Euthanasia For or Against?

[WittyBird]

After recent comments on another thread I wondered what other peoples views were!

I agree with euthanasia and if it was me lying in a hospital terminally ill etc I would want someone to pull the plug.

It is a difficult subject but death comes to us all.

info here (http://www.euthanasia.com/)

Thoughts anyone?

[fletch]

I'm a believer that we make our own decision and this is one of them, I'm a yes !!
:sad:

[Lory]

I'm a believer that we make our own decision and this is one of them, I'm a yes !!
:sad::yeah: It's a Yes for me too

[TheTramp]

:yeah:

And there's a few other people that I'd like to pull the plug on as well :whistle:

[Andy McGregor]

This is a difficult area and I believe that the system we have in place in the UK is the right one.

[philsmove]

An impossible subject

5 years ago a friend in a wheel chair tired to “end it all” by wheeling himself into the docks

but he was pulled out of the water and rushed to intensive care

during several visits to see him in intensive care he made clear signals to me, that he wanted me to disconnect the life support

so what happened

well we spent yesterday evening, enjoying a fine bottle of wine

before that a neighbour was in terrible pain with cancer

they operated and when he came too, looking a beautiful nurse, dressed in white, he was convinced he was in haven

he was mega ****ed off when to find he was still alive and in hospital

He died in pain 4 days later

[Jenni]

Working as a care assistant with the elderly and disabled you try to give these people as much dignity and independence as you can - it makes me for euthanasia though cause if I was in the same situation I would rather not feel I was a burden to anyone and keep my dignity - I can never decide what would be worse, to be unaware your losing your functions or for your mind to be sharp as a pin inside a body which is failing

Jenni :flower:

[David Bailey]

I'm a "No", mainly for two reasons:

1. Avoid mistakes
If it's possible, I'd rather avoid a system where you can't reverse a decision (as Philsmove's first tale so eloquently demonstrates) because someone's died as a result. Which, by the way, is also the main reason I'm against the death penalty, and also opposed to some types of abortion (can of worms, here we come... :) ).

2. Avoid Pressure
Changing the law to allow euthanasia could act to also promote euthanasia, and I don't want cultural or social pressure to increase in this area.

Let me illustrate with an example:
Fast-forward, say, in fifty years. I'm gravely ill, in hospital surrounded by grieving relatives and my new 21-year old supermodel wife (hey, it's my fantasy). I'm consuming valuable and no-doubt-by-then privatised medical resources, which consumption is eating into my vast fortune (hey again).

At that point, if euthanasia is commonly-accepted, commonly-used, and easily available, there will be significant social pressure on both me and my family to pull the plug, which could distort my decision and their thoughts.

Absent such pressure, I might think "Hey, it's only money, I can't spend it when I'm gone - and the longer I'm here, the more time I can gaze at my adoring wife" or something. With that pressure, who knows?

Amazingly enough, I find myself agreeing with Mr MacGregor on this one; I don't see a major problem, so why make changes which could make things worse?

[Piglet]

If quality of life on this earth = no quality or very little for me then I'd want the option of ending it all and would be happy to sign something to say so.

And if it all happened in a gross error, then hey ho, that's how it goes.

As long as it was done with the best intentions then I wont be holding it against anyone.

[dee]

I've not yet read what this thread is about but i say yes to euthanasia and if the man woman next door wants some i would be neighbourly enough to put the b**ch out of her misery :mad: she is a waste of space!!! and lets not talk about space :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[WittyBird]

I've not yet read what this thread is about but i say yes to euthanasia and if the man woman next door wants some i would be neighbourly enough to put the b**ch out of her misery :mad: she is a waste of space!!! and lets not talk about space :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

:worthy: your just so damn funny
think we would all queue to help you with that :whistle:

[dee]

:worthy: your just so damn funny
think we would all queue to help you with that :whistle:

Well get queing matey :mad:

[CeeCee]

Originally posted by Piglet
If quality of life on this earth = no quality or very little for me then I'd want the option of ending it all and would be happy to sign something to say so.
The definition of quality of life would be?

Originally posted by Piglet
And if it all happened in a gross error, then hey ho, that's how it goes.
Not for those left behind. Someone would have to take the blame for the error.


Originally posted by Piglet
As long as it was done with the best intentions then I wont be holding it against anyone.
To repeat, someone would have to take the blame.

Entrance the legal system and disciplinary committees and litigation and...

[Missy D]

I'm a believer that we make our own decision and this is one of them, I'm a yes !!
:sad:

:yeah:

Its a yes for me too! I would hate to be kept alive with no quality of life. I have spent 18 months now visiting a very close friend in a neuro rehab unit and some of the patients there are in a terrible way. There is one young girl who is only about 21. She tried to take her own life which has left her so brain damaged. She wailes constantly, her body is a twisted mess, she is deaf, almost blind. She is in so much pain too. The rehab unit told the family that she is not responding to any treatement or therapy. This poor young girl is now in a nursing home where she will stay til the end of her days with absolutely no quality of life. I know if this were a relative of mine in would certainly choose euthanasia.

[Will]

I'm a no.

[TheTramp]

Not for those left behind. Someone would have to take the blame for the error.

Not sure quite what 'error' there could be here....

Someone who wants to die, gets counselling, makes the final decision, signs the forms to say that they want to die, and then dies.

I guess the only person who could possibly say that there was an error, and wanted to change their mind, could be the person. And they're dead. Which makes it kind of difficult.

Ditto, if family make a decision to 'pull the plug' on someone who isn't in a fit state. Again, there's no chance of finding out if they were going to get better. We'd never know if there was an error made....

[WittyBird]

Not sure quite what 'error' there could be here....

Someone who wants to die, gets counselling, makes the final decision, signs the forms to say that they want to die, and then dies.


Couldn't have said it better myself :worthy:

[stewart38]

Not sure quite what 'error' there could be here....

Someone who wants to die, gets counselling, makes the final decision, signs the forms to say that they want to die, and then dies.

I guess the only person who could possibly say that there was an error, and wanted to change their mind, could be the person. And they're dead. Which makes it kind of difficult.

Ditto, if family make a decision to 'pull the plug' on someone who isn't in a fit state. Again, there's no chance of finding out if they were going to get better. We'd never know if there was an error made....

Interesting so if your well enough to listen to counselling sign forms etc its ok to kill you

If you not well enough its ok for a family member to listen and sign forms and kill you

If an errors made so what your dead ?

I think people can guess Im a big fat NO

[Dance Demon]

Sheesh......where's Chris Docker when you need him. Once saw a discussion programme on TV, where Chris was putting forward the cas FOR Euthanasia. I think he holds some sort of position with a Euthanasia society. Would be interesting if Chris still reads the forum if he could give us his slant on things. Personally I am for it in some instances, but think it would have to be very closely policed, so that it didn't become a disguise for something more sinister.

[CJ]

I think people can guess Im a big fat NO

I guessed you were a big fat something.:rolleyes:

I would say yes, but only because I believe in free choice.

[stewart38]

I guessed you were a big fat something.:rolleyes:

I would say yes, but only because I believe in free choice.


'Free choice' for who ?

If someone was too ill to sign a form etc would you allow a relative to do it ?

I dont suggest trying to get someone heart to restart for the 6th time but what i dont like is the idea doctors and it would be down to the doctors ,should play god

-------------------------------------

UTRECHT, January 11, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Royal Dutch Medical Association has concluded, after a three-year investigation, that Dutch doctors ought to be able to kill patients who are not ill but who are judged to be "suffering through living."

The decision contradicts the Dutch Supreme Court that ruled in 2002 that patients may only request euthanasia if they have a "classifiable physical or mental condition," and not if they are merely "tired of life." The law however, does not require a medical condition, but only that a patient must be "suffering hopelessly and unbearably." Pro-life activists have warned that such ambiguous language is an open door for new interpretations that would make the law a license to kill.

----------------------------------

when is one allowed to kill and when is one not ??

[CJ]

'Free choice' for who ?


Is it not for whom?

And I meant free choice for second cousins three times removed. Who the bloody hell did you think I meant free choice to?

News flash: this is not Holland.

The choice should be with the patient and only the patient.

That said, every day Dr.s make decisions on whether or not to turn off life support machines. So, in the case of extended choice: it may not be dissimilar. However, I would prefer that people with chronic, incurable illnesses with real quality of life issues of a serious nature should be free to choose to take their own life (assisted {with protections in place} or not).

[David Bailey]

I would say yes, but only because I believe in free choice.
We're not talking about free choice, we're talking about assisted killing - basically, when the patient is unable to make a choice through incapacity, and the choice is made for them, based on what other people think they would want.

I've got no problems with people being allowed to kill themselves; I've got a big problem making it easier for other people to do it, for the reasons I stated up ^^.

Like a lot of these social issues, there's a massive grey area as to what's "right", and I like the fact that our current system recognises that this is a grey area, and that each case is different. It's complex, it's messy, but it seems to me that it strikes a reasonable balance between the two extremes.

[Lynn]

Not sure quite what 'error' there could be here....

Someone who wants to die, gets counselling, makes the final decision, signs the forms to say that they want to die, and then dies.I'm not sure the exact process but I have heard of going on for 1000 people in one year in a European country being 'killed' who had not given 'express consent', perhaps their families made the decision for them?

And in Dutch law children between 12-15 can request euthanasia providing they get their parents consent. Can an ill child of 12 really make that decision, or how would a parent in that situation would feel if their child was asking them to give their permission for that?

And sadly not all families are loving and caring towards their relatives. So there are issues of can someone who will benefit from someone's death (by a will) be the same person who signs the consent forms for that person's death, if the person is too ill to sign the forms themselves?

Aside from all the issues, I'm against it on the simple principle that I believe taking another person's life is wrong.

[stewart38]

Is it not for whom?

And I meant free choice for second cousins three times removed. Who the bloody hell did you think I meant free choice to?

News flash: this is not Holland.

The choice should be with the patient and only the patient.

That said, every day Dr.s make decisions on whether or not to turn off life support machines. So, in the case of extended choice: it may not be dissimilar. However, I would prefer that people with chronic, incurable illnesses with real quality of life issues of a serious nature should be free to choose to take their own life (assisted {with protections in place} or not).

what 'protections' ?? Im in chronic pain please kill me, pleaseeeeeee

oh next day its not so bad please dont (too late your dead)

The law is sufficient as it is

Life and death decisons are made every day by doctors they dont need the power to play god as well

what was that case in the USA where they KILLED that women against the aprents wishes but on behalf of an ex bf who heard she wanted that way out

That was very sick and murder (its only my opinon)

Bit like the young boy where the parents have to go to court to stop the doctors giving up !

[WittyBird]

?? Im in chronic pain please kill me, pleaseeeeeee


What time shall I come over?:whistle:

[CJ]

what 'protections' ?? Im in chronic pain please kill me, pleaseeeeeee
oh next day its not so bad please dont (too late your dead)

The law is sufficient as it is

Life and death decisons are made every day by doctors they dont need the power to play god as well

what was that case in the USA where they KILLED that women against the aprents wishes but on behalf of an ex bf who heard she wanted that way out

That was very sick and murder (its only my opinon)

Bit like the young boy where the parents have to go to court to stop the doctors giving up !

Firstly, the poll was do you support Euthanasia: NOT do you think we should change the laws on Euthanasia.

Secondly, if we are to have a serious discussion on law, let's not use American law as the basis for reasoned argument.

Stewart, I am not one prone to name calling so I'll desist the urge to use "half baked ignorant numbskull who can't be bothered to read the words within a post before giving an irrelevant, ill-thought out almost embarrassingly stupid reply" whilst referring to anyone posting on this thread.

May I humbly suggest you look up the word "protections" in the dictionary? See, also, "preventative" and/or "safeguard".

[stewart38]

Firstly, the poll was do you support Euthanasia: NOT do you think we should change the laws on Euthanasia.

Secondly, if we are to have a serious discussion on law, let's not use American law as the basis for reasoned argument.

Stewart, I am not one prone to name calling so I'll desist the urge to use "half baked ignorant numbskull who can't be bothered to read the words within a post before giving an irrelevant, ill-thought out almost embarrassingly stupid reply" whilst referring to anyone posting on this thread.

May I humbly suggest you look up the word "protections" in the dictionary? See, also, "preventative" and/or "safeguard".


OK we have established your for it and you will let some one else 'think' about the 'safeguards' and 'protections'.

Im against it

Now i see you have just lost your temper

Now if you were my doctor im sure you would have now pulled the plug seeing me as a ignorant numbskull not worthy of a life

I may not have much quality of life and I may not smile (I hear in Holland if you dont smile thats grounds ?) but im hanging in there. I maynot be able to spell my grammar maybe be poor but is that good enough grounds ??

I want some one to spoon feed me apple source for the last 35yrs of my life through a straw :yeah:

[David Bailey]

Firstly, the poll was do you support Euthanasia: NOT do you think we should change the laws on Euthanasia.
Well, surely they're related? In that the UK laws don't currently support euthanasia, so if you do support it, it's not unreasonable to assume you want a change in the law.


Secondly, if we are to have a serious discussion on law, let's not use American law as the basis for reasoned argument.
I love to bash the USA as much as anyone - and more than most - but I believe their legal system is in many ways superior to ours.

I wish, for example, we had a decent Supreme Court in this country to slap down some or most of Blair's nutty legislation. And a bit more democratic accountability for our judges might not kill us either.

The US is interesting in this area, in that the euthanasia debate is delegated to individual states. I believe Oregon famously allows euthanasia, whereas other states don't.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia#Oregon_.28United_States.29)(of course):



Oregon Law, passed in 1997, states an individual must meet the following criteria:

1) 18 years of age or older,
2) a resident of Oregon,
3) capable of making and communicating health care decisions for him/herself, and
4) diagnosed with a terminal illness that will lead to death within six (6) months, verified by two physicians.

Note: It is up to the attending physician to determine whether these criteria have been met.


So I think it's valid to look to the US, as indeed it is to look to the Netherlands, for information - just so long as we don't treat this information as gospel.

Oh, and CJ?

"half baked ignorant numbskull who can't be bothered to read the words within a post before giving an irrelevant, ill-thought out almost embarrassingly stupid reply"
:worthy: - Can I use this as my new sig please? Pretty please?

[WittyBird]

I want some one to spoon feed me apple source for the last 35yrs of my life through a straw :yeah:

:rofl: *gags self and returns to cupboard*

[David Bailey]

I maynot be able to spell my grammar maybe be poor but is that good enough grounds ??
:thinking about it icon: :whistle:

[stewart38]

:rofl: *gags self and returns to cupboard*


All joking aside

Things like this and fox hunting or bears dancing on hot coals one is never going to a have a reasoned argument

How the hell do I know how i would feel if id been in pain for years with no known cure, i might beg someone to take my life

I dont see things like this in black and white

Its a bit like the death penalty ,im against it but if someone killed my family would i change my mind ,probably

If there was 100% guarantees but there isnt

[TiggsTours]

This is such a difficult subject, there are such strong arguments both for & against. Personally, I believe in euthanasia, but whether or not I could actually "pull the plug" on someone I love? I guess you never know the answer until you are faced with it.

The one situation I do feel strongly about though is the one of prolonging someone's life, and sufferring, needlessly. I used to work in a nursing home, 15 years ago, and I don't know if things have changed since then. At that time, we were legally obliged to try to save someone if they were dying, even to bring them back if we could. These people were terminally ill and elderly anyway, they were in constant pain and when we did bring them back, they generally died within a week anyway, and didn't thank us for interfering! Why should it be the case that you have to keep bringing someone back to life just so they can live a few more days in pain, rather than just let them slip away quietly, and in a dignified manner?

I agree with the arguments of humans not playing God, but when the only thing keeping someone alive is the machines, the drugs, and the first aid administered by us, aren't we playing God anyway? Its all very well to do this for someone who will, or could, go on to live a full and happy life, but why carry on when all that faces them is a few more days of pain, and humiliation?

Sometimes we seem to treat animals better than humans.

[Lynn]

This is such a difficult subject, there are such strong arguments both for & against. Personally, I believe in euthanasia, but whether or not I could actually "pull the plug" on someone I love? I guess you never know the answer until you are faced with it.

The one situation I do feel strongly about though is the one of prolonging someone's life, and sufferring, needlessly. I used to work in a nursing home, 15 years ago, and I don't know if things have changed since then. At that time, we were legally obliged to try to save someone if they were dying, even to bring them back if we could. These people were terminally ill and elderly anyway, they were in constant pain and when we did bring them back, they generally died within a week anyway, and didn't thank us for interfering! Why should it be the case that you have to keep bringing someone back to life just so they can live a few more days in pain, rather than just let them slip away quietly, and in a dignified manner?Though euthanasia is not really about 'pulling the plug' - turning off machines that are maintaining life, or bringing people back (people can request a DNR against this, can't they?). Its not about withdrawing medical assistance which is keeping someone alive (which I feel is a completely different issue) but about administering a drug that causes death.

[David Bailey]

I agree with the arguments of humans not playing God, but when the only thing keeping someone alive is the machines, the drugs, and the first aid administered by us, aren't we playing God anyway?
There's a difference between avoiding resuscitation and euthanasia.

I'm got no problems with "DNR" (Do Not Resuscitate) notices - and this is as it works in hospitals at the moment I believe? So if someone says "I don't want to be kept alive on a machine for 35 years - let nature decide", I'm fine with that. And we have that system at the moment.

But that's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about deliberate ending of life, when life would continue without heroic medical assistance. There's a difference between letting nature take its course, and deliberately intervening.

EDIT: Hell, Lynn types too fast, damnit... What She Said, :yeah:, anyway.

[stewart38]

Though euthanasia is not really about 'pulling the plug' - turning off machines that are maintaining life, or bringing people back (people can request a DNR against this, can't they?). Its not about withdrawing medical assistance which is keeping someone alive (which I feel is a completely different issue) but about administering a drug that causes death.


Exactly !!

as I said i dont support trying to save someone who has arrested 6 times if its seen as hopeless

Im talking about killing somone

[WittyBird]

Im talking about killing somone

It's hardly killing someone now is it?

If that someone has a terminal illness that is going to eat away at them and make them lose their independence and rely on a carer for the rest of their sad pointless life. If they have asked for it to be done then its humane. Like I have said earlier 'do you watch animals suffer?'

[David Bailey]

It's hardly killing someone now is it?
Err... yes? If they're alive, you do something, and then they're dead?


Like I have said earlier 'do you watch animals suffer?'
We don't watch animals suffer because they're not people, and they don't have rights. Once our pet dogs start voting (and paying taxes to fund my early retirement), then they get rights. No representation without taxation. But that's a whole other debate...

I have every sympathy for the husband who, at his elderly wife's request, helps to ease her suffering by smothering her. It must be a terrible situation to be in, and I hope to God I'm never put in that position. But if I were, I'd do what I thought was right, I wouldn't give a monkey's what the law said, it would be no comfort to me if what I did was state-sanctioned or not. Ultimately, whatever I do is my own responsibility.

But I also think that it's completely right for the police to investigate this thoroughly as a potential crime - even though most of the time it'll come to nothing. The system is biased towards valuing life, and I prefer it that way, for my own protection if nothing else.

[Lynn]

We don't watch animals suffer because they're not people, and they don't have rights. Well most people don't watch animals suffer because they don't want the animal to be in pain and suffer. (You've never had a pet then?) But pets are 'put down' for other reasons - cost and convenience as well as ending suffering - eg if a vet tells an owner that their pet requires an expensive operation the owner may decide its cheaper to have the animal put down, or if an owner is moving to somewhere and it isn't convenient to have a pet, they get them put down rather than bother rehoming them. And perhaps there could be the danger that cost and convenience could creep into the equation if euthanasia was a legal option?

[ducasi]

playing god Before entering the euthanasia discussion, this phrase should be struck from one's vocabulary.

In fact, can we just ban it from the language entirely?

[stewart38]

Interesting post people who have posted on this thread appear against it , although the fast majority voted for it.

[azande]

Interesting... I can count at least 7 people who posted and are for...

[CJ]

Interesting... I can count at least 7 people who posted and are for...

Azande, it's such a shame your viewpoints are clouded by fact.;)

[azande]

C'mon, give me a break, I'm trying to learn from the masters but it's not easy and I'm just a beginner!

[WittyBird]

Interesting... I can count at least 7 people who posted and are for...
dont worry about it he is in one of "those" moods today :rofl:

[stewart38]

Interesting... I can count at least 7 people who posted and are for...

:whistle:

me to :whistle:

stewart38 rest in peace _________________________________________

Killed for making a mistake :worthy:

[azande]

dont worry about it he is in one of "those" moods today :rofl:
Me worry? :confused:

And anyway, does he have any other mood?

[WittyBird]

Me worry? :confused:

And anyway, does he have any other mood?

yes he is one of the nicest people you will ever meet and has a heart of gold :grin:

[azande]

yes he is one of the nicest people you will ever meet and has a heart of gold :grin:
oh good! :)

[Sparkles]

yes he is one of the nicest people you will ever meet and has a heart of gold :grin:
Funny, I could have sworn I'd met him... :confused:

[stewart38]

Funny, I could have sworn I'd met him... :confused:


I can send you a cheque as well but im running out of money
:mad:

Now im of to help out at the soup kitchens

[CJ]

Funny, I could have sworn I'd met him... :confused:

I assumed WB was being W.:confused: :confused:

:D

[WittyBird]

I assumed WB was being W.:confused: :confused:

:D
No Not I, surely :grin:

[Little Monkey]

We don't watch animals suffer because they're not people, and they don't have rights. Once our pet dogs start voting (and paying taxes to fund my early retirement), then they get rights. No representation without taxation. But that's a whole other debate...

Aaaargh! Dammit! That means you can put me down any time..... I can’t vote in this country, and I hardly make enough money to pay taxes.........:whistle:



I have every sympathy for the husband who, at his elderly wife's request, helps to ease her suffering by smothering her. It must be a terrible situation to be in, and I hope to God I'm never put in that position. But if I were, I'd do what I thought was right, I wouldn't give a monkey's what the law said, it would be no comfort to me if what I did was state-sanctioned or not. Ultimately, whatever I do is my own responsibility.


And now you’re having a go at monkeys, too! Waaaah!:tears:

No, seriously.... Personally I hope someone would have the guts to help me if I was terminally ill, in a lot of pain, and with no hope of a cure. I wouldn’t want to live for another few days/ weeks/ months in agony, and slowly and painfully waste away until I was a vegetable on life support machines........ I’d rather have the choice to die peacefully and with a clear mind, saying my farewells and then passing away with at least a scrap of dignity left...... But of course, this is just my personal opinion and preference, other people are entitled to their own views and feelings.... And I’m not sure if it’s a good idea to change the laws....... But that’s not what we’re discussing here anyway.....

I know someone who was helped to die. She was being eaten up by cancer, was in extreme pain, and knew she would only live for a maximum of a couple of months. She could no longer walk, but her mind was still completely clear, and she pleaded to be allowed to die with dignity. Her wish was granted.

LM:flower:

[stewart38]

/ ...... But of course, this is just my personal opinion and preference, other people are entitled to their own views and feelings.... And I’m not sure if it’s a good idea to change the laws....... But that’s not what we’re discussing here anyway.....


LM:flower:

Euthanasia would require a change in the law in the UK :sick:

I still see big difference between switching of a life support machine (no problem) against giving someone a drug to kill them but im in the minority

[TheTramp]

I still see big difference between switching of a life support machine (no problem) against giving someone a drug to kill them but im in the minority

Ah. So, once you've switched off the machine, and they're going to die, you'd be happy for them say to writhe there, in pointless agony for their last few hours, rather than give them a drug, which will end it quickly, and without pain....

How cruel is that!!

[stewart38]

Ah. So, once you've switched off the machine, and they're going to die, you'd be happy for them say to writhe there, in pointless agony for their last few hours, rather than give them a drug, which will end it quickly, and without pain....

How cruel is that!!

Thats a tough one

You could switch the machine on and off a lot ?? If they started to suffer turn it on then off etc ??

Leave the room and glance in every 3 hours , turn the radio up loud ??

Thats got me thinking.

what if you killed them and its a mistake ? people do survive machines being switched off.


I see your point ,it is difficult

[David Bailey]

Ah. So, once you've switched off the machine, and they're going to die, you'd be happy for them say to writhe there, in pointless agony for their last few hours, rather than give them a drug, which will end it quickly, and without pain....
You know, you can just tell when a someone with legal training 's in the room, it's the whiff of leading questions or something that gives it away...

There's clearly a difference between non-intervention and intervention, and Stewart38 (and I) are clearly in the "intervention is bad" camp.

That doesn't necessarily make us evil beyond salvation. Well, not in my case at least. :whistle:


How cruel is that!!
Dunno, but it's not quite as bad to my mind as ending a question with two exclamation marks.

[TheTramp]

Dunno, but it's not quite as bad to my mind as ending a question with two exclamation marks.

"How cruel is that" can also be a statement. Doesn't have to be a question, and the use of exclamation marks rather emphasises this point, don't you think. Although, I do worry sometimes about my repeated punctuation. And apologise sincerely!!

[Little Monkey]

Euthanasia would require a change in the law in the UK :sick:

I still see big difference between switching of a life support machine (no problem) against giving someone a drug to kill them but im in the minority

As it would in Norway, too. But it still happens, and is highly illegal. Still stick to my opinion on the subject, though. And I'm still happy the person I mentioned was granted her wish, despite it being illegal.

And yes, there's a huge difference in switching off a life support machine and giving someone drugs to kill them. I hope someone would help me get those drugs, though, if I was ever in the situation described earlier.

[stewart38]

As it would in Norway, too. But it still happens, and is highly illegal. Still stick to my opinion on the subject, though. And I'm still happy the person I mentioned was granted her wish, despite it being illegal.

And yes, there's a huge difference in switching off a life support machine and giving someone drugs to kill them. I hope someone would help me get those drugs, though, if I was ever in the situation described earlier.

If a man kills his wife of 40yrs. he has seen her in pain for yrs there is no cure and its what she wants and she is rational. perhaps he gives her 15 times the dose of a pain killer she requires

Should he been thrown in jail of course not ! No one can judge things like that unless you go through it

Im not saying there are easy boundaries or black and white .

I still believe if you start legalising killing you go down a merky path regardless of good intentions, could be wrong of course.

If someone was to help you 'get those drugs' I assume you mean with doctors consent ?

Or should we have if your sane the right to die even if a doctor thinks you could live a few more years with drugs , it gets messy

[Little Monkey]

If a man kills his wife of 40yrs. he has seen her in pain for yrs there is no cure and its what she wants and she is rational. perhaps he gives her 15 times the dose of a pain killer she requires

Should he been thrown in jail of course not ! No one can judge things like that unless you go through it

Im not saying there are easy boundaries or black and white .

I still believe if you start legalising killing you go down a merky path regardless of good intentions, could be wrong of course.

If someone was to help you 'get those drugs' I assume you mean with doctors consent ?

Or should we have if your sane the right to die even if a doctor thinks you could live a few more years with drugs , it gets messy

Sorry, I get a bit lost trying to read your message... :confused:

I'm not talking about changing laws, or discusing what's right and wrong. I'm simply stating my personal feelings on the subject. The legal and ethical issues concerning this subject are so complex, and I don't think people will ever agree on them. I'm saying nothing about legalising killing.

[Piglet]

The definition of quality of life would be?

Off of the top of my head, quality of life to me is being able to:
do things for myself and live independently;
communicate for myself;
transport myself from one place to another.

If my quality of life became such that I:
was dependent on a carer for everything;
could not communicate in any way through speech or computerised
communication programs or basic grunting or body movements;
could not move one part of my body, never mind operate a computerised
wheelchair;
then I would happily sign something opting that my life be ended and of course I would sign it now whilst I could - if it were possible to!


Not for those left behind. Someone would have to take the blame for the error.
Entrance the legal system and disciplinary committees and litigation and...

I can't ever see me being in a position to ask some close friend or family member to do the dirty deed, cos in my book that wouldn't be a bad enough "quality of life" and I would never impose on someone in such a way.

However, I cannot understand the problems with legallising it (perhaps I'm too simple?) I can't see why it's such a big problem - surely it could be done legally, with medical people involved - each case handled sensitively and on an individual basis - make it the responsibility of a number of medical people (at least 3, but go as far as a dozen if you like) and therefore if they all agree then there is no blame - but only if the individual involved has signed something legally first! I'd do it tomorrow if I could.

[David Bailey]

However, I cannot understand the problems with legallising it (perhaps I'm too simple?) I can't see why it's such a big problem - surely it could be done legally, with medical people involved - each case handled sensitively and on an individual basis - make it the responsibility of a number of medical people (at least 3, but go as far as a dozen if you like) and therefore if they all agree then there is no blame - but only if the individual involved has signed something legally first! I'd do it tomorrow if I could.

As I said at the start (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7037&p=175070), my two problems with changing the law would be the possibility of error (let's try to avoid a system which allows irreversible mistakes), and avoidance of undue pressure (on ill people and their families to take the "easy" route).

In other words, I don't want a state-sanctioned system which promotes killing of people, even under the most exceptional of circumstances. I'd rather there always be an institutional legal bias against such killings.

[David Bailey]

I just saw something on the local news - here's the BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/4479152.stm) - about a father who's being charged with murdering his 10-year-old son (Jacob Wragg), who was severely disabled.

The father's defence is that is was a "mercy killing". He's being tried for murder - he admits manslaughter.

Obviously a difficult case - as these always are - but frankly this is a spookily-relevant example of why I'm glad we don't have a strongly euthanasia-tolerant society.

[Piglet]

I just saw something on the local news - here's the BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/4479152.stm) - about a father who's being charged with murdering his 10-year-old son (Jacob Wragg), who was severely disabled.
I can see your point and the way the article is written makes it sound particularly nastily planned, which may or may not be the case.

If I add to what I wrote above - that the person who has elected a euthanasia option if "quality of life has degenerated" has got to be a recognised adult in the eyes of the law, then the case quoted above would not be covered from my logical viewpoint. I admit it does get tricky when involving children.

In no way am I advocating that any person can choose euthanasia for another though. It has to be an individual's decision and one I would happily make now if it were available to me to do so.

[Beowulf]

if I was terminally ill and/or my mind was going (dementia/ alzheimer's / stroke etc) then I'd want to be able to pull the plug before I got any worse.

of course, by that stage I may not be deemed to be in a sound state of mind to make that descision so I should be able to have soem sort of Living will that states should my quality of life drop so that I can't do x,y or z then I should be ..erm.. well removed from the equation.

Pain I don't mind.. but I wouldn't want to become a burden on anyone.. wouldn't want to lose me.. All I have is my thoughts, my memories and my ideas.. if they start to fade then I'm dead already. no point keeping the old meat sack ticking over if the computer's fried.

[Dreadful Scathe]

1) Free cheesecake for all

2) what DavidJames said

[whitetiger1518]

if I was terminally ill and/or my mind was going (dementia/ alzheimer's / stroke etc) then I'd want to be able to pull the plug before I got any worse.

of course, by that stage I may not be deemed to be in a sound state of mind to make that descision so I should be able to have soem sort of Living will that states should my quality of life drop so that I can't do x,y or z then I should be ..erm.. well removed from the equation.

Pain I don't mind.. but I wouldn't want to become a burden on anyone.. wouldn't want to lose me.. All I have is my thoughts, my memories and my ideas.. if they start to fade then I'm dead already. no point keeping the old meat sack ticking over if the computer's fried.


:yeah: - Particularly the bit I put in bold ... Ooh -scary - I'm agreeing with Beo ;)

Whitetiger