Canada Kicks Ass
Euthanasia and Ownership of One's life

REPLY

1  2  3  4  5 ... 7  Next



orangeman @ Wed Aug 24, 2005 10:16 pm

With the aging of the boomers and the advancement of health care and age expentencies, isn't the issue of euthanasia relevant to Canadians now? I have a history of painful diseases in my family and after yet another funeral my parents seperately made their wishes known to me. They're in their mid-50s, so it shouldn't come to that for a while, or not at all hopefully.
But once I starting thinking about it, I got all philosophical and stuff and wondered about ownership of one's life. I think its offensive to have a government have any say in the matter. Its almost like reverse execution, isn't it? I wonder why in societies that pretend to be more individualistic it is more of a taboo than in more communal ones.
I'm curious about the mood in this country on the subject, and how important it is to others. It seems to always be swept under the rug everytime its brought up here. But I've seen it ruin some extended family of mine.

   



jadeofthenorth @ Wed Aug 24, 2005 11:38 pm

I think someone has the right to die if they want to. There should be laws put forth where you need to have written consent several months before you do it, and perhaps a basic phycological analysis.

I know if I was dieing of a serious disease, I wouldn't want to rot away in a hospital. I"d like to have one last night with my family and friends, then go in a peaceful way.

   



WLDB @ Thu Aug 25, 2005 9:44 am

I also think that each person should be able to die on their own terms rather than suffer for months or years with some disease.

   



figfarmer @ Thu Aug 25, 2005 9:54 am

until some idiot office clerk in Ottawa rubber stamps my death approval.

   



BartSimpson @ Thu Aug 25, 2005 11:18 am

figfarmer figfarmer:
until some idiot office clerk in Ottawa rubber stamps my death approval.


I don't want you to wait, either! :D

   



BartSimpson @ Thu Aug 25, 2005 11:20 am

Euthanasia is when someone else decides it's your time. Which I oppose.

But if you wish to kill yourself, to me that is your business. Have at it if you wish.

   



netking81 @ Thu Aug 25, 2005 11:26 am

BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Euthanasia is when someone else decides it's your time. Which I oppose.

But if you wish to kill yourself, to me that is your business. Have at it if you wish.


From seeing your other posts throughout this forum, I not only agree with you, but also respect your opinion.

   



BartSimpson @ Thu Aug 25, 2005 12:25 pm

netking81 netking81:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Euthanasia is when someone else decides it's your time. Which I oppose.

But if you wish to kill yourself, to me that is your business. Have at it if you wish.


From seeing your other posts throughout this forum, I not only agree with you, but also respect your opinion.


I'm flattered, thank you for the compliment. :wink:

   



jadeofthenorth @ Thu Aug 25, 2005 12:45 pm

I've heard of various practices that could be called 'Euthanasia' or assisted suicide.

1. Doctors prescribing a lethal medication for a quick, painless death--which should be completely legal. The doctor should keep it well documented and have signatures and a witness so he doesn't get accidentally accused of murder.

2. People who are in such terrible condition that they can't administer the suicide themselves get a doctor to help them (a la Kevorkian). If someone is in such horrible shape they can't even kill themselves, let them die. However, again the doctor should have witnesses present to protect his ass.

3. Terri Shiavo style, comatose/brain dead etc. Can't even ask to be killed, very little to no chance of recovery. It should be the family’s decision to pull the plug.

   



Thematic-Device @ Thu Aug 25, 2005 1:18 pm

A person should be able to write a living will which outlays the circumstances in which they wish to have it end, and be able to appoint an executor of it in order to make sure that his or her wishes are fulfilled

   



BartSimpson @ Thu Aug 25, 2005 1:28 pm

Again, I'm okay with this so long as it is the person's clear choice to do so. The Terri Schiavo thing was just murder. Her will was never clearly demonstrated and the Judge took it upon himself to starve her to death - which is not euthanasia but just plain cruelty. The son of a bitch would go to jail if he did this to a dog in the same condition but gets away with it because Terri happened to be a human being.

It should be pointed out that another person who was in a "persistent vegetative state" recently came out of it after over twenty years.

   



Ripcat @ Thu Aug 25, 2005 5:44 pm

A person with Alzheimer's does not have a clear choice.

With many people living longer, healthier lifestyles they are experiencing deteriorating brains before the rest of their bodies deteriorate. People are now living for years in nursing homes with no memory of what they were doing 5 minutes ago.

How will we be able to afford to care for these people that don't have the wealth to pay for their own care?

As people move through the stages of Alzheimer's they need more and more care and eventually become empty husks.

Who would enjoy watching their loved ones live on for years without recognition of living any sort of life?

I think society will have some hard choices to make in the near future on what to do about our aged loved ones who no longer recognize the life they are living.

Those in advanced stages of Alzheimer's have lost their chance to die with dignity.I find it cruel that people are being forced, by reason of compassion, to live on with absolutley no dignity left in their lives.

At a minimum, people should be able to stipulate in a living will that their life should come to a dignified and compassionate end if reaching a certain stage of Alzheimer's or other deteriorating or debilitating disease if they have led a full life.

   



themasta @ Thu Aug 25, 2005 5:48 pm

Meet a person's basic needs for survival, food and water. Or we could just go with the way of nature, if you can't survive on your own, you probably shouldn't.

   



Ripcat @ Thu Aug 25, 2005 6:19 pm

themasta themasta:
Meet a person's basic needs for survival, food and water. Or we could just go with the way of nature, if you can't survive on your own, you probably shouldn't.


People in later stages of Alzheimer's need more care than a newborn baby. A newborn can't get up and wander out in the middle of winter just to be found frozen to death the next morning.

Where is the dignity in eating pureed everything because you aren't coherent enough to chew your food, or sitting in your own waste, and not even realizing it, while waiting for diaper change time? Where is the compassion when families no longer visit because it makes the family members too damn sad and the person doesn't recognize them or remember the visit anyway?

And it get worse. Some relive bad childhood memories over and over again. Others can become verbally abusive or violent. Many live a life of fear because they can't remember where they are or why they are there and when told they forget 5 minutes later and need to be told again in an effort to keep them calm.

   



Blue_Nose @ Thu Aug 25, 2005 6:27 pm

Ripcat Ripcat:
And it get worse...


You obviously have ahd first hand experience with serious cases.

I have as well (mixed with dementia, to make it worse), and those last few years are hell for not just the person with the illness, but everyone who cares for them as well. I'd support euthanasia/assisted suicide more than before because of these experiences.

   



REPLY

1  2  3  4  5 ... 7  Next