Euthenasia

[Humiliated]

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?

[Vårn]

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 

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.

[Uryviel]

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. 

[Humiliated]

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 

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.

[Cuthien, Wolf-maiden]

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?

[Humiliated]

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?

[Lady Arwen]

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...

[Cuthien, Wolf-maiden]

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. 

[Humiliated]

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.

[Edge]

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.  )





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.   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.

[spikealott]

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.

[Icy]

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. 

[Sez]

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.

[Cuthien, Wolf-maiden]

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.

[Edge]

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.

Call to undefined function tportal_version()