Euthanasia on Wall of Mouths

Euthanasia

Started by CS (Colin S) in Chit-Chat

Who agrees / disagrees with euthanasia?

Personally I agree with it being legalised in the UK, providing it won’t be abused.

I’m also doing this as a GCSE essay, so thoughts please. :)

Colinxx

Posted on Mon, 25 September 2006 at 13:43

You’re viewing replies 1–30 of 33 by 12 people

Page: First | Previous | Next | Last

tatty seaside town wrote:

active or passiv?

Posted on Mon, 25 September 2006 at 13:44

CS (Colin S) wrote:

Active.

Colinx

Posted on Mon, 25 September 2006 at 13:48

Dennis wrote:

Colin? wrote:
Who agrees / disagrees with euthanasia?

Personally I agree with it being legalised in the UK, providing it won’t be abused.

I’m also doing this as a GCSE essay, so thoughts please. :)

Colinxx

I think a lot of the arguments against it tend to be of the notion “what if it were abused..?” i.e. how do you know the patient wants to die and isn’t coerced into it?

However, the basic priciple of euthanasia is simply this: If someone has no hope of recovery and has a sound mind to choose for themselves, why shouldn’t they choose to end their life without further delay?

I find it hard to argue against this. Of course, there are flaws, such as the fact the system may be abused, the possibility of misdiagnosis, but these are very very unlikely, and if you use a pratice as they do already in countries where it is legal ,where you have authorities to answer to and medical and legal experts to appease before you can go ahead, I don’t see why anyone should frown upon it, especially as human beings have no hesitation about ending the life fo a suffering animal - should someone suffer excruciating pain that can only get worse, just cos they are human whereas a cat would be put out of their pain?!

Posted on Mon, 25 September 2006 at 13:52

CS (Colin S) wrote:

I agree with you there Dennis.

However people are constantly bringing religion into it, saying God can only give live, therefore he can only take it.

But with young people being less religious, and young people being the future, do we really care about religion? I know I don’t.

Colinxx

Posted on Mon, 25 September 2006 at 14:14

tatty seaside town wrote:

the question is really. what objective reasons are there, to do that? i think i couldn´t do it if my parents wanted it to. I don´t know yet.

Abuse? thats really hard. can we really say, that abuse is 100% unreal? and if we say, its not 100% realistic, that there is no abuse, shouldn´t we say “no” to euthanasia, cause its not 100% realistic, that there is no abuse?

Posted on Mon, 25 September 2006 at 14:16

Dennis wrote:

you can apply that logic to anything though..

If we can’t be 100% sure that a kitchen knife won’t be abused and used by someone to stab someone, do we ban all kitchen knives?

The argument of abuse has been applied to the death penalty debate, but you could apply it to prisons too - some totally innocent people have their lives robbed from them by being locked up when they’ve done no wrong. Do we let EVERYONE out of prison, just in case?

I think there has to be an acceptable margin of error to everything, the main question is how much of a margin are we prepared to take.?

And as for religious considerations, there is no argument with people who have made their mind up that euthanasia is against God’s wishes. If that’s what they believe, then you can’t argue with it really.
However, are we a society that believes in God in general, or are we a democratic country that puts the decision in man’s hands?

Posted on Mon, 25 September 2006 at 14:28

Muskeg (Yes, It's me.) wrote:

Isn’t it a song off Kill ‘Em All ?

Posted on Mon, 25 September 2006 at 14:41

Dennis wrote:

I think we have a volunteer to test out our new “Involuntary euthanasia” medicines…

Posted on Mon, 25 September 2006 at 14:42

tatty seaside town wrote:

can we really compare the kitchen knifes debatte with euthansia?

death penalty? hmmm that is a similiar discussion, right.

so how should decide that some persons life could be ended (besides that the person said so)? and who will pull the trigger?
what objective criteria could be brought up to come to a understandable decision?

Posted on Mon, 25 September 2006 at 15:52

#10

Dennis wrote:

All I was trying to do with the kitcen knives thing is to illustrate that in life there are very few certainties and the only way to protect us 100% from the abuse of something, whether it is a system or a household object or whatever, is to ban it completely. My point was we’d ban EVERYTHING by that logic, so it isn’t a good argument against euthanasia on its own.

Posted on Mon, 25 September 2006 at 15:57

#11

Dennis wrote:

Criteria we may consider:
NB I am not saying I agree or disagree with any one of these!

The level of pain the patient is in.
The prognosis for the future - whether it be a certain and painful death, whether it be long-term pain without a necessarily earlier death.
The cost that keeping them alive would incur.
The fact that their diagnosis had been verified by more than one separate, independent qualified doctors.
The fact that their wish had been clearly stated.
The patient is in fully sound mind when the decision is made.
The decision is fully and exclusively the decision of the patient themselves.

Any more anyone can think of…?

Posted on Mon, 25 September 2006 at 16:01

#12

tatty seaside town wrote:

i knew what you mean.
i don´t have a real opinion about it at the moment, cause its a difficult question. i just wanted to throw things in to the discussion like you did. :)

Posted on Mon, 25 September 2006 at 16:13

#13

Misanthropologist (d) wrote:

Dennis wrote:
Criteria we may consider:
NB I am not saying I agree or disagree with any one of these!

The level of pain the patient is in.
The prognosis for the future - whether it be a certain and painful death, whether it be long-term pain without a necessarily earlier death.
The cost that keeping them alive would incur.
The fact that their diagnosis had been verified by more than one separate, independent qualified doctors.
The fact that their wish had been clearly stated.
The patient is in fully sound mind when the decision is made.
The decision is fully and exclusively the decision of the patient themselves.

Any more anyone can think of…?

I wouldn’t call it a criteria, but the exact nature of the moral responsibility a doctor (or othr caregiver) actually has towards the patient.

Posted on Mon, 25 September 2006 at 21:59

#14

The Auto Surgeon (Mark) wrote:

Squall wrote:
Isn’t it a song off Kill ‘Em All ?

:D

No, Dave Mustaine took it for the name of one of Megadeth’s albums. :D

As for the point in question - I don’t beleive in any god or afterlife. Once your gone - your gone. But for if Euthanasia is to work, the decision should be the same way as the “do not resusitate (I know I can’t spell)” situation with doctors. Once you have come to this decision, inform your doctors, then inform your immediate family & loved ones. Do it in this order so that you have explained to your doctor your reasons why. Then those close to you, so that you have all the clear medical back ground to the situation, should it every arise. Hopefully we all live to a ripe old age & die of natural causes. But unfortuantely is doesn’t always work this way. And this is what I have done.

Still love Suing God!! :D

Posted on Mon, 25 September 2006 at 22:08

#15

The Auto Surgeon (Mark) wrote:

Sorry if I sound a bit morbid :( :)

Posted on Mon, 25 September 2006 at 22:09

#16

Dennis wrote:

Not at all mate, hard to cover the topic of euthanasia without touching upon death and mortality, really!

*carries on applying his black eye-liner and checking his black nail varnish*

oh by the way, am I still alright to borrow your Rasmus CDs…?

Posted on Tue, 26 September 2006 at 10:58

#17

Citizen Erased wrote:

I’m thinking mainly of people suffering from terminal illnesses here, but here’s my thoughts…

To not legalise euthanasia when suicide is legal seems to discriminate against people unable to kill themselves - if they were unable to kill themselves due to physical disabilities, surely this would be contravening their right to equality?

To insist that such people have to live could also be argued as a breach of their human rights as it would mean that you are imposing suffering on them.

People have a right to life, which should imply the ability to end their own life when they so choose.

Making euthanisia legal in some EU countries and not in others seems contrary to the EU policy of having a level playing field and has given rise to cases of ‘death-tourism’.

Finally, if the argument that people are going to do it anyway is worth making for drug abuse and for prostitution, it can surely be run for euthanasia as well, and a humane society should perhaps try to “manage” the situation rather than ban it.

Posted on Tue, 26 September 2006 at 11:19

#18

Misanthropologist (d) wrote:

“People have a right to life, which should imply the ability to end their own life when they so choose.”

One argument against that though is that when someone is said to have a right it is usually understood to mean that everyone else has a duty not to interfere with that right. You can’t be said to have a right to freedom of speech if everyone else is allowed to beat you up and lock you away if you exercise your right.
So the argument for some is: people have a right to life, therefore we have a duty not to take that life from them.

Posted on Tue, 26 September 2006 at 11:46

#19

Dennis wrote:

yes but when you lock someone up for what they say, that is against their wishes, when they have asked you to take their life away, that is different, no..?

It is the same as their right to remain silent - This doesn not detract from their right to freedom of speech, same as euthanasia doesn’t deny someone their right to live, as long as it is their own choice to die (and if it isn’t, then it ain’t euthanasia, it is murder).

Posted on Tue, 26 September 2006 at 11:54

#20

Misanthropologist (d) wrote:

Certainly, yes. The rights/duties argument isn’t mine, I was just pointing it out.
Personally, I think moral theory should rest entirely on notions of consent. Anything is acceptable, from a practicable moral viewpoint, so long as everyone involved consents.
The key problem with that is identifying who ‘everyone involved’ is. The person in pain, and the person to carry out the euthanasia, naturally. But what about family? Friends? Indignant busybodies? etc.
(There are other problems with a consent theory of morality, but… *shrugs* bored now. :))

Posted on Tue, 26 September 2006 at 12:04

#21

Citizen Erased wrote:

The only rights an individual has are the rights allowed by society, generally codified by the law. Society should uphold those rights, which is why we pay taxes to pay for the police stopping ne’er-do-wells from going about their untoward business…

On the one hand you could argue that saying you should be able to assisted to die is like being given assistance to go shopping - you have a right to it, but it doesn’t mean anyone has to help.

On the other hand you could argue that it is more like the right to enter public buildings - if you’re not able-bodied enough to do so on your own, arrangements need to be made to allow you to do so & this is supported by the state.

Posted on Tue, 26 September 2006 at 13:16

#22

Misanthropologist (d) wrote:

But (and again this isn’t my view) it was the question of the right to die that I was responding to in your last post. The right to life (and, even, the right to a pain-free life), does not of itself support the right to die.
Given the notion of the right to death, however, I do agree with you. It’s just that such a right can actually stand in opposition to the right to life, in that their respective duties may be contradictory. As such, the right to death potentially undermines the separate notion of the right to life. Allowing both seems to require an alternative to both.

Unassisted ‘euthaniasia’ is surely just suicide?

Posted on Tue, 26 September 2006 at 13:34

#23

joseph? wrote:

The “do not resusitate” sitiuation is based on how long there has been no pulse, isn’t it? Four minutes I think.

And you cannot commit euthaniasia without assistance, but even if sucicide was illegal what can they do about it anyway?

Posted on Thu, 28 September 2006 at 00:46