NationStates Jolt Archive

Euthanasia

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm doing a school research project for the end of the semester called the "I-Search". It's a first-person research paper/presentation incorporating interviews, books, and electronic resources. In addition, most of my classmates have sent out surveys to be filled out by the whole grade to get their opinions on their topics.

My chosen topic is euthanasia. I thought I'd one-up them and get opinions from a variety of people worldwide.

In the poll, I give options for "passive" and "active" euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is taking away artificial support nessicary to sustain the life of an incapacitated person (i.e. taking a person in a coma off a ventilator). Passive euthanasia is often implemented when a family realizes there is no hope of recovery, and it is best to let their loved one go.

Active euthanasia is the direct interruption of bodily processes adequate to sustain life, but would in time fail to do so with the result of the person dying naturally. Active euthanasia advocates often use the severe pain that sometimes accompanies death to validate their cause, saying that it is better to put them out of their misery than to keep them in pain longer than need be.

There is also infant euthanasia, dually defined by the same terms as above, but applying to newborns.

What do you think of these issues? Should they be allowed by law, or should they be banned? You are encouraged to post any comments below, as I may integrate them into my paper, if you're lucky.

If life is going to be a hell of agony and helplessness then one has the right to die. Preferably fast and peacefully from a cocktail of sedatives and opiate analgesics.

Let's kill people before they get sick to save time.

I think active euthanasia is the thing I would go with. Imagine:
You get into an accident. You recieve heave inuuries. You are disabeled, won't be able to even move a finger for the rest of your life. Apart from that, there's a piece of your car stuck in your body that can't be taken out by surgery without cutting your whole body open. This piece causes you unbelievable pain and there's next to nothing that can be done about it. Would you like to keep on living like that? I know I wouldn't.

This case might sound extreme, but then again Euthanasia is not meant for a person that is unhappy with his current live because he may have lost his job and wants to kill himself know. Which doesn't mean that he shouldn't be allowed to do so. After all, who are we to tell somebody when his life should end? (before anyone starts yelling at me again, no i don't consider suicide a valid solution for anything, and of course we should try to convince people that their life will get better but I mean that in the end there's only one person that should make this decision and that's the one trying to kill himself)

I see it with Euthanasia as I see it with many other things, like abortion for example. The people should have the choice to do it. What they do with that choice is their own business.

No with infant euthanasia it's different. Nobody can tell what a child will turn out to become or what it might achieve. So nobody has the right to decide wether it's "worthy enough" to live.

I voted that both active and passive should be allowed, but active should only be allowed in certain circumstances, like the patient is the one actually requesting to die, has been in poor health for a great length of time (set forth by law, ie X amount of years with no remarkable improvement), and has previous witness statements to support the desire for death in those circumstances.

But if it's just some crazy lady wanting to die.....probably shouldn't be allowed.

But if active were legalized, couldn't it lead to other potentially disasterous consequences down the road? Could we end up like the Nazi's, using active euthanasia as an excuse to get "undesirable" persons out of the way?

Look at the Netherlands. In 1996, a doctor administered a fatal dose of sedatives to a 72 year old cancer patient in a nursing home without following the proper legal guidelines (he didn't even ask anyone, for that matter). After the deed was done, he is reported to have said to a nurse "If she isn't dead by 7:00, call me up."

He walked free, without so much as a slap on the hand.

Do you think that such a laissez-faire attitude is possible here? Could we slide down the so-called "slippery-slope"?

the requirements for euthanasia would have to be clear: terminal illness would be the best definition (like stage 4 cancer). The patient would also have to make it clear that it was their choice (or in the case of someone being under 18, the legal guardians choice)

the issue with euthanasia debates tends to be quantity vs. quality. If a 20 year old is going to die, should we keep them alive for as long as possible, even if they are in extreme pain and restricted to a hospital bed, or should we let them die while the pain is relatively minor?

I would prefer the right to die with dignity and have a good, if not long, life

Let's kill people before they get sick to save time.

Euthanasia is every powerholder's and dictator's dream option. Euthanasia should be compulsive ordained by doctors and higher authorities.

Personally, I'd prefer to be "put to sleep" than to have food and water withheld from me until I died...but maybe that's just me.

The patient would also have to make it clear that it was their choice (or in the case of someone being under 18, the legal guardians choice)

I don't necessarily agree with this. I mean, to what level would the legal guardians get to choose? If we're talking about a young child, alright, that makes sense. But what about a reasonably minded 16 year old who'd rather live out to the end of their lifespan than to die? Shouldn't they get a say whether or not they're "put down", despite what the parents may want?

its difficult to vote without qualifiers

i think that for those capable of understanding the whole thing "active and passive" should be allowed. certainly passive is an utter necessity since everyone must have the right to deny medical treatment. im in favor of active in the form of assisted suicide. only patient initiated active euthanasia should be allowed. court ordered passive is OK with me.

when it comes to infants, i dont like the idea of actively euthanasia but there are probably some extreme cases where it would be a kindness. to just let a critically compromised infant die is only right. i voted for "passive only for infants"

We hear all too much of these "slippery slope" arguments, the fact is that so long as the the patient is absolutly positive they do not wish to carry on living and they're of sound mental health and had the backing of say 2 doctors at least one of whom had nothing to do with the patient then I don't see a problem at all.

Arguably it is just as bad to deny death to someone who wants it as it is to deny life to someone who want it.

I disagree with passive euthanasia...

But, as there was no option for just active Euthanasia, I went with both passive and active are acceptable.

I'm a Christian (incase nobody has read anything I've said on this forum... ;) ) and so I believe that only God can give and take life away. I want to live my life even if it is painful, and to me or anybody I have responsibility over I wouldn't want euthanasia to happen, either form.

For other people who are entitled to their opions/rights.... I would ideally like the same, but then we're not living in a perfect world. Dying from starvation and thirst is painful at times although there is a point where you have so little energy that you can't be bothered to swat a fly that is annoying you (Yes I'm remembering this from Humanities but I'm sure with the internet I could go find something). I think there are more humane ways than this that I would want them to use if they want to die.

I think that also that if it were to be legalised, that only passive should be used for those under the age of responsibility (and who couldn't /hadn't made a decision).

Anyway, that's my thoughts.

Well, I feel that youth in Asia are quite unfairly oppressed. Many of them aren't getting enough food either.
(hopes somebody catches the pun)

I'm a Christian (incase nobody has read anything I've said on this forum... ;) ) and so I believe that only God can give and take life away. I want to live my life even if it is painful, and to me or anybody I have responsibility over I wouldn't want euthanasia to happen, either form.

For other people who are entitled to their opions/rights.... I would ideally like the same, but then we're not living in a perfect world. Dying from starvation and thirst is painful at times although there is a point where you have so little energy that you can't be bothered to swat a fly that is annoying you (Yes I'm remembering this from Humanities but I'm sure with the internet I could go find something). I think there are more humane ways than this that I would want them to use if they want to die.

I think that also that if it were to be legalised, that only passive should be used for those under the age of responsibility (and who couldn't /hadn't made a decision).

Anyway, that's my thoughts.

doyou feel that you are required to take all possible medical measures regardless of them being unlikely (or utterly unable) to bring you back to a state of health?

MUST you take the next course of chemotherapy even though its utterly experimental and you are in the last stages of cancer?

MUST you be hooked up to a respirator to live a few more weeks unable to talk?

MUST you require them to do everything possible to bring you back after your heart has stopped even though you will be dying soon no matter what they do? (cpr, electric shock, internal heart massage, etc?)

isnt there a point where you can choose a death with dignity?

In the poll, I give options for "passive" and "active" euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is taking away artificial support nessicary to sustain the life of an incapacitated person (i.e. taking a person in a coma off a ventilator). Passive euthanasia is often implemented when a family realizes there is no hope of recovery, and it is best to let their loved one go.

Active euthanasia is the direct interruption of bodily processes adequate to sustain life, but would in time fail to do so with the result of the person dying naturally. Active euthanasia advocates often use the severe pain that sometimes accompanies death to validate their cause, saying that it is better to put them out of their misery than to keep them in pain longer than need be.

There is also infant euthanasia, dually defined by the same terms as above, but applying to newborns.
When there is absolutely no possibility of recovery from a terminal illness and the individual has a "living will" stipulating "no heroic means" will be used to artificially prolong their life, then I would approve of passive euthanasia. For terminal infants, I would approve of the parents having the right to passively euthanize their child ( although it pains me deeply to even say that ).

Under no circumstances would I ever approve of active euthanasia.

Why? Because, in my opinion, life virtually equals hope. I have seen men incredibly maimed on the battlefield, screaming in pain ( a sound I never want to hear again ). In one case, I was sorely tempted to shoot a man in the head just to end his suffering. As far as I know, he's up and active to this day, and there's not a doctor who attended him who can explain his recovery. One of them simply stated, "There are some things we just cannot explain."

Why? Because, in my opinion, life virtually equals hope. I have seen men incredibly maimed on the battlefield, screaming in pain ( a sound I never want to hear again ). In one case, I was sorely tempted to shoot a man in the head just to end his suffering. As far as I know, he's up and active to this day, and there's not a doctor who attended him who can explain his recovery. One of them simply stated, "There are some things we just cannot explain."

What if he had asked you to shoot him? What if he had decided to do it himself? Would you have stopped him?

You may be eternally hopeful, but what if the person in question is not? With many diseases, if they are not hopeful, their chances of survival are even further lowered. Why shouldn't they be allowed the choice?

What if he had asked you to shoot him? What if he had decided to do it himself? Would you have stopped him?

You may be eternally hopeful, but what if the person in question is not? With many diseases, if they are not hopeful, their chances of survival are even further lowered. Why shouldn't they be allowed the choice?

Because what if the person wanting to be euthanized is doing so for the wrong reasons-i.e. not a disease, but family problems, financial disaster, etc. and is using active euthanasia as an excuse to get rid of all his/her problems, perminately.

Is it our place to choose who is to live and who is to die, even when the choice concerns ourselves? Who are we to know what plans a higher power (if you belive in one) has for us. Since when do we have the clairvoyence (sp?) to know whe it is time to put things to an end?

I personally believe that life will end of its own accord when it is supposed to. Hastening death serves no purpose other than to deny any more potential good that may come from life.

I personally believe that life will end of its own accord when it is supposed to. Hastening death serves no purpose other than to deny any more potential good that may come from life.

So you are in favour of banning all medical practice?

I mean, if life should end on it's own accord, and we aren't supposed to play God, obviously lenghtening someone's life is Wrong.

Is it our place to choose who is to live and who is to die, even when the choice concerns ourselves? Who are we to know what plans a higher power (if you belive in one) has for us. Since when do we have the clairvoyence (sp?) to know whe it is time to put things to an end?

Is it our place to tell people they must continue to suffer? Is it ok to tell someone that you think they should continue to suffer, because *you* think they still have hope? Because *you* think you know what's best for them?
How unbelievably selfish of you.

So you are in favour of banning all medical practice?

I mean, if life should end on it's own accord, and we aren't supposed to play God, obviously lenghtening someone's life is Wrong.

No-medicine exists to prolong and improve the quality of life through the curing of disease. Lengthening life when there is still a life to be lived is an admirable goal that should be strived for. The intentional shortening of life is contradictory to the goals of medicine



Is it our place to tell people they must continue to suffer? Is it ok to tell someone that you think they should continue to suffer, because *you* think they still have hope? Because *you* think you know what's best for them?

How unbelievably selfish of you.

According to the general manager of a Hospice that I interviewed as part of this project, modern pallative care enables us to relieve any kind of physical pain. It is the emotional pain that they are confronted with. We can relieve the pains of their body, but not of their spirit. Only the patient can do that.

The end of life can be an incredibly taxing experience to the body, mind, and spirit. If we can relieve the physical pain, then would not active euthanasia become suicide? Its goal would not be to relieve physical pain but to deal with issues of the mind and heart. How then in this context would it be any different from putting a gun to someones head or smothering them with a pillow?

Active is good because it allows those who feel that they have completed their lives and are ready to move on can...most useful for people who are terminally ill and suffering, or in a state (completely paralized...something that involves a large amount of pain) to pass on.
Passive is a sticky situation, but there are definitely times where it is appropriate, as in the Terri Shiavo case.
I understand people's opposition to euthinasia...however, I believe that it can be implimented safely (that is, without having people just randomly ending thier lives over an acute pain i.e.-a break up).

I'm a Christian (incase nobody has read anything I've said on this forum... ;) ) and so I believe that only God can give and take life away.
So you support passive euthanasia?(since you're basically just letting God take over that person's fate) Of course, going by your logic people shouldn't be saved by others if they'll die otherwise, since they'd be giving the other person life, and according to you "only God can give and take life away".

I'm all for passive euthanasia(assuming that they've been in a vegetative state for at least a month or two. There should be SOME time to see if there's a good chance of recovery), since the person's not going to regain consiousness. Besides, it's better to have the option available, even if people think it's wrong, than to have it be illegal and have the people who just want to end the suffering of loved ones either be forced to watch helplessly or to commit an illegal act.

Once you are dead, you are gone until science reachs the point that you can be repaired and revive. Euthanasia just makes that period much longer by poisoning your body. But burrial will do a similar thing to the brain, so either way is bad.

I belive that if a person wants to die, then they should be allowed to. I would rather they took a foul tasting mixture medically proved to work without pain than die after taking 50 pills slowly and painfully.

If they are on life support without a chance of improvement, turn it off.

If they are like Terri Shiavo, dont stop feeding, just use the mixture mentioned above.

If they want to die because their life sucks, give them a phsycologist.

It only seems fair.

I wonder why so many people want to kill recovering brain-damaged people...

I voted in favour of both passive and active infant euthanasia. When I was 5, my baby sister was born without a liver. The choice facing my parents were1) to keep her on life support, with a projected lifespan of maybe 12 years (this was in the 70s) all of which would be spent on life support in the hospital and in constant pain. 2) Remove her from life support and have her live for another 3 days in total agony. There was no choice 3) Remove her from life support, give her a shot of morphine and let her die quickly and peacefully.

In the end they chose 2, and the Doctors skirted the rules by inducing a coma for her final 3 days of life. No one should have to face choices like that, but the fact is that they are faced by people all over the world on an almost daily basis. The pain of those left behind is still unimaginable, but at least my sister was spared a life of pure agony. Of course all 3 of us think "What if" from time to time, but I think my parents did the right thing.

I This case might sound extreme, but then again Euthanasia is not meant for a person that is unhappy with his current live because he may have lost his job and wants to kill himself know. Which doesn't mean that he shouldn't be allowed to do so. After all, who are we to tell somebody when his life should end? (before anyone starts yelling at me again, no i don't consider suicide a valid solution for anything, and of course we should try to convince people that their life will get better but I mean that in the end there's only one person that should make this decision and that's the one trying to kill himself)

Fully in agreement. The only person that has the right to decide if their own life is worth living is that person him/herself (assume he from now on).

Death is not per se something scary. I can imagine an old man looking back at a happy and fruitful life and thinking "job well done. Now lets move on". Why should we force him to live on ? Compare his life to a theater play: the show has finished, the public was enthousiastic, he has cleaned up and turned off the lights.. why should he keep sitting there in the dark until the building collapses ?

Then take the case of suffering. If someone is in pain 24/7 after an accident without chance of recovering and asks the doctors to end it.. why should they not be allowed to help ? "Do no harm" is the oath - and letting him live is definately doing harm. The same goes for mental suffering - if you no longer posess the will to live, why should you ? Attempts to "cure" people without the will to live have a pitifully low succesrate. As adults these people are supposed to be able to decide how they live their life: who to marry, if they have kids, where they live, what job they have, where they take a holiday.. why should they not be allowed to decide when to end it too ?

And of course the cases in which one can no longer decide for himself, like for instance when suffering from dementia or being in a coma. I personally do not wish to live in a demented state. It is quite possible I would have moments of happyness then - but my dignity, the memory people will have of me, will be severely tainted. Not to mention that the demented person would in essence not be me anymore, since it no longers remembers the things that make me me. Should I be spoonfed anyway, even though I put my wish to die in that case in writing while still sound of mind and body ?

Thank you all so much for your views. It's been a big help to my paper.

I said passive only, but I do not mean all passive. Only if it requires serious, extraordinary means of sustaining a person like a respirator should the plug be pulled, since it would only be prolonging the existence of the body.

I said passive only, but I do not mean all passive. Only if it requires serious, extraordinary means of sustaining a person like a respirator should the plug be pulled, since it would only be prolonging the existence of the body.

I agree with you completely.

Euthanasia is throwing away your chance to LIVE. If you need someone to help you through the pain that's fine so relax. I get how some people don't want to live on since what they're going through is worse than a permanent epileptic back spasm, but friends and family can help get you mind off of it and if its something like what just happened with what's her name in the news recently, well....

I've never been really in favor of life support in the first place since your brain isn't 100% functioning. If your dead, your dead right? I dunno about you guys, but I don't want any zombies or anything wandering around my backyard huh (catch my drift?)?

I've never been really in favor of life support in the first place since your brain isn't 100% functioning. If your dead, your dead right? I dunno about you guys, but I don't want any zombies or anything wandering around my backyard huh (catch my drift?)?

Persons who are brain damaged should in my opinion be put on life support for a time because they have been known to recover certain functions and consciousness. Just because we aren't functioning at 100% capacity dosen't mean we should be let go.

What about a kid born with Down's syndrome? Because they're not "all there in the head" would you advocate actively euthanizing them? I wouldn't. Even though a person may be retarded or brain damaged otherwise, they can still be active and valuable members of society.

I would prefer to die with dignity.....but I don't want to make anyone a murderer in order to do it. Killing a child or an adult is murder. I can understand the debates about the unborn, but isn't killing depressed people (not just turning off machines) going a bit too far?

Some politicians should be euthanised to save the nation. :)

I would prefer to die with dignity.....but I don't want to make anyone a murderer in order to do it. Killing a child or an adult is murder. I can understand the debates about the unborn, but isn't killing depressed people (not just turning off machines) going a bit too far?

Agreed. If, as the general manager of the hospice I spoke to asserts, we can relieve all physical pain, then what pain is left to justify active euthanasia?

Is emotional trauma reason enough to end someones life prematurely?

I think not.

Agreed. If, as the general manager of the hospice I spoke to asserts, we can relieve all physical pain, then what pain is left to justify active euthanasia?

Is emotional trauma reason enough to end someones life prematurely?

I think not.

Physical pain and emotional pain are different things. Yes, modern technology can relieve physical pain, but emotional pain is like a permanent scar and much harder to heal.

Physical pain and emotional pain are different things. Yes, modern technology can relieve physical pain, but emotional pain is like a permanent scar and much harder to heal.

True, and I would even go so far as to say that it cannot ever be completely healed, but can be soothed and helped.

But though the emotional pain is often directly associated with the disease, to kill someone for how they feel just seems wrong to me. Don't suicides despair and kill themselves as a result of emotional pain? What is the difference between giving them a shot and putting a gun to their head or smothering them with a pillow?

If it really becomes an escape from despair, then is it not suicide? Should suicide be legalized?

In cases where it is desired, I believe the person in question should have the oppurtunity to have their life ended, or to end it themselves.

In the case of someone too young or too impaired to make that decision, I see no reason why someone shouldn't be able to make a 'proxy' decision.

I also don't believe you can set rules on what is 'acceptable' motivation for euthanasia... like how long you have been in a coma, for example, or how far advanced your cancer is.

The choice should always belong to the individual... or to a representative in cases where necessary.

True, and I would even go so far as to say that it cannot ever be completely healed, but can be soothed and helped.

But though the emotional pain is often directly associated with the disease, to kill someone for how they feel just seems wrong to me. Don't suicides despair and kill themselves as a result of emotional pain? What is the difference between giving them a shot and putting a gun to their head or smothering them with a pillow?

If it really becomes an escape from despair, then is it not suicide? Should suicide be legalized?

Every year people attempt suicide because of some emotional or other trauma. In most cases, the cause can be treated. Suicide is treated as a crime and treating people as criminals doesn't exactly help the mental state much either. Mental health so important, and guess what is MOST neglected part of the health system?

If it really becomes an escape from despair, then is it not suicide? Should suicide be legalized?what will you do? make death punishment about suicide?

Every year people attempt suicide because of some emotional or other trauma. In most cases, the cause can be treated. Suicide is treated as a crime and treating people as criminals doesn't exactly help the mental state much either. Mental health so important, and guess what is MOST neglected part of the health system?

So should we legalize it and let people do what they want or rather improve programs to help them with their troubles and live as full a life as possible?

Give people counseling and help when their trauma overwhelms them, don't give them a shot in the arm and satisfy their request.

what will you do? make death punishment about suicide?

You don't punish people suffering from such conditions-you help them.

What kind of moron would give the death penalty for an attempted suicide?

I'm between a rock and a hard place on this one. I eventully chose passive euthanasia, as I feel it is not right to keep someone artificially alive if, for instance they have no brain function. However, I feel that active euthanasia can never be allowed because (in my view, similarly to the death penalty) there's huge potential for it to be abused. Also, consider the possibility a mistake being made. If euthanasia is used in an incorrect situation, there's then no way to rectify that mistake.

I find it hard that someone suffering, cut off from the world and imprisonned by their body may have to die slowly and painfully, but cannot myself justify active euthanasia for the reasons I've mentioned.

So should we legalize it and let people do what they want or rather improve programs to help them with their troubles and live as full a life as possible?

Give people counseling and help when their trauma overwhelms them, don't give them a shot in the arm and satisfy their request.

People should get all the mental health help they need. But in most nations, mental health is not much a priority and society expects you to plough on with your problems unresolved (or assume they just go away). We wouldn't be talking about Euthansia if our mental health systems were working as people would be able to cope with their situations.

I'm between a rock and a hard place on this one. I eventully chose passive euthanasia, as I feel it is not right to keep someone artificially alive if, for instance they have no brain function. However, I feel that active euthanasia can never be allowed because (in my view, similarly to the death penalty) there's huge potential for it to be abused. Also, consider the possibility a mistake being made. If euthanasia is used in an incorrect situation, there's then no way to rectify that mistake.

I find it hard that someone suffering, cut off from the world and imprisonned by their body may have to die slowly and painfully, but cannot myself justify active euthanasia for the reasons I've mentioned.

I read your statements and liked what you said. Think I agree with you, though euthanasia is one area of that I've no where near reasoned through enough. I do know that I don't want anybody to keep me alive if I am brain dead in a hospital. But passing legislation on legalising active euthanasia opens up far too many possibilities of abuse, for my comfort.

People should get all the mental health help they need. But in most nations, mental health is not much a priority and society expects you to plough on with your problems unresolved (or assume they just go away). We wouldn't be talking about Euthansia if our mental health systems were working as people would be able to cope with their situations.

True, however, my paper dosen't deal with international situations (though I use the Netherlands as an example of the slippery slope theory in action). I talk specifically about the situation in the State of Ohio, where I live. Even here, I think more funds could be allocated to help the cause.

You have a good point, though.

Is emotional trauma reason enough to end someones life prematurely?

I think not.

That is your opinion. But why would that be worth more than the opinion of that person himself ? What gives you the right to decide what someone else does with his/her life ?

(though I use the Netherlands as an example of the slippery slope theory in action)

I am very interested to know how - since the last few times i've seen someone do that they were spouting gibberish on Fox news with no basis in reality...

True, however, my paper dosen't deal with international situations (though I use the Netherlands as an example of the slippery slope theory in action). I talk specifically about the situation in the State of Ohio, where I live. Even here, I think more funds could be allocated to help the cause.

You have a good point, though.

Sadly it's typical government. Happy to legislate Draconian laws but not allocate funds to the best way to prevent the problem. Short-term-ism in action as usual.

I agree with active and passive euthania with either the following conditions, or similar safeguards.
The person who requests is legally of sound mind. If the person is not of sound mind, they must have recognised a guardian or appointed an person of sound mind while they, the patient, is of sound mind. Sort of a variant on a will.

The doctor can have not suggest or recommend euthanasia, only perform it if asked by the patient, or recognised patient's guardian/appointee.

The decision should be approved/denied by a board of neutral persons acting to protect the patients from misjudged euthanasia. This board should deny if,
A person is comatose/mentally damaged/not of sound mind, but may improve to legally sound awareness as proven by a neutral medical professional.
An person was not appointed while of sound mind by patient.
The appointed guardian is not exicisng sound judgement on behalf of the patient

If these are satisified then euthanasia is reasonable in my opinion

I read your statements and liked what you said. Think I agree with you, though euthanasia is one area of that I've no where near reasoned through enough. I do know that I don't want anybody to keep me alive if I am brain dead in a hospital. But passing legislation on legalising active euthanasia opens up far too many possibilities of abuse, for my comfort.

On the other hand, if my wife or daughter were in agony, and the 'best' the doctor was willing to do was 'try to ease their pain with medication'... or maybe withhold food and water, I would definitely be trying to find a way to alleviate that suffering in a more 'active' fashion.

I am very interested to know how - since the last few times i've seen someone do that they were spouting gibberish on Fox news with no basis in reality...

Active euthanasia is still technically illegal in the Netherlands, but they have set up a system on how it is to be carried out.

Technically, if a physician does not adhere to procedure, he is tried for murder.

In practice, 2/3 of all active euthanasia cases in that country are not reported properly.

In practice, doctors don't even get a slap on the hand.

Take for example the case where a doctor gave a 72 year old cancer patient a lethal dose of insulin without consulting her or her family or filing any legal documentation.

After the deed was done, he remarked to a nurse "If she isn't dead by 7 o'clock tomorrow, call me."

When he was tried for murder, he recieved 6 months in prision, but that was later overturned.

Today he walks free.

Such apathy to abuses of authority make me fear the implications of legalization. Americans have an extraordinarily bad habit of overindulging in something that may be O.K. in moderation, but poisinous in copious amounts (like credit card spending). What would the effects be further down the road if it is legalized? Would we end up like the Dutch-letting a doctor kill someone and get away with it?

I shudder to think.

Active euthanasia is still technically illegal in the Netherlands, but they have set up a system on how it is to be carried out.

Technically, if a physician does not adhere to procedure, he is tried for murder.

In practice, 2/3 of all active euthanasia cases in that country are not reported properly.

In practice, doctors don't even get a slap on the hand.

And now your sources please.

On the other hand, if my wife or daughter were in agony, and the 'best' the doctor was willing to do was 'try to ease their pain with medication'... or maybe withhold food and water, I would definitely be trying to find a way to alleviate that suffering in a more 'active' fashion.

This is why I find euthanasia such a difficult issue. While I've stated my current views, they're not particularly strong views, as there's so many situations where euthanasia seems like the best option. It could be that my views swing the other way with more thought.

And now your sources please.

Gladly. http://www.internationaltaskforce.org/iua8.htm

Scroll down to where it says "Dutch euthanasia "guidelines" not enforced.

It involved Dr. Sippe Schat.

Gladly. http://www.internationaltaskforce.org/iua8.htm

Scroll down to where it says "Dutch euthanasia "guidelines" not enforced.

It involved Dr. Sippe Schat.

I was talking about the general policies you mentioned. Preferably with a source that is not .. how shall I put it.. somewhat biased. The site you cite is not a valid source for a serious research paper.

I was talking about the general policies you mentioned. Preferably with a source that is not .. how shall I put it.. somewhat biased. The site you cite is not a valid source for a serious research paper.

Alright. I also used the Time.com archive. Try this:

http://www.time.com/time/archive/printout/0,23657,986049,00.html.

Or, search for an article titled "I WANT TO DRAW THE LINE MYSELF"

According to the general manager of a Hospice that I interviewed as part of this project, modern pallative care enables us to relieve any kind of physical pain. It is the emotional pain that they are confronted with. We can relieve the pains of their body, but not of their spirit. Only the patient can do that.

The manager flat-out lied to you. There are patients out there who are taking heroin medicinally, because not even morphine will work for their pain - and it is not working. The idea that we can relieve any physical pain is ludicrous. Meanwhile, the lengths we have to go to to relieve some pain that we can get rid of completely disorients the patient - so that they aren't really there to live their life anyways.

Alright. I also used the Time.com archive. Try this:

The article ends after the first paragraph for me :(
But just like the last one the date is Mar. 17, 1997... making it slightly irrelevant for a discussion on the current day system (though suitable for a discussion on the mistakes that can be made)

Agreed. If, as the general manager of the hospice I spoke to asserts, we can relieve all physical pain, then what pain is left to justify active euthanasia?

Is emotional trauma reason enough to end someones life prematurely?

I think not.

Again, your hospice manager lied. Period.

The manager flat-out lied to you. There are patients out there who are taking heroin medicinally, because not even morphine will work for their pain - and it is not working. The idea that we can relieve any physical pain is ludicrous. Meanwhile, the lengths we have to go to to relieve some pain that we can get rid of completely disorients the patient - so that they aren't really there to live their life anyways.

As far as I know, the only medical treatment which (we believe) can 'totally relieve pain'... is euthanasia.

So should we legalize it and let people do what they want or rather improve programs to help them with their troubles and live as full a life as possible?

Is there a reason we can't do both?

I doubt anyone here would advocate having someone go "This hurts so much I want to die" and then immediately sticking them with a lethal dose of morphine. We are talking about people who have already gone through counseling, have already thought it through, have already come to terms with their families.

I'd say let suicidals get the choice of therapy, but it should be a choice - not being put in a straightjacket in Happy Hotel. If they do not want therapy, fine. They want to die, let them. Not everybody is fit for life even in a secure human society. Those who choose not to accept therapy clearly aren't. It's all Darwinism, ladies and gentlemen.

(And it's not like I'm an insensitive person who does not know what he's talking about; I've been there twice, both last year. As you can see I lived. I was given a diagnosis later on.)

Well, I feel that youth in Asia are quite unfairly oppressed. Many of them aren't getting enough food either.
(hopes somebody catches the pun)

I heard `dat. It's a problem in Africa too, but people forget because they're all in `de Nile.

Oh, the puns! Somebody shoot me...

The manager flat-out lied to you. There are patients out there who are taking heroin medicinally, because not even morphine will work for their pain - and it is not working. The idea that we can relieve any physical pain is ludicrous. Meanwhile, the lengths we have to go to to relieve some pain that we can get rid of completely disorients the patient - so that they aren't really there to live their life anyways.

I have trouble believing that. The manager also just so happens to be my aunt, who is a very truthful and trustworthy person. Lisa isn't a very good liar anyways. I would be able to tell.

Now you may refute my source as too close to me to have a fair and balanced opinion, but I did not ask for her personal opinion, I asked for it from the context of a hospice worker, which she gave me. Her relationship with me did not influence her answers in any way besides allowing her to use more personal ancedotes. I needed someone who has "been there, done that" with regards to euthanasia.

If we cannot relieve all physical pain, then I question why she or any of her associates has never had anyone ask to be actively euthanized. I would have thought in her 10+ years of doing it she'd have someone ask.

Sure, she's had patients express their feeling that it really wasn't worth it, but no one has ever said "Just shoot me now".

The article ends after the first paragraph for me :(
But just like the last one the date is Mar. 17, 1997... making it slightly irrelevant for a discussion on the current day system (though suitable for a discussion on the mistakes that can be made)

The article is still valid-as far as I could find, their laws haven't changed.

You have to be a subscriber to Time to view the whole article. If you are, just log in and it will let you see it all.

(And it's not like I'm an insensitive person who does not know what he's talking about; I've been there twice, both last year. As you can see I lived. I was given a diagnosis later on.)

If you feel comfortable, would you care to elaborate? I think it would be interesting and constructive to hear from someone who has had such thoughts and can directly sympathize with those who want to be actively euthanized.

Or if not, keep it to yourself. Don't feel pressured.

The article is still valid-as far as I could find, their laws haven't changed.

There was no law concerning euthanasia in the Netherlands when those articles were written... that law was implemented in 2001 ;)

Edit: I found an English translation of the law. The page it is on is heavily biased - but I have checked the first few paragraphs of the law itself and it seems to be an accurate translation of the Dutch text.

http://www.nvve.nl/nvve/pagina.asp?pagnaam=english

There was no law concerning euthanasia in the Netherlands when those articles were written... that law was implemented in 2001 ;)

Really? The Time article from '97 says "The government has established official guidelines, and physicians who follow them are not prosecuted."

and

"Euthanasia is still, under Dutch law, a crime punishable by up to 12 years in prision"

Perhaps another law was instituted in 2001, but if in '97 people could be prosecuted and there were official regualtions on the practice, then I think that implies some kind of law was in existence at that time.

Too bad you can't see the article-it would settle this little argument.

Perhaps another law was instituted in 2001, but if in '97 people could be prosecuted and there were official regualtions on the practice, then I think that implies some kind of law was in existence at that time.

One forbidding it (as murder), yes - just like every other country at that time. The '01 law was the first law in the entire world to address the issue directly.

I added a link to the law in my previous post.

One forbidding it (as murder), yes - just like every other country at that time. The '01 law was the first law in the entire world to address the issue directly.

I added a link to the law in my previous post.

Uhhh. O.K. I looked there, and in the "Euthanasia Law" section it says that it's illegal unless properly reported, just like I said before.

Go here-

http://www.nvve.nl/nvve/pagina.asp?pagkey=44855

Scroll down to Article 293.

This law was enforced in '02.

I have trouble believing that. The manager also just so happens to be my aunt, who is a very truthful and trustworthy person. Lisa isn't a very good liar anyways. I would be able to tell.

Then she is misinformed. It is one or the other. As a hospice worker, she is unlikely to know of all cases that can occur and may do what many do, that is, overestimate what medical technology can do. Medicine isn't perfect, and there are things we cannot deal with.

If we cannot relieve all physical pain, then I question why she or any of her associates has never had anyone ask to be actively euthanized. I would have thought in her 10+ years of doing it she'd have someone ask.

(a) It is illegal.

(b) 10+ years still does not mean she has seen all there is to see.

(c) Euthenasia, like many personal choices, is not a choice for everyone. Only a select few would actually make that choice.

Then she is misinformed. It is one or the other. As a hospice worker, she is unlikely to know of all cases that can occur and may do what many do, that is, overestimate what medical technology can do. Medicine isn't perfect, and there are things we cannot deal with.

Perhaps. I had trouble believing it myself when I first heard it. Still, though, it's the best I have (I'm somewhat embarrased to say), and my currently 22-page paper is due tomorrow at 12:15, so I guess I'll stick with it.




(a) It is illegal.

(b) 10+ years still does not mean she has seen all there is to see.

(c) Euthenasia, like many personal choices, is not a choice for everyone. Only a select few would actually make that choice.

All true. I still think, though, that it lends creedence to her views because of the probability of at least one person asking for it. She has had, as I have stated, patients express disillusionment at their situation, but she said that was the extent of it.

I think it will be interesting to see how this all turns out considering my English teacher (who will be grading this whole thing) has MS and is confined to a scooter-it makes it seem more relavant to me, and possibly to him.

I wonder what he'll think when he reads this, as I included the URL in the works cited.

Speaking of that, I wanted to thank you all for being such a big help to my paper. It has really contributed to my research and was a major factor in my coming to the conclusion that the project was a sucess. Most of you have valid and intreguing viewpoints on it, and I have enjoyed the debate very much.

With that said, I won't post another message, as I feel that the purpose intended by creating this thread has been served. Feel free to continue to debate amongst yourselves on what I consider to be a very relevant topic. Just don't attack me or my viewpoints as I really won't be around to defend them.

Again, thanks.

I see it with Euthanasia as I see it with many other things, like abortion for example. The people should have the choice to do it. What they do with that choice is their own business.

No with infant euthanasia it's different. Nobody can tell what a child will turn out to become or what it might achieve. So nobody has the right to decide wether it's "worthy enough" to live.

I haven't read through the pages and pages of the rest of the thread yet (I don't know if I'll bother, I'm never here often enough to read all of a controversial thread, I just don't have the time) so I'm sorry if this has been said already.

You seem to be confusing infant euthanasia with abortion.

With infant euthanasia, presumably the same rules would apply as with euthanasia for adults ie. that it is for people who are terminally ill. Therefore it is not a question of whether a child is 'worthy to live', it's not going to. The question is simply whether to let it live in pain a little longer or die quickly and peacefully.

Euthanasia is throwing away your chance to LIVE. If you need someone to help you through the pain that's fine so relax. I get how some people don't want to live on since what they're going through is worse than a permanent epileptic back spasm, but friends and family can help get you mind off of it and if its something like what just happened with what's her name in the news recently, well....

I've never been really in favor of life support in the first place since your brain isn't 100% functioning. If your dead, your dead right? I dunno about you guys, but I don't want any zombies or anything wandering around my backyard huh (catch my drift?)?

*ignores the anti- zombie sentiments* ;)

'Relax'?! I don't think you understand the sort of pain people might be going through. Not everyone has 'someone to help them through' pain, and even having your friends and family around you might not help. Dying of cancer isn't something that will go away if you just 'get your mind off it'.

Re. people in comas, they can recover, and can go on to lead normal lives, so personally I don't think I agree with removing life support from them unless that is what they wanted (as stated in a living will). For those that do recover, mocking them like that is incredibly insensitive.

I have trouble believing that. The manager also just so happens to be my aunt, who is a very truthful and trustworthy person. Lisa isn't a very good liar anyways. I would be able to tell.


I recently lost a close friend to cancer.

The medical experts could do nothing to ease his pain.

Your 'friend' is lying to you, either deliberately, or because they know no better.