Poll: Euthanasia

[Bindii]

Recently the media here was talking a lot about Euthanasia for terminally ill patients. In particular a lady (June) suffering from bladder cancer was the voice fighting for the right to die at a time of her own choosing. June became the very public face of the euthanasia debate last year when she recorded a television advertisement for the Voluntary Euthanasia Society of NSW advocating her right to die.

Today, June's bladder cancer is in remission, although she suffers constant pain from multiple sclerosis and a broken spine. She is still a strong advocate for euthanasia.However, right to life groups argue that June Burns is the perfect example of why voluntary euthanasia should remain illegal.

Margaret from Right to Life says if June had been allowed to die last year she would not have been able to enjoy this extra time with her family and friends. She also claims that June's treatment is an illustration of the wonders of modern medicine.

Euthanasia campaigner Dr Philip argues that euthanasia is about being in control, and the ultimate control is having the ability to determine the time of our own death.

And it's that control June is seeking. She's concerned that because euthanasia is illegal, patients must be capable of euthanasing themselves. Otherwise, loved ones could face criminal charges ... and that means patients may be forced to act too early.

Obviously its a personal (and moral) decision, but if you were terminally ill, in pain and with no hope of recovery what would your choice be.

 

[Mister Ryder]

Somewhere in the back of my mind I've always been concerned about ending up a burden to my family. There is no quality of life in that therefore I'd opt for Euthanasia.

 

[Georgia Girl]

I agree with you Bindii that it is all about personal choice and making our own decisions. I will admit that I have somewhat different logic that most people imploy but it works for me.

My family has faced a desicision where if euthanasia was an option we would have choosen it rather than make everyone watch what went on for 9.5 yrs.

There are times and places in our lives where we deserve the right to let go with dignity. According to religion if you commit suicide you go to hell but for some existing as they do here on earth and remaining alive to suit society they live in hell each day. Which is the greater evil of the two and how do you face your loved one if that is the position they are in? Isn't it selfish to want to keep them here if their life is that bad and you know it? Would not the greater act of love be to let go?

Dawn

 

[lovetoread]

I'd rather not do it,but I would.

I dont ever want to have be in extreme pain,and then be so medicated that you dont know whats going on.

 

[MidnightAngel]

Personally, I want the right to choose what happens to me. Whether I decide to opt for euthanasia or not, I am definitely FOR the right to make that choice.

 

[Bindii]

It certainly would be a hard decision to make, if I was in that position I would seriously think about euthanasia. Like most people I pray that I will live a long, happy and productive life then go peacefully in my sleep...

 

[crysede]

Personally I would like to have the option of euthanasia open to me and would take advantage of it if my suffering were sever enough: it would be comforting to know I had that much control over my life no matter what happened to my body. But I can see the potential for problems with permitting euthanasia as well, particularly with respect to the disabled who might find themselves pressured into euthanasia so as not to be a burden.

Some years ago a woman named Sue Rodriguez put euthanasia on the front page in a similar fashion here: she had ALS (a fatal disease in which you gradually loose all muscle control, eventually suffocating or choking to death), and she wanted the right to die by doctor assisted suicide once she had reached the state where she would have to be put on machines to live her remaining months or years. She challenged the law against such practice by saying that it was discriminatory: an able bodied person is allowed to end their own life by suicide, thus denying her the ability to make the decision to end her life merely because at that point she would be physically incapable of doing so (and would thus require another's aid) is discriminatory based on physical disability. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled against her by a 5-4 margin: all the justices agreed that her rights were being violated, but 5 thought that the violations were justified because they feared that euthanasia, if legal, could be used as a tool to disguise the murder of the weak. (sorry for being so wordy, but this issue is of great interest to me and I wish it received more attention) If you want you can learn more about the case here: http://www.newsworld.cbc.ca/flashback/1993/

 

[mig]

After watching my father suffer from Senile Dementia I have no
doubts that I want to have the choice of when I should die.

 

[Mister Ryder]

Personally I would like to have the option of euthanasia open to me and would take advantage of it if my suffering were sever enough: it would be comforting to know I had that much control over my life no matter what happened to my body. But I can see the potential for problems with permitting euthanasia as well, particularly with respect to the disabled who might find themselves pressured into euthanasia so as not to be a burden.

Some years ago a woman named Sue Rodriguez put euthanasia on the front page in a similar fashion here: she had ALS (a fatal disease in which you gradually loose all muscle control, eventually suffocating or choking to death), and she wanted the right to die by doctor assisted suicide once she had reached the state where she would have to be put on machines to live her remaining months or years. She challenged the law against such practice by saying that it was discriminatory: an able bodied person is allowed to end their own life by suicide, thus denying her the ability to make the decision to end her life merely because at that point she would be physically incapable of doing so (and would thus require another's aid) is discriminatory based on physical disability. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled against her by a 5-4 margin: all the justices agreed that her rights were being violated, but 5 thought that the violations were justified because they feared that euthanasia, if legal, could be used as a tool to disguise the murder of the weak. (sorry for being so wordy, but this issue is of great interest to me and I wish it received more attention) If you want you can learn more about the case here: http://www.newsworld.cbc.ca/flashback/1993/

Thats a sad story crysede it sounds like a very painful way to die. The courts should have allowed her the right to die with dignity.

 

[Mensa]

Saying you favour euthanasia from an emotional point of view is understandable. No one likes to see suffering and feels that death may be a preferrable option. If, however, you open up that can of worms be prepared for some unforseen and disagreeable consequences. You will have murders committed using an alleged desire to die as a justification. Doctors who are committed to saving lives would be reluctant to get involved in the ending of lives.

Define your terms better. Euthanasia is the taking of another's life. Self-euthanasia is suicide. If you haven't the courage to end your own life, what right have you in making someone else do it for you?

 

[RainbowBright]

 

[Andreina]

A woman, 24 years old, suffered from a near fatal stroke. After she awoke from a 4 months coma she could only communicate by blinking with her left eye. She had lost every control over her body, she was totally paralysed, had to be fed via a stomach tube and was on a ventilator 24/7. She could only move her left eyelid.
All she asked for was to die with dignity - they regarded as her "unfit".

I would rather die with dignity than have a "live" full of pain. It is our bloody right to decide when we die.
I wonder what all the people who rule over our heads against euthanisia would say if it would happen to them



Halo

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by Bindii
. . . However, right to life groups argue that June Burns is the perfect example of why voluntary euthanasia should remain illegal. . .

What I find ludicrous is the dichotomy embraced by the Right to Life crowd. What they actually mean by their declaration is their right to dictate the choices of others with respect to their life. If they truly believe in the right to life they would respect a person's right to end their life when they choose; they would NOT be forcing upon someone the obligation to continue that life against their choice.

But note that the Right to Life people are never satisfied to convince people to accept with their ideas voluntarily; they are the ones who are adamant that this decision must be dictated, coerced, by law, by force of arms. And no one who advocates the initiation of the use of force for any end truly respects anyone's right to life.

Originally posted by Mensa
. . .Define your terms better. Euthanasia is the taking of another's life. Self-euthanasia is suicide. . .

I favor euthanasia from an intellectual standpoint rather than an emotional one. My dictionary offers two aspects of euthanasia.

eu·tha·na·sia (yoo'the-na'zhe, -zhe-...) n. The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment. [Greek, a good death : eu-, eu- + thanatos, death.]

The first, lethal injection, if not self-administered is murder, the willful termination of another's life that is not the result of self-defense. The second, withholding heroic or extraordinary medical intervention is the legitimate province of the person under treatment or of one designated previously to make such a decision on their behalf.

That latter choice is not one that can legitimately placed on the doctor either. It may well put him in a position in which he feels conflicted. But I believe his oath says "First, do no harm . . ." and to withhold extraordinary or heroic measures is not the same as doing harm in my perception. For the doctor, that may be different, and thus the attending physician should not be placed in that position though the person making that decision should consider him as a source of information on which to base their decision.

 

[SweetBrat73]

If you haven't the courage to end your own life, what right have you in making someone else do it for you?

In most cases it's not that they don't have the courage to end their own life...it's that they physically can't end their own life. They are so far gone physically that they need help.

Notice I said most...not all.



Brat

 

[Desdemona]

Saying you favour euthanasia from an emotional point of view is understandable. No one likes to see suffering and feels that death may be a preferrable option. If, however, you open up that can of worms be prepared for some unforseen and disagreeable consequences. You will have murders committed using an alleged desire to die as a justification. Doctors who are committed to saving lives would be reluctant to get involved in the ending of lives.

Define your terms better. Euthanasia is the taking of another's life. Self-euthanasia is suicide. If you haven't the courage to end your own life, what right have you in making someone else do it for you?

Mensa, I agreed with most of what you said until the last sentence.
It isn't always about courage to end your own life. Sometimes it is about the ability to do so.... some people are suddenly incapacitated without warning and unable to physically carry out their own wishes. They should have the right to choose to have life support terminated or to have someone end their suffering.

You brought up many valid points that are the subject of much debate among members of the medical community as well as among others. I certainly don't have any answers. I just know that for myself, after all that I have witnessed in my career, I want the option. I personally, think it is pretty sad that we treat our animals with more dignity and compassion at the end of life than we treat other humans.

 

[Bindii]

The first, lethal injection, if not self-administered is murder, the willful termination of another's life that is not the result of self-defense. The second, withholding heroic or extraordinary medical intervention is the legitimate province of the person under treatment or of one designated previously to make such a decision on their behalf.

Some doctors here came up with a devise that allowed the patients to administer the lethal dose themselves, I'm not too sure how it works something to do with a computer (voice activated perhaps).

I agree that asking someone else to 'do the deed' puts them in a bad spot both morally and emotionally. Yet if one of my pets was in the same situation I would have them euthanased straight away. Why is it that people are different?