Euthanasia

[Noobtastic]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
Initial thought is that it should always be the individual's decision, and never be explicitly recommended by a physician or caregiver.

You should have a right to decide where and when you'd like to die, so long as you are certain that it is the best option.
There comes a point when prolonging suffering can only be viewed as cruelty or torture.

ok you obviously didnt read the thread or dont appreciate what euthanasia entails.

thanks for your contribution.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Noobtastic

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
I am pro-right to die. If a person is suffering, terminal, or their quality of life has deminshed to the point that they are useless to themselves and others, I think competent medical professionals should be able to cater to their wishes to die.
I have been supportive of Dr. Kevorkian, because of what he stands for, not because he broke the law.

but that's just it, competence is hard to come by. and do you trust the state to prioritize patient over cost?

they'll be paying the bills....

Do you trust insurance companies to prioritize patient over cost??


......

 

[Noobtastic]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Noobtastic

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
I am pro-right to die. If a person is suffering, terminal, or their quality of life has deminshed to the point that they are useless to themselves and others, I think competent medical professionals should be able to cater to their wishes to die.
I have been supportive of Dr. Kevorkian, because of what he stands for, not because he broke the law.

but that's just it, competence is hard to come by. and do you trust the state to prioritize patient over cost?

they'll be paying the bills....

Do you trust insurance companies to prioritize patient over cost??


......

i trust insurance agencies to follow the law...not the government.

and im sure if euthanasia was made legal it would thrive just as well under private health

 

[freegeeks]

as usual, this thread is a just cheap attack against socialized healthcare

Euthanasia is not suspended in the netherlands
I'm happy to live in a country that has a legal framework for euthanasia

 

[Noobtastic]

Originally posted by: freegeeks
as usual, this thread is a just cheap attack against socialized healthcare

Euthanasia is not suspended in the netherlands
I'm happy to live in a country that has a legal framework for euthanasia

this has nothing to do with socialized healthcare.


im glad your happy.

 

[DaveSimmons]

This reminds me of another recent thread rejecting individual rights and positive outcomes because of the fear of unlikely negative consequences - leagalize marijuana?

Since I support personal rights with personal responsibility I'm just as much in favor for legalized euthanasia as I am for legalizing soft drugs like marijauana.

Legalized and well-regulated, euthanasia would reduce suffering while also reducing medical costs for the terminally ill who choose it. It would also prevent back-alley euthanasia from leaving suffering people crippled but still alive.

A Plan Z prescription should be available from pharmacies to allow competent individuals the option to end their unplanned life with dignity.

 

[Noobtastic]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
This reminds me of another recent thread rejecting individual rights and positive outcomes because of the fear of unlikely negative consequences - leagalize marijuana?

Since I support personal rights with personal responsibility I'm just as much in favor for legalized euthanasia as I am for legalizing soft drugs like marijauana.

Legalized and well-regulated, euthanasia would reduce suffering while also reducing medical costs for the terminally ill who choose it. It would also prevent back-alley euthanasia from leaving suffering people crippled but still alive.

A Plan Z prescription should be available from pharmacies to allow competent individuals the option to end their unplanned life with dignity.

are you actually comparing marijuana to euthanasia? how could you even come to that???

you know, for a forum that overwhelming questions the government...you sure have a lot of faith in them as long as it pertains to your political loyalties.


hypocrisy...

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Noobtastic


in that case, the government should be advocating hospice. for the few % who are truly in a lot of pain and are at the age where suicide could be considered acceptable euthanasia is obviously appealing, but a law like that would affect everything.

the privilege would be aimed at the target group, but in reality would end up everywhere. cancer patients would demand euthanasia, people with debts would demand euthanasia, depressed or mentally ill people would demand euthanasia, etc..

you rely on the "experts" and the government to file through the people who are mentally-able and the people who arent???


every single one of your positives would still end up in government hands. no independent psychologists are going to be evaluating every single case.


you want the benefit but refuse to recognize the cost...which is chaos.

(I assume you are talking about only currently-existing governments, so as not to invoke Godwin's law here...)

[/quote]

I'm going to file this under 'prone to massive exaggeration'. You have taken the implementation of euthanasia from one country that did it in a way you don't like, and have attempted to use that to attack the practice as a whole. (I won't even get into how you trust private insurance companies to follow the law but not the government... hahaha) There's absolutely no reason that euthanasia should not be an option for terminally ill people who are in a lot of pain. It's monsterous that you would force these people to live in misery for months or years in order to prevent some sort of crazy scenario where doctors are killing people who jacked up their visa card. Barbaric.

Why don't you just have a system where euthanasia can't be solicited, and that any person that requests it is screened by medical/mental health professionals? Oh wait, I forgot. We can't trust the 'experts' either.

Oh, and Davesimmons said nothing of the sort. He said he was for personal freedom and responsibility. Hypocrisy? No. More like a case of poor reading comprehension on your part.

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
I am pro-right to die. If a person is suffering, terminal, or their quality of life has deminshed to the point that they are useless to themselves and others, I think competent medical professionals should be able to cater to their wishes to die.
I have been supportive of Dr. Kevorkian, because of what he stands for, not because he broke the law.

im a nurse, i can say that sometime i feel that im just prolonging death instead of life. it dosent feel like im doin the right thing but we have to follow what the family wants to do.

good post by the way

 

[piasabird]

So who is going to make sure your family doesnt just do away with you because they want your money?

He wanted euthanasia, so we had him euthanized!

When is it murder if it is legal?

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: Noobtastic

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
This reminds me of another recent thread rejecting individual rights and positive outcomes because of the fear of unlikely negative consequences - leagalize marijuana?

Since I support personal rights with personal responsibility I'm just as much in favor for legalized euthanasia as I am for legalizing soft drugs like marijauana.

Legalized and well-regulated, euthanasia would reduce suffering while also reducing medical costs for the terminally ill who choose it. It would also prevent back-alley euthanasia from leaving suffering people crippled but still alive.

A Plan Z prescription should be available from pharmacies to allow competent individuals the option to end their unplanned life with dignity.

are you actually comparing marijuana to euthanasia? how could you even come to that???

you know, for a forum that overwhelming questions the government...you sure have a lot of faith in them as long as it pertains to your political loyalties.

hypocrisy...

The person who started each thread seeks to justify having the state deny individual rights. In both cases the argument in favor of government interference is a straw man potential disaster, and both OPs ignore the good that ending government interference would bring. It seems comparable to me.

You're the one saying the govenrment should deny me the right to end my life cleanly and painlessly, or to end the suffering of a family member who's terminally ill but being kept alive only because doctors not prolonging the suffering is treated as murder.

You're the one who supports government interference with my individual rights. Give me liberty to give me death.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

i believe the right to end your own life is a basic fundamental human right, assisted or unassisted

 

[piasabird]

You can have a do not resussitate order right. What is the difference between euthanasia and suicide? The difference is you have a physical illness or some legitimate reason to die. The problem is how do you monitor or control this? Better yet, how do you tax it!

Maybe we need a $5,000.00 euthanasia tax!

 

[brandonb]

Why is it that money is more important than life? It costs alot to pay for handicapped people. Should someone with Down's Syndrome be aborted and terminated before they even enter the world? Since they will just amount to jack shit during their lifetime? They will never pay for themselves? What about those with other diseases that are costly to treat.

I can see Noobtastics slipperly slope.

People have an instinct to survive. If someone is termally ill, why not let their body decide when to "let go" vs being terminated. I know if I have cancer I will want to die, because I would be a burden to those around me. However, my instinct says I should survive. Maybe pain at times would be so great that I asked to be euthanised. But do you think I'd really want to die? No, I'm guessing I don't want to die, I just want to reduce the burden and pain I'm feeling at the time. I don't think people would be in the right state of mind to make that decision. They think they are terminal (due to doctor saying so and current pain), but are they terminal?

A previous GF of mine's father was terminal, less than 3 months to live due to bone cancer. He's still alive and kicking today 7 years later, and in fact he is more healthy today than he was back then. His cancer went away after he gave up on life. Strangely enough. If you ask him if he should have been Euthanised. He'd say no today, but probably would have said yes back then.

People who are told they are going to die are not going to be in the right mind set to handle that decision, and should not be left up to them. It's like asking someone who is depressed and siucidal if they should die. Of course they are going to say yes, but a year later after the depression is gone, I'm sure they would say no.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Suicide booths on every corner, ala Futurama.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: brandonb
People have an instinct to survive. If someone is termally ill, why not let their body decide when to "let go" vs being terminated.
...

A previous GF of mine's father was terminal, less than 3 months to live due to bone cancer. He's still alive and kicking today 7 years later, and in fact he is more healthy today than he was back then. His cancer went away after he gave up on life. Strangely enough. If you ask him if he should have been Euthanised. He'd say no today, but probably would have said yes back then.

Those are good points, but:

In America, if you check / are checked into a hospital doctors will often take the choice away from you whether to "let go" and will keep you alive for days, weeks or even years.

Also, do you ever take aspirin or ibuprofen? That's choosing not to "let your body decide" about inflicting pain on you. That's your right. Choosing not to die a lingering and painful death should be your right too.

About the one person in 100 who beats the odds with a terminal illness: should the other 99 be forced to suffer for months if they choose not to, even knowing they have a 1% chance of survival? Why take away their right to choose?