Euthenasia

[Unebriwen]

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]

[Naeniver Gamgee]

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

[Cuthien, Wolf-maiden]

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.

[spikealott]

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.

[Elecyla]

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.

[Cuthien, Wolf-maiden]

I agree that the government should not have so much power over these things...

[Sez]

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.

[Waelith]

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.

[Edge]

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.....

[Cuthien, Wolf-maiden]

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?

[Vårn]

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

[Cuthien, Wolf-maiden]

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

[Vårn]

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.

[Cuthien, Wolf-maiden]

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.

[Edge]

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.

Call to undefined function tportal_version()