Euthanasia

Really? Because it seems even more callous to me to sit around watching your loved one in agony, left with no hope for recovery, but no immediate end to the suffering in sight.

Perfect example:

Why not indeed - it all boils down to legalities, doesn’ it? Therein lies the rub - the gap between what a living will legally covers and what often happens in reality. A living will is all well and fine as far as it goes - you can elect to have no extraordinary measures taken to keep you alive - but that doesn’t help much if you’re suffering but live on even without any extraordinary measures.

Which is why this doesn’t make any sense to me:

Your family would normally seek to circumvent your desire if you invoke it while still in good health. But that is what I’d consider the fine distinction between assisted suicide and euthanasia: one turns into the other only at the point at which there is no hope for recovery.

Once that line has been crossed, would your family really want to circumvent your wishes? That, to me, is what would be callous.

Because to do so would’ve put whoever helped her in prison.

Look, let me see if I’m understanding what you three are saying. Because I’m struggling.

For simplicity’s sake - yes/no.

You don’t want to have to suffer pain before you die, if there is no hope for your recovery, and the life you are leading has become unbearable.

Rather than that, you’d like someone, a family member, ie. your children to take responsibility for either killing you, or having you killed.

To this effect, as a guard against being too crazy or otherwise incommunicado to request it, you’ll leave a document saying “in the event of x, y and z, I hereby authorize the bearer of this document to end my life.”

Would you agree, that most of the time, you will actually have some notice of impending drastic life-standard change - for example end-stage terminal cancer doesn’t just hit on an unexpected Tuesday. ie I’m fine, I’m fine, I’m fine, I’m fine, I’m fine, I’m fine, BHAM!!! I have end-stage terminal cancer and am too weak to put myself out of my agony.

If it is your turn to take out the trash, your responsibility, would you leave that trash until it got to the point where it was really stinking your house up and even then tell one of your kids to take it out for you…?

Tab,

No one is suggesting ending life on a whim. I’ll go back to quality of life. My family knows how I would choose to live, and the lower limits of those choices. They would never wish for me to have to give up those minimum choices just to keep breathing. Quite frankly, sad as it might be, they would be relieved if I made the decision as opposed to forcing them to make it for me. In short, because they know me, they would support any decision I make. I recently had an old friend do exactly what Blurred described. He simply decided to stop eating. His family regretted his decision, but they honored it, as did his close friends. Every effort was made to keep him from having pain and all of us took turns standing “watch”. It wasn’t fun, but we honored his decision. It may be that you aren’t trusting family and friends to know you well enough to allow you to make the decision out in the open in front of the whole world, but some of us would prefer no secrecy, nothing but facing reality. There is nothing wrong with transparency and there are very few who aren’t aware that sometimes, life is over before the body gives up. It’s about making informed obvious choices. Whether we call it suicide or euthenasia the important thing remains having the ability to make the decision. Is everyone happy happy? No. But don’t sell people short on their ability to understand that only the individual has the right to make that decision.

Yeah, thanks for that one.

You just don’t see that I want my family and friends to have no part in what to me is a distasteful business. You want to put those you love through the experience of watching you slide toward death like a bag full of pus then that is your choice.

Frankly, this is too personal a matter right now for me to discuss without losing my sense of perspective, and obviously already too late for my sense of humour. Let’s call it cultural and aesthetic differences and leave it.

If this is the only way you’re able to view the situation, Tab, well, I think that’s an extremely narrow view. Couldn’t you also look at it as allowing a loved one to give an invaluable gift? If you had a dying child, a dying parent, suffering excruciating pain with no hope of improvement, wouldn’t you be willing to do just about anything to give them the gift of peace? Wouldn’t you want to do anything in your power to save them from their misery? If I were ever in that position, I sure wouldn’t see it as “taking out the trash.”

I realize this issue is so complex, and it’s relatively easy to argue against the extremes; in reality there are so many gray areas. I just know that if someone I loved deeply was spending their final days in intense pain, I would gladly bear the burden of guilt if I could relieve any amount of their suffering.

edit: sorry, I just now read your most recent post. no need to respond, as it wasn’t my intent to make things harder on you.

My mother is still with us at 87 and you’re right. There is nothing humourous about it. Done and done.

What JT…? Shall we play “who’s parents are more fucking pitiful…?” Is that what we shall do…? Then whoever’s ma or pa is the bigger fucking trainwreck can have the last goddamn word.

I said done is done. Leave it lay.

I see that for a few of you guys euthanasia and matters of death are very close to you at the moment, I wish you all the best for that. I didn’t want to address any personal issues because I knew that’s how it can get (you’ll notice in the debate too I did everything hypothetically…Tab’s more personal approach was also very effective!).

But we still have to settle this debate. So bloody well do a vote. Base it on the power of argument mainly, try not to be biased in your approach folks, read it as if you’re a teacher!

I make it 1-0 to myself so far I think, but it’s first to 10 so…

[size=200]VOTE![/size]

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=174254

Interesting debate, and good points on both sides. What I missed was any discussion about the systems as they are already implemented - in Holland and Switzerland, at least, it’s possible to arrange it with the necessary safeguards.

I disagree with cheegster insofar as trusting state appointees with the power of life and death over citizens. And I disagree with Tab that no child should have to choose to kill their parent. Well, not with that, but with the converse; that nobody should have the right to end their loved ones’ suffering under any circumstance.

The current state of affairs in the UK and most of the US is that a veterinarian would be prosecuted and struck off for cruelty if found keeping an animal alive in the conditions that a doctor is legally obliged to keep a human alive. There’s something there that doesn’t seem right. On the other hand, I think personal choice over one’s own living is a fundamental ingredient to a good life, and neither of the positions seemed to back that. So I’d have to split my vote down the middle, or withhold it altogether.

Awesome, yeah a trick was missed with the vetenarian, it’s a good clear analogy - particularly when I was fighting solely for the reduction of suffering.

Cheers OH, Your comments appreciated as always.

Cheers OH.

Medical students in most parts of the world no longer take the Hippocratic Oath since, amongst other things, it forbids surgery.

Could that be construed as a tacit vote for myself? Hmmm… :-k

Last chance to vote before this (so far) sham of a ballot ceases guys. Any input? Whatsoever?

As the closest thing to a veteran of these debates Mr. C, this is probably as good as it gets.

Forget the score, the writing and the thinking are the thing, if you put your heart into your argument, then you did good.

Looks like it was 1-and-a-cryptic-maybe to nothing in your favour anyway. Well done.

It makes me not want to debate again to be honest. We put a good 4000 words each in there. I’m reluctant to take a win by such a small and dubious margin.

Anyway, I think we both did real real good. O:)

My input is this – I disagree with Tab on a personal level, and his argument didn’t change my mind.

Tab, you know how fond I am of you, but I have to cast a vote for the cheegs, if they’re still being accepted.

Sorry Tab.

I didn’t want to vote.

But I will.

I’ll throw it to C.

Tab’s arguments, while well structured, tended to argue the difficulties of implementing euthanasia as opposed to arguing against euthanasia. Normally, I’m pretty sympatico with that sort of reasoning, sure, it is a fine idea but we can’t really implement it, so let’s not. But the debate wasn’t about that so from the get the argument was pretty much ceded. If the subject had been, “Should enact a Eugenics program?” Tab’s arguments would have been incredibly strong. If he had pandered and argued that Eugenics represent a lack filial piety. Something.

But overall C presented the better argument given the topic. Tab’s objections were either irrelevant or countered. The same doesn’t apply in the other direction.

Sorry tab.