasia would be an acceptable option to undertake. I think that if euthanasia were legalised by the government then there should be a council set up to examine every single case to be sure that it is correct to take this extreme action. The person considering an option like this would have to be 100% sure they want this to happen - I don't think someone else should EVER make a decision like this as another person couldn't truly understand how they feel, which is why I would be against this option for those in a coma for example.

I would be scared of having this on the NHS with the massive amount of depression sufferers seeing it as a means to an end :( Ofcourse I see your point but I think the cons may outweigh the pros, unless it was very very strictly controlled, even then I must say I doubt I would be a supporter.

That truly would be the height of commercial cynicism.

I've already decided that it's my body to do with what I will, and if I am ever diagnosed with a terminal illness I won't be asking anyone's permission to end it all, nor would I burden a friend or family member by asking for assistance.

I think it's a legal minefield though. I'd imagine that's the main reason why it's not being implemented now, along with religious outrage obviously.

It is a difficult area. If you're going to grant people euthanasia, how do you select who qualifies, also who does the selecting?

I'de be all for it if the person was in constant pain and was never going to recover,we do it to our beloved pets,it is something we never want to do,it is always a last resort,we do it because we love them and dont want them to suffer,I do think we would have to monitor it carefully though and leave it to relatives to make a final decision,they are less likely to do it for the 'sake' of it.

I think in cases where there is absolutely no hope of recovery (as with my dad whose cancer had spread all over his body by the time he died), the humane and moral thing to do would have been to allow him to die a peaceful death by lethal injection, which he was begging for at times. What is moral or ethical about insisting someone must suffer to the bitter end?

I don't think it's any other person's right to "grant" me euthanasia - it is surely the individual's choice. My body belongs to me alone, and no-one has the right to tell me I must suffer because it satisfies their morality. As I said, if I were in that situation, I wouldn't be asking anyone's permission, I would just get on and do it.

But if we are talking about assisted suicides then of course that is open to abuse and would need to be strictly regulated.

I think many people on here will have experiences similar to Angus58s.

It is soul destroying for the person very ill and also those who are their loved ones to see and know what is happening.
To watch someone in excruciating pain is one of the most horrible things anyone will have to do, you can do nothing to ease the pain, you cannot distract them from the pain, you are in totality powerless.Much is made of being an orgam donor these days and soon it may be likely that to not be an organ donor you may need to opt out.
It is time that the rights of the person who is going to die from their illness are taken into full account.

There are two arguments, 1) the person could say they wish if ever they were terminally ill to be allowed euthanasia, having that noted either before they were ill or after diagnosis,especially while in sound mind at the time.
2) the dangers are stated as what if the person changed their mind but no one knew about that.

A lot of precautions and rules would have to be followed but I would say in my opinion the time has come for people to be able to say please in those circumstances, I do not want to go on like this.
The law needs to be changed and also the oath that Doctors take,I believe that can be easily done,clearly it would have to be registered with offialdom that the person wishes to be relieved of their pain and torment and massilve lost of dignity and modesty often too.

It is though time to let people decide,once they know they have an incurable illness and will die to say thank you but no more,please let me go with
dignity.
Equally so for people to register the request that should they ever be dying of an incurable illness or serious injury that they are allowed to die. Just as you can insist on not being resuscitated should you die in hospital.

When its a loved one,the natural longing is to hold on to them for as long as possible,but watching people in pain,especially cancer pain as Angus58 described is not only torturous for the person but those watching too.

It would need a lot of regulation and cast iron checks and registering but in this day and age we all should if we wnat to, be able to say in those circumstances, enough is enough,let me go,please.

The thing is that passive euthanasia of a sort is already practised in a lot of care homes and hospitals - non intervention I think is the term, where no treatments are given to those who are terminally ill. What is the moral difference between passive and active euthanasia? I would say none.

I agree Angus58, its also called tlc in places, meaning tender loving care.

I have already registered an opt out if I suffer some catastrophic accident, stroke or other terminal illness, and that is that I do not want to be resuscitated or have any aggressive interventions. Effectively the doctors would be practising passive euthanasia.

I agree with that, no-one should ever have endure such pain. But what I'm saying is that the person would have to be 100% sure they want to go through with it and know everything that will happen and make sure they think about it long and hard. I think its unethical to make a decision like this for a person who cannot communicate that they are in unbearable pain as no-one could ever have an inkling as to how they feel (e.g if the person was in a coma?). What if they weren't feeling any pain for example? What if they were slowly getting better and about to wake up, but doctors speculated that they were in incredible pain and they should pull the plug?

Thats what I think anyway...

I agree, but a coma would be preferable to being conscious, lucid and in agony as was my dad, but I could not do anything to help him. Even if I had, no doubt I'd be writing this from a prison cell now. Some sort of system whereby we can determine in advance what we want to happen in the event we are ever diagnosed with a terminal illness would go a long way to mitigating any confusion or uncertainty if the worse were to happen.

Angus58, I carry a donor card, so I am pretty sure if I was in a near fatal accident that it would be hoped I went soon anyway,but I carry a letter that states I do not want to brought back if there is no hope from an accident or that wth an incurable disease I don't want any treatment in the last period of it.
I have also informed all my relatives and friends of that too. I thought that was all I could do at the present time.

Yeah I guess you're right in the end. I've never really seen anyone have to deal with that kind of pain before in my life though I did know a close family friend who passed away from cancer, though I was young when it happened.

I believe if a person is in pain and there's no cure then it should definitely be their own decision, It should be legalised but monitored so people can't abuse it.

There certainly has to be regulation in place, but it's one of those areas so very difficult to legislate for, since it lies somewhere between individual liberty and public morality and the law. I think that, so long as the person who has decided they wish to die in a given set of circumstances, has registered their wishes beforehand, and is sane, lucid and clear on the matter, that any family member or other person nominated by that person should be exempt from prosecution if they assist.

Many times a loving husband, wife, son or daughter has had to face the trauma of being prosecuted for an act they have been begged by their loved one to commit in the name of compassion, love and humanity.

"Why is it we can put an animal down for humane reasons, but not a fellow human being who must suffer to the bitter end because of someone else's idea of morality? "

Because as Humans we a never the same as Animals.
This is open to abuse - That is why it can not become legal.

Yeah, if done right then it can't be used for ill gain.

I agree my Mother had a similar ilness to what Angus said, as a kid I was shielded from most of it but towards the end I knew she was in so much pain that it would have been better if she had some sort of assistance because she deteriorate so badly in such a short time. I do think there is a lot of things that would have to be finalised though like when is the time you can actually grant the person their wish and take into account what type of illness it is etc.

Of course it should become legal. Its the HUMANE way forward. Nobody should be forced to live a life of pain and unbearable misery.

Doctors make choices about life and death all the time. If I were a doctor I would be honoured to put somebody out of their misery if I thought they were really suffering and truly wanted to bow out. Its a valid choice and it makes a LOT of sense. Its a compassionate option.

Everything is open to abuse. Medication generally is open to abuse. Medical professionals can hand out all kinds of drugs that could be lethal. Its a lame arguement against euthanasia.

[QUOTE=Zippy;3834917]Of course it should become legal. Its the HUMANE way forward. Nobody should be forced to live a life of pain and unbearable misery.

I would support this.

the thing is my grandad died of cancer when i was 6 years old,and i dont think he should of had to have suffered like that so yeah i believe in euthanasia.

It is still the most cruelest of diseases jedward,and no matter what they say, still one of the most painful too.
Sorry to hear about your Grandad.

thanks,and i agree that cancer is the cruelest way to die because the person suffers for months on end.

It already is legal just not directly. You can switch off a life support machine or you can up the morphine dosage to ease pain but a side effect is death.

In the places where it is legal, the rates of people that use it are very low. People just want the option

I agree with this, well put kazanne. :)
I would never want to be in such a state, and also be a reliability for people.

Allow it for people who have an incurable problem that will result in death either way. I think if that is the case then they should have the option. At the end of the day they're not going to recover and will die, so I think so in this case ONLY.

I think, were it to be properly legalised, it would of course be well thought out due to how contentious the issue is. People with terminal illnesses would qualify for the option of euthanasia; and would presumably indicate that they want to be euthanised before they deteriorated to a state where they could no longer make decisions/make their choice clear. What do you do in regards to people who are already at that stage though? The stage where they can't tell people they want to be euthanised? That's the grey area... but there's no way a depressed person is going to qualify for euthanasia - they're in a position to commit suicide if they want to go down that path; for a depressed person to announce they want to be euthanised would be extremely attention seeking and very low.

If I couldn't live my life the way I want and all dignity had gone I want to go as soon as possible.

One day people will look back and say how cruel and selfish we were to see our loved ones suffer.

No we are on a higher plane than animals, yet they get more compassion and consideration than humans.

Of course it is open to abuse, but that is no reason to deny the release of death to those for whom there is only agony and suffering left in this world.

I have literally watched members of my familly been eaten away by cancer - and thats what it is, every vital organ in your body literally been eaten away by a malignant parasite of cancer. No body should ever have to suffer that and no one should have to watch as a loved one suffers. We would never let a pet suffer when there is a choice for them not to suffer. The fact that we are humans should give us that same right. When the illness is terminal and brings pain which we cannot imagine there has to be a way to avoid this for all concerned. This has to be addressed

Can we not just kill ourselves by a rather painless mean if we wanted to?

I'm sure we could think of something if we were in that much pain.