Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Are you for or against euthanasia? watch

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: Do you support Euthanasia?
    Yes
    1,129
    67.77%
    No
    310
    18.61%
    I don't have an opinion
    227
    13.63%

    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PQ)
    How about the fact that 75% of doctors are opposed and would refuse to participate - and this percentage is much higher for doctors working in end of life care (over 90%) and so any change in the law risks losing some of the most experience professionals from an already underfunded and resourced are.

    And this is for Assisted Dying *not* euthanasia. http://www.carenotkilling.org.uk/about/faqs/

    The law already allows for the withdrawal of treatment http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34872793 it just also requires that deaths that may be assisted suicides are *investigated* (which generally takes place with a lot of compassion for those involved).
    Doctors who don't want to participate wouldn't have to - we can't, and wouldn't, force them to do this. But there are doctors who would do it. On my MA in Medical Ethics and Law there are plenty of doctors and nurses who are for euthanasia and would help those suffering if they needed to. No clinician who felt uncomfortable with it would have to do this and we would certainly not 'lose' them, they would continue their job and when the situation arose someone else would take over.

    Also worth pointing out that the poll in question was carried out on 2003 so it's impossible to say whether this still holds true now. It also doesn't say where or which group of doctors this poll was carried out on - a simple google search for that particular poll brings up the Christian Medical Fellowship for me, which if true, is obvious that most religious doctors will not want to take part? That doesn't mean that lots of secular doctors wouldn't. It's the kind of scaremongering you see from the Daily Mail '99% of people think immigrants are taking all our jobs!!!!!'

    I understand that you are against euthanasia and therefore I'm not going to try and force my own views on you but please take that source with a pinch of salt - it is very clearly biased against euthanasia and is therefore not particularly reliable. I noted in your other post that you said euthanasia doesn't involve consent which is completely false and I imagine you got that information from this website. I'm all for having your own opinion and I completely see why some people are against euthanasia, but your opinion should be based on correct information at least. Also that website vastly downplays the doctrine of double effect, it's basically a way of allowing euthanasia except it takes longer. And the withdrawal of treatment you mentioned is a horrific thing to do to patients who are suffering, dying from starvation and dehydration can take a long time and be extremely painful (happened to my boyfriend's grandparent and it was horrible)

    Sorry for two long posts. This is something I am very interested in having covered this in detail on both my undergraduate and postgraduate degrees.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If you believe the idea of ‘Solipsism' then euthanasia is totally acceptable.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by infairverona)
    I don't think you've understood the difference between euthanasia and assisted suicide.
    Euthanasia is when a doctor would end your life usually to stop your suffering. That doesn't mean you can't consent to it. Assisted suicide is when someone helps you to end your own life, usually a clinician - this is usually called PAS (physician assisted suicide) and is the model used in America. So the difference between euthanasia and assisted suicide hinges on WHO is doing the ending of life.

    Euthanasia that does not require any consent would be either be involuntary or non-voluntary euthanasia. Non-voluntary euthanasia is where someone is unable to consent e.g. those in a coma or PVS. Involuntary is where a person's life is ended when they have either not consented to it or given no indication that they wanted it so this category mostly aligns with the Shipman saga, and would generally be classified as murder. But, saying 'euthanasia doesn't require consent' is incorrect because there are different categories of euthanasia. The bill for legalising euthanasia that was debated in the Commons in September involved two clinicians signing off the patient e.g. checking that they were competent to consent.
    (Original post by infairverona)
    Doctors who don't want to participate wouldn't have to - we can't, and wouldn't, force them to do this. But there are doctors who would do it. On my MA in Medical Ethics and Law there are plenty of doctors and nurses who are for euthanasia and would help those suffering if they needed to. No clinician who felt uncomfortable with it would have to do this and we would certainly not 'lose' them, they would continue their job and when the situation arose someone else would take over.

    Also worth pointing out that the poll in question was carried out on 2003 so it's impossible to say whether this still holds true now. It also doesn't say where or which group of doctors this poll was carried out on - a simple google search for that particular poll brings up the Christian Medical Fellowship for me, which if true, is obvious that most religious doctors will not want to take part? That doesn't mean that lots of secular doctors wouldn't. It's the kind of scaremongering you see from the Daily Mail '99% of people think immigrants are taking all our jobs!!!!!'

    I understand that you are against euthanasia and therefore I'm not going to try and force my own views on you but please take that source with a pinch of salt - it is very clearly biased against euthanasia and is therefore not particularly reliable. I noted in your other post that you said euthanasia doesn't involve consent which is completely false and I imagine you got that information from this website. I'm all for having your own opinion and I completely see why some people are against euthanasia, but your opinion should be based on correct information at least. Also that website vastly downplays the doctrine of double effect, it's basically a way of allowing euthanasia except it takes longer. And the withdrawal of treatment you mentioned is a horrific thing to do to patients who are suffering, dying from starvation and dehydration can take a long time and be extremely painful (happened to my boyfriend's grandparent and it was horrible)

    Sorry for two long posts. This is something I am very interested in having covered this in detail on both my undergraduate and postgraduate degrees.
    My source for the general definition of euthanasia (which is all that is mentioned in the OP) was http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Euthana...roduction.aspx if the OP didn't specify voluntary/involuntary then they have a very easy debating point to argue against because the point for debate does NOT specify any sort of consent from the patient is required.

    I'm not interested in discussing the ins and outs - I've stated my beliefs on assisted suicide, euthanasia and how I feel it is dangerous and ablist elsewhere on TSR.

    My purpose for posting on this thread was to provide the OP with some of the main (non religious) arguments against euthanasia - especially those of disabled people who are generally ignored in these debates over people shouting loudly about their lives are not worth living or that their mental health is less important than someone who isn't disabled. EVERY source on this topic is biased - the statistics on the doctors agreement came from the BMA and Palliative care royal college and so is easy to source and reliable to use. If you're interested in reading more about the issues disabled people already face when dealing with a medical profession that makes quality of life judgements without including patients then http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mik-...b_5472241.html is well worth a read.

    Personally I've got my own living will on file - I'd recommend anyone who feels strongly either way about these issues does the same. It's by far the easiest way to get your wishes recorded in a way that has legal weight.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PQ)
    My source for the general definition of euthanasia (which is all that is mentioned in the OP) was http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Euthana...roduction.aspx if the OP didn't specify voluntary/involuntary then they have a very easy debating point to argue against because the point for debate does NOT specify any sort of consent from the patient is required.

    I'm not interested in discussing the ins and outs - I've stated my beliefs on assisted suicide, euthanasia and how I feel it is dangerous and ablist elsewhere on TSR.

    My purpose for posting on this thread was to provide the OP with some of the main (non religious) arguments against euthanasia - especially those of disabled people who are generally ignored in these debates over people shouting loudly about their lives are not worth living or that their mental health is less important than someone who isn't disabled. EVERY source on this topic is biased - the statistics on the doctors agreement came from the BMA and Palliative care royal college and so is easy to source and reliable to use. If you're interested in reading more about the issues disabled people already face when dealing with a medical profession that makes quality of life judgements without including patients then http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mik-...b_5472241.html is well worth a read.

    Personally I've got my own living will on file - I'd recommend anyone who feels strongly either way about these issues does the same. It's by far the easiest way to get your wishes recorded in a way that has legal weight.
    I'll have to have a look for your other posts, I'm very interested that you think it's ableist as I think NOT having a euthanasia or PAS pathway is ableist and I intend to write my MA diss on human rights and eithasnasia so I would be interested in your side of it
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by infairverona)
    I'll have to have a look for your other posts, I'm very interested that you think it's ableist as I think NOT having a euthanasia or PAS pathway is ableist and I intend to write my MA diss on human rights and eithasnasia so I would be interested in your side of it
    The crux of it is
    - if a person goes to their GP and says they want to kill themself then the GP refers them for psychiatric support and help.
    The idea that if a disabled person or person with a life-limiting condition did this and the doctor replied with "yup you're right your life isn't worth living - let me help you die" then that's a sign of a massive level of disablism in our society.

    A friend wrote a very good blog post that explains this in better words than I have - I'll try to dig it out
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Sazzy890 Lozzie97 Simes Starvation13 z33 Geek_shay


    No decision can truly be reached about whether one is for or against euthanasia without watching BBC's 2011 programme 'Choosing to Die'.

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blur Ella)
    Sazzy890 Lozzie97 Simes Starvation13 z33 Geek_shay


    No decision can truly be reached about whether one is for or against euthanasia without watching BBC's 2011 programme 'Choosing to Die'.
    I've seen that
    I cried... so much

    I'm not saying everyone should I'm saying people should have the choice
    I mean you can abort your baby but can't end your own life? (I'm pro-choice btw)

    and look how nicely it's done and how they go so happy by their own choice and can say their goodbye's and die in their loved ones' arms and it's just nicer for them.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by z33)
    I've seen that
    I cried... so much

    I'm not saying everyone should I'm saying people should have the choice
    I mean you can abort your baby but can't end your own life? (I'm pro-choice btw)

    and look how nicely it's done and how they go so happy by their own choice and can say their goodbye's and die in their loved ones' arms and it's just nicer for them.
    Good to know that you have watched the programme. I am certain many here haven't. Anyways you need to go read further about the organisation Dignitas which provides this service. They have been investigated for many things.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/4160...-patients.html
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/246...ents-ashes-are

    If an organisation wants to provide such a service they should ensure that from start to end, it should be done in a dignified way without committing any crimes be it against the state or morally against a code of ethics.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blur Ella)
    Simes

    No decision can truly be reached about whether one is for or against euthanasia without watching BBC's 2011 programme 'Choosing to Die'.
    If I gave the impression I was against it, that was because I was responding to the OP's request:

    (Original post by Geek_shay)
    can anyone give me any points that are against and what would the counter arguments be ...
    Personally, I would support informed assisted suicide where there is medical supervision and approval. I think one should have the right to choose to die.

    However, I am unhappy about medically-initiated euthanasia (i.e. a medical company's accountants deciding who it is cost-effective to dispose of).

    The grey area between is an emotional and ethical mess.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PQ)
    The crux of it is
    - if a person goes to their GP and says they want to kill themself then the GP refers them for psychiatric support and help.
    The idea that if a disabled person or person with a life-limiting condition did this and the doctor replied with "yup you're right your life isn't worth living - let me help you die" then that's a sign of a massive level of disablism in our society.

    A friend wrote a very good blog post that explains this in better words than I have - I'll try to dig it out
    The GP shouldn't say that. If it was legal then they shouldn't give the patient their opinion in that area and should just give them the options that are available to them(psychiatric help or euthanasia or other) and stress that it's not a decision to be taken lightly.
    Your case would be malpractice on the part of the GP.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Simes)
    If I gave the impression I was against it, that was because I was responding to the OP's request:


    Personally, I would support informed assisted suicide where there is medical supervision and approval. I think one should have the right to choose to die.

    However, I am unhappy about medically-initiated euthanasia (i.e. a medical company's accountants deciding who it is cost-effective to dispose of).

    The grey area between is an emotional and ethical mess.
    I am against euthanasia. But it doesn't matter what you or I think. based on recent judgments It seems like the well respected British judiciary has slowly begun to allow patients beyond the hope of a medical recovery to die. But they do not want to rule on euthanasia yet and have repeated told Cameron and his peers to discuss and settle the issue in Parliament But we all know Cameron's calibre don't we? He takes forever to get anything done.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I do not support it. It is basically murdering someone. I think God should decide when someone dies.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blur Ella)
    But we all know Cameron's calibre don't we? He takes forever to get anything done.
    I am all for any politician making changes slowly. History is littered with cases of knee-jerk reactions by governments taking years to fix. National-level stuff ought to be done slowly.

    For example, deciding on a whim to suddenly spend billions on extra security as a knee-jerk reaction in response to what happened in Paris - five years of austerity thrown away and wasted.

    That's not a party-political statement, by the way. Merely highlighting how all politicians are ****-heads.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Simes)
    I am all for any politician making changes slowly. History is littered with cases of knee-jerk reactions by governments taking years to fix. National-level stuff ought to be done slowly. For example, deciding on a whim to suddenly spend billions on extra security as a knee-jerk reaction in response to what happened in Paris - five years of austerity thrown away and wasted. That's not a party-political statement, by the way. Merely highlighting how all politicians are ****-heads.
    these guys are not politicians. they're career politicians. they've come from wealthy familes, went to private colleges and then to oxbridge and then straight into research offices for the various political parties. they do not know the hardship of the average man on the street. you can't trust them to run the country let alone run a bath. they're all looking forward to getting a nice position in the EU that pays well along with its perks once they're done being a career politician in the UK.

    Put political parties, their ideologies, their manifestos and all that aside. Lets look at leadership qualities for a moment. Churchill and Thatcher would never have put UK in the mess that she's in. They were strong leaders who genuinely cared for the country's well being and its citizens. Contrast that with Blair, Gordon Brown and now Cameron.

    Cameron promised £2 billion to be invested into counter terrorism policing. for what? when you have open borders and you can't check the background of someone who wants to gain entry into the country if he has a criminal conviction, is on the wanted list in his home country or Interpol or if he has HIV, if you can't give your immigration officers the powers to decide who to allow or disallow into the country, the £2 billion is going to go into the drain.

    I'm really sorry for going off topic. I shall end here.

    (Original post by Starvation13)
    I don't mean to sound like a @$$hole but I seriously cannot be bothered. It's why I voted no opinion in the poll that's currently going on.
    Ok.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I'm kind of 50/50 to be honest. It's not got a one size fits all answer. There are so many ifs and buts and grey areas that I don't believe you can fully support it or fully not support it.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by infairverona)
    I'll have to have a look for your other posts, I'm very interested that you think it's ableist as I think NOT having a euthanasia or PAS pathway is ableist and I intend to write my MA diss on human rights and eithasnasia so I would be interested in your side of it
    I've dug out the blog - http://lisybabe.blogspot.co.uk/2014/...screaming.html

    It covers other points that would likely be useful for your diss Lisa is on Twitter if you'd like to talk to her: https://twitter.com/lisybabe

    (Original post by morgan8002)
    The GP shouldn't say that. If it was legal then they shouldn't give the patient their opinion in that area and should just give them the options that are available to them(psychiatric help or euthanasia or other) and stress that it's not a decision to be taken lightly.
    Your case would be malpractice on the part of the GP.
    Disabled people are told every day by strangers, loved ones, medical professionals and care workers "I'd kill myself if I were like you".

    I was oversimplifying but legalising assisted suicide *is* essentially agreeing with SOME people that their life is not worth living. If you don't agree that that has disablist undertones and would rather focus on the actions and words of a fictional GP then please don't respond to this post. As I said above - I'm not here to debate my opinion, I'm here to help the OP with their homework and to air the voices of disabled people on euthansia and assisted suicide as they're very often ignored.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Geek_shay)
    . even if your an atheist ,studies actually shown that euthanasias patients actually regret agreeing to it ,due to it being more painful then the pain that they are already in.
    Can you clarify what you mean? You do realise people who undergo euthanasia are dead right? How exactly would they then tell people they 'regret' it??
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    We have no right to tell somebody that they can't die. It's their body and their life and they have a right to do what they want with it if they're suffering. It's cruel to make people continue to live in pain. They should die the way they want, when they want. We put animals down when they're suffering because it's the kind/right thing to do, so why not humans?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I "support" people having the right to euthanasia, but I don't support it as the automatic default choice of people - it's something people need to think about, because it will be probably the most important decision in their life, depending on the kind of life they have led and will continue to lead. I also support euthanasia for terminally ill children if it's a matter of "die painfully, or die now, without pain", as opposed to "possibly recover painfully, or die now painlessly"
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Very vague question because there are different types of euthanasia.

    I support voluntary euthanasia since this is a patients right.

    But there is also involuntary euthanasia which is murder.
 
 
 
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.