Human euthanasia moral?

[Draka]

WHO is making the decision?

The person suffering or the person closest to that person who would know them best if the suffering person is too far beyond the ability to communicate. Of course, all in conjunction with their doctors so as to make an informed decision.

 

[3.14]

wel i look at if form the athiest point of view, that is if you die you die, so every minute lived is precious and should not be wasted looking at the bad side of things.

here is my list of things you should have before i agree you should get one

1) you have to agree with sound mind
2) you should not have any relitives or friends you can put under phycological stress because of your death
3) you can't get one when your terminal, since you will die anyway soon (this goes to people with less then year to life)
4) you can't get one if you have knowlage of crime's you or other people commited (murder rape etc)
5) you can't get one if your in debt to someone wich after your dead has no means of getting its debt repayed
6) you can't get one if you hadn't thought about if for over 2 months
7) you can't get one if one of the reasons your doing it is inpatiance
8) you can't use one if your death has negitive conscuenses to the place you die (jumping in front of a train, parking your car on tracks, killing yourself in your home so it can't be sold etc.)

 

[Draka]

wel i look at if form the athiest point of view, that is if you die you die, so every minute lived is precious and should not be wasted looking at the bad side of things.

here is my list of things you should have before i agree you should get one

1) you have to agree with sound mind
2) you should not have any relitives or friends you can put under phycological stress because of your death
3) you can't get one when your terminal, since you will die anyway soon (this goes to people with less then year to life)
4) you can't get one if you have knowlage of crime's you or other people commited (murder rape etc)
5) you can't get one if your in debt to someone wich after your dead has no means of getting its debt repayed
6) you can't get one if you hadn't thought about if for over 2 months
7) you can't get one if one of the reasons your doing it is inpatiance
8) you can't use one if your death has negitive conscuenses to the place you die (jumping in front of a train, parking your car on tracks, killing yourself in your home so it can't be sold etc.)

Some of those just sound so weird. Euthanasia certainly wouldn't be suicide by throwing oneself in front of a train or anything. If that's what you think it is then you don't really have a good concept of what it really is at all.

As for number 3...that is one of the main reasons to grant euthanasia in the first place. If you are terminal, dying anyway, in constant pain and suffering, withering away to a shell of the person you once were, not able to enjoy anything about life anymore and so on and so forth...it is a mercy to just let those people go. Why should they have to stick it out through horrible suffering just because "they will die anyway"?

Do you let your old sick, crippled, suffering dog just lay and whimper and moan for hours on end for days and days while it is obviously dying anyway? No, you take it to be put to sleep. Why not have that same compassion for humans?


Oh, and number 5? Like someone dying of cancer and bloated on a hospital bed in their living room with tubes and machines hooked up wants to die just to get out of paying a debt. :sarcastic

 

[3.14]

As for number 3...that is one of the main reasons to grant euthanasia in the first place. If you are terminal, dying anyway, in constant pain and suffering, withering away to a shell of the person you once were, not able to enjoy anything about life anymore and so on and so forth...it is a mercy to just let those people go. Why should they have to stick it out through horrible suffering just because "they will die anyway"?

Oh, and number 5? Like someone dying of cancer and bloated on a hospital bed in their living room with tubes and machines hooked up wants to die just to get out of paying a debt. :sarcastic

number 3 is because i don't believe in life after death so people should just life as long as they can sure pain can be a downside but in the added weeks or months you can life you can write down your memoires or play pacman for all i care, point is if a dog dies well he wasn't able to do much in the first place, but humans can do more then just wither in pain, so they shoulnd't act like life's become pointless just because you know when your gona die

and 5 was more then just financial debt

 

[Storm]

I've got to side with Draka, 3.14. Your list just doesn't make much sense.

 

[Draka]

number 3 is because i don't believe in life after death so people should just life as long as they can sure pain can be a downside but in the added weeks or months you can life you can write down your memoires or play pacman for all i care, point is if a dog dies well he wasn't able to do much in the first place, but humans can do more then just wither in pain, so they shoulnd't act like life's become pointless just because you know when your gona die

and 5 was more then just financial debt

It's not a matter of acting like life is pointless. We're talking about dying, bedridden, suffering people here that have no hope of recovery, let alone getting up and even socializing with other people here. Some people can't even move or communicate anymore and if they can it's barely. Have you ever watched someone die slowly? Confined to a bed and machines? With tubes in their mouths to help them breathe? On a constant flow of pain killers because every moment of life is in agony? That is not life worth living and it would be a mercy to just let them go.

 

[Storm]

In fact, your #3 goes against the very definition of euthanasia:
eu·tha·na·sia

Audio Help /ˌyu

θəˈneɪ

ʒə, -ʒi

ə, -zi

ə/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[yoo-thuh-ney-zhuh, -zhee-uh, -zee-uh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun
1.Also called mercy killing. the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, esp. a painful, disease or condition.
2.painless death.

EDIT: # 3, not 5. Fixed it.

 

[Somkid]

I have seen suffering so bad hard drugs had no effect except to prolong the suffering. I think this is one of those things that should be left up to a person of sound mind in a living will.

 

[lilithu]

The person suffering or the person closest to that person who would know them best if the suffering person is too far beyond the ability to communicate. Of course, all in conjunction with their doctors so as to make an informed decision.

If it's the person who is suffering who is making the decision, AND the person is of sound mind, then that person should be allowed to end their own life.

If the person is too far beyond ability to communicate that would suggest they are no longer conscious and therefore not suffering. In that case, I would say No. How do we know that the person making the decision really knows what the person would have wanted? There is too great a potential for abuse.

If people are worried that they might end up brain dead and hooked up to a machine, then they should create a living will to make their desires clear.

 

[Aqualung]

If it's the person who is suffering who is making the decision, AND the person is of sound mind, then that person should be allowed to end their own life.

Why can't they make that descision if they're NOT of sound mind? After all, the soundness of mind is fundamentally a third-person determination. THEY have to live in their unsound mind, and maybe living in that unsound mind is pure torture.

 

[lilithu]

Why can't they make that descision if they're NOT of sound mind? After all, the soundness of mind is fundamentally a third-person determination. THEY have to live in their unsound mind, and maybe living in that unsound mind is pure torture.

My main concern is that some people may want to kill themselves immediately following a terminal diagnosis and that once they have a chance to come to terms with their illness they may change their mind and decide that what little time they have left is worth holding onto. People may kill themselves based on a rash decision.

If you're referring to someone who is insane, since the ethics of the question hinge on the right to self-determination, I'm not sure how that applies to someone who is not capable of making rational choices for him or herself.

 

[Aqualung]

My main concern is that some people may want to kill themselves immediately following a terminal diagnosis and that once they have a chance to come to terms with their illness they may change their mind and decide that what little time they have left is worth holding onto. People may kill themselves based on a rash decision.

But isn't that still their right? If I own my body, then I should have the right to do anything to it I want, for whatever reasons. If I DON'T own my body, then it only makes sense that there are times when other people should be able to make descsions that affect my body on my behalf.

If you're referring to someone who is insane, since the ethics of the question hinge on the right to self-determination, I'm not sure how that applies to someone who is not capable of making rational choices for him or herself.

Let's ignore this point for now. I sometimes have trouble debating two seperate points with the same person in the same post. I often find myself redundant.

 

[lilithu]

But isn't that still their right? If I own my body, then I should have the right to do anything to it I want, for whatever reasons.

And what if there is good reason to think you may change your mind after a cooling off period?

Seriously, your "individual rights" argument goes too far sometimes. It ignores the fact that we are social creatures who look out for each others well being.

 

[Aqualung]

And what if there is good reason to think you may change your mind after a cooling off period?

It may be somebody's prerogative (and indeed, possibly their obligation) to try to convince me not to kill myself - heck, maybe they could even hide all the sharp implements and poisonous chemicals from me - but do they have the right to use force of law to keep me from it?

 

[lilithu]

It may be somebody's prerogative (and indeed, possibly their obligation) to try to convince me not to kill myself - heck, maybe they could even hide all the sharp implements and poisonous chemicals from me - but do they have the right to use force of law to keep me from it?

You see law as tyranny. I see law as the extension of community. What if you don't have any friends who would bother to try to talk you out of it or hide the sharp objects?

 

[Aqualung]

You see law as tyranny. I see law as the extension of community. What if you don't have any friends who would bother to try to talk you out of it or hide the sharp objects?

If you didn't have any friends, then what "community" are they a part of that would miss their death or have any right to dictate your life?

 

[lilithu]

If you didn't have any friends, then what "community" are they a part of that would miss their death or have any right to dictate your life?

They're part of the larger community. Are you saying that if you don't have any friends, then you don't deserve to have anyone looking out for you?

I think it's important to remind us that we're not talking about taking away the right to suicide here. All I'm saying is that people should be of sound mind when they make the choice. You may find that unreasonable but I bet most will not.

Also, if you are physically able to kill yourself and do so, it's not like the govt can prosecute you afterwards. So the only people this affects are people who are not physically able to kill themselves, who need assistance in their suicides. Since the act involves another person, the "no one has the right to tell me what I can do" argument doesn't apply.

 

[michel]

The problem that Michel brought up is the soundness of the person's mind, which is why it gets legally tricky. The euthanizer says "But he wanted to die", and the response is "How did you know that the person was of sound mind?". This is a problem for the reasons he stated, but I would say that mental illness is not reason enough to euthanize, meaning that, if you're in perfect physical health, or at least good enough, then euthanization is not an option, no matter how much you want it.

I shall be the devil's advoocate here, and ask you :- "How can you make a judgement as to mental pain?" - you have said that you don't believe that "mental illness is not reason enough to euthanise".

Tou have taken it upon yourself to speak for a group of people for whom, I doubt, you would fully understand their sufferring. Do you relly feel justified in doing so?

 

[Draka]

Some people here seem to be discussing euthanasia as suicide. It isn't and shouldn't be discussed that way. We are not talking about taking your life because of being depressed over a diagnosis or feeling suicidal due to mental illness. We are talking euthanasia. Where a person is, most commonly, already dying, suffering, in agony, possibly having machines hooked up to them to help keep them alive, possibly in and out of consciousness, with maybe no means of coherent thought or communication anymore. At this point, granting that they have either made their wishes known by living will or by informing loved ones of their desire not to live in such a condition, if it is the moral thing to do to either disconnect them from supporting machines or perhaps turn up a morphine drip until they, painlessly, fall asleep and pass away.


In reference to various previous posts...it has nothing to do with cars, train tracks, sharp objects, or any of the like. That is suicide. Euthanasia is something performed by doctors/loved ones on behalf of the suffering person.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Some people here seem to be discussing euthanasia as suicide. It isn't and shouldn't be discussed that way. We are not talking about taking your life because of being depressed over a diagnosis or feeling suicidal due to mental illness. We are talking euthanasia. Where a person is, most commonly, already dying, suffering, in agony, possibly having machines hooked up to them to help keep them alive, possibly in and out of consciousness, with maybe no means of coherent thought or communication anymore. At this point, granting that they have either made their wishes known by living will or by informing loved ones of their desire not to live in such a condition, if it is the moral thing to do to either disconnect them from supporting machines or perhaps turn up a morphine drip until they, painlessly, fall asleep and pass away.

That was the decision we made for my Dad.

He passed away in 2005 of cancer, lymphoma that eventually spread to his brain. After he had lost consciousness and stopped even physically responding to the pain he was feeling, his doctor told us our options: either continue our present course until he died of the cancer in a few weeks, or disconnect him from his support and have him die in a matter of days. We decided on the second option.