Turn on thread page Beta

Should Euthanasia be legalised? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    "The patient was obviously fatally ill. Had it not been against my religion I would have practised euthanasia; instead I murdered her. "- Joe Orton: Loot

    Suicide- even assisted suicide- is different from euthanasia. Suicide depends on a decision and a decisive and determined act- even if it is only moving a fingertip- by the person concerned. It can solve a lot of problems, but there are difficulties: is someone with severe depression entitled to kill themselves because their illness is unbearable and incurable, or is the desire to kill themselves a symptom of the illness?
    Eithanasia is the deliberate killing of someone by someone else, because the killer thinks that the victim is not worth keeping alive, for whatever reason. Euthanasia requires an act by another person, even if the person who dies wants to die and asks for help in dying. Negative euthanasia [Thou shalt not kill, but needst not strive/Officiously to keep alive.] is practised in British hospitals: patients who are in a "persistent vegetative state" are left to die of hunger and thirst- the belief is that with such severe brain damage they do not suffer pain. Obviously, we don't know if this is true. The carers do not have the guilt of actually doing something to kill. A friend who worked in a hospital for severely mentally handicapped children once had regular overtime when a child with anencephaly- no brain- was brought in. Her job was to be with the qualified nurse on night duty in that ward, just to make sure the nurse did not help the baby die more quickly. There is a psychological and moral difference, I think, between positive and negative euthanasia- both for the actor and for the society that allows or orders it and we should think carefully about it.
    Someone mentioned Steven Hawking on a similar thread elsewhere. There was the Irish writer Christy Brown too. Both were born with their disabilities, but there is a French book, Le Scaphanor et le Papillon, written by a man who was paralysed except for his left eyelid after a stroke- a condition many of us would think unbearable, but which he survived and found that there were still things worth living for- even if it was pure curiosity about his condition.
    Sorry to use your whole quote - I only want to refer to a small part of it!

    It is common pactice in British hospitals to withhold any form of nourishment including liquids from a patient who has had a significant stroke. They may be incapable of movement and speech but we have no way of knowing whether they are 'knowing'. The thoughts of being locked in an uncooperative body (and unable to communicate in any way) whilst being deliberately deprived of any nourishment is horrendous.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I guess the main argument for it to be legalised is to end suffering.

    Look at http://www.itv.com/news/1610016.html
    Offline

    14
    If somebody is terminally ill and requests to be killed now so they musn't sustain anymore agony then i think it's our moral right to end their lives, i don't consider it as murder. In some places i believe that it is legal for doctors to do this, i think for a start that law should be enforced in all countries. The problem with making it legal for everyone to do is that they could kill anybody and then pretend that it was Euthanasia and not murder, therefore i would say that it should be legal; but only for doctors.

    *Edit* I forgot to mention, it should only be done if the person is going to die soon anyway, and not just because they want to, so not because of depresion - no matter how serious, because it always has potential to be cured.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Personally, for me if it is controlled, painless, and the patient is sure then there is no reason why they should not be allowed terminate their life.

    However, there are alot of grey lines which go with real life.

    How can you be sure a person is of a stable state of mind if they are on medication, how can you be sure a person is sure they want to die... they could want to die this week, but what about next week?.. What if they want to stop half way through?

    How can we be absolutley sure to control the procedures and the ethical issues surrounding it... the fact is we can't.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Misbah Imtiaz)
    Hey, thought that I should start something up on this, since a Bill has just been introduced to legalise some aspects of Euthanasia.
    What do you think? Are you for or against legalising it?
    I think that if it was legalised it should be very strictly regulated. By that I mean that the person either has to decide that it is what they want and give their consent or if the person is no longer is a position to make that decision eg a vegatable there should be the presence of a living will (which should be legal if it isn't) or more than 4 people who knew the person atleast 2 who won't benefit from the will should have to sign a document stating that it is what that person would have wanted. I also think that it should be carried out by a third party like a doctor or someone else.

    I know that my Mum has often told me that when she gets to a cirtain point is her deterioration she may want to die. Personally I feel that if she wants to die and end her suffering that this option should be available to her. Because as much as I would like her to stay I think it is selfish to force people who have fatal illnesses and want to die to keep living in pain. So I really hope that it is legalised.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Could you put arguments for euthanasia?

    I would say yes to it in principle. It needs to be carefully monitored, and yes nothing's perfect I know.

    Passive euthanasia is legal since 1993 - Bland. This involves the switching off of life support machines when they V is in a PVS. People like Mrs Preddy (Preddy v DPP) cannot have euthanasia even though she had MND.
    The case of R v Bland did accept passive euthanasia, and like most, it seemed that euthansia was beginnnig to be accepted. But it didn't set precedent. The Diane Pretty case reinforced this fact.

    Arguements for euthanasia -
    1. Animals are put to sleep when they are in pain (and yes, most will argue that you cannot equate an animals life to a human's, but it's still a valid point!)
    2. Quality of life
    3. Should a life worth not living be extended
    4. Controls and measures should be intoduced to ally fears as in Holland
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Misbah Imtiaz)
    The case of R v Bland
    Not quite, you are allowed to abbreviate cases to one party in exams at A level. I do it for criminal law, unless it is not the state such as Corcoran v Anderton, or Anderton v Ryan etc.

    Actually it's cited as Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] 1 ALL ER 821
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    the new proposals are that 2 doctors have to confirm the patients illness, and the patient must consent to it - and it seems not just once. (a no. of times may be required)
    I have not read it yet, but here is the proposed Bil from Parliament's site:

    http://www.parliament.the-stationery...04017.iii.html
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Misbah Imtiaz)
    the new proposals are that 2 doctors have to confirm the patients illness, and the patient must consent to it - and it seems not just once. (a no. of times may be required)
    I have not read it yet, but here is the proposed Bil from Parliament's site:

    http://www.parliament.the-stationery...04017.iii.html
    Perhaps this will overrule Preddy v DPP?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Not quite, you are allowed to abbreviate cases to one party in exams at A level. I do it for criminal law, unless it is not the state such as Corcoran v Anderton, or Anderton v Ryan etc.

    Actually it's cited as Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] 1 ALL ER 821
    Just realised my mistake - I apologise.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    I think that if it was legalised it should be very strictly regulated.
    In the Netherlands, euthanasia was legalised with very strici legal controls. The doctors paid very little attention to the legal controls.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    In the Netherlands, euthanasia was legalised with very strici legal controls. The doctors paid very little attention to the legal controls.
    Then make it very known that if they abuse it they could be in trouble. People would argue your point about another topic regarding life which is currently being debated in D&D All priviledges (sp) get abused.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Perhaps this will overrule Preddy v DPP?
    I have not heard of this case yet. What was the judgement?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Sorry I meant Pretty. I'm sure we both know the case.

    Here's a link, useful site too to check if cases have been appealed against after your textbook was written - http://www.lawreports.co.uk/hlpcnovb0.3.htm
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    okay im not a law student - so dont jump on my back (MISBAH!!). Well, earlier on in the discussion someone mentionned something about the muslim view? suicide in islam is one of the most awful things to do - its like committing THE cardinal sin. frankly, your life is not yours to take away - it is god's right and will remain so - it is sacrosanct! basically, life is a test and though one may be suffering excruciate pain and in an agony way beyond our imaginations, muslims believe that this is all part of a test of will and courage - and being successful will mean a blessed place in heaven ...for eternity.
    whats the deal with euthanasia cases in law - whats the european view on it - is it different from the english one?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shishi nee)
    frankly, your life is not yours to take away - it is god's right and will remain so - it is sacrosanct! basically, life is a test and though one may be suffering excruciate pain and in an agony way beyond our imaginations, muslims believe that this is all part of a test of will and courage - and being successful will mean a blessed place in heaven ...for eternity.
    I see. If god is having a little fun by torturing someone, that's all right. It'll do them good in the long run.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Then make it very known that if they abuse it they could be in trouble.
    It was made known. It was only when abuse became so flagrant even other doctors wouldn't accept it that anyone else found out.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    As mentioned, the trouble with euthanasia laws is that they have a large scope for abuse (unfortunately I'm not all that aware of the situation in Holland). I can imagine there would be all sorts of cases reported of people being killed via euthanasia when they are not terminal, and just depressed or something.
    Are there that many many medical problems in which pain is intolerable anyway? Painkillers seem to be able to solve most problems, but maybe I'm being ignorant.
    Most people with terminal conditions usually have cancer. I knew someone who had cancer, and probably achieved more in her last year than she did in her entire lifetime (she raised about £100,000 i think for charity). Even in her last week when she was very ill, given the choice of euthanasia I know she would have rejected it.

    If euthanasia was ever legalised, I would only feel it is justified if the person is in the last stages of a terminal disease (i.e. going to die very soon anyway) as an act of compassion - the lesser of two evils. But still I wouldn't describe myself as pro-euthanasia. The only form I accept is "natural-euthanasia", which is practiced in England, when you turn off life-support machines if the victim has irreparable mental/physical damage - technically it's letting nature do it's work rather than killing.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shishi nee)
    okay im not a law student - so dont jump on my back (MISBAH!!).
    Its okay ppl. This is just my annoying sister trying to have a dig at me. grrrrr
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    I see. If god is having a little fun by torturing someone, that's all right. It'll do them good in the long run.
    god is not some sadist who derives pleasure from other peoples pain - it's like saying god 'is having a little fun' every time there's a crop failure or an outbreak of HIV - nonsense!
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
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.