Euthanasia is NOT playing GOD... (interview, ethical, legal, death)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't understand the controversy behind euthanizing terminaly ill patients at their request. Physician assisted euthanasia is a perfectly valid and necessary medical service and should be offered in all palliative care and end of life situations at the patients discretion...
"Terminally ill" is undefinable. An MS patient should have the same choice to die as someone with ALS, even though MS isn't considered a terminal illness, it sure can debilitate ones existence...
This is all common sense and I don't understand how people argue against it.
I don't understand the controversy behind euthanizing terminaly ill patients at their request. Physician assisted euthanasia is a perfectly valid and necessary medical service and should be offered in all palliative care and end of life situations at the patients discretion...
"Terminally ill" is undefinable. An MS patient should have the same choice to die as someone with ALS, even though MS isn't considered a terminal illness, it sure can debilitate ones existence...
This is all common sense and I don't understand how people argue against it.
Technically everyone is terminal.... and sometimes people shouldn't even have choices, they should just be euthanized because their life will be meaningless and it costs so much money to keep them alive in a subhuman, painful state (i.e. end stage dementia). Most doctors would probably feel uncomfortable with that though (for medical, religious, ethical, and legal reasons). We do it to our pets out of love and practicality. We should extend this courtesy to humans. I think artificially prolonging life is trying to play God even more so than euthanasia (for example, tube feeds or TPN for the rest of your life). But there is a line that can be crossed when a depressed person asks for euthanasia...
We do it to our pets out of love and practicality. We should extend this courtesy to humans. I think artificially prolonging life is trying to play God even more so than euthanasia (for example, tube feeds or TPN for the rest of your life). But there is a line that can be crossed when a depressed person asks for euthanasia...
Exactly! In fact, doctors are playing God everyday if you want to get technical about it. Everytime a doctor administers medication he/she is interfering with the bodies natural process - that is playing God as well.
Another good point you touched upon - animals are euthanized out of love and compassion for their suffering; humans have their feeding tubes removed so they starve to death, the preffered method of euthanasia by nazi doctors.
Why is that? If the logic is based strictly on "animals do not go to heaven" ideaology, that is ridiculous!
One of the fundamental duties of physicians and medicinal sciences is to prevent/stop pain and suffering, both in life and in death...
I agree, religion is often the biggest deterring factor, but will not go into that "touchy subject" here.
As someone who watched her mom die a slow and painful death, there's a part of me that agrees with you. Towards the end, I was actually praying for her to die. It's painful to see loved ones that way. But it should be up to the individual, not family members. It's an unpleasant conversation to have but you should do it. If the person says if things get too bad then pull the plug then ok, but if you know that the person would never agree to it then their wishes should be respected.
Whatever choice is made, it should be for the right reasons i.e. the person has stated they would like to be put out of their misery. For any reason other than that, I think it's wrong. Terminal or not, some people want to be here as long as they can. So financial or personal reasons for pulling the pull makes it a selfish thing to do. I'm not saying the family members are cruel, I'm just saying it's not a decision I would make and in some cases, the sick persons wishes may not be followed. Which is why I think it should be a formal process involved to make sure the reasons for doing so are ethical.
Even though my mom was pratically unconscious during her final months and I had to do a lot of juggling things to be there for her (moving back home, quitting job etc.), it never occurred to me to pull the plug even though it was clear she was not going to get better. I wanted her doctors to do everything possible to make her comfortable and at the end when she finally passed my conscience was clear. I knew I'd done everything I could and when she passed it was her time to go. Anything other than that would've haunted me for the rest of my life.
Exactly! In fact, doctors are playing God everyday if you want to get technical about it. Everytime a doctor administers medication he/she is interfering with the bodies natural process - that is playing God as well.
Another good point you touched upon - animals are euthanized out of love and compassion for their suffering; humans have their feeding tubes removed so they starve to death, the preffered method of euthanasia by nazi doctors.
Why is that? If the logic is based strictly on "animals do not go to heaven" ideaology, that is ridiculous!
One of the fundamental duties of physicians and medicinal sciences is to prevent/stop pain and suffering, both in life and in death...
I agree, religion is often the biggest deterring factor, but will not go into that "touchy subject" here.
Thanks for your responses!
Comparing animals to humans is like comparing a peanut to a watermelon. That's an unfair comparison. In your example of a person requesting to have their feeding tube removed to me that's ok. They are making a choice, they have the right to do that. BTW, starvation is a painful way to die.
Also, while it is a doctor's duties to try and prevent pain and suffering it's not their right to play god and who should die either. Religion does factor in a persons moral make up. But not eveyone who is against euthanasia is religious. They just have their own opinions about what's right and wrong.
Whatever choice is made, it should be for the right reasons i.e. the person has stated they would like to be put out of their misery. For any reason other than that, I think it's wrong. Terminal or not, some people want to be here as long as they can. So financial or personal reasons for pulling the pull makes it a selfish thing to do. I'm not saying the family members are cruel, I'm just saying it's not a decision I would make and in some cases, the sick persons wishes may not be followed. Which is why I think it should be a formal process involved to make sure the reasons for doing so are ethical.
Sorry for your loss.
The decision has to be entirely up to the patient. Although I feel a necessary service, euthanasia has to be strictly regulated to prevent misuse (i.e. family after inheritence/greed, hard feelings toward the family member, etc). The patient should be interviewed on numerous occasion to rule out depresssion or other psychological problems that may be a motivating factor pushing the patient to end their life.
Again, strict regulatory guidelines would prevent misuse on both sides (i.e. greedy family members, and MD's viewing euthanizing patients as $$ in the same fashion many dentists view the number of root canals performed as a fatter paycheck).
Quote:
Comparing animals to humans is like comparing a peanut to a watermelon. That's an unfair comparison. In your example of a person requesting to have their feeding tube removed to me that's ok. They are making a choice, they have the right to do that. BTW, starvation is a painful way to die.
What are you saying??? Starvation IS a inhumane way to die! That is OK with you, but not euthanasia? 99.9% of the time, being on a feeding tube equates to a vegetative, or near vegetative state - MEANINGthey the patient are NOTALLOWING the feeding tube to be removed, the family is making that decision. Euthanasia is a painless, dignified way to die; in almost all cases of physician assisted suicide, the PATIENT initiates the poisons themselves, they do it on their own terms and will. A doctor initiating this process would risk murder charges.
I would never say euthanasia is a "solve all" for patients who are terminal; but, illness and death are profound, and patients who live their lives in intense, extreme pain with no recovery options, should have the RIGHT to make that decision.
What are you saying??? Starvation IS a inhumane way to die! That is OK with you, but not euthanasia? 99.9% of the time, being on a feeding tube equates to a vegetative, or near vegetative state - MEANINGthey the patient are NOTALLOWING the feeding tube to be removed, the family is making that decision. Euthanasia is a painless, dignified way to die; in almost all cases of physician assisted suicide, the PATIENT initiates the poisons themselves, they do it on their own terms and will. A doctor initiating this process would risk murder charges.
I would never say euthanasia is a "solve all" for patients who are terminal; but, illness and death are profound, and patients who live their lives in intense, extreme pain with no recovery options, should have the RIGHT to make that decision.
Of course starvation is an inhumane way to die, it's a slow painful death. But in your example you stated some people have their feeding tubes removed, if I'm not mistaken you meant by choice. That's the key word here, choice. Other than that I agree with you, it's not something that should be put in to place unless the patient themselves state it's what they would want. No other issues should be considered when deciding to end someone's life. Yes, it may be hard on their loved ones to see them that way but unless the person requests it, it's wrong. You have to ask a question, who is euthanizing them going to benefit? Is it putting the patient out of their misery or the family members out of theirs?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
