Turn on thread page Beta

The continuing euthanasia debate watch

Announcements
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Euthanasia isn't the same as suicide. It's assisted suicide.
    It's still a person causing their own death, on purpose. There's no victim, no suffering is caused to the person dying, in fact it saves them suffering.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No one should cause an innocent man to die regardless of consent (which is quite hard to control).

    There is more to morality than suffering or "rights".
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    The state telling you that you don't even have the right to kill yourself really is the final insult. Euthanasia is an issue to be dealt with by the individual involved and those close to them alone - it is nobody elses right to make that decision for them, definitely not the governments.
    Can I ask you whether you believe the State via its mental health services should have the power to section mentally ill patients who they feel have a significant risk of commiting suicide or significant self harm?
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Ataloss)
    Can I ask you whether you believe the State via its mental health services should have the power to section mentally ill patients who they feel have a significant risk of commiting suicide or significant self harm?
    No, I believe individuals need to volunteer to be sectioned. Or if they're a danger to society, for example my mum was sectioned after she assaulted a police officer and I don't hold any grudges against that. But to do so because they self-harm seems wrong.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Euthanasia is:
    the intentional ending of anthers life on compassionate grounds.

    the problem comes in when we ask what is meant by compassion.

    If someone is awake and making the decision themselves, then I don't see a problem with it.

    When someone is in a coma that's where the controversy comes in. Firstly active or passive?
    I mean if someone is awake they can choose all of that in the coma whether or not to do it is a hard choice let alone how to do it.

    I say it's up to people to leave a specific person in charge. Some would view the taking of another's life to be murder, where as with passive you're not taking the life, you're letting them stop living (if you get me).

    If the motive is the same I don't see there being a big difference.

    On the other hand with passive euthanasia, are the actions so different to me seeing someone drowning, and not throwing them a rope, just letting them drown?

    I'd be intentionally letting them die in both situations.

    I think for patients who are awake they should be allowed active (you can refuse treatment so they have passive in a sense anyway, if they're terminal) and if a patient is unconscious they should be allowed and to have, whilst being conscious, put someone else in charge of them. If no-one has been picked, either the next of kin, or just a doctor (so on so forth).

    This is why for me it's clear cut.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    No one should cause an innocent man to die regardless of consent (which is quite hard to control).

    There is more to morality than suffering or "rights".
    what more is there?
    and if you're going to say God, don't.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    No one should cause an innocent man to die regardless of consent.
    Why not?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    No, I believe individuals need to volunteer to be sectioned. Or if they're a danger to society, for example my mum was sectioned after she assaulted a police officer and I don't hold any grudges against that. But to do so because they self-harm seems wrong.
    As always your argument is logical and consistent (even if your username isn't :p:)

    Personally, the reason I have strong reservations about euthanasia is the potential reversibility of the individual's feelings and desires with treatment or changing circumstances. Of course, one would hope that an individual would weigh that possibility up in their decision making process but as often when contemplating this option people are desperate they may not be in a reasonable state to do that.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    While I appreciate we cannot liken ourselves to Hamsters in many ways, here's something I've thought of:

    When a small animal, a pet, a hamster for example, is in pain they are generally put to sleep and allowed to die. This isn't illegal, not considered immoral by most because if not, the pet would live on to suffer.

    What makes it so more immoral to put a human out of pain and suffering, when it is perfectly acceptable to do so for any pet. Sure, we're not emotionally connected in the same way to pets as we are other humans, but the basic principles still stand.

    Just one take on it.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Ataloss)
    As always your argument is logical and consistent (even if your username isn't :p:)

    Personally, the reason I have strong reservations about euthanasia is the potential reversibility of the individual's feelings and desires with treatment or changing circumstances. Of course, one would hope that an individual would weigh that possibility up in their decision making process but as often when contemplating this option people are desperate they may not be in a reasonable state to do that.
    But while I sympathise with that, it's their mistake to make ultimately. The fact that someone can make bad choices in life does not mean they shouldn't be allowed to make choices regarding their life: people are free to be alcoholics for example. Now it's a bad idea and it's a shame, it really is, but I also think it should be legal to do it.

    The alternative is worse, for the decision to be made on their behalf, and for that to be the wrong decision. If either way the wrong choice could be made, it's surely better to allow us as human beings to make our own decisions. In every aspect of my life it feels, the government is making bad decisions on my behalf. They're taking my money from taxes and spending it on weapons to kill people in Iraq - how that is justifiable, I do not know. But for the government to make the wrong choice about something as personal as whether I can choose to die is just an outrage, it really is the final insult.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    But while I sympathise with that, it's their mistake to make ultimately. The fact that someone can make bad choices in life does not mean they shouldn't be allowed to make choices regarding their life: people are free to be alcoholics for example. Now it's a bad idea and it's a shame, it really is, but I also think it should be legal to do it.

    The alternative is worse, for the decision to be made on their behalf, and for that to be the wrong decision. If either way the wrong choice could be made, it's surely better to allow us as human beings to make our own decisions. In every aspect of my life it feels, the government is making bad decisions on my behalf. They're taking my money from taxes and spending it on weapons to kill people in Iraq - how that is justifiable, I do not know. But for the government to make the wrong choice about something as personal as whether I can choose to die is just an outrage, it really is the final insult.
    I completely agree that people should be allowed to make "bad" choices provided they have the ability and understanding to make an informed decision regarding that. If a person decides they want to be an alcoholic and completely understands and accepts that will in all likelihood eventually lead to liver failure, premature death etc etc.. but feel that is what they want for their life I certainly don't feel that anyone should interfere with that.

    My opinion is that as long as people have the information and the ability to make an informed decision without any significant pathological process potentially inhibiting that then of course they should have the right to do whatever they want. Our difference, I suspect, would be that I believe the State has a responsibility to ensure that it has processes to ensure the absence of that pathological process in order to protect potentially vulnerable people. As to what comprises a significant pathological process that is desperately difficult to define and a major reason as to why political parties generally steer clear of it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If euthanasia is so noble and compassionate, why do the adovocates of it fear trial and investigation? Surely they would be innocent.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    There was an interesting development yesterday. The CPS are to clarify when they will, and when they will not, seek prosecution of families and friends who travel with someone seeking assisted suicide in Switzerland. It will be interesting to see what guidelines they offer up.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    Euthanasia is a victimless event (i refuse to call it a crime), and as such, the notion of 'protective legislation' or prosecution in such cases is ridiculous.

    As for Gordon Brown, I can't see why he's against it, when it will most probably be something he'll be interested in when the penny drops and he realises just how ***** he is.

    Careful amigo, as there are many ways we can go with this. I am undecided at the moment myself.


    I have seen cancer utterly destroy a relative very close to me (he was in late 70s), and it was the most painful experience of my life. I can tell you that, without going into too much unpleasent detail, what he became near the end (when it spread from his lungs to his brain) could not qualify as rational in any sense. He couldn't think, he couldn't look after himself, he was in constant pain, and the few moments of clarity were torture, as he understood the gravity of his situation. Fortunately (and I say this very grimly, but it was fortunate) this only lasted a couple of weeks before he was gone. In my case it wouldn't have changed much, but it was a horrendous experience.
    Noone enjoyed his descent into breakdown. As much as I can appreciate people saying cherish every moment - and in the hospital, before he moved to the hospice, I cherished many with him - when illnesses reach that stage, there is no going back, and it's the mental deficiencies that are the hardest to take.

    I can only imagine what it's like to have to look after someone with some form of dementia, years of tortuous decline into complete irrationality. I really do feel for anyone who has to look after someone in that state and I hope dearly that my parents aren't afflicted.
    But who knows? Many people can sit on their high horse but if you have seen what these illnesses do to people, and you still dont support euthanasia, then you're a braver person than me. I would glady sign away my right to life if diagnosed with alzheimers, AIDs, terminal cancer e.t.c.
    but that is the point, what if it's too easy to sign away someones rights? What if the elderly and vulnerable aren't protected, especially if there are valuable wills added to the equation?

    I just think that if we were to pass these laws, they would have to be so uncircumventable as to be impractical. I just don't know if it's right handing the right to life to people, as it's not always clear whether their intentions are right.
    it's my only worry.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    If euthanasia is so noble and compassionate, why do the adovocates of it fear trial and investigation? Surely they would be innocent.
    Innocent in their own eyes perhaps, but not in the eyes of the British legal system.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I can't see why people are so afraid of exploits- everything, every law and every rule can be exploited up to a certain degree.

    Many family members of mine are working with old, disabled and/or ppl with demencia (<-- isn't there a verb for demencia?) and they just state that we live too long. Medicine has improved so much that a lot of people live for over 80 years. It is just a fact that even people at the age of 50 realize that their bodies become weaker, we are no machines and it is the biological clock that is ticking, our bodies perish.

    I'm not saying that everyone older than 70 should be killed instantly, those who feel good and can still live their lives may become 120, I don't care. What I am trying to say is that we people often ignore the fact that our body has its biological limits, and those who accept this fact and (maybe due to severe illness) want to die, should be able to attempt suicide, be killed, call it what you want; I just think that euthanasia is not a proper word for this, as it also means the killing of all people who suffer from any disability to wipe out any physical and mental weakness.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lindath)
    ppl with demencia (<-- isn't there a verb for demencia?)
    Well you could say demented people but it's probably politer to says ppl with dementia :rolleyes:
 
 
 
Poll
Cats or dogs?
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.