Euthanasia

[Big Dog]

Pain and suffering are givens in this world and as humans we like to feel we are in control of our lives and destinies, including over pain and suffering.

I can't help but wonder how many of those who want the right to have someone assist them with death due to terminal illness are truly prepared to do the deed themselves while they're still mentally and physically able to do so. It's like they want the 'benefit' of hanging in there as long as possible but having the 'back up' of some one else doing the deed once they get past the point of not being able to do it themselves.

Don't get me wrong, I feel enormous compassion for those who are suffering through no fault of their own and know full well that it can come unexpectedly to any of us. However this has been the human condition for millennia so what is really surprising about it? Is our own suffering any more or less important or meaningful than anyone else's?

I know it will sound callous but if those who want the right to choose the time of their own death aren't prepared to take matters into their own hands before the need to rely on someone else to do it where is their level of conviction?

Discuss.

To right I would expect to pull the trigger myself. I would however at that point be so far gone I would need someone to load and aim the gun.

For me euthanasia would come when I no longer had any quality of life and I had no hope.
If I had either I feel I would owe it to my family to try and find a balance between not causing them unnecessary suffering because I topped myself and not causing them unnecessary suffering because I was miserable and beyond hope.

Others will set the standard else where and I may shift the goal post in the situation.
Things that would be true before I asked for help with that:
I can no longer ride.
I can no longer fend for myself.
The pain out weights the joys of life.
There is no hope.
I no longer have loved ones who need more than I need the suffering to stop.

Up to this point I'd do it myself, but if the next part is also true I'd seek help:
I am no longer physically able to do it myself.




Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Shaun Harris]

Meds bro, meds.

Haha thanks for the heads up

[Shaun Harris]

Is that all he charged for turning a blind eye when you got illegal parts fitted?

Cheap as chips mate.

He came up with the plan and did all the work free of charge

[TheDemonLord]

I imagine it wouldn't be too hard to put procedures in place to prevent people killing off their 'loved ones' for pecuniary gain.

I am not so sure - allow for a little bit of hypotheticals:

The easiest solution here would be to make it so that anyone that benefits (financially or otherwise) from the death can't help make the decision - but unfortunately those that typically would stand to gain anything are also the closest family - the people that would want to make the decision.

So then you might try something along the lines that there needs to be certain medical criteria fulfilled before Euthanasia can be requested - but this would effectively make the Doctors party to this - I would forsee a Doctor erring on the side of their judgement of the condition so that Euthanasia can't be done. Alternatively you might get the equivalent of Fatwa shopping (which describes where a Muslim asks a question of a Cleric and gets a Fatwa and keeps asking different Cleric's until they get the answer they want)

Next road block is whether the person in question would want to be euthanized (could be Moral, Ethical, Religious grounds they may wish to object) and whether or not they could convey it. A lifelong Catholic for example would be clear case of someone whose religious beliefs would prevent them from wanting to be euthanized, but what about someone who only recently converted - would they hold the same conviction?

Then what about the mental state of someone coping with Terminal Illness - I can't begin to imagine the stresses and mental struggles of someone coping with a terminal illness. Have they made the spur of the moment decision because they are having a bad day or have they rationally come to the decision after time spent contemplating it? I have read testimony from people with terminal illness where they have talked about changing their mind due to going through bad patches, but then family events and things to look forward to have given them the strength to continue.

As I said in my first post - I support the idea of Euthanasia - that someone should be able to decide the time and place of their demise in order to ease their suffering. I can't reconcile the ideal however with a practicle real world solution - I would even go so far as to say I don't think a one-size fits all solution for such a complex subject is appropriate (hence my comment about having to make a case to a court to decide if there is sufficient evidence that the person wants to die and that there is no coercion or other factors at play)

[Katman]

Next road block is whether the person in question would want to be euthanized (could be Moral, Ethical, Religious grounds they may wish to object) and whether or not they could convey it.

See, where you see a road block I just see a silly argument.

Clearly if someone doesn't want to be euthanised then they don't get euthanised.

I don't think anyone is asking for a law change that allows people to euthanise others whether they like it or not.

[Katman]

And another thought......

When does removing someone from life support become a form of euthanasia?

[TheDemonLord]

See, where you see a road block I just see a silly argument.

Clearly if someone doesn't want to be euthanised then they don't get euthanised.

I don't think anyone is asking for a law change that allows people to euthanise others whether they like it or not.

Perhaps I wasn't clear in my arguement - in a situation were someone was unable to clearly convey their wishes (so terminally Ill, great amount of pain but not able to communicate) would they be Euthanised, if so how would you determine whether it was right?

Its all okay when the person can make their wishes known - but if I was a coach potato, couldn't communicate in anyway and in great pain, I'd want to be put out of my misery - how though would someone determine that this was my wish if I hadn't had a chance to relay it previously?

Certainly though is someone doesn't want to be Euthanised - they don't, but it is that wonderful grey area between the black and white that is filled with legal landmines.

[TheDemonLord]

And another thought......

When does removing someone from life support become a form of euthanasia?

I believe the distinction is when the Life Support system is artificially keeping the body alive and there is no brain activity (as in they are brain dead) but I will defer to a medical professional.

[Katman]

Perhaps I wasn't clear in my arguement - in a situation were someone was unable to clearly convey their wishes (so terminally Ill, great amount of pain but not able to communicate) would they be Euthanised, if so how would you determine whether it was right?

Sort of like making out a will.

While they're of sound mind they should have the right to stipulate they wish to have an assisted death.

Much like tattooing 'do not resuscitate' on your chest.

[Katman]

I believe the distinction is when the Life Support system is artificially keeping the body alive and there is no brain activity (as in they are brain dead) but I will defer to a medical professional.

So what about when someone is kept on life support long enough to regain unassisted breathing function only to then remain a vegetable for the rest of their life when the life support is removed?

Having watched my sister-in-law die at the age of 34 in a vegetative state, my wife is well aware that I have no desire to spend years having my arse and chin wiped because I can do nothing other than lie there and stare at the ceiling.

[Tazz]

I know it will sound callous but if those who want the right to choose the time of their own death aren't prepared to take matters into their own hands before the need to rely on someone else to do it where is their level of conviction?

Yeah fully! It crossed my mind a few years ago and if I ever got seriously crook I would be out of a plane without ever opening the shoot or stepping off something high, just for a bit of a thrill on the way out like Annoying part is you'd get some dumb 'officials' wasting time looking for bodies or 'investigating' what happened. Euthanasia would help sort that kind of inconvenience on others and wasted resources.

[Swoop]

...but they would rather you left your car running in an airtight garage...

A very unwise method nowadays. All you get is a crappy headache due to the exhaust-emission crap on modern vehicles.
Or so I'm informed.

[Ulsterkiwi]

So what about when someone is kept on life support long enough to regain unassisted breathing function only to then remain a vegetable for the rest of their life when the life support is removed?

Having watched my sister-in-law die at the age of 34 in a vegetative state, my wife is well aware that I have no desire to spend years having my arse and chin wiped because I can do nothing other than lie there and stare at the ceiling.

It is not unknown for food and water to be withdrawn from those who are terminally ill and heavily sedated/under massive pain control. I have often wondered myself how this is different from administering drugs to induce death. I am guessing the argument there is 'nature' is being allowed to take its course.

I know from a family situation affecting a close relation overseas that even in countries where euthanasia has been legislated for the system is fraught with difficulties. Even when some of your (very plausible) suggestions have been enshrined in that legislation.

An individual determines circumstances which they define as intolerable suffering and put in place the required documentation which allows them to have a medically assisted death at a time of their choosing. Two appointed doctors have given their assent, lawyers put their bit in place, family has been consulted and informed.
When those circumstances arise it is determined that the individual concerned is no longer of sound enough mind to make the decision and the euthanasia cannot proceed. No life support is involved, no heavy medication is involved, the individual concerned lives in a cared for environment but still enjoys physical mobility and some independence. In the lucid times, the individual is aware this is not what they wanted. Those lucid times are not all the time however.
The family now have to watch a deteriorating loved one whom they know did not want to go this way.
its hard, frustrating and very very sad.

[spanner spinner]

A very unwise method nowadays. All you get is a crappy headache due to the exhaust-emission crap on modern vehicles.
Or so I'm informed.

Nope the CO2 will still get you, haven't got exhaust gases smelling of roses or putting out Oxygen yet. Plus even the best exhaust emission systems still put out CO which binds to the haemoglobin in your blood blocking oxygen pick up so even if some one finds you this makes it very hard to resuscitate. The CO only needs to be in very small concentrations 12,800 ppm (1.28%) Unconsciousness after 2–3 breaths. Death in less than three minutes.
use to work in a job that involved working down access holes and a lot of them where located by roads, we constantly tested for CO2 when working by roads as it is a heavy part of the air around us so tended to fill the access holes displacing the oxygen.

[awa355]

My wife and I have a pact. If one is suffering immense pain and is at the end of a terminal illness, there is no hope and the other knows that the one suffering just wants to go, then her or I will do what needs to be done.