The biggest decision

Cerise · Jan 13, 2013

I read this article whilst having breakfast this morning. It's about Euthanasia, something with which I agree. The article is rather long but worth reading and it includes some counter arguments.....

Weakens society's respect for the sanctity of life
Implies that some lives (those of disabled or sick) are worth less than others
Start of a slippery slope, leading to involuntary euthanasia
Puts pressure on vulnerable people, and too much power in doctors' hands
Cheap substitute for proper palliative care of terminally ill
No way to regulate euthanasia properly
Religious argument that it is against God's will

Sanctity implies something which should not be spoiled. If /when my life reaches such a point when it will be spoiled beyond repair then I should be free to ask for euthanasia.

It does not imply that some lives are worth less than others. If that was the case we would follow Hitlers ideals.

Not a slippery slope if correct guidelines are in place.

No pressure on vulnerable people if they make known in earlier life that they wish to take that path and certainly no more power to doctors than they already have ie using strong painkillers/removing nutrition.

Those not wishing to die receive palliative care and could continue to do so. PERSONAL choice is the key to euthanasia.

Regulations are in place about keeping people alive so surely its possible to regulate euthanasia. To say otherwise is a non argument.

Why should a religious outlook apply to an atheist?

Gottago · Jan 13, 2013

I too wholly support euthanasia.

It is completely a personal choice, but there is a great deal of stigma attached to it, religion or not.

I have heated arguments over the years about the 'criminalization' of euthanasia. Doctors who are humanitarians and understand the implications of a person in the end stages of an illness or disease should not be considered criminals, nor those who someone goes to and asks for assistance in find their peace.

It denys the person's dignity and wishes, and even insurance companies can deny policies for someone who chose that path.

It would have to be well regulated, agree 100 percent, with certain blocks in place to prevent abuse by other family members or guardians.

Cerise · Jan 13, 2013

Gottago said:
I too wholly support euthanasia.

It is completely a personal choice, but there is a great deal of stigma attached to it, religion or not.

I have heated arguments over the years about the 'criminalization' of euthanasia. Doctors who are humanitarians and understand the implications of a person in the end stages of an illness or disease should not be considered criminals, nor those who someone goes to and asks for assistance in find their peace.

It denys the person's dignity and wishes, and even insurance companies can deny policies for someone who chose that path.

It would have to be well regulated, agree 100 percent, with certain blocks in place to prevent abuse by other family members or guardians.

Most of us who keep pets ( dogs in my case) grow very fond of them and form attachments that cause great sadness when the animal dies. Simply because of that fondness, we choose to euthanise them if they are very ill and suffering in any way. We do this because we care for them and in fact, if we do not then we can be accused of ill treating an animal.
Yet we are not allowed to give ourselves the same peaceful ending but must suffer indignities and at best breathe our last in a comatose state brought about by medication to prevent us feeling pain. Where is the sense in that?

Gottago · Jan 14, 2013

Cerise said:
Most of us who keep pets ( dogs in my case) grow very fond of them and form attachments that cause great sadness when the animal dies. Simply because of that fondness, we choose to euthanise them if they are very ill and suffering in any way. We do this because we care for them and in fact, if we do not then we can be accused of ill treating an animal.
Yet we are not allowed to give ourselves the same peaceful ending but must suffer indignities and at best breathe our last in a comatose state brought about by medication to prevent us feeling pain. Where is the sense in that?

I've had to euthanise several pets along the way, and it tears my heart out.

I agree with you completely. I don't understand why, especially with a society that proclaims understand of the suffering of others, would not allow this.

Do you think it is the religious pressure? Or do you think it is the fear of involuntary euthanising that keeps society so stringently against it?

Cerise · Jan 14, 2013

Gottago said:
I've had to euthanise several pets along the way, and it tears my heart out.

I agree with you completely. I don't understand why, especially with a society that proclaims understand of the suffering of others, would not allow this.

Do you think it is the religious pressure? Or do you think it is the fear of involuntary euthanising that keeps society so stringently against it?

I think it is religious pressure. "God gives life and only He can take it away" etc etc. I dislike the fact that religious opinions can affect my life when i dont believe in them.

myp · Jan 14, 2013

In the case of suicide, one of the concerns is that 90% of suicides are due to a diagnosable mental disorder. In other words, if the person was diagnosed and treated, they might have changed their minds about suicide.

Gottago · Jan 14, 2013

Cerise said:
I think it is religious pressure. "God gives life and only He can take it away" etc etc. I dislike the fact that religious opinions can affect my life when i dont believe in them.

Somewhat of a rhetorical question, but why should someone else's religious beliefs make that choice for 'you'?

Religion is not law, it is personal beliefs. If their beliefs deem they cannot accept euthanasia for themselves, then don't do it. But why prevent those that do choose it from having a legal method of obtaining it?

It's not like they are forcing a doctor who doesn't believe in it to do it, there are many who will.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-identical-twins-in-unique-mercy-killing.html

Mermaid · Jan 18, 2013

Cerise said:
I think it is religious pressure. "God gives life and only He can take it away" etc etc. I dislike the fact that religious opinions can affect my life when i dont believe in them.

cerise ,l had thought you were a believer

Cerise · Jan 19, 2013

Mermaid said:
cerise ,l had thought you were a believer

Was once..not now

tecoyah · Jan 19, 2013

Wisdom is an adventure.....

clax · Jan 19, 2013

This is one of those issues I am deeply torn on. Both sides make such good cases I don't really know which to agree with.

tecoyah · Jan 19, 2013

Chances are...you wont know until you need to.

No one will.

bluefig · Jan 21, 2013

I think the issue boils down to who owns one's body? The individual or the state or the church? I say, the individual owns their body and therefore neither the state, nor the church or even the busy-body psychiatrist (myp) should have control over "the biggest decision."

myp · Jan 21, 2013

bluefig said:
I think the issue boils down to who owns one's body? The individual or the state or the church? I say, the individual owns their body and therefore neither the state, nor the church or even the busy-body psychiatrist (myp) should have control over "the biggest decision."

I am not a psychiatrist. If you don't see the issue of someone's own mind not knowing what they want, then I don't know what to tell you. It is well documented that a number of disorders and drug therapies increase suicidal tendencies. Sometimes people think they want to die when they actually don't want to.

Jessi · Jan 21, 2013

myp said:
In the case of suicide, one of the concerns is that 90% of suicides are due to a diagnosable mental disorder. In other words, if the person was diagnosed and treated, they might have changed their minds about suicide.

This is why there is a need for regulation. There could be an evaluation, for example, and indicates whether the decision is being made with sound mind...or if they need help.

For example, a couple twins recently in Belgium decided to be euthanized. They were deaf and upon realizing that they were going blind, opted to end their lives instead of being unable to ever communicate again. They had legit reasons....they weren't crazy...and even though they weren't already suffering from a terminal illness, for them, it was better to end their lives than to continue letting their lives deteriorate without control.

myp · Jan 21, 2013

Jessi said:
This is why there is a need for regulation. There could be an evaluation, for example, and indicates whether the decision is being made with sound mind...or if they need help.

For example, a couple twins recently in Belgium decided to be euthanized. They were deaf and upon realizing that they were going blind, opted to end their lives instead of being unable to ever communicate again. They had legit reasons....they weren't crazy...and even though they weren't already suffering from a terminal illness, for them, it was better to end their lives than to continue letting their lives deteriorate without control.

I was actually going to bring up the Belgium thing. I agree- there has to be some sort of barrier for doctor-associated suicide should it become legal.

bluefig · Jan 21, 2013

myp said:
I am not a psychiatrist. If you don't see the issue of someone's own mind not knowing what they want, then I don't know what to tell you. It is well documented that a number of disorders and drug therapies increase suicidal tendencies. Sometimes people think they want to die when they actually don't want to.

By what right does society intervene? You are suggesting that there is some state or societal right to tinker with a person's brain chemistry against their will. What is the basis of societies right to do that?

myp · Jan 21, 2013

bluefig said:
By what right does society intervene? You are suggesting that there is some state or societal right to tinker with a person's brain chemistry against their will. What is the basis of societies right to do that?

Are you denying that suicidal thoughts can be caused by chemical imbalances? If committing suicide is a SYMPTOM of being SICK or a SIDE EFFECT of a medication being used, then that might just be a thought they have when they are sick and not when they get better.

Humans are not completely rational as we once thought. Our brains often trick us. Chemical imbalances can cause us to do things that even we would most of the time not consider to be in our best interest.

bluefig · Jan 21, 2013

myp said:
Are you denying that suicidal thoughts can be caused by chemical imbalances? If committing suicide is a SYMPTOM of being SICK or a SIDE EFFECT of a medication being used, then that might just be a thought they have when they are sick and not when they get better.

Humans are not completely rational as we once thought. Our brains often trick us. Chemical imbalances can cause us to do things that even we would most of the time not consider to be in our best interest.

I notice that you did not answer my question.

The issue, as far as social/legal policy goes is not, can brains be defective or improperly medicated, but, rather, WHO should be in control of an individual's brain.

You seem to be asserting that the state or church or community has a right to take control of an individual, who poses no threat to society. What is the basis of the societal right you seem to be asserting?

Please answer my question.

myp · Jan 21, 2013

bluefig said:
I notice that you did not answer my question.

The issue, as far as social/legal policy goes is not, can brains be defective or improperly medicated, but, rather, WHO should be in control of an individual's brain.

You seem to be asserting that the state or church or community has a right to take control of an individual, who poses no threat to society. What is the basis of the societal right you seem to be asserting?

Please answer my question.

Your question is irrelevant in my opinion because I am saying that even the person who wants to commit suicide at time A might not actually want to commit suicide at times B, C, and D or if there was an alternative timeline A-1 in which he did not get sick or take a certain med.

That aside, as far as legal/social policy goes, I've already said what I believe- either keep it the way it is or if euthanasia is legalized, have panels before someone can do it. I haven't decided which I support yet, but I surely don't support anyone just walking into a clinic willy-nilly and getting drugs to die 2 hours later.

The biggest decision

Similar threads