The Student Room Group

Euthanasia - a solution to suffering?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by neb789
What about people with depression? Might they say life is agony?


if that's what they're saying, and they are a self-owning rational human being with liberty and rights, then they ought to be permitted to do what they want with their body if they calculate it to be their preferred solution to that kind of problem. you shouldn't force people to endure short term pain for long term gain if they don't desire that or don't want to go through pain which can just be ended via death
Original post by Laomedeia
Text book bigotry that. If your terminally ill then from a religious point of view, god's decision has already been made. If the nature of the passing involves great pain then that god is a sadist. I'm sure you can work out the rest yourselves.


cheers for the insults. have a nice day :h:
Original post by the bear
cheers for the insults. have a nice day :h:


There's a difference between insulting and challenging. You keep confusing the two. If you don't want people to challenge what you say, don't post your opinion on a public forum.
Original post by cherryred90s
There's a difference between insulting and challenging. You keep confusing the two. If you don't want people to challenge what you say, don't post your opinion on a public forum.


i hope you are having a wonderful day :h:
Original post by the bear
i hope you are having a wonderful day :h:


If you're not willing to engage in the debate what's the point? People have valid points against your initial post.
Original post by hezzlington
If you're not willing to engage in the debate what's the point? People have valid points against your initial post.


if i thought they were valid i would hold them...
Original post by hezzlington
If you're not willing to engage in the debate what's the point? People have valid points against your initial post.


I'm convinced he's a troll
Original post by the bear
if i thought they were valid i would hold them...


You haven't even bothered to counter them.

Bad bear!
Original post by the bear
if i thought they were valid i would hold them...

There have been very valid points but you discredit them because you cannot argue against them.
Well, it seems like it's an open-and-shut case with 90% of people in favour of euthanasia then.


Except you're wrong on almost every count.


Wrong about the morality of the law.

Wrong in thinking this law won't be abused.

Wrong in thinking that doctors should start killing people instead of saving them.


There's a reason in the entire history of the UK, we are the only generation that would killing off sick people rather than trying to save them or at least make their dying as dignified as can be.
There's a reason parliament has overwhelming rejected these euthanasia bills on no less than 6 separate occasions including as recently as last year it was defeated 75% against to 25% in the House of Commons.


I'm not going to go into every detail or argument against euthanasia, you're all intelligent folk. There were many excellent speeches in parliament as recently as last year that will argue my position much more effectively than I.

I will, however, briefly share my experience of working in an Elderly Care Home where many patients suffered from dementia and other serious illnesses. We normally experienced a couple of deaths every week.

My overwhelming impression of this generation, this golden WWII generation was the irrepressible and immense desire to "not be a bother" - I knew residents that would go without food or even wet themselves rather than bother us if we were busy, which we usually were. I can't but feel, if it became common practice, many of these good people would volunteer to die because the thought of burdening someone else with their problems and being looked after is just not the way they were raised. They're not like we are now. No matter how many times I told them to bother us if they needed something, many simply wouldn't. But they are worth being bothered for, arn't they?

Look at your grandparents. You know what I'm saying to be the truth.


The other thing that struck me was just how bad people are at self-diagnosing their own prospects when something goes wrong. Many felt that their lives were over when they were diagnosed with a serious illness and they would rather be dead than have to live with it - but actually many turned out eventually to be happy or even very happy despite their condition. My concern is that if instead of supporting them through their low points - letting them kill themselves - they will never reach those high points where they actually have a rather good quality of life. Sometimes you just have to get through the bad periods.

Finally, modern pain-relief is very very effective so the idea of leaving people in "torture" and "agony" while we mercilessly keep them alive is just sentimental b*llocks designed to emotionally manipulate you in the vast majority of cases. Don't let it.


SS
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Supersaps
x


Did you work with any patients that had severe brain damage and or next to no quality of life? A human vegetable?

How do you feel about DNR policy?
Original post by Supersaps
Well, it seems like it's an open-and-shut case with 90% of people in favour of euthanasia then.


Except you're wrong on almost every count.


Wrong about the morality of the law.

Wrong in thinking this law won't be abused.

Wrong in thinking that doctors should start killing people instead of saving them.

Except they can't be saved, hence, terminally ill.


There's a reason in the entire history of the UK, we are the only generation that would killing off sick people rather than trying to save them or at least make their dying as dignified as can be.

For some people, the dignified thing for them would be to end their suffering rather than waiting to wake up one morning and no longer be able to talk or use their hands. Why should they be denied that choice?

My overwhelming impression of this generation, this golden WWII generation was the irrepressible and immense desire to "not be a bother" - I knew residents that would go without food or even wet themselves rather than bother us if we were busy, which we usually were. I can't but feel, if it became common practice, many of these good people would volunteer to die because the thought of burdening someone else with their problems and being looked after is just not the way they were raised. They're not like we are now. No matter how many times I told them to bother us if they needed something, many simply wouldn't. But they are worth being bothered for, arn't they?
I read a story about a lady with ALS who was denied euthanasia. Do you know what she did? She wheeled herself off the edge of a cliff with the only finger that she had control of. I also read about a man, Tony Nickilson who suffered with locked in syndrome. He refused food in a bid to starve himself to death after he was denied the right to die with dignity. These people are virtually crying from help and are being ignored. Can you imagine the heartbreak that both of these people must have felt in the moments leading up to death? This is more than to 'not be a bother' Yes they may no longer want to burden their families, but to go to such extreme measures screams much more than that, perhaps their own physical and emotional pain, no?

Look at your grandparents. You know what I'm saying to be the truth.
If my grandparents were suffering from a terrible illness, I'd be completely supportive of them opting for euthanasia.


The other thing that struck me was just how bad people are at self-diagnosing their own prospects when something goes wrong. Many felt that their lives were over when they were diagnosed with a serious illness and they would rather be dead than have to live with it - but actually many turned out eventually to be happy or even very happy despite their condition. My concern is that if instead of supporting them through their low points - letting them kill themselves - they will never reach those high points where they actually have a rather good quality of life. Sometimes you just have to get through the bad periods.

What good can come from a terrible disease? You say that many people have turned out to be happy following a diagnosis of a debilitating illness. Who are these people?

Finally, modern pain-relief is very very effective so the idea of leaving people in "torture" and "agony" while we mercilessly keep them alive is just sentimental b*llocks designed to emotionally manipulate you in the vast majority of cases. Don't let it.


SS


Pain relief? really? You think that all this man needed was pain relief?
image.jpeg
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by cherryred90s

Except they can't be saved, hence, terminally ill.



Are you suggesting that terminally ill people should just kill themselves as soon as they're diagnosed since they're going to die anyway?
Original post by hezzlington
Are you suggesting that terminally ill people should just kill themselves as soon as they're diagnosed since they're going to die anyway?


No. I'm suggesting that they should be given the right to end their life following a terminal diagnosis. It should be a choice for all.
Original post by cherryred90s
No. I'm suggesting that they should be given the right to end their life following a terminal diagnosis. It should be a choice for all.


Okay, so then that puts doctors in an enormously difficult position, don't you think? What happens if they still have a year or more to live, but want to end their life immediately?
Original post by hezzlington
Okay, so then that puts doctors in an enormously difficult position, don't you think? What happens if they still have a year or more to live, but want to end their life immediately?


How does it put doctors in a difficult position?
If they have already started showing symptoms, or they're in chronic pain, then yes they should be given the choice even with a year + to live.
Original post by cherryred90s
How does it put doctors in a difficult position?
If they have already started showing symptoms, or they're in chronic pain, then yes they should be given the choice even with a year + to live.


It imposes on doctors a duty to kill at the patients request.
Original post by hezzlington
It imposes on doctors a duty to kill at the patients request.


If you want to put it like that. Usually with euthanasia, the patient is the one who has to injest the deadly drug or drink themselves. It's not like the doctor is standing over them with a machete.
Original post by cherryred90s
If you want to put it like that. Usually with euthanasia, the patient is the one who has to injest the deadly drug or drink themselves. It's not like the doctor is standing over them with a machete.


...then that's suicide, surely?
Original post by hezzlington
...then that's suicide, surely?


In many cases, yes, it's technically assisted suicide.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you