The Age of the Ring (Lord of the Rings) Forum

Off Topic Section => World Events => Topic started by: Unebriwen on April 01, 2005, 08:43:09 AM

Title: Euthenasia
Post by: Unebriwen on April 01, 2005, 08:43:09 AM
The previous topic about Terri Schiavo was locked basically due to her death causing the 'irrelevance', however it has sparked a new debate on Euthenasia. So how do you feel about it? Say, for instance, in the case of Terri:

I don't know how many of you are aware of the story of this lady. She suffered brain damage about twelve years ago and is deemed to be in a persistent vegetative state. She can breath on her own, but has to be fed through a tube. Her husband was granted funds to care for her at the time, but is now saying that she would not have wanted to have been kept alive artificially and that she should have the right to die. Her parents say that she responds to them and that she should be allowed to live. Eleven days ago, under a court order, her feeding tube was removed.

Do you think that she should be kept alive or allowed to die? What do you think about the actions of her husband and parents? If it was you in this situation, how would you prefer to be treated?
(how come the quote doesn't work? :-\ :'( )

was it the right thing to do? Some would argue that the person is basically a vegetable and being euthenaised is putting them out of their misery. Should there be a law to sign a certain agreement or decline as to wether you yourself would like to be euthenaised if the need should arise?[/color]
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Naeniver Gamgee on April 01, 2005, 09:16:12 AM
i think it was right that they understood the husband's wishes over the parents... the other questions are really too difficult to respond to
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Cuthien, Wolf-maiden on April 01, 2005, 10:19:16 AM
Well, if a person is brain-dead (meaning their brain is not even telling them to breathe or live, basically), then they should be taken off life-support.  But Terri Shiavo was not brain-dead.  She just couldn't feed herself.  In reality, no matter how many tests were done, we'll never know what was really going on inside her mind.  Maybe her mind was clear, just unable to express herself.  She obviously knew her parents.  Her husband should have allowed her parents to take care of her if he did not want to do it.  But starvation is a horrible way to die, especially since she wasn't brain-dead.  As for myself, if I were in a situation like Terri's, I would want to live.  If I were brain-dead, and could no longer function, and there was no chance I would ever be normal again, then sure, pull the plug.  But Terri's death did not have to happen, and was inexcusable.
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: spikealott on April 01, 2005, 02:49:39 PM
Well maybe not just taken off life support, but the next of kin should have the right to allow it to happen.

I feel that it is more of a Personal decision and I also feel that goverments etc should not get involved in such a matter, as they will however much they know, will still never know the full story.
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Elecyla on April 01, 2005, 03:44:22 PM
These sort of cases will always be touchy they are the reason people have do not resuscitate on  hospital notes a lot of people dont want to be kept alive by a machine.

The reason why people make "living wills" this is so their wishes can be agreed upon.

I would not want to be fed intravenously or washed by strangers for the rest of my life if there was absolutly no chance of recovery it would put a lot of pressure on family.
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Cuthien, Wolf-maiden on April 01, 2005, 11:46:54 PM
I agree that the government should not have so much power over these things...
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Sez on April 02, 2005, 09:01:43 PM
Well maybe not just taken off life support, but the next of kin should have the right to allow it to happen.

I feel that it is more of a Personal decision and I also feel that goverments etc should not get involved in such a matter, as they will however much they know, will still never know the full story.

Euthanasia is a very controversial topic so I have mixed views about this particular issue.

I agree with your point Spikie, with the story that Une posted, I don't think that the government should get involved and shouldn't have powers to do something about this. Nor do I think that a case like this should be taken to the courts really, the problem is that Euthanasia is illegal in some countries, I think it's illegal in the UK and the US.

Personally I think that if a loved one was terminally ill then the person who is suffering with the illness as well as that person's loved ones should decide whether they should die or not.
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Waelith on April 02, 2005, 09:37:46 PM
I also think that the Government should not have got so involved with the issue with Terri Schavo, The decision should have been agreed between family members, and the opinion of the family GP, who knows her history, whether she had a chance of recovery, etc etc. On that basis the decision shouldnt of been made by the courts. I mean, what do they know of the implications, or the benefits of Terri being kept alive or not?

Yes apparently it is illegal in this country for Euthanasia, and many people actually go abroad to be able to die in dignity.
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Edge on April 03, 2005, 08:26:36 PM
I personally can't stand this conservitive Christian idea that people must be kept alive as long as is humanly possible because they have the "right." to I'm sick of hearing about rights, a right is something that a person in themselves as an individual can choose to accept and administer; it's not something that people with a bunch of bloody wooden placards and paper banners can force someone to invoke!! People talk about how all human beings have the right to live, and they do fundamentally- but when it comes down to it, if you're in a Perminant vegitiive state such as the case of Terri Schiavo, then you're effectively not living, you're dead to the world and unable to do anything but stare blankly if even you have control of that- that is basically like being in a coma you can't wake up of- your nerves are shut off, and if they aren't then they are simply not recieving the core electrical synapses from the brain, effectively saying that there is nothing really firing in the brain. I'm no doctor, but that's what conclusion I'd draw if I realised someone in a P.V.S couldn't move at all, even their eyes.

Bunch of guys and gals with placards saying "Right to Life" is just plain jumping on the political anti-euthanasia and abortion bandwagon in my opinion, because as far as I'm concerned, it's not about that, it's actually about human beings who don't effectively and realistically live anymore because they're basically brain dead- basically being kept alive by machines.....if there is no chance of a recovery on the part of the patient, and they have expressed the desire to not be kept alive in what I call "in a human prison" then I think that that person should be allowed to die- I could give two Frodos what George Dubyah Bush has to say on the matter, his personal beliefs are irrelevant to leading a culturally diverse and huge population of people; it's about what the people themselves want, not this absolute bulldust about people TELLING THEM what they can and can't do, by placard or by bringing the name of their God into the argument.

(As far as I'm concerned, no human being should be made into a circus animal like  Terri Schiavo has for the three ringed circus that is politics, and those people that decided that they'd use her name selfishly to champion their own unrelated agendas should be ashamed of themselves, such as those anti-abortion people and the fundie Christian movement groups.)

You would think that those Christian fundamentalists that scream about how letting her die was "against God" would realise that apparently according to their faith it's a good thing to die, because that person gets to be with their God.....but of course, that's what happens when people use the name of their God to justify their own petty and pathetic position in the world, the line between what they claim to believe, and what they're meant to believe is blurred when selfish ambition is thrown into the mix.....

I don't think Euthanasia is really any different to switching off a machine when it's decided recovery is impossible for brain dead patients, especially if the person who is in pain expressly wants to let go.

To be honest, in a land that claims liberty and freedom for all, I'd have expected America of all places to respect the wishes of a human individual, no matter how depraved or incomprehensible said decision is to the parties involved. Instead, the President wants to throw his conservitive and fundamentalist views on the table and will likely attempt to create laws against cases like Terri Schiavo's.....


What can I say? Honestly I don't know sometimes, when countries claim one thing, then say another it's a bit on the hypocritical side methinks.....
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Cuthien, Wolf-maiden on April 04, 2005, 12:06:10 AM
I don't want to start an argument or anything, and I know I'm not a moderator or anything, but could you please refrain from attacking religious groups?  This debate is not on religion, it's on Euthanasia.

The thing about the courts...It should not have gotten that far.  I think that Micheal Shiavo, if he didn't want to care for his wife anymore, then care should have been handed over to her parents.  And when someone is braindead, they are not alive.  They're brain does not even tell them to breathe.  But if they are alive, they just can't feed themselves...what of people who may have been born like that?  Or children who are on tubes?  What do you do then?
Title: Re: Euthanasia
Post by: Vårn on April 04, 2005, 04:11:49 AM
alot of people arguments in this topic are based on religious beliefs, religion becomes a part of a debate when someone bases an opinion on it. regardless, edge does go a little (just a teense a tad a touch ::) ) too far. but claiming it's off topic is, technically accurate but a little narrow minded, surely topics, and discussions, are allowed to change and evolve? sorry, forgot, evolution ;)

the question shouldn't be what he wanted or what her parents wanted, i can't help but feel you've ALL got it wrong there, the only issue should be what she wanted, would've wanted, even. So the question of who's right comes down to who guessed her wish's best. we didn't know her, there's no way we can answer that, perhaps we could ignore this case, as there has been a topic already for those who wished to praise/demonise all involved :)
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Cuthien, Wolf-maiden on April 04, 2005, 05:00:45 AM
Yeah, it is kind of hard to know now what she wanted.  She my have said that to her husband, but she may have not.  If he's the only one who remembers her saying that, then it doesn't help him any.  However, her mind could have been intact (not basic this on anything scientific), but unable to do the things she wanted.  Like I said, I could be wrong.  But euthanasia by starvation is extremely cruel.2
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Vårn on April 04, 2005, 05:15:00 AM
aye, agreed, but since active euthanasia is an even more controversial issue then passive euthanasia i can bring myself to understand why7 they didn't cross that particular line. i would, personally, hate to be seeing everything around me, and unable to move, or do anything but think and imagine, that would not be any idea of a life for me, it still comes back to what she would've wanted, and who was best qualified to judge that.
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Cuthien, Wolf-maiden on April 04, 2005, 05:51:09 AM
I think her parents.  She was their child.  They knew her longer than her husband did.  Also, I remember hearing this story on the news a couple of years ago (the first time they took out the tube).  Before she was brain damaged, she had an eating disorder.  The thing about that is that her husband was really focused on how she looked, as far as size and stuff.  I'm not saying it was his fault she was brain-damaged, but he may have felt some guilt, and couldn't take it anymore. 

That and the fact that he's living with some woman and has kids with her.
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Edge on April 04, 2005, 04:19:48 PM
This wasn't an attack on religious groups- it was a condemnation- if it was an attack, I'd have called them a "pack of [CENSORED]s" or suchlike......you get my drift anyway I'd say.
(And by the way- that was merely an example statement- it was in no way an actual insult to anyone.)


As far as I'm concerned, the very notion that religion has nothing to do with the topic is absolutely ludicrous without going into offense here Cuthien, because as I've already stated, it is religious groups especially that are at the fore of the protests and the fore of the anti-Euthanasia/abortion campaigns, so I believe in my entitlement to use that in my argument, regardless of wether it's deemed "politically correct" and wether it's deplorable and incomprehensable to you or others; it's still evidence and still a piece of a many pronged and large argument that comprises the subject.

I'd urge you to actually touch on the opinions I've stated, and not on the smaller issue of religion that I have brought up merely as evidence to my argument please, take it for what it is even if you can't stand what I have to say.
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Humiliated on April 04, 2005, 05:33:40 PM
I think it's the right of the person who has the illness, or disease or whatever that is preventing them to be normal and/or live a healthy life, without restrictions.
It isn't the right of the Religious acts, or the Church to decide whether a human being has to live, on behalf of their parents.
I mean, I don't think anyone, including Terri would've wanted to stay in a Vegetive state, just for the sake of the parent's well being and for the sake of staying alive.
What kind of life would you lead if you were unable to even eat for yourself?
Title: Re: Euthanasia
Post by: Vårn on April 05, 2005, 12:05:48 AM
her parents knew her longer, but that's nothing to do with how well they knew her, i'm a bit worried you think there's nothing more to knowing someone then having known them for ever and a day  :8o

well what kind of life indeed, but while i believe it should be legal, i don't think it should be as accepted as you seem to suggest, that nromalises it, and i think that would be, a little too far.
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Uryviel on April 05, 2005, 01:37:16 AM
This is such a hard topic to comment on.

I don't believe there should be a set rule as too whether a person must continue to live or be allowed to die, and I don't believe it should be a rule set by governments of different countries.
I do believe though, that the decision should be made by the person who's ill, or if that isnt possible then by the family of person.

Another thing I'd like to add is that I don't believe in doctors/consultants/specialists carrying out the action to end that person's life. I think there should be specialists who can be contacted to organise it ie. discuss with the family and perform the actual physical action of ending the person's life. That way it can be certain that ending the person's life is in the best interest. Doctors are meant to save lives, not end them, that's why I think this.

But the whole euthanasia topic is so difficult because no one knows whether the person (if in a vegititive state or coma for example) will ever wake up, there have been people on life support machines who have woken up 20 years later I believe.  :-\
Title: Re: Euthanasia
Post by: Humiliated on April 05, 2005, 01:52:48 AM
her parents knew her longer, but that's nothing to do with how well they knew her, i'm a bit worried you think there's nothing more to knowing someone then having known them for ever and a day  :8o

well what kind of life indeed, but while i believe it should be legal, i don't think it should be as accepted as you seem to suggest, that nromalises it, and i think that would be, a little too far.

Yes, of course her parent's knew her longer, I know that. No, I just think that, and I don't know how to put this, her parents did have a right to say what they think, but they didn't own her, did they? I know it's not been said that they thought they did, but, yes, I agree, I think it should be legal, but done properly, but it as only as the last option, if the person is so severly ill and in a dangerous life threatening vegetive state that prevents them from living a normal life, doing things for themself.
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Cuthien, Wolf-maiden on April 05, 2005, 05:38:14 AM
I'd urge you to actually touch on the opinions I've stated, and not on the smaller issue of religion that I have brought up merely as evidence to my argument please, take it for what it is even if you can't stand what I have to say.

Well, with all due respect, your ranting was kind of blocking out your arguments.


But if her husband did not want to take care of her, why did he not turn her over to her parents?  Or, why now?  She'd been on the tube for 15 years.  Why not a year after, or something like that?  Why 15 years later?  I don't believe in euthanasia, but if you're gonna do it, why wait so long?
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Humiliated on April 05, 2005, 06:03:46 PM
I'm sure her parent's could've looked after her, but she had feeding tubes, and stuff like that, she could breathe for herself. But not do much else. She needed 24/7 care, by trained nurses, anyone would do in that state, don't you think?
Yeah, I agree, 15 year's is a hell of a long time, to stay in such vegetive state, and why is it 15 year's later that her husband decides to "pull the plug" why not do it when she'd been say in the state, 1 or 2 years?
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Lady Arwen on April 05, 2005, 06:06:38 PM
god, this is awful, to keep someone in such a state for so long!! I know they had their reasons and outsiders really can't understand...but it's like resurrecting a dead body! I'll put it in my will, not to be kept "alive" like this...
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Cuthien, Wolf-maiden on April 06, 2005, 06:21:44 AM
You know, a few people I know have said that she had life insurance, so her husband could have kept her alive this long to collect.  I guess.  But euthanasia by starvation is just...wrong.  Cruel and no doubt, regardless of the brain damage, painful. 
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Humiliated on April 06, 2005, 04:24:15 PM
That's disgraceful! So your saying her husband kept her alive for this long because of the life insurance?
And yes, euthanasia by starvation is cruel. Maybe it could've been done a different way.
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Edge on April 06, 2005, 06:19:31 PM
I'd urge you to actually touch on the opinions I've stated, and not on the smaller issue of religion that I have brought up merely as evidence to my argument please, take it for what it is even if you can't stand what I have to say.




Well, with all due respect, your ranting was kind of blocking out your arguments.




Actually, I don't think there was any respect for my opinion whatsoever there, in fact I think you used such terms to insult me without offending others (I don't think or believe I'm owed respect, but the forum does, as pertains everyone's opinions, not just mine I'll add, especially on this board here....) with that comment to be honest.....It was passionate, but in no ways a rant- A rant is uncontrolled and angry; many people here know what it is when I rant, and what it looks like and that post was not. Yet again, I'll  reiterate to look at the meat of the post, rather than focusing on what I believe is a very fair and deserving criticism of those groups based around the evidence at hand, and maybe try answering that, rather than attempting to rile me into a fight with snide insults; that ain't going to happen by the way.....  :)


Now that that's over with.....


(PS: She's saying that that's what people have said allegeding that it was just for the money. Personally, I don't believe that, because of the fact that legal staff were brought in, and it became a court case- if they were embezzling money as a result of her disability, I don't find it wise to bring the law into it; especially if insurance is involved. I do believe however that there will be a messy court action against him or the family citing that same allegation, because I believe that they'll look for someone to blame for her death.....most likely the husband.  :dry:)





I believe the husband and indeed the family were "clinging on" to her because they couldn't let go- and to be honest, a part of me doesn't blame them, because to see a young woman who you raised/married reduced to a mere and complete shadow of her former self would be harrowing for anyone.....the mere sign of breath and life being enough reason and justification to keep her that way no matter what as far as I could tell. I'd not call it selfishness, because that's a very contentious word to use in this, a sensitive subject, I suppose I'd call it the need to hold on.....

I can't see any human being feeling pain when their nerves are shut down or not working- the physical body of a human being doesn't exactly hurt when the nerves are dead- hence why people who are crippled or have paralysis don't have any feeling in the respective area.....the same could be said for the internal system of a human being- how can someone feel pain without nerves functioning or responding to the brain's electrical currents? The answer? It can't- it's not possible, and so I don't feel that allowing a PVS victum to die in this way is cruel or painful- rather, I see that as a human emotion that some quarters tag along to the argument to make this death seem all the more wrong, when in reality, it was no different to switching off a machine of a brain dead victum.

To be honest, they had a broken, empty shadow of the person they once knew, and who in their lifetime wants to live 15 years without being able to experience a damn thing? I know that if I couldn't see, smell, hear, touch or smell anything, I'd feel like my body is a prison.....I'd want out by any means necessary.....in short, I'd want to die- and this is coming from someone who fears my mortality above almost all others. In that instance- who is anyone else to tell me otherwise? You know, it's entirely the freedom and decision of the people involved as far as I'm concerned, especially the subject wether in this kind of instance the machine should be switched off.....to take that freedom away (And I'm really talking in terms of the United States here.) would undermine their own human rights and basically legislate that someone has to lead an existance on this planet purely for the sake of breathing, which I find disturbing and wrong- especially if new laws are conjured up as a result of the personal beliefs of a select few people over this incident.

Very much agree with Ury, that's a good idea that I hadn't really considered.....while I agree with Euthanasia, I do feel that doctors would be the ones bearing the brunt of it, and that specialists would be for the best especially, in my view, in cases like this recent one. They are without a shadow of a doubt hard up enough as it is without intentionally switching off machines; especially with the moral and social divisions between people when it comes to this tough and sometimes bitter subject.


Setting strict guidelines (IE: Legislation, law or a bill.....), as Varn and Ury (I think) both stated before, aren't right in my view also, in that it does "normalise" this sensitive issue/action, and of course, like everything in medicine, things can go wrong. There should be an option to Euthanise in my opinion in extreme circumstances such as PVS and Braindead states but not a law or set rule that people must follow to the letter, that would be as useless as an inflexible elastic band.  :wacko: Each case is different, and I would suggest that the governments take a look at making a safe and acceptable Euthanasia policy that would deal flexibly with the extremely and gravely ill. I don't agree with keeping people who suffer alive longer than they want, I just don't- I'd rather let them die on their own terms.


(PS: For anyone that doesn't believe that religion has nothing to do with the topic, here's something I want to pose to you to see wether I can find anyone else that feels the same way; Just in retort to the Christian arguments against Euthanasia I've heard over the past few years, I pose a question in the form of a point; Why would you want to hold back a person from going to their God if that's what they want? If someone gravely ill wishes to die, why not allow their God to take them, and end their pain? )

Just a thought.

Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: spikealott on April 07, 2005, 02:38:32 PM
I agree with what happened.

In my personal state, if I was like TS I would want to be allowed to rest in peace, however I know full well, that other Members of my family would want to be kept alive as long as possible.

Which Is a wish that I respect.

All I can say is, I hope we will be allowed to have a choice, rather than having it taken away from us.
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Icy on April 07, 2005, 06:12:51 PM
I personally can't stand this conservitive Christian idea that people must be kept alive as long as is humanly possible because they have the "right." to I'm sick of hearing about rights, a right is something that a person in themselves as an individual can choose to accept and administer; it's not something that people with a bunch of bloody wooden placards and paper banners can force someone to invoke!! People talk about how all human beings have the right to live, and they do fundamentally- but when it comes down to it, if you're in a Perminant vegitiive state such as the case of Terri Schiavo, then you're effectively not living, you're dead to the world and unable to do anything but stare blankly if even you have control of that- that is basically like being in a coma you can't wake up of- your nerves are shut off, and if they aren't then they are simply not recieving the core electrical synapses from the brain, effectively saying that there is nothing really firing in the brain. I'm no doctor, but that's what conclusion I'd draw if I realised someone in a P.V.S couldn't move at all, even their eyes.

Bunch of guys and gals with placards saying "Right to Life" is just plain jumping on the political anti-euthanasia and abortion bandwagon in my opinion, because as far as I'm concerned, it's not about that, it's actually about human beings who don't effectively and realistically live anymore because they're basically brain dead- basically being kept alive by machines.....if there is no chance of a recovery on the part of the patient, and they have expressed the desire to not be kept alive in what I call "in a human prison" then I think that that person should be allowed to die- I could give two Frodos what George Dubyah Bush has to say on the matter, his personal beliefs are irrelevant to leading a culturally diverse and huge population of people; it's about what the people themselves want, not this absolute bulldust about people TELLING THEM what they can and can't do, by placard or by bringing the name of their God into the argument.

(As far as I'm concerned, no human being should be made into a circus animal like  Terri Schiavo has for the three ringed circus that is politics, and those people that decided that they'd use her name selfishly to champion their own unrelated agendas should be ashamed of themselves, such as those anti-abortion people and the fundie Christian movement groups.)

You would think that those Christian fundamentalists that scream about how letting her die was "against God" would realise that apparently according to their faith it's a good thing to die, because that person gets to be with their God.....but of course, that's what happens when people use the name of their God to justify their own petty and pathetic position in the world, the line between what they claim to believe, and what they're meant to believe is blurred when selfish ambition is thrown into the mix.....

I don't think Euthanasia is really any different to switching off a machine when it's decided recovery is impossible for brain dead patients, especially if the person who is in pain expressly wants to let go.

To be honest, in a land that claims liberty and freedom for all, I'd have expected America of all places to respect the wishes of a human individual, no matter how depraved or incomprehensible said decision is to the parties involved. Instead, the President wants to throw his conservitive and fundamentalist views on the table and will likely attempt to create laws against cases like Terri Schiavo's.....


What can I say? Honestly I don't know sometimes, when countries claim one thing, then say another it's a bit on the hypocritical side methinks.....

Like usual, I totally agree with every word.

I always put myself in the persons shoes...

If I was reduced to not being able to move, speak...basically not being able to do anything...I would rather not be here.  At the end of the day...if there is no chance of recovery...

Whats the point?

What would be the point of living? 

Coupled with the fact if someone wants to die, then why should they not get their wish?

If someone refused me to die when I wanted too, I'd feel terrible.  And I'm sure anyone else would too. 

So I agree that if someone wishes to die, wishes to have their life support turned off....they should get what they want. 
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Sez on April 07, 2005, 09:43:37 PM
I agree with both yours and Edge's opinions Icy.

When I heard that Terri Schiavo's tube was removed and she had to starve for about a fortnight, I was disgusted and horrified to how anyone could treat a person like this.

With a topic like this, you do have to put yourself into the sufferer's shoes and consider how you would feel about it. I know personally that if I was terribly ill and suffering in pain, I would want to die and not suffer and I would want my request to be respected.
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Cuthien, Wolf-maiden on April 08, 2005, 04:40:27 AM
To answer an earlier question:  Letting someone go with God by starving them to death is not a religious believe, I think, at least not a Catholic one, and the Schindler's are Catholic.

Something like removing a tube is cruel.  They arrested a kid who tried to bring the woman a little bit of water, for crying out loud!  A ten year old.  A bit extreme, if you ask me.  At least this:  Why wouldn't they sedate someone for what's left of their life?  I just think it's wrong to starve someone to death, regardless of their wishes.  Because it wasn't life support, it was just food and water.

And as far as the life insurance thing I said earlier:  I didn't say that Micheal Shiavo was going to get it, it just seemed that way.  And he was living with another woman.  So he wasn't, as was stated earlier, "clinging" too hard, I think.
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Edge on April 08, 2005, 06:20:27 AM
Quote
as was stated earlier, "clinging" too hard, I think

If these comments keep being made in that tone there's going to be severe issues.  >(


anyway.....


What about the years in which she was still being kept alive- you maybe never think that the reason he felt he had to let go is because he's moved on?! 15 years is a hell of a long time to not cling, from where I sit.


You're still looking at it like she felt the pain, and no matter what you say contrary, I know that she couldn't feel it. Plain and straight.
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Cuthien, Wolf-maiden on April 08, 2005, 07:09:57 AM
Well, how do you know that for sure? 
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Edge on April 08, 2005, 05:59:37 PM
Because their central nervous system is not working, therefore sensitivities to pain receptors are null, because the body is unable to interpret the signals of the brain- hence, why the person cannot control their body, their sight, or their thought process. How can you feel pain, if the nerves are not workling? The nerves are what tell our bodies what's wrong, they're what alert our senses and what makes us feel pain, warmth, and any other sensations normally associated with touch.

How do I know? Because it's impossible when the nerves are dead to "feel" anything, your brain in a PVS cannot interpret it anyway, even if it would be felt.....so far to my knowledge, no-one, wether it be doctor or family have said that she suffered, felt pain, or made some sort of acknowledgement of said "pain."

(That was in relation to the claim made earlier by yourself that she recognised people, thereby that would theoretically mean she wouldn't have been a PVS victim.....)


Think about it- if you plug in an electrical cable to something, say a kettle for instance- and you have made a break in the wire- say, you've partially severed the connection.....the current doesn't flow properly, so the device basically does nothing because it only gets an incoherent signal. Or in a computer, where the operating system cannot find the vital files necessary to run itself, so stays in a permenant state of BIOS boot.....

We are very similar to each, because our brains use electrical signals through the nerves in ordr to carry out the functions that we want to do.....and our make up is like that of a system also, in that we have different parts doing different jobs for one collective body, that utilises electricity and commands to get the messages through to those different parts.

Now having said that, then it is logical to assume or even to conclude, based on both the facts of PVS and the makeup of the body's nervous system, that when the nerves are not working, a human being cannot feel pain, or anything else for that matter. That's not including the actual fdamage to the brain as well that that poor woman had as well, because that is entirely a factor as well, in that the brain can't interpret the electrical systems effectively.

A similar sort of thing happens wehen a brain dead patient's heart still beats- the brain isn't cognitive and functional, but the body continues to do as it has always done basically out of control.

If the brain isn't thinking coherently, how does that person even know, assuming there was pain there- how can a person know when they can't even think for themselves? I'm not buying the argument that there is pain involved at all, I simply think that the prison-like state of PVS is incomprehensable to some people, and they keep putting themselves in their shoes- effectively saying "If I starve to death, I'm going to be in a lot of pain, so she must be too!" which if that is the viewpoint is a wrong stance to take. Just because coherent human beings can feel pain, does not mean a PVS victim can in my opinion.
That is what I think, and what I know of the human body when the nerves die.....take it as you will, but I'll not tolerate any more insults.


I will say that this is what I have come up with based on a number of differing factors, and it is purely opinion, I have not quoted fact or statistics, as I'm thinking with my own mind here.....as such, I'd ask that people don't assume that what I'm saying is fact, rather, treat it like it is; opinion.  :)
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Humiliated on April 08, 2005, 06:00:15 PM
I agree with Edge, I don't think anyone in that state could feel anything, I mean, their in such a vegetive state that they aren't themselves anymore.

Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Cuthien, Wolf-maiden on April 09, 2005, 11:49:25 PM
Whatever.  They still have a soul, which is not connected to nerve endings.  I'm just floored by the starvation thing.  That was so wrong.
Title: Re: Euthanasia
Post by: Vårn on April 11, 2005, 02:09:59 AM
the assumption that they have a soul brings religious belief into it, i thought you said you wanted that left OUT of it? :8o
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Cuthien, Wolf-maiden on April 11, 2005, 02:15:14 AM
Whatever.

Whatever you believe, is starvation not wrong?  Or is it only wrong for religious folks like myself?   :P
Title: Re: Euthanasia
Post by: Vårn on April 11, 2005, 02:23:57 AM
you advocate direct intervention? i imagine the problems are legal, that then becomes murder, in legal terms, and even less palatable to a court, i'm sure i've said this...


personally i would advocate intervention, euthanasia is euthanasia, regardless, but i would guess the reasons were legal.

edit: oh, and please don't assume your own superiority :)
Title: Re: Euthanasia
Post by: Cuthien, Wolf-maiden on April 11, 2005, 02:59:50 AM
you advocate direct intervention? i imagine the problems are legal, that then becomes murder, in legal terms, and even less palatable to a court, i'm sure i've said this...


personally i would advocate intervention, euthanasia is euthanasia, regardless, but i would guess the reasons were legal.

edit: oh, and please don't assume your own superiority :)

Uh, I'm not. 

Would advocating intervention mean...what?  Just curious as to where you're coming from so I can give an answer.
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Vårn on April 11, 2005, 04:55:15 AM
no worries then, tonal misinterpretation.

actively killing her, it does seem to be the only alternative to either feeding her or starving her (i have to say i think it would've been more humane then allowing her to starve, she almost certainly felt nothing, but, just on the off chance) all i'm saying is, i can see why it didn't happen, the public as a whole (they who are appeased in a court case like this) seem to be more squeamish then most of it's individual members.
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Unebriwen on April 11, 2005, 05:19:23 AM
Whatever.  They still have a soul, which is not connected to nerve endings.  I'm just floored by the starvation thing.  That was so wrong.
Hey, look, this topic is about peoples opinions, you can either accept it or not, please don't be so rude with words such as 'whatever', it's both degrading and annoying. I find your views interresting, but not everyone here is a Christian, though Varn your responses aren't helping much either ;) Would both of you please just take a deep breathe before you post again? :D :wub:
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Edge on April 11, 2005, 06:43:04 PM
*Deep Breath*


The assumption that a human being has a soul on your part, has just proven that what I said previously about those Religious groups with placards and indeed on the bearing of the Christian argument on Euthanasia is a valid argument, and as such have figuratively and literally tripped up your own arguments that point to the contrary. I agree completely with what Varn has said, and don't think he was unjustified in saying what he did. He put it far more precisely and less offensively than I could, and as such is worthy of credit for diffusing the situation.

"Don't assume your own superiority" is a belief I've followed about this member in a number of topics, only I've never put it as eloquently as he did.....as such, I completely believe that it was right and necessary for him to tell her that.


Insofar as your argument though Cuthien, my dilluded friend- are you trying to say that the soul eats, sleeps or does all the things us humans do- because if so, you'll be tripping up one of the most fundamental arguments and bringing it dangerously close to fruition; the question of what we are when we die.

The "soul" is a person's essence according to many beliefs- it is our potential, our emotions and our rationality.....I find it hard to believe that "Digestion" is a part of said belief, and I'd ask you to actually explain your argument, rather than attempting in a futile, pitiful, small and frankly pathetic attempt to insult members of the forum with your constant air of superiority, and the use of words like "whatever" (which clearly show you're on the losing side of the argument.) towards those that don't seem to show your *obvious* right hand position at the seat of your God.  ::) ::)


The soul cannot be harmed in many sects beliefs- the soul lives on; If you could harm the soul, then people like St. Peter, people like the Martyrs of Rome, people like your saviour, Jesus himself would be harmed by their deaths then if that is your argument; So to say that you can hurt the soul by not giving it such pitiful earthly things such as food is to circumvent your own beliefs and your own Church- effectively saying that the concept of the soul is another word for "the human brain."  ::)

Give it up kid.  :dry:
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Unebriwen on April 11, 2005, 08:13:54 PM
Lol, no reason for name-calling Edge m'dear ;) :P *deep breath* XD

As much as I like to debate on religion/non-religion ethics, this is about Euthenasia. Anyhow, I'm not exactly sure what the 'soul of Jesus' has to do with Euthenasia, but I do try to keep an open mind ;) (what's left of it).

Euthenasia is almost like abortion, though this person's basically been born :) For me, if it was a decision, it would depend upon the circumstances. Say I was brain-dead, or even in a vegetative state where I couldn't move, I would not wish to live like that, it would be both hard on myself and on those who would take care of me (if anyone would). Some people love their 'life' so much that they'd rather live like a vegetable than get 'terminated' - and that's fair enough, but it's ultimately up to an individual. Of course in most cases the person is unable to speak/voice their opinion, however when someone is able to voice their opinion, and is asking - pleading, even - to die, to have the plug pulled, then people step in and say that it's murder!
Why would it be murder if they're pleading to be put out of their misery? :-\ Something for you to think about ::)
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: josher the hobbit on April 11, 2005, 09:33:47 PM
I've been staying out of this topic because I don't have much to say on this issue, other than what has already been covered...
But I was just wondering something that just came up the other day, with all respect to his memory... if the Pope had had a stroke, what would they do? Like after twenty years or so?
Would they get a new Pope, would they pull the plug? I don't know...it's just one of those questions that I can't work out the answer?
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Unebriwen on April 12, 2005, 05:43:15 AM
I've been staying out of this topic because I don't have much to say on this issue, other than what has already been covered...
But I was just wondering something that just came up the other day, with all respect to his memory... if the Pope had had a stroke, what would they do? Like after twenty years or so?
Would they get a new Pope, would they pull the plug? I don't know...it's just one of those questions that I can't work out the answer?
The really stupid (and annoying) thing is, that it would be a 99.9% chance they would not pull the plug. Pope John Paul II was very pro-life in his teachings, and very much against Euthenasia, so they would (as they really had done during his last few weeks) try to keep him alive as long as possible. He's what you'd call a symbol amongst the Catholic Church and because of his beliefs, now many people also believe the same. Anyhow, enough of my rambling, the answer would be no: they would not pull the plug on the pope, even if he's in a vegetative fruitish state (I'm sick of saying vegetable ;) ).
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Cuthien, Wolf-maiden on April 12, 2005, 05:15:11 PM
Yeah, like, what if the Pope was braindead, and they didn't pull the plug?  That would be wrong, because he was essentially gone.  (Braindead meaning that there was no brain function, like no breathing.)
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Unebriwen on April 13, 2005, 08:25:55 AM
Precisely what I said - they wouldn't pull the plug, basically because of his teachings. The Pope was very pro-life.
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Cuthien, Wolf-maiden on April 13, 2005, 05:14:14 PM
It's good (in my opinion) that he was essentially pro-life, but I would hope that someone would have the sense to pull the plug if there was no brain activity (as in no independent breathing.) 
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Amarie on April 14, 2005, 11:44:24 PM
But isn't it horrible, if other people decide in the end if you live or die. I would want to take that decison on my own. In Germany people can make a living will, so there will be no questions as to what measures are still allowed to be taken.

As far as Euthenasia goes. I think if I had an illness and docters would tell me there is no hope left. It would be nice, to gather family and friends, say goodbye and die silently slipping away because somone who understands what he is doing is giving you the right overdose of something.

This sounds much more compasionate to me then dying in agony, possibly alone, because no one could make it in time..

So I think this decision should be up to the people themselves. It is difficult I know, but then everyone would have to think about what he/she wants at a time when they are still well and in their right senses. I think this would be a good solution.
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Cuthien, Wolf-maiden on April 15, 2005, 04:40:29 AM
That's the thing about living wills...a lot of people don't leave them, and in Terri Shiavo's case, are not able to communicate what they want.  So sometimes, people die a painful death (like Terri) because nobody really knows what's going on, and are just going on someone else's word about what they think the victim wanted.  Kind of sad.
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Edge on April 15, 2005, 05:17:15 PM
I've not gone away, I'll repeat once again.....

Once again, she was in a Perminant Vegititave state- once again it couldn't have been a painful death because her nerves and brain were not working with each other- essentially she was a hollow shell that breathed. Once again this is a pointless argument. Once again you said it.

No matter how many times you slip it in, she didn't feel pain because she couldn't feel the pain- she was dead already.


I'll say this though, the point you're making I kinda can agree with.....sure- people without living wills could be switched off "unwillingly" but to be honest, that's why sanctions were suggested when people that are pro-euthanasia put forward suggestions as to how a Euthansaia law could take effect properly and most importantly; safely.
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Cuthien, Wolf-maiden on April 16, 2005, 03:58:22 AM
Hmmm, a permanent vegitative state would mean brain-dead to me.  And maybe someone like that could still feel if they were, you know, starving. 

I'll say this:  Euthanasia is not my area of expertise.  I don't know everything about it.  Of course I realize that not everyone has a Christian world-view like I do, so I think that assisted suicide is wrong.  Mercy-killing:  the phrase is like an oxymoron, almost.  Although I know that people would not want to be in pain, still.  A family taking time out of their lives that they will never get back is the ultimate show of love.  I would rather have love than dignity, if I were in that situation.

Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Edge on April 17, 2005, 09:37:04 PM
Hmmm, a permanent vegitative state would mean brain-dead to me.  And maybe someone like that could still feel if they were, you know, starving. 

That's an Oxymoronic statement in itself though, because you physically and realistically cannot be Brain dead and feel pain, because when your brain is dead, your human consciousness that processes pain, that processes thought and that processes our electrical signals in our nerves simply doesn't work- there is no cognitive thought process, because the brain is completely shut down- basically, a brain dead state is like switching off an electrical appliance- once the power is out, it stops functioning.....therefore- starving or not- we cannot feel pain when we're braindead, and we cannot feel pain when we are vegitative.


Why do you keep insisting on the opinion that someone who is brain dead can feel pain?! This topic has already explained the reasons why a brain dead human being cannot feel pain whilst braindead- it is impossible.


And again, I'd implore you to reconsider what you're saying in respect to a Christian view; in that if someone is suffering, and wants to die (Effectively, to be with their God if thay're like you are.) then why is it so wrong to allow the person to die and be with their god- it isn't an act of hate or an act of non-loving- if a human wants to die, why is it so wrong?

Just on a separate point; We put other animals down if they are in pain and are suffering with no chance of recovery- why are we so much better that we cannot allow a person the same dignity?
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Cuthien, Wolf-maiden on April 18, 2005, 04:34:56 AM
Okay, let me give you an answer.  Terri Shiavo was not brain-dead.  She was very much brain-alive.  That was where I was coming from.  (I apologize if I was not clear enough.) 

The question in that case is...what if someone doesn't want to die? 
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Edge on April 21, 2005, 09:11:13 PM
She wasn't brain alive, because she had no control of her body, couldn't feel any pain and couldn't react to anything save for reflexes. For all extents and purposes she was dead.


To answer your question again, I'll say that the rules for Euthanasia that many people have put forward are only meant to apply to the people that want to die; no-one's suggesting that everyone that gets old or everyone that gets sick should be Euthenised.....hell, if someone doesn't want to die, then so be it. I'm talking about those people who are suffering so much that they want their pain to end.

We're no more sacred or important than any other animal- there is no reason whatsoever to keep someone alive if they do not want to be.
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Cuthien, Wolf-maiden on April 22, 2005, 08:15:39 PM
Yeah, but what if they are alive and responsive, but have no way to communicate their wishes and they left no living will?
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Edge on April 24, 2005, 11:48:56 PM
Alive, in meaning that the person could feel, could move, could acknowledge people- then Euthanasia isn't viable in that it's not known what that person wants; however- if I know you, you're going to try and trap me into saying the same about the most recent case, and it's not something I'm about to fall for, as my ideas on PVS and yours are two totally different entities.


ONCE AGAIN, I'll reiterate that if a person wants to die, then they should be allowed.....AGAIN, I'll say that if a person is suffering irreversably, then they should be allowed to die should they want to, AGAIN I'll say that if someone is being kept alive for the sake of the fact that their breathing, they should die.....if only just to bring closure to a long dead entity.....

If someone is alive, responsive and able to at least acknowledge people (IE: Their brain is functioning properly.) then and only then do I draw the line and say that that shouldn't be up to other people. I'll reiterate that that is quite often not the case in cases where Euthanasia is called for, as the vast majority of Euthenasia cases are by terminally or irreversibly ill human beings that want their own suffering and pain to end; and to die on their own terms, rather than have their shells eaten away by rotten disease and painful decline.

People who are brain dead don't have that option- in that they're already dead to the world.....only their shell functions, and in that case, it should be allowed that that person should be allowed to die.

People who are victims of PVS, whose brain is basically severed from anything cognitive should also be allowed to die,  not because we're "sick" or "morbid", but because that person is basically dead- it is basically a human being being kept alive for the sake of that person being able to breathe, which is a natural response of the body anyway. If there is no activity in the brain, then why should that person be kept alive for as long as possible?!

Keeping people alive just for the sake of it is wrong, it's just plain wrong in that in some cases it prolongs a person's suffering (if they are indeed able to feel so.) it robs a human being of their dignity in that they will quite often be turned into a media circus, where people will morbidly be discussing why that one human being stayed alive/ was allowed to die.....it also, and this is important, keeps families and loved ones clinging on in a cruel and long wait of false hope when they know deep down that there are no prospects of recovery.

Sure, the issue of non-responsive people is going to be used and discussed for years to come, but the fact of the matter is this- no-one will ever solve the argument; there will always be fors, and there will always be againsts.....


Just on a separate, more curious point, do you mean to tell me that as a Christian, you would be happy to allow a person who can feel pain and has terminal cancer that will slowly spead, infect and kill him to live for years on end in agony, maybe more?! Would you go out with a placard or even go and look that man in the eye and tell him "NO!! You can't die because it's wrong." when he expressly wants to, and not even bother explaining why? No my friend, you couldn't- you aren't that heartless methinks. However, that's the kind of situations people deal with every day, and the conscious ones make that choice every day.....and what's more- when they make that choice- in the name of keeping that person alive and keeping down death records, people call that person "Unfit" to make that decision" and have the arrogance, the venom and the heartlessness to treat that person like he's a moron, like his opinion on his own life is not worth a ****!!


Are we humans that arrogant that we can allow and advocate a terminally ill hamster, rabbit, dog or lion to die- but not one of our own? Bulls--- as far as I'm concerned....simply bulls---. Human arrogance is our downfall.




PS: Again too, what's with the "what if?" questions- you're offering nothing to this discussion but a quiz, you haven't yet explained in detail your opinions, and instead feed off what others say to make your argument. Especially me. Now, before you go asking some more "But what if?" questions of me, I would like to see you give us some of your time and actually explain what it is you find so wrong, because frankly I'm sick of shooting your more superficial arguments down. This has gone on far enough- either give us something of yours to go on, or our part in this topic is over.

Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Cuthien, Wolf-maiden on April 25, 2005, 12:13:05 AM
Okay, my beliefs.  I'll lay them down for you all. 

I do believe that Euthanasia is wrong.  Here's what I see as differences.  If someone is unresponsive, as in not really conscious and a respirator is the only thing keeping them alive (their brain not sending signals for their heart to beat and their lungs to breath) then pull the plug.  They're gone.  But if the person is responsive and their brain sends certain vital signals (their heart beats on its own and they breath without the aid of a repirator, only they can't really take care of themselves too well), then they are alive.  (To use an example:  Terri Shiavo was responsive to her parents.  In some ways it seemed, as far as her limbs go, that she was paralyzed.  Just because she was severely brain damaged  does not imply brain-dead.)  Those are the most clear-cut arguments, I think.

However, if someone is in pain, that is a little more difficult to argue.  It's like suicide, because the person can choose to die.  For instance, if someone has cancer, and chooses to die, well, it's harder to think about that.


Then again, if the treatment thing weren't such a big money-winner for the medical practice, there wouldn't be so much pain.
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Edge on April 25, 2005, 01:03:36 AM
I don't think it's right of you to pick and choose which sides of this general subject to talk about- we're having a discussion about Euthanasia as a whole, and yet you seem to constantly keep bringing up that one case as your reasoning behind saying that Euthanasia is wrong, thus it would be correct to assume that you're basing your entire argument on one of the many many situations that can arise in this topic. 


Why reply if it's hard to think about- say what it is you believe without the inhibitions of a difficult subject, otherwise there's no point.....when I post, I'm sure that what I'm saying is what I want to say, and what I feel I need to say, I can't allow inhibitions and difficulties to get in the way, otherwise it just cuts down the whole argument and it winds up on the floor to be sweeped up by the opposite side.

I do realise this is a tough subject, but you cannot debate in a topic on one issue in many simply because you don't want to talk about the others, it just seems a little presumptuous to do that.


It's good now that we've got something from you on the subject though, I was getting tired of answering all those questions!  :P :laugh:

The lady in question though was "reported" to have been responsive by the parents- the doctors to my knowledge never agreed nor never said "this woman is responsive, barely, but responsive- the decision to switch off was based upon the fact (and we're talking about many different people here) that the woman was in a permenant Vegitive state and was unresponsive. Wether it was the brain sending the signals is unclear, as there have been many cases where totally brain dead patients have managed to breathe on their own even though they were utterly devoid of life in every other criteria. After extensive debate, research, study and after a long time of blankness reminiscant of a coma, the decision was made to switch off any machines and stop the introvenus feeding. I can understand where there would be debate about that, but ass far as I'm concerned after following the story and reading up on the facts, that woman was dead to the world, and there's nothing anyone can say to convince me otherwise until someone of those doctors say "We got it wrong, she was moving and responsive."


Apart from that though, there's a whole other side to this argument that so far no-one is willing to touch on, and that is the issue of Euthanasia from a conscious human being who is in terminal suffering and pain.
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Cuthien, Wolf-maiden on April 25, 2005, 07:17:18 AM
Apart from that though, there's a whole other side to this argument that so far no-one is willing to touch on, and that is the issue of Euthanasia from a conscious human being who is in terminal suffering and pain.

True, true.  It's a bit like suicide, I think, and can still leave behind pain, though I'm not sure if it's as much like pain as a family member taking their own lives out of depression. 

I think that there should be some discussion over that. 
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: x~x..cheese+beef..x~x on May 30, 2005, 05:51:08 PM
I agree with voluntary euthanasia when a person aska someone to assist them.... because if I was suffering immense paina dn everything and I knew I'm just going to suffer like that until I die, then what would all the pain be worth because it's not going to make you better.... so I'd rather be killed nicely.... I don't think that should be against the law if the person wants it
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Pippy on May 30, 2005, 06:38:14 PM
I wish I could of helped my grandfather. His pain was terrible. He died in terrible agony. But I was not there. He asked my grandmother to end his pain. To let him go but she would not do it. I would have. So he could be free from the agony...and free from the pain. I do not think anyone should be left to suffer. If ever I was asked to end someone's pain I would do it.  Life is our's and we should have a right to say when we wish it ti end I beleive,
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: x~x..cheese+beef..x~x on May 30, 2005, 10:05:30 PM
I couldn't agree more... if the pain and everything is just going to lead to dying in pain rather than being healed then what is the point in it?!
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Cuthien, Wolf-maiden on May 31, 2005, 05:52:42 AM
I don't think I could actually end someone's life.  For instance, what if they are killed out of mercy, but the cure for what they have is found in the next few days?  Not saying that's ever happened, but what if?  But, besides all the other reasons, I don't think I could take another human life and not feel a little guilty, even if they were in pain.   
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: x~x..cheese+beef..x~x on May 31, 2005, 05:18:56 PM
Yes but living on what ifs isn't going to get people anywhere... and why would you feel guilt if you're ending someone's suffering... personally I'd feel like I'd done a good deed because that person isn't pointlessly suffering anymore  ;D
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Cuthien, Wolf-maiden on June 01, 2005, 04:04:46 AM
Well, it's just the act of taking someone's life that would give me guilt, regardless of the motives.  It would be scary to know that I ended someone else's life.
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Unebriwen on June 06, 2005, 06:56:56 AM
Yes, but what if that person wished to die? I mean, I know I wouldn't want to live in complete agony, I'd rather die in a fire or something than 'live' a meaningless and miserable life. Would Euthanising yourself be considered suicide, you think, or nature? And if you asked someone to do it for you, because you were unable to do it yourself, would that be for them an act of mercy, or murder?
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Cuthien, Wolf-maiden on June 06, 2005, 07:53:53 AM
Well, in all literal sense of the word, euthanizing would be suicide, I think, because suicide just simply means to kill oneself.  And...well, I think in most cases it would be murder.  But that's just my belief.
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: x~x..cheese+beef..x~x on June 07, 2005, 12:39:29 AM
I wouldn't say euthanasia is suicide... because I know suicide is taking your own life,  but you're going to die anyway so you're just speeding up natural processes.... suicide is taking your LIFE, if you're suffering a fatal illness which is extremely painful and will ultimately kill you and will only get worse then it isn't suicide because you don't have much of a life because you are suffering and are going to die from this suffering sooner or later and the pain will never cease.... so it's not really suicide
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Cuthien, Wolf-maiden on June 07, 2005, 01:03:47 AM
Well, I was going by the most literal, bare root definition of the word.   ;)
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: x~x..cheese+beef..x~x on June 07, 2005, 01:04:50 AM
lol.... my bad.... went into a bit of the details on it all, lol  ;D
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Cuthien, Wolf-maiden on June 07, 2005, 01:13:47 AM
It's cool. :D

But I do think that we shouldn't be able to take ending of our lives into our own hands like that. 

Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: x~x..cheese+beef..x~x on June 09, 2005, 11:17:11 PM
oh well... personally I disagree because of all the pointless pain and suffering
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Cuthien, Wolf-maiden on June 10, 2005, 11:50:17 PM
Yes, a lot of suffering is pointless.  Like cancer, for instance.  Chemo and radiation only make it worse.  But there are natural treatments that strengthen your immune system and make it strong enough to fight the disease.  So if the medical people would shape up instead of making it worse...well...
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: x~x..cheese+beef..x~x on June 24, 2005, 02:21:12 AM
a lot of all the natural stuff that can be used to help peoplez is being destroyed though because people destroy shiz loads of vegetation and it's like... why?? I think money should just not exist so that everyone is equal and the environment is gooooood ;D cave men managed without money... why can't we when we're supposedly more civilised   ???
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Cuthien, Wolf-maiden on June 27, 2005, 09:50:19 PM
Well, it's not so much the lack of vegetation as it is that people are so hooked on preservative filled junk that in the long run causes disease and suffering.  So sad.
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: x~x..cheese+beef..x~x on June 29, 2005, 01:31:58 AM
well in the ropical rainforest they have loads of natural cures and they've been chopped down for money ... like the trees and their natural qualities... completely wasteful
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Cuthien, Wolf-maiden on June 29, 2005, 02:35:08 AM
Yeah...but it's not like the doctors would tell their patients about natural cures anyway...conventional treatment is too much of a moneymaker. 
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: x~x..cheese+beef..x~x on June 29, 2005, 03:25:37 PM
I can;t believe people do that though... with the moneyness of treatment s to stop people dying.. it's just plain WRONG!!!  >(
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Cuthien, Wolf-maiden on June 30, 2005, 09:27:36 PM
It is wrong...A lot of people suffer because others want to make money. 
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Pure Evil on July 04, 2005, 07:34:04 AM
Ah, indeed, to some doctors keeping people alive is just money-oriented, but also for other doctors it's something worth keeping, and they sometimes bulk-bill or allow the patient to pay in their own time. Not all doctors are money-hungry :)
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Cuthien, Wolf-maiden on July 05, 2005, 09:43:58 PM
True, not all, but it's more the pharmacuetical companies, I'm beginning to think.
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Humiliated on July 07, 2005, 12:15:40 AM
That's disgusting.

If doctor's keep patient's alive just for money's sake - The doctor's get tons of dosh if they keep them alive, that's just wrong.
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Cuthien, Wolf-maiden on July 07, 2005, 12:49:56 AM
That's assuming the patients actually survive the "treatment" that slowly tears their body apart.
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Humiliated on July 07, 2005, 01:05:23 AM
True..

But seriously if the doctor's and surgeon's had any sense, they wouldn't keep them going?
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Athelas on July 07, 2005, 12:18:21 PM
  I am a family doctor, and I know of no colleague of mine who would prolong life simply for monetary reasons! The vast majority of physicians are ethical enough to suggest to a patient or their family when it's time to back off and let Nature take its course.
  By the way, I have no trouble using cheaper generic drugs when they are appropriate (most of the time!) or effective herbals, like Saw Palmetto or St. John's Wort. I agree that drugs are very expensive, and we in the States pay more than nations with socialized medicine, like Britain and Canada. Pharmaceutical companies make a large chunk of their profits from American consumers. Would you guys be willing to pay more for your drugs so we could pay less? If I were king, I'd make all the Pfizers, Mercks, and Astra Zenicas of the world charge the same for their products in every industrialized nation.
  But I'm not a king, just a family doc.
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Cuthien, Wolf-maiden on July 11, 2005, 09:13:13 PM
Unfortunately, we in the States are so addicted to prescription drugs.  I'm not...haven't taken one since I was in 10th grade.  I wish people would see that the natural way is better, in almost all cases, as far as I know.
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Athelas on July 15, 2005, 10:17:47 AM
  Cuthien, good for you- but I hope that if you ever get strep throat you'll take penicillin. Untreated, strep can cause rheumatic fever and destroy your heart valves.
  Likewise, if your blood pressure is high and you can't lower it with salt restriction, diet and exercise, by all means, take a medication - you'll significantly lower your risk of a stroke.
  I could go on and on but I think you get the idea.
 
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: The NOT So Magical Elf on October 06, 2005, 06:44:22 PM
hello. umm, isnt Euthenasia where u help an old sum1 who whishes to end their suffering to umm well die  :-\
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: The NOT So Magical Elf on October 13, 2005, 07:23:06 PM
sorry if i offended any1

y has no1 posted anythin?

Hello
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: B_mmlethedude on October 13, 2005, 07:45:41 PM
sorry if i offended any1

y has no1 posted anythin?

Hello

Gavin your a case beyond help.

Back to the topic. I think I agree with it because my grandad was in hospital with cancer in his (whats the stomach pipe in your body called? :[). This meant he couldn't eat unless it was fed through a straw, past the lump, into his stomach. He used to be lively and he was really big. Not nastily but he did like to eat loads and drink loads.

When I saw him in the hospital though he was pale, looked so distressed and was so slim. I thought it was the cancer that had caused it, but it was the was he had been treated in the hospital that had made him like that. It really upset me at the time and i think if the NHS aren't doing their potential then why should they bother putting people through that pain?
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: The NOT So Magical Elf on October 13, 2005, 07:49:19 PM
the word is Oesophagus

y dont u complain?
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Mithrandir on October 13, 2005, 09:52:56 PM
the word is Oesophagus

y dont u complain?
What the...

Anyway, I am whole-heartedly in favour of euthanasia because people should be able to choose what they do with their lives. If you're suffering needlessly why shouldn't youwant to die when if you're a cabbage it's barely living anyway?
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: The NOT So Magical Elf on October 18, 2005, 08:11:12 PM
i was helping my friend mr sid with a lil word problem..
and then asked him as to why he did'nt complain to the NHS about the treatment of his grandad

 :fr: hello  :pk:
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: angleseyboi on November 21, 2005, 04:33:28 AM
There should be a law which says that it is the PERSONS choice whether they want to end their life or not, i mean if they are in pain and nothing can be done for them, why should they be allowed to suffer because some politician says so
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: The NOT So Magical Elf on December 01, 2005, 06:45:40 PM
u kno wots quite funny.. :dry:
in america,
if u get cought tryin 2 commit suicide
u get the death penalty
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Blaen on December 01, 2005, 06:51:22 PM
I'm definately pro euthenasia if that's what the person wants. If someone wants to die what right does anyone have to deny that? The book Johnny Got His Gun, though primarily written to be anti-war, shows just why Euthenasia can be a good thing.
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Pippy on February 08, 2007, 12:51:44 AM
I am personally for Euthenasia. I mean what is life when you cannot do the things you are use to do? What possible quality of life is there if you are stuck in bed all day long and unable to move due to your illness? I think in the right circumstances it is right. Although some murders will use that excuse to murder someone who didnt want to die but who were terminally ill..Now I am just getting confused. Excuse me
Title: Re: Euthenasia
Post by: Theo on August 24, 2012, 03:12:09 AM
u kno wots quite funny.. :dry:
in america,
if u get cought tryin 2 commit suicide
u get the death penalty

  That is NOT true..  And it's not funny..  If you get caught trying to commit suicide you get psychiatric help and a 72-hour lock up in a psych ward (for your safety)..


  I, personally, do not want to be a vegetable hooked up to tubes, crapping myself, eating only when force fed through a tube..  I've actually said to family that if anything ever happens to me and I'm brain dead that I do NOT want to live..  But then, I have hope in God and His promise that there's a Heaven waiting for me when I die..  So, for me, death isn't the end of our existence..  It's the end of physical existence but not of spiritual existence..

  I can understand that in the case of Terri Schiavo her parents genuinely thought they were seeing signs of consciousness in her, but how can you know for sure?  What's an eye blink or a mouth movement really gonna tell you?  It's gonna tell you that you wish they weren't brain dead..  But I don't think it fair to anyone to drag it on and not let her die peacefully and with some dignity..