Safe Speed Forums

Euthanasia - For Or Against?

For, if people wish to end there lifes because of pain and suffering it is their choice.

It's has always confused me, if an animal for example gets a very serious illness/injury it is put down because it is not fair to put the animal though the pain and suffing.However if it is a human we keep them alive, and we do not seem to care how much they suffer.

_________________
Oct 11 Birmingham Half Marathon. I am running for the British Heart Foundation.
http://www.justgiving.com/Rob-Taylor

I have many thoughts on this, because no one case is black and white.
Euthanasia sits side by side with abortion in a list of contentious medical decision making.

One is the avoidance of an uncertain future, the other is an avoidance of suffering. BUT which is which? We appear to have double standards here!

Some abortions (including late ones which cause the most disquiet) are on medical grounds, for instance if the feotus has an abnormality, and are often seen to be justified.
That "priviledge" is NOT yet extended to an adult with an incurable disease, or who is subject to extreme pain or suffering - even though that person is able to express their free will regarding whether they should be allowed to die!

I think this is due in part to our culture, and attitude to death (and religion - suicide is illegal because in the past, the CHURCH determined it so).

While individuals may wish to have their lives cut short, society is not yet ready for this step, and so we must live with this, and if society changes it's mind - accept it by degrees.

I believe a pregnancy is medically an invasion of a womans body (somebody will shoot this down if I am wrong?), so only a woman can decide if this is welcome or not. Nature occasionally takes a hand, and aborts a feotus spontaneously, but this should not be an excuse to play God just because we can.

A determined woman SHOULD be allowed to do what is best for her, and should be counselled accordingly, just like a dying (and suffering) patient.

My now nine year old son could have been legally aborted on the day of his birth, so I have thought long and hard about this. The neonatal nurse told us that some extremely premature babies they had tried to save, were born to mothers who had actively tried to miscarry - and that is not acceptable.

The same determination to end ones life exists, and in this case, it often involves others, who can become legally entangled - possibly jailed for their involvement.

So where do I stand?

I feel euthanasia should remain illegal, so that a due process of investigation can be launched to ensure a family have not just bumped off grandma for her inheritance. However, if a person is then proved to have truly desired their death, then a DOCTOR should be allowed to have assisted, without a penalty - the only guilty party being the dead person, who presumably is beyond punishment. LAW and "order".

This way, each case will be investigated properly, and that should prevent anyone from thinking they can "get away" with disposing of a family burden and passing it off as voluntary.
Provided a court is satisfied that a person has had their wishes carried out, those responsible, would NOT be punished, just investigated in court as a safeguard.
It would enable thse contentious cases to be "progressed" i.e. get the deed done, to reduce suffering, and the protracted arguments could be argued AFTER the event, without any need to rush. The anti euthanasia camp would have to accept too, that it was still not legal - thus reducing the strength of their arguments.

If a doctor or relative was not sure of the patients wishes, then they would do nothing.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

For - but with reservations.

I'm very worried about pressures that might be applied to elderly wealthy people by those anxious to inherit.

There are times when it is anything but humane not to end the suffering.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

For.

Personal choice about this is paramount.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Very much the same as Paul's view.

I believe that people should have the right to a peaceful and dignified death to avoid pain and suffering but concerned that this is not abused by family members who have their own interests in mind.

On the fence.

Proper, stringent safeguards would need to be in place. Not sure how that would work.

Who's been watching Emmerdale, then?

Not I mate! But I did have an unhealthy attraction to Zoe Tate for a while.
Actually my biological father died slowly and somewhat painfully on Thursday of cancer in Liverpool.
He was an alcoholic, wife beating, violent prick who deserved his sorry end
but it did get me thinking.
I believe it should be allowed with safeguards put in place but as to what these would be I'm not sure but they should not delay the process.
And the church should be kept well clear, it's would be enough to deal with without the guilt the misguided church would place on you.
Absolutely none of their business!

1. We already have euthanasia- it's called a UK hospital.

2. If however you mean can someone decide to end their life with dignity prior to being starved/de-hydrated to death, then as already mentioned, yes- with some reservations albeit with consideration to point 1.

You?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

For, but only under stringent, licensed guidelines. I also believe that, if we so wish, we should carry a card opting us out of post-vivae tissue and organ harvesting.

_________________
Aquila



Licat volare si super tergum aquila volat...

Yes and no

I have a forma boss who has just sold the house from under his mother. About a year ago he persuaded her to sign it over to him to avoid death duty. Now he has control he has mortgaged it to buy a place in France.

He can't wait for his mom to die...

If there were any possibility he could get ride early by bullying her into signing up for euthanasia I have no doubt he would do it.

On the other hand if you were within days of death and in agonising pain then you should have the choice.

The problem is if you try to regulate it there will always be loopholes that could mean people get wrongly killed.

I did hear a statistic a while back that in Holland where euthanasia is accepted (though not entirely legal) one third of deaths do not have the consent of the "victim". Now that would worry me. SO on that basis I would rather have a blanket ban.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

A brainstorming idea:

How would it be if there was a general rule whereby 'pressurizing your benefactor' would lead to the forfeiture of the inheritance?

Obviously there would need to be definitions and evidence, but would such a rule help? It would clearly undermine some of the greediest.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

The thing is that 'most' terminally ill people get their affairs in order well before the decline of their health so the issue of euthanasia can be discussed with your family, friends and doctor at an early stage with a timetable established that cannot be over ruled by anyone, especially a benefactor.
You don't have to be a physician to see the agony kicking in during the last few days by which time the patient is usually riddled with immense pain or totally out of it with drugs that they wouldn't give a shit if Gordon Brown got their money anyway.
And if a relative persuaded you to 'go early' at this stage then you would probably agree anyway or wouldn't care either way and in an ironic way they would actually be doing you a favour.
We need this legalised it today and then bicker over the finer points because the majority of the people it affects today are cut and dry cases.

Timetable

*I am in ok health and complis mentis - let's leave things for a bit?
*I am in agony from brain cancer/Doctor's concur - Let's get it over with.
*I am unable to communicate due to pain - See above.

All agreed with concerned parties after diagnosis.

Actually I think PaulW has hit the nail on the head, for persuading me at least.

My fathers mother died from cancer when I was about ten, he has quite strong views on euthanasia from this and a conversation with a doctor treating her. It was along the lines of we are giving her morphine to ease the pain, we are giving her a large doseage due to the pain, my father asked how long till she died, and the doctors response as it depends on the pain.

It wasn't until a few years afer that he realised that the doctors were giving over the required dose morphine as it was an easier way to die than from terminal cancer. He didn't dig too deep and is convinced that if he had the doctor treating my grandmother could have ended up in trouble.

I'm for as is he dependent on certain balances and checks:

A terminal or debilitating disease
It is registered in a living will, with any recent changes being doctor/court review to check that there has been no undue pressure or that the the person making the change is compis mentis.

I think the idea of sudden changes needs to be looked at, my mothers mother died three years ago from a series of strokes over a two year period and she became less and less coherent (after a year she stopped being able to recognise my mother and one of her brothers), shortly after the youngest brother gained 'power of attorney' and became responsible for her bank accounts etc... since the death a lot of money seems to have gone missing and most of the family are invovled in court proceedings contesting the power of attorney arrangments and the will.

My mother is very upset and has walked away from the lot, there does seem to have been some suspicious goings on, this was done with the court's sanction but no checks were made as to how above board the arrangments were, only one signature from my grandmother was needed, perhaps a euthanasia law would also bring in these IMO required checks.

IIRC it was Oscar Wilde who said 'Where there is a will, there a a hundred schemeing reletives.'

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk

I recall a conversation with a vicar a long time ago who said that people who lose a loved one feel sorrow and loss for selfish reasons, ie they don't feel pain for the person who has passed away but only for themselves and the feeling of loss they feel since their loved one's passing.
This is were I think complications lay in that a relative may not be able to make an impartial desicion yet ALL consideration should be with the patient and their pain and not with a relative's fear of loss.
Unless a patient states otherwise there can be no argument against euthanasia.

What about patients who cannot express their views (dementia, mentally ill, etc) should a relative be allowed to make the decision for them. Could be a great way to get rid of an elderly relative and cash in on the inheritance.

What about those who are "bullied" by relatives into believing they are a burden and it would be in everyone’s best interests if they ended it sooner rather than later.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

I imagine intense agony feels the same regardless of your mental state.
If you are suffering pain due do an illness that is irreversible and it can only get worse then you should have the right to choose that path and if you have mental issues then I imagine you would appreciate someone else taking that decision for you.
Should someone else make a decision for someone who is unable to respond? Of course they should, what would you suggest?
And as for any plans of a greedy relative? This is a none issue.
It would require at least two doctors and an independent person to agree with a relative.
And when you see someone writhing around because they are dying of a brain destroying cancer you tend to imagine that their financial affairs are far from their present thoughts.
Who gives a shit were the cash goes? Because they won't.
Put them out of their misery!