Euthanasia?
 

After having an interesting argument on the topic at a local debating competition, I was wondering what the rest of you think of it? You don't have to go into specifics, but feel perfectly free to do so. :bigsmile: There's a definition below for those of you who aren't sure what it is.

"Euthanasia is the practice of killing a person or animal, in a painless or minimally painful way, for merciful reasons, usually to end their suffering."

I did an essay on this and a presentation about it at college. It's so deep and complex but in a nutshell I think it should be legal (though its never going to happen)

I think it should be allowed if the person, primary carer and medical professionals agree that life is excrutiatingly painful/depressing for the individual and that the person would benefit from ending their life. If the person has children of a dependent age then I don't think it should be allowed until they are over the age of 16 as that would be unfair on the child. Other things should be taken into account such as mental stability as if the person is not all there mentally, they may be making a decision which they do not fully understand.

I agree that if a animal is suffering then it should be put to rest peacefully, and painlessly. I don't think that the animal should continue to live on in pain and suffering.

It's legal for animals

Why I have always wondered are we fine about stopping the suffering of our pets in this country but allow humans to carry on suffering for what the professionals call "preservation of life" what if that person does not want their life preserved, what if it is far to painful.

Other countries have strict laws that allow Euthanasia which the UK should look at. Many people from the UK go abroad to end their lives, it seems sad that they have to leave the comfort of their own homes and lives to end their suffering.

Euthanasia is something I have always thought should be allowed for people and will always support.

Sorry, but this should remain ilegal, otherwise it will remove protection from the elderly and the disabled as organisations or other individuals bump vulnerable people off as a matter of expediencey.

There was a testimony of someone who wanted to die, and would be dead by now if it was allowed, but they manage to turn things around and are living an active life now.

We can presumably put men on the moon. Invent the wonderfull internet. But cannot produce a set of safegaurds to allow those who do not want to continue to suffer to choose not to suffer.

What hypocrytical maddness. Religions will probably be against it because religions thrive on stories of horror and suffering. Could call it their trade mark.

Of course it should be legal and it's about time our religious riddles politions started thinking about humanity instead of religious dogma that belongs to the dark ages....

It is not so much to do with religion here, but the danger of the system being abused. In the one country where this has been allowed there have been cases of involuntary euthanasia where it was done to get rid of someone they thought was a burden or a nuisance.

It is like the anti terror legislation being used to spy on people to see if they live where they live when applying for a school place.

Such a system is open to abuse

Agree totally.

I believe the one place where it is legal is Holland, and there are reported cases where the euthanasia was at the behest of someone else and not the victim.

If it costs more to treat someone than to kill them, or if the cost of care will eat inheritance, the patients will be put under pressure to opt for euthanasia, if someone does not go for that option for them.

And that is precisely what has been happening

Source

Not so long ago parents with down syndrome children were given this wonderful answer to their 'problem' , Euthanasia.
In Nazi germany it extend to legalised murder, incorporating anyone else with a physical/mental disability, gypsies, jews, and probably then would have extended to people with in growing toe nails, or birth marks, such was the lovely Nazi party who took this idea to its ultimate.
We may not have a perfect system here but the alternative is open to abuse, maybe not as bad, but one life lost to abuse is one way to many for the humane amongst us at least.

The polititions have never got round to even trying to come up with a sysytem of protection against abuse. Like I said if man kind can put it's mind to science then surely they can devise a system of safe gaurds.

The legal sytem of putting people on trial can result in abuse by rich lawyers getting rich clients off. But we don't go around saying we should not ahave a trial system just because it goes wrong sometimes.

The real abuse is allowing or forcing people to suffer horrendously without even trying to solve a difficult problem..At the the end of the day religious dogma puts a stop to even considering it.......

Well said Bananarama I couldnt agree more. I just think how hard can it be to create a system and at least trial it? I recently produced guidance for end of life care training and the key to everything written was choice, the dignity agenda says people should first and foremost have choices about their care, yet we fail to allow them a choice to die when their suffering is so unbearable.

If we had such a system, then elderly people could be pressurised by children or those with a financial interest, into opting for euthanasia just to save money.


i.e it is easy to imagine this conversation, even if it is not as blatant

A possibility in some cases. That is what intelligent safe gaurds would be designed to prevent. Don't for one moment try and convince me that if people cared about the suffering of terminal ill people that they would not at least have an open mind and try and solve the safe gaurd problem.....I will keep on saying this time and time again because it is true....Religious dogma will always destroy more than it creates.....

As long as we have ministers or prime ministers afflicted with the addiction of dark age beliefs then humanity will stay out of the window and inhumanity will flourish.

Example....Blair/Bush pair of religious addicts....What followed!!! Iraq war and all the on going tragedy that will continue to follow....Now we have Brown boasting about a religious upbringing and we have a government that hits the poor more that the rich....

Sorry but religion and politics is a recipe for inhumanity and disaster......and a total disregard for freedom of choice and rights....

I think it should be legalised. If someone is suffering THAT much, and its THEIR decision why should we let them die painfully, and slowly.

If I was dying, and I was in pain and I had no life, I would want it to end right there.

I think its horrible leaving someone to literally wait to die.

But what about those who can not voice their desires, does someone else make a decision?

This takes us towards a slippery slope that takes us the way of the abuses that the Nazi regime carried out, as mentioned by another poster.

they should trial it, perhaps with giving their own consent and having at least opinions from a doctor without families pressuring them into it. if its a success then roll it out across the country.

some people are very narrow minded about it until a horrible terminal illness happens to someone close to them, and its not nice at all to watch someone you know and love deteriorate at such a rapid rate where they are almost unrecognisable and clearly dont want to be here anymore.

in some countries where it is legal, not many people actually go through with it. doctors will send them out the right drugs to finish them off but not many people actually take them.

the laws should be relaxed quite a lot although it would leave a lot of grey areas.

The Nazi regime was about suffering........Exactly what we allow terminally ill people to experience....

Slippery slope and Nazi talk is just scare mongering to avoid the issue of at least trying to develop safe gaurds.....

if it was legal the slippery slope argument would be drastically cut back. the argument consists of one person being allowed the right to die, but others not. if it was legal then everyone would be allowed the right to die- therefore the main bulk of the slippery slope argument eliminated straight away.

the thing that confuses me over euthanasia is that suicide is legal so imo so should assisted suicide. if someone wants to die they have the option to via suicide, but if they are not physically capable then they should be allowed to be assisted. suicide can be seen (to some degree) as a basic human right, and i think essentially denying some people this option is just like denying someone the right to food or the right to water etc.

I think Euthanasia should be legalised. However, it is very debatable when it is volunaty euthanasia or non-voluntary euthanasia, because people can do it for their own benefits, eg. gaining money.

But i do think that if someone is suffering and in great pain they should have their own choice on whether to end their life, by assisted suicide.

Or maybe people should consult the hospice movement who have made excellent in roads on pain management

but what if even without the pain they have no quality of life? euthanasia isn't just a "relief" those with cancer and other illnesses, people who are paralysed or are in a vegetative state and have zero quality of life because they can't do anything themselves and people have to move them every hour or so to avoid bed sores. some people who want the right to die are not necessarily about to die, but instead have no quality of life and no amount of morphine will suffice.

Fantastic so when I am incontinent and in agony oh and lets not forget vommiting with the pain medication I will remember that great things have been done in terms of pain management!

Should be legal.

Have they.....Pain management so called is a joke.....What about nursing homes been to any lately on a regular basis....Pain is not the only problem with teminal illness. One can suffer in many ways not including pain. Stuggling for breath......The feeling of wanting to vomit but cannot. Hanging on to life is not just about pain.......

Those that are forced to hang onto life against their will is an act of barbaric torture.....Is that what religion stands for.....More often than not the answer to that question is a resounding YES.......

I don't think I have used religion in this argument at all :conf:

No you have not, I don't think people are getting your reasoning to this theory being open to abuse.
No body wishes to see suffering espeicially at first hand and in particular when that suffering is from a loved one close to death.
Some of the comments here seem to forget the very personal issues here without realising how hurtful this dilemma can be for them.
Some people need to consider carefully that, those opposed to euthanasia may actually care more about someones suffering and life, than those that absolutely don't.
Not forgetting one abuse of this law if ever Euthanasia was made legal, would be one to many.
Would the people in favour of Euthansia then feel guilty of, or aiding legalised murder?
Of cours not that would simply be unfair, rather like those in favour of euthanisia now 'accusing' people not in favour to be uncaring to the point of enjoying a persons suffering.

Our politics is riddled with religion. Prime Minister, Ministers. As such they will block any attempt for a solution to be found due to their dogmatism. However they will find time to discuss and pass laws to kill the unborn.....

If someone really cares about suffering they will hunt relentlessly for a possible solution instead of scaremongering about the negative possibilities.

There is no such thing as a perfect solution to anything. We send our children to school and some get bullied and some commit sucide as a result. We don't go around saying we should not have scools. equally we should not dismiss the possibility of carfully regulated euthenasia.. To do so is to allow avoidable human torture.

To do so is to allow avoidable human torture. [/quote]


You see this what your missing, and that reply is quite frankly insulting.

NOBODY wishes to see a loved one suffer and your suggesting people who do, do so deliberately by torturing them.
That view is, as I said, is just as insulting as saying those in favour of killing someone alive are aiding murder.
whether its direct action or by passing a law which eventually results in ONE case of abuse, are you going to live easy knowing you aided a pre-meditated murder?

Of course that would be unfair just as unfair as calling people who don't see your point of view as condoning torture. It's NOT law in this country for a damn good reason, people will take advantage of a change.
We have a good system now where if you were in this situation I'm sure your consequences would be looked at sympatheticaly, passing a law won't much change the death rate but if it saves one life from abuse surely thats ONE life DEFINATELY worth saving.

I believe if someone is in pain or have no quality of life, they should be allowed to die if they choose to, Who are we to prolong someone's suffering if they do not want it anymore? It's inhumane.

Euthanasia should be legalised. The member who said think of the pain management, then Euthanasia is the ultimate pain management. Suicide is legal so why is assisted suicide illegal? Some people may want to commit suicide but are physically incapable.

Then also there are people who have been in comas for years and instead of being euthanised they are refused medical treatment, e.g. switching off life support. This is perfectly legal and is technically not euthanasia. However refusal of medical treatment is sometimes horrific. There was a story of an old woman with cancer who was refused any treatment at all and it took her 3 weeks to die, and when she finally did she was a shadow of her former self and weighed about 3 stone.

Of course issues are going to be raised in things like permission, and who speaks for those who can't speak etc but I think things like this could be ironed out with a considerable amount of thought.

Speaking from personal experience, its not nice to witness the rapid deterioration of someone close to you until within months they are not how you remember them. These final memories stick with you always and tarnish the great memories you had before that. Its strange, and not nice.

Finally, many people just want the right to die. Most people won't go through with it, as proved in other countries, people just want the right so they know the option is there for them if things start to get bad and they can't cope anymore.

my brother had a brain tumor he had a op but the cancer went down his spain all he could do was move his head, he asked to die so many times he was in so much pain he was so many drugs just to stop the pain, he asked them to stop it and let him go ,the doctors said they could not aloow him to be in pain so gave him more drugs, was so hard seeing him like that i was only 11, i asked my mum why they would not let him go, i had a cat that had cancer they put her to sleep why could they not do it for my brother he was in so much pain he was like it for 12 weeks he begged my mum to put a pillow over his face cus of the pain now if they put him to sleep he would have died peacfull he died in so much pain, it was so unfaiir to see him like that he was 19 and they found out when he was 15 he had cancer, i would never ever want to see anyone in the pain he was in so they should do it for people that want to go

They should also consider how much money they could save and put back into the NHS. If someone has cancer and they quickly deteriorate over a year and they want to die within that year, all of the care, equipment and medication prescribed is worthless. The person doesn't want to be there so why should the tax payer pay to keep them alive when they don't want to be? People are being kept alive and its wasting money that could be used elsewhere. The person might want to die so its pointless them receiving the treatment to prolong an unwanted life.

I know this post sounds quite ruthless but its really not supposed to come across that way, hopefully you are all intelligent enough to see the point I'm making by ignoring the way I've worded it.

So people who are suicidal should be helped to commit suicide, especially if they are on benefit and not in work to save tax payers money?

That is the logical conclusion of that argument.

I never mentioned a thing about benefits.

No its not, my argument is if someone doesn't want to be alive then they should be given the right to die if they want to use it. If someone doesn't want to be here then is it really worth all the medical treatment that costs thousands per person if they don't want to even be alive in the first place? Its prolonging a life where the 'owner' doesn't want it. It would save a hell of a lot of money and would help solve some of the problems currently being faced financially by the NHS and would go towards the treatment of patients who will gain a better quality of life from it, not helping prolong a life of someone who doesn't live and someone who has a low quality of life that cannot improve.

Not at all, indeed as someone who is in favour of the current system where euthansia isn't a statutory right, I think your point shows how delicate a problem this.
Both sides don't wish to see suffering, myself least of all and this view (one of many I could have selected from those against my oppinion) shows exactly the same care and sicnserity there is on the side of euthanasia.
It has certainly made me think closely of the issues, its been a first class thread and considering the age of some of you guys, thoroughly well thought and argued.
:thumbs:

I dont think anyone suggested that for one second Sticks, you know they didnt. We are talking about terminally ill people in this thread who want the "choice" about suffering or not suffering. As someone who has been with a close family member until they passed I feel strongly that we should be allowed to assist them to end their suffering if that is what they want.

You can talk about all the pain mangement in the world but it has huge consequences as well, it can cause nausea, vomitting, drowsiness, confusion etc.. why should we have to put up with that if we dont want to.