Euthenasia

[Rongi]

I support it 100%. If someone doesnt want to live as a vegetable, why make them? What are your thoughts?

[sadie]

all i can think of is that monty python skit where the guy is talking about old people choosing to die with that big "youth in asia" poster behind him. :P

[Immortal Goat]

I support it wholeheartedly. That is of course if the person on life support chooses to die. Some people might want to be kept alive in that curcumstance. I can respect that, just as long as the churchies respects my right to choose death just as much.

[adept_ninja]

why do we have da youth in asia kill ow old? people we americans can do it ourself.
Ali G

also yes I agree with this wholeheartedly. One of my biggest fears is being in a car accident and living to be 90 in a coma.

[Dole]

my biggest fear also involves you living till the age of 90.

I'm all for euthenasia, its should be compulsory.

[El Blanco]

You gonna show us how its done?

Seriously, its a road I'm not sure we should be rolling down. Its essentially putting a price tag on a life.

[Rongi]

Originally Posted by El Blanco

Its essentially putting a price tag on a life.

shut up you pretencious fuck. how is it at all like putting a price tag on life? imagine being completely immobile from the neck down, the only thing you can do is think and talk, everything else is done by machines and the only thing you see all day is doctors and crying relatives. is that any way to live?

[El Blanco]

Do you know what pretencious means?

I don't think you do.

Also, just because I am weary of that option does not mean I haven't taken the pain and suffering into account.

I am worried about people saying " it costs too much to keep me/dad/granma alive. lets pull the plug". thats what I mean by a price tag.

And if I'm in a coma, how the hell would you know what I want?

And if you are going to be a bitch when I give my opinion, why make a post on an internet message board? that specifically asks for opinions no less.

[Rongi]

well to me it just sounded like you didnt really know what you were talking about when you said putting a price on a person's life. thanks for clearing that up though

also, i dont think i said a thing about comas

[GADZOOKS]

Looks like somebody saw Million Dollar Baby

[Rongi]

not really. my grandpa was just taken off life support

[sadie]

sorry, rongi.

[Rongi]

you know, at first when they told me they were gonna unplug his breathing machine, i was not happy. i told them they better fucking not, he's still got life left in him and damnit you didnt fucking ask him did you. but at the time, he couldnt have said anything because he had two strokes and couldnt communicate much at all. but then i realised, he did not look happy in that hospital bed. and he didnt look like he wanted to spend the rest of his life depending on machines. out of my own selfishness, i still sort of wish they left him on

[El Blanco]

Pardon me if I ramble or seem a bit incoherent. I was drinking this afternoon..........a lot.


I think there is a difference between pulling the plug and euthanasia. The former is not taking extrodinary means to keep one alive.

The latter is putting effort towards killing someone.

[Immortal Goat]

Now you're just getting into semantics. They are technically the same thing, it is just that euthenasia is the typical word used for it when people want to put a negative connotation on the action. A great example of this is that whole Schiavo crap that went on.

[El Blanco]

When we are discussing law and/or morality, semantics plays a huge role. These things are worded very carefully.

I see one as letting nature take its course.

I see the other as breaking the Hipocratic Oath and playing God. The whole thing with "First, do no harm", I'm pretty sure killing your patient falls under "harm".

[Spectre X]

Originally Posted by El Blanco

I see the other as breaking the Hipocratic Oath and playing God. The whole thing with "First, do no harm", I'm pretty sure killing your patient falls under "harm".

What if killing your patient with their consent actually stops their suffering? What if the continuation of a patient's life is actually more harmful than dying is, if noth physically then psychologically?

[El Blanco]

In the medical community, the ultimate harm is death. All other issues can be addressed. Maybe not cured, but treated.

Dead is dead. No more treatment, no more therapy. Dead. Gone. Finished.

[Zhukov]

You could see 'harm' as having someone live in a state of constant pain too, I guess. I don't really want to bother defining since I don't care too much.

Since there is no god to play, I am in favour of euthanasia as well as pulling the plug.

[Helm]

if you 'pull a plug' that presupposes there's complicated machinery that was up to then plugged in, keeping nature from taking it's course.

However, unless I didn't understand correctly, Blanco's distinction is moot.

Left to a natural environment, a man with two broken feet will surely perish as well, like a man with cancer will die of natural causes if left alone as surely as a man with no higher brain function will. Dogs will eat them or something. Just because you do not DIRECTLY kill or not kill them (or save them) does that mean you're not responsible? If you don't directly put effort towards killing someone, but they still die, is that ok, then? Because if it is, we can just solve all cases where euthanasia is discussed, by just stopping to feed these people. They'll die by starvation on their own, us having directly done nothing to kill them.

[El Blanco]

[quote="Helm"]

Left to a natural environment, a man with two broken feet will surely perish as well, [quote]

Not in society where a parapalegic can support himself and can get a quart of sweet and sour chicken delivered to his doorstep. We are talking about an industrialized nation in 2005, not ancoient Sumeria.

like a man with cancer will die of natural causes if left alone as surely as a man with no higher brain function will.

Or their body will just deactivate.

Just because you do not DIRECTLY kill or not kill them (or save them) does that mean you're not responsible?

Depends on the situation.

If you don't directly put effort towards killing someone, but they still die, is that ok, then? Because if it is, we can just solve all cases where euthanasia is discussed, by just stopping to feed these people. They'll die by starvation on their own, us having directly done nothing to kill them.

If they require a feeding tube, then its not killing them.

Honestly, its complicated and I'm still figuring out my total position.

[Sethomas]

As a Catholic, I feel that it's morally wrong. However, I do feel that it's a moral issue that should be left to the individual and not the state. Id est, it should be legal. Contrasted with abortion, I feel that the latter should be illegal because a different life lacking the benefit of autonomy is involved. I don't want to turn this into an abortion thread, but I was just demonstrating how I'm not as flippant as first glance would seem to indicate.

[kellychaos]

Mr. Praline: 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!

(pause)

Owner: Well, I'd better replace it, then. (he takes a quick peek behind the counter) Sorry squire, I've had a look 'round the back of the shop, and uh, we're right out of parrots.

[Preechr]

Originally Posted by Rongi

imagine being completely immobile from the neck down, the only thing you can do is think and talk, everything else is done by machines and the only thing you see all day is doctors and crying relatives. is that any way to live?

I work with people in that situation nearly every day. The rest of the time it's kids with various birth defects of whom you might ask the same question. People generally prefer life in any form, no matter how limited, and will adapt to nearly any situation. It's pretty surprising, inspiring, disturbing and it puts the problems I think I have in perspective.

There are those that wish to end their lives, but I'd be willing to bet suicide rates are higher among those of us that aren't struggling so hard just to live day to day than those that are being challenged by life in such bold ways.

My grandpa recently died in hospice. It was a pretty f-d up situation with a living man at odds with his own living will. No one in my family is Ok yet with the idea of witholding dialysis from him, even though the cure would have probably killed him just as quick as the lack of it.

The emotions you are dealing with are personal to you. I'm not sure that trying to think of the situation in a universal sense is gonna help. Personally, I agree pretty much with non-flippant Seththomas on the issue you raised, but the idea that we should take personal pain and attempt to build universal walls against it for other people... well, that's how you get Republicans...