| | |  | This is the Conversation Forum for Talking Point: Whose life is it anyway?
<< Pain
Euthanasia in art and media >> | |
| | | Subject: Euthanasia
Posted Mar 13, 2003 by The Alleged Linguist
This is a reply to this Posting
| | Posting
6
  | | I think Euthanasia should legal at the very least for terminally ill patients in pain, the elderly, the severely physically handicapped and all those for whom life can be a fate worse than death. I also think that instead of life sentence and capital punishment prisoners should be given a choice between spending the rest of their lives in a high-security prison or being euthanised.
I think my moment of enlightenment about the US' "pro-life" movement came when a member of the Bush administration claimed something along the lines of "We respect the right to life from conception until death" in a county with capital punishment.
Sorry for mixing up a bunch of vaguely related subjects.
|
| | | Subject: Euthanasia
Posted Mar 13, 2003 by azahar
This is a reply to this Posting
| | Posting
7
| | hi A.L.
I think you have to mix them up - all these different ideas of what is a 'proper and acceptable death'. Yes, if you say euthanasia is acceptable under certain cirmumstances, then why not abortion, or why not - as you pointed out - deathrow prisoners who might prefer to just get it over with rather than spend the next 60 years behind bars.
(actually, I don't think of abortion as a death sentence, but you mentioned it in your posting)
The tricky legal factor is always the 'being in right mind' thing. So a completely bedridden person dying of cancer who is constantly in pain and perhaps at this moment not thinking 'clearly enough' to sign the necessary papers to end their suffering has to continue to suffer.
And also the religious factor comes in quite heavily, saying thou shalt not kill and all of that.
Perhaps, just as there are now organ donor forms on the back of driving licenses, we should also have the option (while we are still in our right mind) to sign papers that state we would prefer to pull the plug in the case of serious painful terminal illnesses.
This is a matter that should only be a totally personal choice, but the truth is this choice is not usually given to the person in the situation of deciding to end it or not. My stepmother held on for almost two years, suffering like crazy, yet she didn't want to die. Even at the very end, she just weighed about 50 pounds and every breath was a torture, yet she didn't want to die. My father went for cancer tests at the hospital and two weeks later he was dead - fast and relatively painless. But I also know that my father had wanted to die anyhow, which is why he waited until he had seven cancers growing quite happily in his body before he went for tests.
Two different people with terminal illnesses who had two totally different responses. It's very hard to come up with any rule for this sort of thing. You can't ever say that if a life is full of pain it is better ended. Case in point, my stepmother. Boy, did that woman suffer and suffer. But she didn't want to let go of her life, not until the very last very painful moment. On the other hand, my father had already let go of his life, even before he went into the hospital for tests.
Me? I'd like to have the choice, even though choosing would be very frightening.
|
| | | Subject: Euthanasia
Posted Mar 13, 2003 by azahar
This is a reply to this Posting
| | Posting
9
| | >>It's also fairly ironic that its legal to try and commit suicide, but if you want someone to help you it becomes illegal<<
In fact, in some places it legal to actually commit suicide but illegal if you attempt to kill yourself and fail to do so - now that is REALLY ironic.
|
| | | Subject: Euthanasia
Posted Mar 13, 2003 by daraline, keeper of unusual rats and deranged hamsters
This is a reply to this Posting
| | Posting
10
| | it is, and always be an emotive subject. there are those that argue that life is a god given gift and therefore to end it is a mortal sin. there are those who argue that god gave us free will.
my grandad died 2 and a half years ago. he suffered from a form of muscular dystrophy that only attacks in middle age. it starts from the feet up. by the early 80's he had been medically retired from the m.o.d. he pottered about, sometimes a bit unsteady on the old pins. then it got to where he spent more time indoors as he couldn't walk about so much. then came the time when he was totally housebound. grandad never even saw the house where i now live. it's only 8 miles or so from his and nan's place. he had to use a zimmer frame to get up from his chair and walk around. he was also in a lot of pain. for the last year of his life he used to say that we wouldn't let a dog suffer so. for that last year, he refused to go into a hospital. his brain was working fine. his body just couldn't keep up. by this time my nan was caring for him 24-7. he couldn't sleep because of the pain so he used to sit downstairs and watch tv or old videos. nan would sleep in the living room to be near him if he needed or wanted anything. when he did relent and go into hospital, he only lived for another week or so. he spent about the last half of that unconcious. the hospital staff were wonderful. they kept him clean etc. nan and my dad didn't even consult each other when the consultant asked them about resusitation. they both said no, he had suffered enough. he passed on a saturday morning, at dawn. if he had been allowed to, he would have gladly accepted euthanasia. he did not want to suffer. the family suffered with him. if i had been able to i would have given him that injection. as he said, we wouldn't have let a dog suffer so.
that's my view. some people may agree with me. some may not. but it boils down to one simple premise. do you want to suffer?
|
| | | Subject: Euthanasia
Posted Mar 13, 2003 by Mort - A Girl, Interrupted
This is a reply to this Posting
| | Posting
11
| | This is a subject that is close to the heart with alot of people judging by the previous posts.
this bit may upset pet lovers......
I worked it out once, (albeit a few years ago so the number will have increased alot) that i have either administered a lethal injection myself or assisted with it in at least 2,000 animals. I have seen it from all the angles as 'doer', helper and pet owner.
As in a previous post in the other thread to this topic, it is true, often times you do see it in their eyes, sometimes fear, sometimes pleading but alot of the time grateful. (not just my imagination as if that were the case then i would chose them all to be grateful)
We would often look at each other afterwards and say, he didnt want to go or did you see his eyes, he was a tired boy ready to go.
Because i have seen it as an acceptable thing with animals i think that my opinions are probably very biased but i do think that it should be available for people. Nobody would ever do it to a person that didnt want it, and having a disability shouldnt mean you are automatically assumed to need it. In fact i think the opposite would happen, because it is so irreversable, it would be incredibly hard to convince anyone enough that you were serious.
My nana had dimmensia and for the last 3 and a half to 4 years of her life every day was a torment for her as she was stuck in a mindset of abandonment by her family (which was not true) she never remembered people that had visited her or indeed who they were, she always wanted 'her boys' (her 4 sons) around her. This was terrible for her, she was always in distress. But physically she was as healthy as any 90 year old would be. I am not sure if for her sake it would have been better ending sooner, certainly as a family it was painful to see her, but her pain was worse than our own feelings.
Our basic view in the veterinary proffession is the pain/quality of life balance. when there is no quality of life and it wont get any better then it is only right to give your loved ones some peace and dignity in death.
And lets face it, it is often done in all but name anyway. I have 3 close friends who had a parent and all had cancer. In the end the nurse told them that they can do no more but keep them pain free, but the painkiller (prob morphine or diamorphine) may be too much for the body to cope with, and sure enough within a few hours of being given this high dose of painkiller the person died. This isnt seen as assisted suicide, but by my definitions it is.
If you love someone then you should be allowed to free them of whatever burden they feel they have - physical or mental. But there would have to be stringent safety protocols.
I know which way i chose to die. Dying naturally is one h*ll of a nasty way to go.
|
| | | Subject: Euthanasia
Posted Mar 13, 2003 by The Butcher
This is a reply to this Posting
| | Posting
12
| | "it is only right to give your loved ones some peace and dignity in death."
Agreed. My grandfather would have wanted to be put out of his misery. 3 years of being bedridden and progressively succumbing to dementia.
I clearly recall him saying (in the last few months of his clear-minded life, when his body had deteriorated):
"I used to be able to provide for my wife, take out the trash, fix things around the house, and now I can't do anything."
He was miserable. If he had known what he'd be like two years from then, I have no doubt he would have wanted to be euthanized.
But then, how would we *really* know if he wanted to die, if he was not aware of his situation, as happened later on?
My mother made the decision to stop medications, but it still took over a year for him to finally go. It was ugly, it was morbid, and completely unecessary.
The problem was that much had been done to save his life after his strokes, and keeping him alive then precipitated the long, miserable path to senility. But we couldn't have known it then.
I don't know if it's right to euthanize a person who is utterly senile, but I have to support a person's right to die in the face of a painful terminal illness.
|
|  |
| | | Subject: Euthanasia
Posted Mar 14, 2003 by Dr Zen now with PhD Funding.
This is a reply to this Posting
| | Posting
14
| | Look at if from the other side of the needle, I hope, (if I get one with some work and stop hootooing!) to be a  in a couple of years. And I really don't think I would like to kill someone it goes against all the prinicpals of medicine. Yes if it was really sure that it was too end suffering, but I would never be sure that that was why they wanted to go, what if they were worried about nursing home fees or felt they were a burden on there family.
Also, and I know this is uncomfortable for many people but I'm not really sure that relatives are the most trustworthy people when it comes to making end of life descions. After all the chances are that they will be benifiting financially from the death of their loved one.
My Grandmother told me of one of her friends who had cancer, yet it was well controlled with pain relief and she still enjoyed her social life, was admitted to hosipital, whilst she was unconscious her son asked the doctor about euphansia, explaing that she was housebound and constantly in pain from cancer. The doctor told him that it would be illegal, and she regained consciuonsness and recovered well, when she got home she remembered that her life insurance had expired the week she was in hospital, had she died on the first day her son would have recieved several thousends of pounds.
Whenever anyone is diagnosed with a life limiting condition that means that they no longer can go on with the things that they enjoy doing, they feel depressed and useless. Then they begin to reasses their life, find other things that they enjoy and get used to it.. If people were allowed euphanaisa then many would request it inthe first stage, when if they went on living then they would get used to it.
I have met people who are bedbound who still do things they enjoy in life, still manage to be cheerful.
Also there's an issue of trust, would you really trust your doctor if he could legally kill you, yes there are legal safeguards, but would you trust someone you had never met not to fake your signature.
This issue with animals is different, many animals are destoryed because the owner doesn't want to burden the rspca, or can't afford the vets bills, ie for the benifit of people not animals.When we found out our cat had incurable illness the vet wanted to destory her even though she still had a good qualifty of life, she still chased  ate will and didn't appear to be in any pain.
|
| | | Subject: Euthanasia
Posted Mar 14, 2003 by PQ - possibly back
This is a reply to this Posting
| | Posting
15
| | Wow Z - thank you for this...I was beginning to think I was the only person worried about relaxing euthanasia laws . That was certainly the impressoin I got last time I talked about this subject.
I've always said I would gladly risk imprisonment for helping my husband die - rather than risk one person dying prematurely. I think that the law as it stands is a useful safeguard that ensures people don't do things like this on a whim. I would never take this decision lightly and would only do it if I was 100% sure that it was what my husband would want - in those circumstances doing what is right for him would be far more important to me than the possible consequences.
My husband's mum works in home care and the stories she tells me about vulnerable people being manipulated by their "loved ones" frighten me. If anything we need more support available for people who are having a tough time - not to make it easier for their "loved ones" to cash in on a bad day/month/year.
|
| | | Subject: Euthanasia
Posted Mar 14, 2003 by Mort - A Girl, Interrupted
This is a reply to this Posting
| | Posting
17
| | i think that there are some good points raised here but also that there are several different issues concerning us that cant be categorised under a general heading of 'euthanasia'
"When we found out our cat had incurable illness the vet wanted to destory her even though she still had a good qualifty of life, she still chased ate will and didn't appear to be in any pain."
Z-that is totally right and assessing quality of life and pain management most vets wouldnt have advised immediate PTS (put to sleep)Its like everywhere you get good vets and bad vets or vets with a different view on things i should say. I would add that it is the minority of animals that get euth'd thru lack of cash etc(My vet hospital has a policy that there must be a good reason for doing it ie the animals best interests, unfortunately alot of vets dont)
But I guess that could be used to show how it could become if it were the same for people. Good docs and 'those with lesser ethical standards' may have totally different arguments for what they consider an appropriate course of action. That is why the restrictions on its use would have to be so tight, ie 3 doctor agreement, patient agreement and psychological assessment etc.
(Although i am pro the right to suicide i frequently talk to people trying to convince them that it is not the answer - because i believe their state of mind to be a temporary thing so i am aware how someone can be so certain they want to die and then after help be glad they didnt.So psyche assessment would be imperative before this could even be considered, and then ongoing throughout the whole procedure)
And not everyone with the same condition would feel the same. I think it would have to be a consistancy in the patients request. I am not sure that giving relatives the option to bump off there folks is something that could be realistically monitored.
My feeling is that if an individual is sure, of sound mind etc and has shown a consistancy in feeling this way, passed endless psyche analysis then they should be allowed to go. I suppose that the only time a euthanasia policy is relevant is if the patient is physically unable to complete suicide by themselves ie some type of motor neuron disease.
There was a woman who went to the European Court of Human Rights to be allowed to die, (wish i had a link) i believe that she had the same or similar thing to Stephen Hawkin. Two examples of how the same/similar illness can affect two people yet they feel the opposite about their lives - one has decided to end it while still able to remain able to make a decision, the other is continuing to contribute to the world of science. (and yes, what a loss of genius thought it would have been if he had decided to end it) Feel free to correct me if i got bits of this wrong or if anyone has a link as it is a very interesting and relevant case.
It has been interesting reading all the view points and just this small discussions has shown what a complicated issue it is.
I dont think it will ever be decriminalised and certainly not legalised because of the variables it would be hard to legislate.
I wish more money would spent on pain management, care of the elderly etc but it seems that private/government sponsorship of things like cloning and gene modifying are put before the people already in need of healthcare and other basic life neccessities (but i think that is another talking point!)
(Sorry long post)
|
| | | Subject: Euthanasia
Posted Mar 14, 2003 by Dr Zen now with PhD Funding.
This is a reply to this Posting
| | Posting
18
| | "ie 3 doctor agreement, patient agreement and psychological assessment"
I agree with you on most of your points, but if you look at the way existing "safegaurd systems" work in healthcare there are people who will find a way around them.
If we look at the abortion law as an example. (I'm not drawing any refereances here! it just shows what happens when safeguards are introduced)
When abortion was introduced in the uk the intention was to introduce a law that would only allow abortion when "to continue with an preganancy would cause serious damage to the mental or phsyical health of the woman or existing children", two doctors had to agree that this would be the case. The BMA said that they would thik that it would only happen in very rare situations, in fact they antipated only four cases a year.
Now there are thousands of abortions every year, almost every situation where a woman is distressed it can be considered that a birth would damage her mental health.
Pschy assessment is not infalable, it is just subjective opinions made by a person, albeit an experienced person. If a person was seriously depressed they could just go around all the psyches until they found one that they convicned.
|
|
|
   
 
Conversation list
Most of the content on h2g2 is created by h2g2's Researchers, who are members of the public. The views expressed are theirs and unless specifically stated are not those of the BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of any external sites referenced. In the event that you consider anything on this page to be in breach of the site's House Rules, please click on the relevant button to alert our Moderation Team. |
Home
