Suicide bill legalizes Euthanasia
BartSimpson @ Thu Sep 22, 2005 3:25 pm
Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
The Hoser The Hoser:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
IceOwl IceOwl:
Yes, we should legalise it, but it should only happen with the permission of a doctor who has assessed that a person's illnesses have caused them so much pain or reduced their quality of life so much that continuing to live would only lead to needless suffering, and that the person isn't merely asking for it because they are depressed about their condition.
Be careful what you wish for lest you're the first person who gets put to death under this new law.
Lets see... a quick, painless death, or a dragged out existence of constant pain while I lose more and more of my dignity and bodily functions, becoming a burden to those who look after me... tought call.
Gee, you mean like this guy who could be killed under the new law?
he would only be killed if he wants to be killed. the new law won't give doctors the legal right to kill without written (or typed) permission of the person first.
No, the doctors can decide about the person and the family can also make decisions for them.
If the person has clearly stated their will then no problem on my part.
I have issues when someone other than the person in question decides their life or death.
BartSimpson @ Thu Sep 22, 2005 3:37 pm
Constantinople Constantinople:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
IceOwl IceOwl:
WDHIII WDHIII:
Look at the case of Terry Schiavo.
That had more to do with political interference than the family not being able to decide.
Her parents did not want her starved and dehydrated to death. That was her cheating husband's idea. His rights should've been terminated when he moved in with his mistress and started having children with her. Why that was not determined a conflict of interest is beyond me.
On the upside, the $400,000 he got from her trust account when she finally died will make his life easier.
Her parents need to hire a hitman on that SOB.
Had I been her father I'd have done it myself. The only thing is I would've gone after that ghoul of a judge, too.
BartSimpson @ Thu Sep 22, 2005 3:39 pm
Constantinople Constantinople:
Err on the side of life.
Blue_Nose @ Thu Sep 22, 2005 3:50 pm
Constantinople Constantinople:
Her parents need to hire a hitman on that SOB.
So it's obviously up to you to decide who should be killed, not doctors?
All specific examples which have been brought up are not, in my opinion, within the scope of what's being determined:
Terry Schiavo was not euthanized, she was starved to death, and there is a lot of (justified) emotion associated with her life/death to include her in a serious conversation.
Steven Hawking is quite obviously capable of maintaining a life.
For Bart and Const: If euthanasia is so wrong, why should criminals be killed? Why not err on the side of remediation, to borrow your expression?
Blue_Nose @ Thu Sep 22, 2005 3:51 pm
IceOwl IceOwl:
As far as I know, Stephen Hawking doesn't live in Canada.
Worst argument I've heard in quite a while.
Zipperfish @ Thu Sep 22, 2005 4:06 pm
If a person wishes to die, they should have a right to. I've said it before
and I'll say it again: in a free country, a person should be be able to engage in any behaviour they wish to, as long as they aren't harming others.
And again, it's the same so-called proponents of freedom, generally speaking, who are against people having the freedom to check themselves out.
Involuntary euthanasia is a more complicated question. In a public medical system, should you spend a million a year to keep someone alive, if they have no prospect of recovery? Well, that million could be used to staff another emergency room physician. At some point, in a public medical system, you have to make a decision to stop treatment. You have an obligation to other patients to responsibly manage costs.
The Terry Schiavo case was perhaps the most diffiuclt example of this debate. The parents wanted her alive, the husband wanted her unplugged. Medically, she had no prospect for recovery; she was brain-dead.
In this case, I think I would have sided with the parents. Err on the side of life, as Constantinople says. But if a person clearly wishes death, they should be greanted it. And we have to consider that the cost of keeping someone alive may compromise the ability of a system to treat others.
Ideally, people would make clear what their final wishes are in their will. I have. Have you?
BartSimpson @ Thu Sep 22, 2005 4:06 pm
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
IceOwl IceOwl:
As far as I know, Stephen Hawking doesn't live in Canada.
Worst argument I've heard in quite a while.
Agreed. Hawking doesn'y live in Canada so he won't be among all the gimpy people who get snuffed so what was my point?
Oh yeah, it's that all the gimpy people who get snuffed part.
BartSimpson @ Thu Sep 22, 2005 4:10 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
If a person wishes to die, they should have a right to. I've said it before
and I'll say it again: in a free country, a person should be be able to engage in any behaviour they wish to, as long as they aren't harming others.
And again, it's the same so-called proponents of freedom, generally speaking, who are against people having the freedom to check themselves out.
Involuntary euthanasia is a more complicated question. In a public medical system, should you spend a million a year to keep someone alive, if they have no prospect of recovery? Well, that million could be used to staff another emergency room physician. At some point, in a public medical system, you have to make a decision to stop treatment. You have an obligation to other patients to responsibly manage costs.
The Terry Schiavo case was perhaps the most diffiuclt example of this debate. The parents wanted her alive, the husband wanted her unplugged. Medically, she had no prospect for recovery; she was brain-dead.
In this case, I think I would have sided with the parents. Err on the side of life, as Constantinople says. But if a person clearly wishes death, they should be greanted it. And we have to consider that the cost of keeping someone alive may compromise the ability of a system to treat others.
Ideally, people would make clear what their final wishes are in their will. I have. Have you?
and I'll say it again: in a free country, a person should be be able to engage in any behaviour they wish to, as long as they aren't harming others.
And again, it's the same so-called proponents of freedom, generally speaking, who are against people having the freedom to check themselves out.
Involuntary euthanasia is a more complicated question. In a public medical system, should you spend a million a year to keep someone alive, if they have no prospect of recovery? Well, that million could be used to staff another emergency room physician. At some point, in a public medical system, you have to make a decision to stop treatment. You have an obligation to other patients to responsibly manage costs.
The Terry Schiavo case was perhaps the most diffiuclt example of this debate. The parents wanted her alive, the husband wanted her unplugged. Medically, she had no prospect for recovery; she was brain-dead.
In this case, I think I would have sided with the parents. Err on the side of life, as Constantinople says. But if a person clearly wishes death, they should be greanted it. And we have to consider that the cost of keeping someone alive may compromise the ability of a system to treat others.
Ideally, people would make clear what their final wishes are in their will. I have. Have you?
Pearl S. Buck in 'My Several Worlds', (1954) Pearl S. Buck in 'My Several Worlds', (1954):
Yet somehow our society must make it right and
possible for old people not to fear the young or be deserted by them,
for the test of civilization is in the way that it cares for its
helpless members.
Zipperfish @ Thu Sep 22, 2005 4:16 pm
I agree it's a sensitive question, Bart. I know that I would prefer to ride out my final days sipping on Brompton cockktails (used to be served in British hospices and comprising of gin, morphine and heroin) rather than being torn apart on the inside by rampant, inoperable cancer and chemotherapy. That's just me.
Constantinople @ Thu Sep 22, 2005 4:34 pm
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
Constantinople Constantinople:
Her parents need to hire a hitman on that SOB.
So it's obviously up to you to decide who should be killed, not doctors?
All specific examples which have been brought up are not, in my opinion, within the scope of what's being determined:
Terry Schiavo was not euthanized, she was starved to death, and there is a lot of (justified) emotion associated with her life/death to include her in a serious conversation.
Steven Hawking is quite obviously capable of maintaining a life.
For Bart and Const: If euthanasia is so wrong, why should criminals be killed? Why not err on the side of remediation, to borrow your expression?
Terry Schiavo didn't commit murder.
The way I have heard it put before is that people start out on the same playing field of innocence. Lots of fouls can take place and goals can be made, and all the while someone is keeping score, but when someone deliberately goes out of bounds too many times, it's like they don't even deserve to play the game.
Terry Schiavo's "husband" went out of bounds and even forced Terry out of bounds, spoiling her game.
Terry Schiavo deserved to keep playing the game- she stuck on the field her entire life until she was pushed out.
Mr. Schiavo doesn't play on the field of innocence anymore. I think if I were the parents, it'd be time to settle the score once and for all.
Constantinople @ Thu Sep 22, 2005 4:41 pm
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
For Bart and Const: If euthanasia is so wrong, why should criminals be killed? Why not err on the side of remediation, to borrow your expression?
I would support the eradication of capital punishment if and only if life in prison would actually mean life in prison.
And I don't mean the prison where you can see the light of day.
ShepherdsDog @ Thu Sep 22, 2005 4:47 pm
What about those who suffer from clinical depression? Shouldn't the individual wishing to terminate their life undergo a medical/psych evaluation to ensure that this wish to die isn't the result of a chemical imbalance in the brain? If there is no chronic (pain being included)or terminal illness, everything should be done to encourage the individual in question to choose life. Another thought to consider is, like the organ donor clause on your license, could you not also have a clause added to your health insurance card/records stipulating you desire to be euthanized if you ever suffer irreperable brain damage or are left in a vegatative state.
Constantinople @ Thu Sep 22, 2005 4:51 pm
IceOwl IceOwl:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
$1:
Why would I get put to death? I don't have any permanent, debilitating illnesses.
That can change in the blink of an eye. Ask Christopher Reeve.
Let's consider what caused that change and the fact that I don't ride horses.
Ah, so riding horses is the only way someone can become paralyzed. Good to know....