Euthanasia

Euthanasia in its broadest definition can encompass many things but the area that stirs most debate is in voluntary euthanasia/medically assisted suicide. This is when the patient wishes to die and asks a doctor to end their life. The main time this occurs is when the person is suffering from a condition that is either very painful or delibating (e.g Alzhiemer's disease) where recovery is impossible. Can euthanasia ever be acceptable or is it simply a waste of a human life?

Much of the debate will depend on your opinion of life. What is more important quality of life or life itself.

To add clarification, here are some useful terms:

Euthanasia - medically assisted death
Non-voluntary euthanasia - When the patient is killed without their consent e.g when they are in a coma.
Voluntary euthanasia - When the patient is killed with their consent.
Passive euthanasia - Withholding treatments e.g antibiotics so the patient ends up dying.
Aggressive euthanasia - Use of lethal substances to kill patient.

QUOTE Can euthanasia ever be acceptable or is it simply a waste of a human life?

Much of the debate will depend on your opinion of life. What is more important quality of life or life itself.

I am glad you made a thread for a topic like this one for it is a very controversial issue and all comes down to the ethics of the physician. Which is more important? I would have to say both have their strengths and weaknesses, putting it very straight forwardly. Physician Assisted Suicide = Euthanasia (for the americans who need an example) If a patient is suffering, the physician is faced with a dire choice and will in turn be faced with dire consequences. Will you end their suffering or prolong it? Will you be charged with murder or be protected by a form of 'The Good Samaritan Act'? A physician puts his/her entire career on the line when being faced with this decision and having to make a choice. Understanding both sides to an issue is VERY important. Standing from a neutral viewpoint neither is right nor wrong (but Im sure you know that). The quality of life is important and no one should have to suffer, but then for those who believe and live on and go through it, there may be a chance for survival and many feel they should never give up even with only a 1% chance of survival. I am very religious and so I believe that anything is possible because all is left in the hands of god. From what you've read, I'm sure you understand how it is I am neutral. (And I also am against suicide 100%, which is what Physician Assisted Suicide is, because the patient asks the PHYSICIAN to ASSIST them in ENDING THEIR LIVES = Physician Assisted Suicide) As I said; in the presented case there is neither a right nor a wrong solution or answer to this problem.

Euthanasia and Voluntary Euthanasia (AKA Physician Assisted Suicide) are the same and are a suicide attempt/completion by a patient WITH the help of a doctor/physician. Non-voluntary and Aggressive Euthanasia, in my opinion, should be considered murder because regardless of whether or not it was that the patient was suffering, no person ad the right the end the life of another. Passive Euthanasia, if a physician or outside person was not aware of the case, is alone suicide in all aspects. Yes, we are to be discussing the ethics behind euthanasia and not suicide, but it is also important that we are all on the same page here if we are to further discuss this topic.

[Mod Warning]Your previous posts were deleted among the other person due to the fact you two weren't really arguing on an intellectual level anymore. It's really simple, we have absolutely no toleration for flamming and that applies to all members including sempais. Feel free to read the General Rules as well as this section's rules to attain a better comprehension of what is not tolerated in these boards of discussions. If you have any further questions, feel free to drop us a message. Thanks

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree with some of your points. Euthanasia is not necessarily suicide. If I get into a car crash, am on the edge of life and death and the ONLY thing keeping me alive is some machine that is pumping my blood for me and forcing oxygen into my bloodstream, and I decide that I don't want to live as a veggie with a machine keeping me alive, so you detach it...thats not suicide, thats letting nature take due course rather than defying god and keeping me alive. If you take a religious standpoint, technically Euthanasia in such circumstances would be the RIGHT thing to do and would not be suicide.

Personally, I think that Euthanasia should be allowed under circumstances where chances for recovery are null and the person depends on a machine for life and is unable to interact with their environment (essentially, a veggie). If I were in such a circumstance I would rather have them 'pull the plug' than have my family sink millions of dollars into keeping me alive for essentially nothing: I'm not even truly alive, I'm a lifeless corpse without thought, being kept animate via the use of a machine. If there is no way for me to recover, then why delay the inevitable.

Now, if I had cancer that would eventually kill me, I'd rather live my life to its fullest until such time that it did me in. Different circumstances. Such circumstances WOULD be suicide. I find suicide to be despicable.

edit: BTW, I think Euthanasia should only be allowed under such circumstances where the afflicted did say that they would prefer it before they came under the situation they were now in (e.g. discussed it with family, said it in a will, etc that they would have the plug pulled if they were in a condition like I described above with no chance of recovery).

-----------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE (koiji)Physician Assisted Suicide = Euthanasia (for the americans who need an example)
Next time, try saying "for those of you who don't know" rather than specifically referring to Americans. I don't see how confusion could NOT have occured considering how you phrased it.

It's true, this is really going to depend on personal views and experiences. It will be interesting to see how this is treated by law in coming years as technology gets more powerful. At some point, as we near death many of us will need assistance. Whether it is just a caretaker to feed/clothe us, or something more advanced. As upsetting as it may be to lose independence and need help say, going the washroom, it is still a 'natural' way of living to me. If you are only alive because you are hooked up to a machine - that is not life. In that case, we are playing god and artificially keeping someone alive. People (and society) need to learn that death is natural and let go in that situation. If there is no chance of recovery, and death is only being prolonged, I would not want to be financially draining my family, and taking up a hospital bed for someone who actually has a chance at survival and living their life to fullest.

Of course, this is a very emotional situation. The people left behind may not agree, and it can break families apart, or turn them against a doctor who believes he/she fulfilled a patient's wishes. I don't know how legislation could ever be enacted which would protect the patient, family, and doctor's involved. Getting an advanced opinion doesn't help, because people can change their minds on their deathbed as to whether they want death or fear it. Perhaps this is one issue that will never be solved completely.

QUOTE (dchaosblade @ Apr 28 2008, 04:15 PM)I'm not sure who deleted my original posts, but I'm reposting them until I get an explanation. And btw, editing my post so that I don't say that someone deleted them without explanation doesn't help matters. PM me.
What I said originally: I don't know who decided to delete my posts without explanation or a PM - especially when the posts pertained to the discussion at hand - but I am REposting them until whoever deleted them PMs me and explains.
I saw your original post but was too knackered to respond to it. When I checked in the morning it was already gone... I assumed it got deleted because of the flaming (colourful language was also used). I can understand some comments can really be annoying but remember criticise the opinion not the person! I sort of guessed you got PM'ed as you skipped this original paragraph. Seems that I'm wrong.


QUOTE I disagree with some of your points. Euthanasia is not necessarily suicide. If I get into a car crash, am on the edge of life and death and the ONLY thing keeping me alive is some machine that is pumping my blood for me and forcing oxygen into my bloodstream, and I decide that I don't want to live as a veggie with a machine keeping me alive, so you detach it...thats not suicide, thats letting nature take due course rather than defying god and keeping me alive.

If you take a religious standpoint, technically Euthanasia in such circumstances would be the RIGHT thing to do and would not be suicide
It is true most religions do not consider passive euthanasia (were drugs are withheld) as suicide hence passive euthanasia is the least controversial form. However this opinion is not a universal one, some believe that people should fight for life until the very end anything short of this is suicide.

To take an example, some premature babies are given little chance of survival. The doctors say they will die and they are completely depended on life support. The temptation is to let nature take its course... However there have been cases were such babies survive. Okay the chances are slim but there is hope. The same could be said for car crashes, people come out of comas, their condition can improve despite dire prognosis's. After all doctors don't know everything.

A case when aggressive euthanasia (when lethal injection is used) maybe appropriate. Imagine you have Alzhiemier's (there is no cure) and your memory is failing. Pretty soon you will have no memories and will become incontinent and a burden to the family. Instead of being a burden a person may wish to be killed before reaching this state. It should be noted that letting nature take its course is not an option here (unless you let them die of starvation which is murder anyway). What then?


QUOTE (chiisai_hana @ Apr 28 2008, 08:46 PM)Of course, this is a very emotional situation. The people left behind may not agree, and it can break families apart, or turn them against a doctor who believes he/she fulfilled a patient's wishes. I don't know how legislation could ever be enacted which would protect the patient, family, and doctor's involved. Getting an advanced opinion doesn't help, because people can change their minds on their deathbed as to whether they want death or fear it. Perhaps this is one issue that will never be solved completely.

If euthanasia was to become legal the best solution would be an agreement between patient and doctor. After all this is the most important relationship in the whole matter. Further if it were the family that made the decision it could be open to abuse. Imagine if the person who dies is very rich and the family want their money. Wouldn't euthanasia provide a legal way of killing their relative? Yes such situations would still have their weaknesses. What if the patient wants to die but the family disagrees? It is simply a lesser of two evils.

QUOTE (dchaosblade @ Apr 28 2008, 11:15 AM) [Mod Warning]Your previous posts were deleted among the other person due to the fact you two weren't really arguing on an intellectual level anymore. It's really simple, we have absolutely no toleration for flamming and that applies to all members including sempais. Feel free to read the General Rules as well as this section's rules to attain a better comprehension of what is not tolerated in these boards of discussions. If you have any further questions, feel free to drop us a message. Thanks
I would LOVE to 'drop you a message' except I don't know who the hell you are because you don't leave the "edit by" line, nor do you leave your name. Doesn't make it easy to confront you with anything.
That said, since I can't contact you, I'll leave my grievances here until you delete that too. I can understand editing out the first paragraph of my first reply seeing as how it could be considered 'flaming', however, the rest of that post was on topic, and my post after that one was simply a debate on the points brought up by koiji as a counter.


Mod's note: Oh yeah, was too busy talking to someone else and forgot to check the box. Still your posts begin with something that's off-topic. Regarding why your posts were deleted, it was within my judgement that simply editing out your first two posts would not get your attention and prevent you from repeating the same process over and over again in your following posts or in near future. Seems like I went overboard and ironically, wasn't wrong either. So here you can contact me.


Now then.

-----------------------------------------------------------------


QUOTE (monsta666[/QUOTE)It is true most religions do not consider passive euthanasia (were drugs are withheld) as suicide hence passive euthanasia is the least controversial form. However this opinion is not a universal one, some believe that people should fight for life until the very end anything short of this is suicide.
Although it may cause debate, and some people may disagree with the ethics, I think that it is the persons right to decide what will happen with their life. They shouldn't be forced to live in extreme pain with minimal interaction with their surroundings just because a few people think they 'should fight for life until the very end'.

Also, I do believe that Euthanasia is legal in the United States. For example, wasn't there that case a while ago with the girl in a coma who's parents wanted to pull the plug but the husband/boyfriend (or whatever) said no? Point being that at least in certain circumstances, pulling the plug is perfectly legal (though I don't know about lethal injections).


I think the solution is rather simple. The person - if they are a legal adult - should sign documents saying what they would like if certain circumstances occur that put them in a situation where euthanasia would be considered. IF the person changes their mind before such circumstances arise, they simply change their statement - like a will. That said, if the circumstances do arise, but the person changes their mind (which would imply that they are conscious and able to think and act), then they simply say so. If they are stuck in a comatose state or such where they cannot interract with the world and their chances of survival are deemed negligible their prior statements are enforced - whether that be to keep living or pulling the plug.

The question then would be, what about circumstances such as what monsta666 brought up where the person is in a non-lethal situation but will be unable to make informed intelligible decisions. I personally think that in such circumstances lethal injections would be wrong, but I can see the reasoning behind getting them. No simple solution comes to mind.

QUOTE (dchaosblade @ Apr 28 2008, 10:02 PM)Also, I do believe that Euthanasia is legal in the United States. For example, wasn't there that case a while ago with the girl in a coma who's parents wanted to pull the plug but the husband/boyfriend (or whatever) said no? Point being that at least in certain circumstances, pulling the plug is perfectly legal (though I don't know about lethal injections).

Although I hear euthanasia is illegal in most countries I question whether this really true, at least in practice. Passive euthanasia happens all the time. Removal of life support which results in a patients death is a common occurrence. Indeed to some doctors prolonging someone's live may even be considered unethical. Ever heard of palliative care? This often occurs when someone has terminal cancer and they will die (usually within a week). Instead of providing chemotherapy (which is pointless at that stage) they provide powerful painkillers to ease the pain and let nature take its course. The only euthanasia that is illegal in most countries is the aggressive form which involves lethal injection. I know this form of euthanasia is legal in the Netherlands and Belgium.

QUOTE It is true most religions do not consider passive euthanasia (were drugs are withheld) as suicide hence passive euthanasia is the least controversial form. However this opinion is not a universal one, some believe that people should fight for life until the very end anything short of this is suicide.

Actually, I would and my religion would (but you already said that: "However this opinion is not a universal one, some believe that people should fight for life until the very end anything short of this is suicide."), because your medications are there for you to aid in some way and refusing to take it, well why else would you do it? If it were meds you HAVE TO TAKE OR ELSE..then refusing to take them obviously means you're ready to die and considered suicide.



QUOTE A case when aggressive euthanasia (when lethal injection is used) maybe appropriate. Imagine you have Alzhiemier's (there is no cure) and your memory is failing. Pretty soon you will have no memories and will become incontinent and a burden to the family. Instead of being a burden a person may wish to be killed before reaching this state. It should be noted that letting nature take its course is not an option here (unless you let them die of starvation which is murder anyway). What then?

Not appropriate, because even though the example you gave was a good one, the case w/ aggressive euthanasia is that it isnt consented by the patient, therefore it could possibly be considered murder. The example you gave would most likely fit under: Euthanasia and Voluntary euthanasia.


QUOTE If euthanasia was to become legal the best solution would be an agreement between patient and doctor. After all this is the most important relationship in the whole matter. Further if it were the family that made the decision it could be open to abuse. Imagine if the person who dies is very rich and the family want their money. Wouldn't euthanasia provide a legal way of killing their relative? Yes such situations would still have their weaknesses. What if the patient wants to die but the family disagrees? It is simply a lesser of two evils.

Which is way the subject is, as I said, controversial, and has no real right or wrong solution.


QUOTE Although it may cause debate, and some people may disagree with the ethics, I think that it is the persons right to decide what will happen with their life. They shouldn't be forced to live in extreme pain with minimal interaction with their surroundings just because a few people think they 'should fight for life until the very end'.

As I said, I am very religious, and I believe that the only one that has a right to decide whether a person lives or dies, is God. So, as you said, that is what you believe, and as I said, this is what I believe because yes, I believe that peope should fight for life till the end.


QUOTE Also, I do believe that Euthanasia is legal in the United States. For example, wasn't there that case a while ago with the girl in a coma who's parents wanted to pull the plug but the husband/boyfriend (or whatever) said no? Point being that at least in certain circumstances, pulling the plug is perfectly legal (though I don't know about lethal injections).

I actually dont think it is legal, because euthanasia and pulling the plug are different. When a MACHINE is keeping you alive, then pulling the plug when there is 0% chance of hope is only ethical but euthanasia usually has to do with administration of a drug like substance to kill the patient. Im not entirely sure on that with the euthanasia but there is a good chance I am right.


QUOTE I think the solution is rather simple. The person - if they are a legal adult - should sign documents saying what they would like if certain circumstances occur that put them in a situation where euthanasia would be considered. IF the person changes their mind before such circumstances arise, they simply change their statement - like a will. That said, if the circumstances do arise, but the person changes their mind (which would imply that they are conscious and able to think and act), then they simply say so. If they are stuck in a comatose state or such where they cannot interract with the world and their chances of survival are deemed negligible their prior statements are enforced - whether that be to keep living or pulling the plug.

A rather elegant solution, and glad to say it's already being done. My HST teacher has done that as well as my Trigonometry teacher. I beleive it is called a "Death Will", but dont quote me on that. But as I said, it is already being done and has been done for quite a while now.


QUOTE The question then would be, what about circumstances such as what monsta666 brought up where the person is in a non-lethal situation but will be unable to make informed intelligible decisions. I personally think that in such circumstances lethal injections would be wrong, but I can see the reasoning behind getting them. No simple solution comes to mind.

Which is why, as I will once more say, the issue is controversial and has no true right or wrong. And most of us here are listening to both sides of the story and understanding certain circumstances in which it would we considered maybe ethical or not. I say ethical because, ethics are based upon a person and their beliefs and values, maybe similar to right and wrong, but also very different.

Overall, the life of a person isnt something that can be juggled. It is a valuable thing and if you think about it, there are always the instances in where someone may be taking their lives for granted. If a terminally ill cancer patient has recently been informed that they have a month or so to live, they'd most likely want to live for every second they can grab and would be very angry with those who want to end their lives so early because they feel as if there is nothing left with their disease/illness. But it also must be taken into account, whether or not that person is going to be suffering or not when deciding to pull the plug/be administered euthanasia. But even so, I believe, as monsta666 said, that it is considered suicide if the person does not fight for their life for every possible second up until the point where it IS completely useless.

Back in Highschool I did a report dealing with Euthanasia and another dealing with Genetic Engineering - both for A.P. English III. Anyway, due to the research I have a few things to throw in in response to some recent comments.

QUOTE (koiji)I actually dont think it is legal, because euthanasia and pulling the plug are different. When a MACHINE is keeping you alive, then pulling the plug when there is 0% chance of hope is only ethical but euthanasia usually has to do with administration of a drug like substance to kill the patient. Im not entirely sure on that with the euthanasia but there is a good chance I am right.
Euthanasia, by definition:

QUOTE (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/euthanasia)eu·tha·na·sia /ˌyuθəˈneɪ�ə, -�iə, -ziə/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[yoo-thuh-ney-zhuh, -zhee-uh, -zee-uh]
–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.
So no, you're wrong. Euthanasia applies both to the act of lethal means as well as simply pulling the plug (withholding extreme medical measures).

Also,
QUOTE (koiji)Not appropriate, because even though the example you gave was a good one, the case w/ aggressive euthanasia is that it isnt consented by the patient, therefore it could possibly be considered murder. The example you gave would most likely fit under: Euthanasia and Voluntary euthanasia.
Aggressive Euthanasia is simply the use of painless lethal means to end the life of someone in an extreme medical condition "esp. a painful, disease or condition." Aggresive Euthanasia would apply to the case like monsta666 gave because it was lethal means to end his life to 'end the suffering'. I believe that in order to administer Lethal Euthanasia the patient MUST consent themselves (in other words I can't say 'my father has Alzheimer's, kill him', he has to agree) or be incapacitated to the point where they cannot make a decision (i.e. In a coma).
Legally, if anything this would be considered "assisted suicide" as opposed to murder should someone be tried for it. Furthermore, some states have assisted suicide as a legal action.

My last comment is in regards to
QUOTE (koiji)QUOTE
Although it may cause debate, and some people may disagree with the ethics, I think that it is the persons right to decide what will happen with their life. They shouldn't be forced to live in extreme pain with minimal interaction with their surroundings just because a few people think they 'should fight for life until the very end'.
As I said, I am very religious, and I believe that the only one that has a right to decide whether a person lives or dies, is God. So, as you said, that is what you believe, and as I said, this is what I believe because yes, I believe that peope should fight for life till the end.
I was not saying that you were wrong or anything. My point was simply that I don't think that I - were I in a situation where Euthanasia would be considered - should be forced NOT to do so because you think it's wrong. I think the option should be available to everyone. If you don't agree with it then you have the option not to make use of it; but others shouldn't be refused it because of your opinions. See what I'm getting at?


Edit: Regarding the legality of Euthanasia in various countries, feel free to check out This Site which states the laws regarding Euthanasia in various countries.

Can someone please explain to me what the hell is wrong with letting nature take its natural course? I would choose it over having to kill the person myself under certain circumstances.

On another note people should also take into account the circumstances of the families involved IMO. There are cases where the family let nature take it's natural course because they can't afford to continue to pay for the machines etc. keeping the patient alive. Yet these self - righteous people who don't understand their situation start bashing them. It disgusts me.

yea makes you want to make a rule of if you want a bash them for there decision you have to adopt the person in question and pay all the medical bills and stuff. I wonder how many people would shut there trap as it where

QUOTE (khael @ Apr 30 2008, 12:12 PM)Can someone please explain to me what the hell is wrong with letting nature take its natural course? I would choose it over having to kill the person myself under certain circumstances.
In some religions this would amount to suicide. I know Christianity and Islam hold similar views when it comes to euthanasia. Both do not consider passive euthanasia (the removal of drugs/life support) as suicide. On the other hand neither advocate any measure that shortens life (aggressive euthanasia). I'm not sure what the stance is for Judaism, Hinduism and other religions.


QUOTE (Patrick5087 @ Apr 30 2008, 07:57 PM)yea makes you want to make a rule of if you want a bash them for there decision you have to adopt the person in question and pay all the medical bills and stuff. I wonder how many people would shut there trap as it where

This factor could potentially have far reaching consequences. If euthanasia were legalised could it provide a way of saving money? Would more poorer families carry out euthanasia to escape paying medical bills? I think the arguments for euthanasia will be slightly different depending on whether health care is private or not. For example would the rate of euthanasia be higher in countries like America where people pay for their medical expenses than say Britain where it is free?

Sure you could make some legislations to prevent people jumping at the euthanasia option. But when the going gets tough and finances become stretched...

Way too lazy to read most of the older posts.

If people are asking for it, considerations should be put into why they would want to die as so.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/03/20/france.tumor/index.html
*Summary*
There was a woman in France I believe who wanted to have assisted suicide, but couldn't. She was already going to die, and in great pain.

A close family friend of mine had a dying father so long ago. From what the doctor, and my friend's father said, his legs were basically dead already. Asking for assisted suicide he was denied. My friend later reported watching his father, in tears due to pain and fear, slowly die.

As stated, condition should be looked at before a decision is made, as well as a mutual agreement between the one who wants to die, and their caretakers, and NO ONE ELSE. (In my humble opinion, no one else, regardless of relation, has a right to decide your life but yourself. Husband, wife, family, or friend included.

Of course, this is to protect someone who doesn't want to die, but their family wants them to due to financial problems.
If you have a chance to live, no amount of money is worth losing that chance. Don't get cheap on your life.

Religion in place, I would bend towards what the individual would want. *points to posts on top.* Its your life, do what you want. (Hell included)
I remember maybe during the middle ages, and a little later, suicide was honorable. A good way to save face, as well escape problems.
My op,
I highly doubt, for Christianity, a God so caring, forgiving, and loving, would punish his own child for running from pain. Can't say much for other religions.