|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Nov 12, 2011 6:04:49 GMT -5
Fairenough. To earlier posters, do you think a "right to die" extends to healthy people? In my case, yes. I'm quite big on total control over ones own body. It's why I'm also pro abortion and pro drug legalisation. Fair enough. |
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Nov 12, 2011 7:19:09 GMT -5
I mean, if you stop to think about it, it almost seems sometimes that animals are treated better than humans. If your cat or dog gets horribly sick and you KNOW it's going to die soon, do you just leave it in its box and try to make it as comfortable as you can until its natural death comes? 99% of the people I know would take it to the vet and have the poor thing put out of its misery. And yet if someone is in such excrutiating pain that even the most powerful painkillers do diddly, and they want to die and get it over with, they're given flack by people for wanting to end their life before 'their natural time', and force them to suffer up until the end. I simply don't see the logic or MERCY in that. This is exactly my argument. We recently put our 14-year old dog to sleep. Why? Because the disks in his back were calcified and he could not move without pain. We couldn't stand seeing him suffer. I do think there should be limits. Person must be in their right mind and capable of making a decision. There should be a waiting period to allow reconsideration. (Not sure how long of one. Just not walk into the office and be dead an hour later.) I am of two minds on the "terminal" issue. On one hand, it makes sense to only allow those who are close to death anyway do it. On the other, there are conditions that make quality of life so low that it isn't really life, but won't kill you. Things that cause so much pain that only high-powered drugs can stop it. (That was the situation with my dog. He wasn't going to die from his disks, but he was in constant pain and had no quality of life left.) |
|
|
|
Post by Yaezakura on Nov 12, 2011 7:42:46 GMT -5
I support legalized euthanasia, though perhaps on condition of some kind of consultation with a psychologist or something. For the terminally ill, to ensure they're making the decision in sound mind, and in other cases, to potentially find the cause of the desire and work towards a better solution.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bluefinger on Nov 12, 2011 8:50:43 GMT -5
I support legalized euthanasia, though perhaps on condition of some kind of consultation with a psychologist or something. For the terminally ill, to ensure they're making the decision in sound mind, and in other cases, to potentially find the cause of the desire and work towards a better solution. If someone is terminally ill, I doubt you'll be able to find a 'better' solution :/ Sure, some things could extend their lives a bit longer. But then, if it comes at the price of further enduring pain, is it worth it? In the end of the day, there is no 'better' solution if you are in such a position. |
|
|
|
Post by Tenfold_Maquette on Nov 12, 2011 9:04:30 GMT -5
If someone wants to die, let them. We all die. It happens; "when" is largely a matter of circumstance. So let them die, if they want to. It's their body, their life.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yaezakura on Nov 12, 2011 10:36:47 GMT -5
I support legalized euthanasia, though perhaps on condition of some kind of consultation with a psychologist or something. For the terminally ill, to ensure they're making the decision in sound mind, and in other cases, to potentially find the cause of the desire and work towards a better solution. If someone is terminally ill, I doubt you'll be able to find a 'better' solution :/ Sure, some things could extend their lives a bit longer. But then, if it comes at the price of further enduring pain, is it worth it? In the end of the day, there is no 'better' solution if you are in such a position. Er... the "better option" was aimed more at, you know, non-terminally ill people seeking a pain-free suicide with no chance of survival, due to depression and such. |
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Nov 12, 2011 11:22:31 GMT -5
Its funny you know - I have no problem with voluntary euthanasia for old people or people with terminal illnesses but I would kind of be freaked out if there was a youth epidemic of it. You raise a good point - I also always supported voluntary euthanasia, but never thought about what would happen if a teenager were to seek that service. My gut reaction was a very different one. Suicide clubs are frequently exaggerated for a good story, but they do exist. A person killing themselves does not affect just them, but also their friends and next of kin. I guess with the legal and psychiatrist preparations they can prepare themselves, or most likely are going to talk their child out of it. |
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Nov 12, 2011 16:42:46 GMT -5
I feel it should be legal and open to anyone...but that you have to pass through certain steps to get there:
1) You must first undergo a psychological evaluation to determine why you wish to die. This will help weed out those suffering from depression and other mental illnesses for whom there are less drastic options than suicide. If you're suffering from a terminal or chronic illness which will either imminently lower your quality of life or already has lowered your quality of life, this step should be a breeze.
2) You must consult with a doctor who performs the procedure/giving the prescription. In essence, this would be the "second opinion". The doctor would, based on his own medical ethics, decide whether or not he was comfortable performing the procedure or prescribing the medications. If it is medical opinion that your actions are, while justified, premature, he can withhold. That is not to say you could not get a third or more opinion, just that I feel a second level of screening is in order.
3) One week waiting period between final sign off and actual planned date of death. This gives you a chance to change your mind.
4) Day of, the patient pulls the proverbial trigger themselves. If this is not physically possible, they must indicate their wishes to the absolute best of their ability. It is the final safe guard.
Start to finish, I'd want the process to take a month. While I feel people have a right to end their own life on their own terms, I also believe that such a decision should not be made lightly, especially not when it is being offered as a kind of medical treatment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Nov 12, 2011 17:30:55 GMT -5
A month is way too damn long when you're dealing with things like a terminal disease.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wykked Wytch on Nov 12, 2011 17:42:11 GMT -5
Wait... what's the penalty for killing yourself? Because as it is, when you commit suicide, it's not like you can be punished or anything.
Also, I am of the opinion that this whole "get three doctors' opinions even if your days are numbered" thing is just a ploy to delay the act of euthanasia as long as possible, the same way "waiting periods" and "counseling sessions" are just ways to delay abortions until they can no longer be performed.
Let's say a person has a disease that slowly causes deterioration of the mind. Eventually, they will not be able to make their own decisions. They choose to obtain euthanasia, but the law stipulates that they must spend the time and money to visit three doctors who will agree that there is no hope for the individual. In that time frame, it is possible that the patient has already had his/her brain deteriorate so much that s/he is no longer in his/her "right mind." In this instance, that person would continue to suffer until death because s/he couldn't get a euthanasia prescription approved in time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Nov 12, 2011 18:01:57 GMT -5
A month is way too damn long when you're dealing with things like a terminal disease. And if there is no screening process or waiting period, a lot of depressed teenagers will impulsively end their lives for shitty reasons. Euthanasia with a waiting period is better than no euthanasia at all. Let's say a person has a disease that slowly causes deterioration of the mind. Eventually, they will not be able to make their own decisions. They choose to obtain euthanasia, but the law stipulates that they must spend the time and money to visit three doctors who will agree that there is no hope for the individual. In that time frame, it is possible that the patient has already had his/her brain deteriorate so much that s/he is no longer in his/her "right mind." In this instance, that person would continue to suffer until death because s/he couldn't get a euthanasia prescription approved in time. My cousin was misdiagnosed with Pulmonary Fibrosis. While your life span is measured in years with that disease, it is still terminal. He lived for a couple of years thinking he was dying. I don't know the specifics, but it later turned out that the diagnosis had been wrong. Without a second opinion or psychological counseling, a dude like him could walk into a doctor's office with immediately following his misdiagnosis and end his life despite having more than ten relatively healthy years ahead of him if the diagnosis is correct and a full life span ahead of him in reality. You can't mulligan death. Measure twice, cut once has to be the rule. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Nov 12, 2011 18:05:44 GMT -5
A month is way too damn long when you're dealing with things like a terminal disease. And if there is no screening process or waiting period, a lot of depressed teenagers will impulsively end their lives for shitty reasons. Euthanasia with a waiting period is better than no euthanasia at all. I think you can have different rules for depressed teenagers and those with a terminal illness. Treating these people as equivalent is moronic. |
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Nov 12, 2011 18:11:57 GMT -5
I think you can have different rules for depressed teenagers and those with a terminal illness. Treating these people as equivalent is moronic. First you say that my suggested screening procedures are too onerous, then you say that there should be screening involved. What specifically about my screening is too onerous? Hell, I watched my mom waste away of breast cancer in about four months time. Actually, she'd been sick closer to four or five. Her quality of life didn't take a nosedive until after she started treatment. Even with terminal (I mean "it could be two weeks, it could be two months" level), she could have made it a month in relative comfort (especially if given pain killers). Ending a life is far, far, far too big a decision to be made without deliberation. Yes, it is an anecdote and therefore not good data. Take it as you will |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Nov 12, 2011 18:15:10 GMT -5
In what world is saying "A month is way too damn long when you're dealing with things like a terminal disease." the same as 'There should be no screening?'
|
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Nov 12, 2011 18:20:26 GMT -5
Aye, terminal illness should allow you to bypass at least most of the process and waiting period. If you're just a depressed kid who wants out, the waiting period and counseling ought be mandatory. Preserve life, but also remember that that also includes quality of life. We must temper our ethics with empathy...but, we also owe it to ourselves and eachother to temper our empathy with reason.
|
|
