Thread: Euthanasia

I've had this discussion with a few friends of mine. Personally i believe that my life is my own. If One day i decide i no longer want it. I should have the right to be able to die.

The main point my friend brought up, was that it affects all of your family and friends around you. My argument against that is that i have no control over what my family and friends think or feel. Why should i be responsible for that. Their thoughts and feelings are their own problem (I'm a strong believer of mind over matter - that you can change how you feel about things by mastering your own mind)

Furthermore , there's some people in this world that i would be quite happy if they were dead, but that doesn't give me the right to kill them. So why if i wanted to die, why do i have to worry about what other people think?

Another point is that we get to choose when we put our pets down, if they're in too much pain or we can't afford the medical treatments... Why should this be any different for humans? because we're human we don't deserve an escape from pain?



Note: I'm still hoping not to die anytime in the next few decades, in case you're worried

I am a firm believer of euthanasia for someone who is in pain. I don't see the down sides to this practice apart from the religious aspect of "life is sacred" blah blah. If someone is in serious pain and terminal, let them choose when to end it.

I have seen in House M.D and read about how a lot of cancer doctors use euthanasia on their patients, although they will never speak of it or never admit it. People with terminal cancer really suffer the last few days, the pain can get so overhelming it can be compared with being shot every minute in the leg.

Although i understand some doctors do it i could never take a man's life even if he was suffering a lot, i guess that makes me weak for some.

oh and Dan btw, about "life is sacred" blah blah, i never want to see you make fun of religious people again. Keep your comments for yourself

Originally Posted by Balauru

Although i understand some doctors do it i could never take a man's life even if he was suffering a lot, i guess that makes me weak for some.

Definitely.

Originally Posted by Balauru

oh and Dan btw, about "life is sacred" blah blah, i never want to see you make fun of religious people again. Keep your comments for yourself

Actually, I didn't intend it to be derogratory at all, it's just how you read it.

If I remember, I'll respond this to tomorrow in more detail, but a few things to think about that I think you guys are forgetting/haven't considered:

1) The decision to kill yourself is suicide, not euthanasia. Specifically, the ethical dilemma surrounding euthanasia involves the fact that someone else is required to actually execute you. Whether you like it or not, there are far more emotions attached to killing a human than there are to killing an animal, and the two ideas are not compatible in the way you've presented them. There are existing laws, both moral and legal, which suggest it is unethical to kill a human. These laws do not exist for animals.

Anyway, what I'm getting at is the question of who would be obligated to comply with requests for euthanasia? Are we going to force doctors to start complying? I am currently considering a career in medicine, and I know that if I were obligated to execute my patients upon request, I would be forced to change my career. I'm not paying a fortune for medical school so that I can play executioner/God, and ideologically speaking, I believe the role of the doctor is to provide medical care to improve the chances of survival, and not to play God, deciding who lives and who dies. If the patient refuses such care, it is beyond the doctor's control, but it is anothe beast to require the doctor to comply with a request for euthanasia, which directly defies the ideological desires of most doctors (and the hippocratic oath, which is actually no longer required). Perhaps we can resolve this with an on-site staff member whose sole purpose is to play executioner. Do we require all hospitals to have someone on staff to perform the euthanization? But what about hospitals which are affiliated with a church? These hospitals are not currently obligated to comply with requests to murder children (abortion), so how would we legally force them to comply with demands to be euthanized?

2) There is the question of who is able to make the decision to be euthanized. Logically, we would need to ensure that the person making the decision is exercising their normal level of mental function when they make such a decision. We wouldn't want to "accidentally" kill someone who was just having a bad day and was depressed, when normally they would not have made such a decision. So who makes this judgment? What safeguards do we need to prevent a situation like this?

One of the odd-jobs I've taken in recent years is as a paramedic here in the US, and the laws regarding refusal of care are very strict. For example, if a family member calls an ambulance for someone who is intoxicated or mentally unaware for any reason, that family member will not be able to refuse our care. If necessary, we can have them arrested, strapped to ambulance bed, and take them to the hospital. If we come across someone who we believe is depressed or suicidal, we are not only allowed to force their compliance, but we are legally obligated to bring them to the hospital.

In the case of critically ill patients, medications, chemical imbalances, and various other factors can easily lead to episodes of depression, instability, unawareness, and frequently intoxication. How do we control for these factors? How do we know that our patient's unhappiness isn't being caused by a drug they are taking, and making them happy again is a simple matter of changing their prescription?

3) You also seem to have forgotten that the choice to "pull-the-plug" is often left up to the family or primary health contact to decide. How do we handle these situations? How can we judge the ability of someone else to decide whether or not our patient lives or dies?

4) It may seem possible to address point 1 by allowing a doctor+hospital to decide whether or not they support euthanization, and then allowing the patients who would want such a "service" to flock to these doctors, but how do we decide who is "eligible" to receive such a service? What level of pain or suffering needs to be proven? Do we allow Joe Schmoe off the street to come in and request to be murdered? How do we ensure a doctor who would agree to do this isn't actually psychopathic, and using this as an excuse to kill people, dropping the standard for proof significantly or perhaps even covering up other crimes?

This is a slippery slope, guys. It involves far more than a mentally competent person deciding they no longer want to live. I feel like it deserves more consideration than it's received so far. I look forward to hearing your responses. Anyway, it's 5:20 AM and I've been studying for finals all night, so I apologize if this post isn't the most eloquent. I'm sure I've left some important points out, but I just feel like a true discussion of euthanasia needs to expand to more than notions of "personal choice" and "terminal patients". Legalization of the practice opens up so many loopholes.

Originally Posted by Balauru

Although i understand some doctors do it i could never take a man's life even if he was suffering a lot, i guess that makes me weak for some.

I think it's a sign of great strength to maintain your ideals under that kind of stress. There is nothing weak about valuing the sanctity of human life.

Originally Posted by neurowiz

1) The decision to kill yourself is suicide, not euthanasia. Specifically, the ethical dilemma surrounding euthanasia involves the fact that someone else is required to actually execute you. Whether you like it or not, there are far more emotions attached to killing a human than there are to killing an animal, and the two ideas are not compatible in the way you've presented them. There are existing laws, both moral and legal, which suggest it is unethical to kill a human. These laws do not exist for animals.

Fair enough but we don't have to force doctors and hospitals to euthenize patients, we can leave it up to their and the hospitals discretion. I know there are many doctors who are against such a practice but I am also aware that there are countless doctors who who would carry out the practice as they can sympathize with their patients and would rather see them put out of their misery rather than struggle on just to die soon after.

Originally Posted by neurowiz

2) There is the question of who is able to make the decision to be euthanized. Logically, we would need to ensure that the person making the decision is exercising their normal level of mental function when they make such a decision. We wouldn't want to "accidentally" kill someone who was just having a bad day and was depressed, when normally they would not have made such a decision. So who makes this judgment? What safeguards do we need to prevent a situation like this?

How about some kind of committee who can review the requests case by case and are qualified to make an educated decision on whether the practice is ethical in the relevant case. You seem to be thinking from an entirely American point of view but what we are forgetting is that this is that this practice is already legal in other countries around the world, they obviously have a working system so it's doable.

Originally Posted by neurowiz

3) You also seem to have forgotten that the choice to "pull-the-plug" is often left up to the family or primary health contact to decide. How do we handle these situations? How can we judge the ability of someone else to decide whether or not our patient lives or dies?

Just an example but we could have the requirements as the person who is going to die needs to make a conscious decision before the time comes when he/she will be unable to communicate the request. Again, if the practice was legalized I'm sure someone far more qualified than me would come up with something better.

Originally Posted by neurowiz

4) It may seem possible to address point 1 by allowing a doctor+hospital to decide whether or not they support euthanization, and then allowing the patients who would want such a "service" to flock to these doctors, but how do we decide who is "eligible" to receive such a service? What level of pain or suffering needs to be proven? Do we allow Joe Schmoe off the street to come in and request to be murdered? How do we ensure a doctor who would agree to do this isn't actually psychopathic, and using this as an excuse to kill people, dropping the standard for proof significantly or perhaps even covering up other crimes?

This is a slippery slope, guys. It involves far more than a mentally competent person deciding they no longer want to live.

We would obviously not allow "Joe Schmo" to walk in and kill himself. Again, we could defer to a committee, which would prevent doctors from exploiting the practice. The doctor puts in a request to the committee who reviews the case and the patients wishes and make an executive decision on whether or not its ethical in the circumstances. The service would need to be for terminal patients only and only when the suffering is unbearable.

I know these weren't the best replies and I expect to go another round with you hehe, but I definitely think its possible to achieve a working system with minimal negative side effects.

I am almost completely on the same page as coldflame.
Death belongs in the hands of its owner.

Originally Posted by coldflame

Another point is that we get to choose when we put our pets down, if they're in too much pain or we can't afford the medical treatments... Why should this be any different for humans? because we're human we don't deserve an escape from pain?

It's a LOT more complicated for humans. You have to consider manipulation, foul play, and/or - indirect murder. If a certain family member is persistent, malicious and confidant enough, they can manipulate a sick person into accepting euthanasia for quicker gain to inheritance. You'll be seriously surprised what people will do for money, and euthanasia is no exception. Some people are so cold and heartless, they can even literally build a relationship with a sick person, helping them on a daily basis, telling that sick person how much they care for them with the one intention of only hoping that person will change or add them to their will, and when you add euthanasia to the mix, you've potentially got your self a murder that's highly difficult to prove.

I agree with the administration of euthanasia in the terminally ill because at least I think it's better to die than to be constantly suffering due to an illness like cancer for example ... in my opinion should only be given to people that death is imminent and is concerned only the remaining time of that person's life ... If there is still hope euthanasia should not be allowed because it is already taking lives ..