Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Euthanasia - a solution to suffering? Watch

  • View Poll Results: Euthanasia - yes or no?
    Yes - it can end suffering
    50
    80.65%
    No - far too many variables between cases
    6
    9.68%
    Not informed enough
    1
    1.61%
    Needs more research before we make a decision
    5
    8.06%

    • TSR Group Staff
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Group Staff
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    They don't need help to die. Euthanasia is about assisted death.
    Would it not be easy for them to see Euthanasia as an easy way out?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by neb789)
    Would it not be easy for them to see Euthanasia as an easy way out?
    No, because they don't need assistance. Euthanisia may take a while. You'll need one or more doctors to assess your condition, you need to demonstrate that you are of sane mind, and you need to be suffering with a chronic debilitating illness. In order to ensure that this is what you want, you may need to have interviews and possible counselling sessions with a doctor. This is all very time consuming for someone who is perfectly capable of doing the deed alone.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    cheers for the insults. have a nice day
    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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    i hope you are having a wonderful day
    If you're not willing to engage in the debate what's the point? People have valid points against your initial post.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    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
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Name:  image.jpeg
Views: 109
Size:  34.3 KB
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    [/b]
    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?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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