# Assisted suicide / Suicido asistido



## VenusEnvy

In California, lawmakers are debating a law which allows the terminally ill to choose the right to die. (the article) Some say that if you are given 6 months or less to live, and know that those months will be in pain, you have the right to choose to end your own life.

What would you do? Do you agree with the law? What does your country say about euthanasia, or assisted suicide?

.....................................................................................................................

En California, los legisladores estás debatiendo un ley lo cual permite los enfermos terminales el derecho morirse. (el artículo) Unos dicen que si un medico te pronostica 6 meses o menos que vivir, y sabes que eses meses van a pasar en dolor o miseria, tienes el derecho de escoger terminar tu propia vida.

Qué harían Ustedes? Coinciden con el ley? Qué dice tu país sobre la eutanasia o el asistente de suicidas?



(Por favor, corríjanme el texto, ya que sé que hay errorcitos...    )


----------



## DDT

I think it depends on everyone's vision of life.
Suicide has always existed so I see no reason to forbid it. Yet euthanasia is not legal in many countries including France (where I currently live) and my native one. Sometimes euthanasia might really be an act of mercy, sometimes it might degenerate into abuse...but I think no one has the right of judging the choice between life and death

DDT


----------



## marinax

VenusEnvy said:
			
		

> En California, los legisladores estás debatiendo un ley lA cual permite A los enfermos terminales ELEGIR el derecho A morirse. (el artículo) ALGUnos dicen que si un medico te pronostica 6 meses o menos DE VIDA, y sabes que esOs meses vaS a pasarLOS en dolor o miseria, tienes el derecho de escoger terminar tu propia vida.
> 
> Qué harían Ustedes? Coinciden con el ley? Qué dice tu país sobre la eutanasia o el SUICIDIO ASISTIDO?
> 
> 
> 
> (Por favor, corríjanme el texto, ya que sé que hay errorcitos...  )


 
en mi pais no esta permitido, ni creo que nunca lo este.
yo creo que se deberia dar la eleccion, pero eso no dejaria de ser un suicidio. quizas antes se deba dar un soporte o terapia psiquiatrica al enfermo terminal. y tener en cuenta que tambien los medicos pueden equivocarse...
de todos modos, no niego que si yo estuviera en ese lugar, no pensaria en terminar mi sufrimiento de esa forma...  (dios nunca lo quiera)


----------



## Kelly B

I generally agree with the principle. However, I would insist that patients be placed in hospice care first (specialized end-of-life care), with a pain specialist and a counselor, to make sure that every effort has been made to relieve suffering _first_. Too many people do not get adequate pain control, so they think that death is the only solution.

We also must go beyond this to ensure that good care will not bankrupt the families. I'm not sure I'd want to extend my life if I knew that death was inevitable anyway and a few extra weeks would mean that those left behind could lose everything. Isn't that a terrible choice to face? That's the American way when it comes to health care, these days.


----------



## Laia

Cualquier persona debería tener derecho a una muerte digna en estos casos. Escoger que te apliquen o no la eutanasia dado el caso, es cosa tuya; pero el derecho a poder pedirla creo que debería tenerlo cualquier persona.
Es mi opinión.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Everybody should have the right of having a decent death in these cases. Choosing if you want or not the euthanasia in that case, is your own decision; but I think that everybody should have the right of asking for it.
It's my opinion.

Corrections of my English will be appreciated. Thank you.


----------



## marinax

Kelly B said:
			
		

> I generally agree with the principle. However, I would insist that patients be placed in hospice care first (specialized end-of-life care), with a pain specialist and a counselor, to make sure that every effort has been made to relieve suffering _first_. Too many people do not get adequate pain control, so they think that death is the only solution.
> 
> We also must go beyond this to ensure that good care will not bankrupt the families. I'm not sure I'd want to extend my life if I knew that death was inevitable anyway and a few extra weeks would mean that those left behind could lose everything. Isn't that a terrible choice to face? That's the American way when it comes to health care, these days.


 
yes, this is my way of thinking (in english, as i only posted it in spanish sorry )
the difficult thing for those with terminal illnesses is not only thier pain or "dignity" (in cases of your body being dead and your mind being fully developed) but also their loved one's well beign.
it's a difficult decision to make. but you should be allowed to have the choice of a suicide.


----------



## VenusEnvy

Another related question: Does your opinion about choosing your own death conflict with your religious beliefs? (I might regret opening this can of worms...) 

......................................................................................................

Otra pregunta relacionada: Choca tu opinión sobre escoger tu muerte con tus creencias religiosas? (No sé cómo decir "open up a can of worms" en español... je je ) (Puede ser que lamente hacer esta pregunta...)


----------



## Laia

VenusEnvy said:
			
		

> Otra pregunta relacionada: Choca tu opinión sobre escoger tu muerte con tus creencias religiosas? (No sé cómo decir "open up a can of worms" en español... je je ) (Puede ser que lamente hacer esta pregunta...)


 
Lamentaré haberte dado una respuesta.  Seré muy sincera. Agradeceré que nadie intente contestar a este post tratando de hacerme recobrar la fe. Lo que daré es mi respetable opinión, como respuesta a la pregunta de Venus y nada más. Digo todo esto para curarme en salud. Cada uno tiene derecho a pensar lo que quiera.

No choca mi opinión sobre la eutanasia con mis creencias religiosas. No creo en Dios. 
Pero soy de la opinión de que si hipotéticamente Dios te da una vida en la que has de sufrir una enfermedad grave y dolorosa que te mata lentamente... pues Dios ya no es amor (como se suele decir) y pasa a ser un "ente" que te putea. Si me da una vida defectuosa, ya se la puede quedar, que se la devuelvo. No puedo entender que haya gente que ante esto diga que es que Dios te pone a prueba para ver tu fe, etc etc, y que la vida del más allá será eterna y maravillosa. Sencillamente no lo puedo entender.
Pero bueno, hay gente que cree que la vida te la da y te la quita Dios. Yo creo que la vida te la dan tus padres y te la quita la naturaleza o el ambiente o las circunstancias que vives.

Por otro lado, si yo me viera en la situación, no sé si tendría valor para pedir la eutanasia, porque soy una persona cobarde (sí, una característica muy humana). No lo sé. No creo que pueda decir qué haría en esa situación, porque no sé qué sentiría. Ojalá no tenga que verme en esta situación nunca. Pero me gustaría tener el derecho a elegir.

Ya está. Repito: es la respuesta a una pregunta. Es una opinión, subjetiva y respetable, que no busca ninguna respuesta.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------




			
				VenusEnvy said:
			
		

> Another related question: Does your opinion about choosing your own death conflict with your religious beliefs? (I might regret opening this can of worms...)


 
I might regret answering to this can of worms (_caja de pandora_ in Spanish)  I’ll be very sincere. I’ll appreciate nobody answers this post trying to make me recover the faith. What I’m going to give is my respectable opinion, as an answer to Venus’s question, and nothing else. I say this to prevent misunderstandings. Everyone has the right to think and believe whatever he/she wants.

My opinion does not conflict with my religious beliefs. I don’t believe in God.
But I think that if hypothetically God gives you a life where you have to suffer a serious and painful illness that slowly kills you... then God is not love (as is usual to say) and then He is a “being” that hurts and damages you. If He gives me a defective life, he can keep it, because I give it back to Him. I cannot understand people saying that this happens because God tests your faith, etc etc, and that life after death will be etern and wonderful. I simply can’t understand this.
There are people who think that God give you life and death. I think that your parents give you life and nature or the environment or circumstances give you death.

However, I don’t know what I would do if I was in the situation, I don’t know if I would have enough valor to ask for euthanasia, because I am a coward person (yes, a very human feature). I don’t know. I hope I never have to see me in this situation. But I’d like to have the right to choose.

That’s all. I repeat: this is the answer to a question. It is an opinion: subjective and respectable, and I’m not looking for replies.

What yes I would appreciate is to know my English mistakes... Thank you


----------



## BasedowLives

I think it should be allowed.  Your life is yours not the governments.



> Does your opinion about choosing your own death conflict with your religious beliefs? (I might regret opening this can of worms...)



No.  Even if I was religious I probably wouldn't have too much of a problem with it, seeing as how the church I used to go to was pretty open and understanding


----------



## la reine victoria

Wow Venus! You've opened up a great debate here.

Firstly, it is illegal in the UK to practise euthanasia or to assist someone wishing to commit suicide. However, I have heard many reliable reports that medical practitioners 'quietly' terminate the lives of terminally ill patients with an overdose of morphine. These patients are usually in the last stage of their lives and unconscious.

A similar thing happens to new-born babies who are so physically, mentally or physiologically handicapped that their life expectation and quality is virtually zero. They are usually left without food, their parents having been told that 'We are doing what we can to keep baby comfortable.'

Occasionally, family members make the decision for the relative and have been known to tamper with life-support equipment or even, in desperation, to suffocate the relative with a pillow. Again, the person is in an unconscious state. When this crime is discovered the perpetrator/s go through the judicial system and usually get off with a charge of manslaughter with, maybe, a two year suspended sentence, which means they don't actually get punished.

Personally, I believe that life is a sacred gift and should come to an end only when God decides.

I would never wish my own life to be ended by euthanasia. Major 
advances in pain control have been made. We have hospices here for terminal cancer patients. They are inspirational in the way they care for the dying, who have come to terms with their condition, are free of pain and spend their last months/weeks in comfortable, homely surroundings, living a relatively 'normal and happy' life.

Nor could I assist anyone to commit suicide. My conscience would not allow it. Instead I would ensure they received the best medical care and pain relief. If a medical practitioner chose to end that person's life (see my first paragraph) then on their head be it.

My own mother suffered a massive stroke at the age of 97. It was absolutely terrible to see this wonderful, intelligent and previously very active lady, reduced to a non-speaking, immobile, unable to eat or drink, virtual 'vegetable'. Yet in her eyes the spark of life was still very evident. She would smile at us with her eyes, she knew who we were and was telling us that she loved us by the only means possible - her lovely eyes. Fortunately she was well nursed, kept comfortable and died a natural death after three weeks - no 'well intentioned' overdose of morphine, thank God.

I pray that no Euthanasia Bill will ever be passed by our parliament. It would simply be abused (by medical practitioners with no conscience) to rid us of all our old and infirm. This is a topic frequently discussed on serious radio talk shows and I'm glad to say the majority of speakers I've heard are of the same opinion as me.

Life is a gift from God and should be taken only by him.


----------



## Phryne

I’ve always believed that people should have total control of their own fate, and lives. So, I’ve also wondered too many times why there is so much reluctance to allow terminal patients who are in a lot of suffering—mentally and physically—to end their miseries.  Why is suicide so frown upon?  Why is there so much controversy regarding euthanasia? Is it a matter of controlling the population (what people can and cannot do)?

   I recently saw the Spanish film “The sea inside” (Mar adentro) that brilliantly depicts the suffering of a paraplegic and his ordeal to find legal permission to be helped to die. It is based on real story of a man that fought to be allowed to regain control over his own life lost after a tragic accident 27 years before his death. Besides being an excellent film, it teaches us a beautiful lesson regarding life and death.


----------



## marinax

Phryne said:
			
		

> I recently saw the Spanish film “The sea inside” (Mar adentro) that brilliantly depicts the suffering of a paraplegic and his ordeal to find legal permission to be helped to die. It is based on real story of a man that fought to be allowed to regain control over his own life lost after a tragic accident 27 years before his death. Besides being an excellent film, it teaches us a beautiful lesson regarding life and death.


 
this is what i'm talking about. this was not a life "free of pain"... and it has nothing to do with doctors or medicine (there was nothing else to be done for this man).
i think that this has to do with "our purpose in life": do we have a purpose? what is it? can i fullfil it living like this? (with a terminal illness, with constant pain, in a dead body). then, there you have your answer.

Does your opinion about choosing your own death conflict with your religious beliefs?
if you are an "orthodox" (of any religion), it should.
in my case (i believe in god who created men, and not the one men have created) i'm not so sure.


----------



## GenJen54

venusenvy said:
			
		

> In California, lawmakers are debating a law which allows the terminally ill to choose the right to die. (





			
				venusenvy said:
			
		

> the article) Some say that if you are given 6 months or less to live, and know that those months will be in pain, you have the right to choose to end your own life.
> 
> What would you do? Do you agree with the law? What does your country say about euthanasia, or assisted suicide?




Thanks, Venus, for this very interesting – and important -- topic. As with many discussions, there are multiple sides to the issue. None of them wrong, none right. The only question is what I could/would answer for myself.

There is a distinct difference between PAS (patient assisted suicide) and “euthanasia.” 
In patient assisted suicide, the patient is usually fully-conscious and aware that this act (via injection of lethal drugs through medical assistance) will cause the end of their life.

With euthanasia, the patient usually has some kind of “advanced healthcare directive” that prohibits doctors from any life-saving medical intervention, including withholding food and water, when the patient is unconscious or otherwise unable to make a decision for themselves.

Should patients have the right to make such decisions for themselves? Absolutely. But only if these decisions are made when the patient is still conscious and completely capable of making a decision, which is why Advanced Healthcare Directives are so important. 

Much for me would depend upon the circumstance or situation (facing long-term death vs. rendered unconscious and in a persistent vegetative state.) For me, it is a question of dignity. As KellyB mentioned, hospice care in the US has gone a long way in providing dignified “end of life” care to patients, and their families.

Were I in the end-stage of a long, life-ending illness and in a circumstance where hospice care was available to me, then I would probably wish to die “naturally.” 

If, however, I were rendered “perpetually unconscious,” an otherwise empty shell in a slowly-deteriorating body, then I would wish for all medical intervention, including food and water, to be ceased. 

Personally, according to the “belief” that I “follow,” which is not related to any one particular credo or dogma, death is a mere transcendence into another life or realm of existence. It is not a finality. It is not a step to heaven, or to hell, but to another spiritual “plane” where my _spirit_ will continue to live. As such, death, like life, is to be “embraced.”


----------



## BasedowLives

Another question:

In a country where state and religion are (supposedly) separated, what's the justification used in keeping those alive who wish to die with dignity?


----------



## tvdxer

I'm fully, fully, fully opposed to it.  There is absolutely no dignity in choosing one's own death.  It is pure selfishness and cheating in the realest sense (after all, one could recover, and even if there is no chance, it is not the person's choice when there life should end).  Yes, the pain can be severe in the case of some terminally ill patients, but with modern painkillers and medicine, this is much less of an excuse.

If suicide is bad enough, than helping another person commit it can be said to be wrongful killing, if not murder.  Even if they are willing their death (as they would be of course), it is still not completely immoral to fulfill their wrong wish.

Assisted suicide is yet another perfect example of the culture of death, which ultimately seems to rely on a culture of selfishness and self-centeredness, an individuality which rejects any obligation to society or natural law.


----------



## cuchuflete

> ...an individuality which rejects any obligation to society or *natural law*.



It seems that for many religions, natural law requires strenuous attempts to impose their particular viewpoint on others.  I honestly do not know what I would want if I were terminally ill, suffering great pain, and yet mentally acute.
I imagine it would have much to do with what else were going on.  Our ability to withstand pain is often associated with having something else to focus attention on, such as family.

Not having a personal answer doesn't prevent me from saying this, however.  Whatever my own posture might be, I am not in favor of anyone else imposing their particular religion's teachings on me.  I imagine they might reciprocate, in not wanting my decision or belief system imposed on themselves. 

One person's natural law may be mumbo jumbo to another.


----------



## opsidol

Prolongar la vida de alguien qué está sufriendo es un crimen. Es lo mismo como matar a un caballo que haya roto su pierna, para que no sufra. Además, ¿cuál es la diferencia entre un mes y seis mes?

En la sociedad moderna en la que todos están promocionando la libertad, no nos queda mucho tiempo ante se podrá suicidarse también y yo creo que eso es bueno.


----------



## uniquelyordinary

marinax said:
			
		

> en mi pais no esta permitido, ni creo que nunca lo este.
> yo creo que se deberia dar la eleccion, pero eso no dejaria de ser un suicidio. quizas antes se deba dar un soporte o terapia psiquiatrica al enfermo terminal. y tener en cuenta que tambien los medicos pueden equivocarse...
> de todos modos, no niego que si yo estuviera en ese lugar, no pensaria en terminar mi sufrimiento de esa forma...  (dios nunca lo quiera)


Estoy de acuerdo con Marinax.


----------



## cherine

Very interesting thread Venus
First I'd like to give a little comment on an interesting post too :


			
				Kelly B said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I'd want to extend my life if I knew that death was inevitable anyway and a few extra weeks would mean that those left behind could lose everything.


Kelly, isn't death inevitable by nature ? I mean, we're all going to die one day or another, no one really chooses when to die, and personally I don't think that being "terminally" ill is really a valid reason to pretend choosing our time to go. "Few extra weeks" can mean few extra moments with those we love, even when there's suffering.
But of course I respect you opinion.

As for my country, assisting suicide is illegal, and euthansia is a criminal act punished by law. It's simply considered as : doctor/nurse killing a patient.
Religiously speaking, my religion states that no one has the right to take a life, even our own. It's somehow considered as an attempt to interfer in God's will.


----------



## Fernando

My position:

- To use all methods to reduce pain, even if they shorten the life in a hopeless case: 

Perfect to me, whenever public control is adopted: The doctor should obtain the patient's consent (if possible), his family's and other doctor(s).

- Assisted suicide: To use lethal drugs to shorten the life: It should be forbidden. If not stopped, these pro-"euthanasia" movement will convince every ancient that his life (useless) "is not worth to be lived" and you should have a "decent death" rather than "useless pain". If you are determined to commit suicide, maybe State will not be able to stop you, but it should not help you to do it, nor allowed others to do it.


----------



## Max27

I agree with OPSIDOL.  I fully support assisted suicide, and death with dignity.  I find it hard to understand why some people in government feel they need to impose their own belief on death on to someone else and extend suffering to other people. 
This is a great discussion and everyone has a valid opinion.
MAX


----------



## *Cowgirl*

Great topic!

You know, I'm really undecided at the moment. I see both the pros and the cons of physician assisted suicide. If it's approve it will help people and their families. I've seen what 12 or 13 years of Alzheimers can do to a family, it's very stressful and costly. This family was dragged through an emotional pig sty. But, I also see that if this is approved it will be misused and will cause problems, so I just don't know.


----------



## GenJen54

The idea is that it is assisted "suicide," not homicide.  Doctors and family members cannot choose this for their loved one.  The power would lie in the hands of the patient himself.

In all honesty, there is not much difference between doctor-assisted "suicide" and the types of Advanced Healthcare Directives signed by patients today, which order doctors to cease any and all life-saving measures (including tube feedings).

In essence, am I not, by signing away my wish to "live" under certain circumstances, asking doctors and family members to help me die?

Both measures, whether "active" or "passive" share an end result:  the end of life. 

I respect those that do not believe this is a good idea for _them_ or their families.  I do not share their idea that their belief should necessarily legislate over me and mine.


----------



## Maria Juanita

I remember I was watching one of my favorite TV series and I found this quote said by one of the characters: “You can live with dignity. You can not _die_ with it”. In a way, I think that’s completely true. Death is a really dark and uncomfortable subject _per se_. No matter the way it happens. I have very ambivalent feelings on this assisted suicide thing.
 
Thank you, Reine Victoria, for sharing this with us. It was very moving. And when it comes to the movie, Phryne, I will go watch it. It sounds interesting.
 
Personally, I have to say that I had a very sad experience when I was at school, one of my friends died, at 16, of cancer. That was really impressive, regarding the fact that you never think about death when you are at school. When you are young you think death only happens to old people who “have had a life” and that make the thing even more depressing and scary. I will never be the same after that. There’s no dignity in dying, especially when you watch someone getting worst and wither more and more. There’s nothing funny about chemotherapy, and nauseas, and watching a body that was beautiful getting swollen and fading away. But one thing that got my attention on this subject is that somehow, the relatives feel better if the are actually expecting a _miracle_, (something that everyone knows very deeply inside it’s not going to happen) and meanwhile they take care and feel useful by helping the person all they can. By being _there_. By taking the most precious time to be with that individual, now that they realize it’s a really short time. 
Finding a scape on assisted suicide can be such a relief then; but it can also be regarded as any other suicidal act would be: as a very selfish way out of the problem. Like denying the family to the right of feeling somehow useful, if that term doesn’t look a little absurd at this point. But also, when seeing somebody suffering in a really strong and pathetic way, sometimes I think it’s the right thing to do. 
 
I’ve read an extraordinary book –one of my favourites as a matter of fact- which is called The Undertaker by Thomas Lynch and he has some points about this. It’s a really beautiful book and he gives us a beautiful and particularly obscure idea of what death is; I just wanted to recommend it.
 
Well, folks, I just wanted to say what I think. I hope you didn’t get bored with all this.
 
Saludillos


----------



## Ana Raquel

tvdxer said:
			
		

> I'm fully, fully, fully opposed to it. There is absolutely no dignity in choosing one's own death. It is pure selfishness and cheating in the realest sense (after all, one could recover, and even if there is no chance, it is not the person's choice when there life should end). Yes, the *pain can be severe* in the case of some *terminally ill patients,* but with modern painkillers and medicine, this is much less of *an excuse*


 
An excuse? An excuse for what? If there is no pain and everything is so comfortable, why would a terminally ill patient look for excuses?


----------



## opsidol

¿La familia se siente útil? ¿Cómo esto puede ser si la familia es la razón por qué la persona siga sufriendo? La familia también puede ser muy egoísta por mantener vivo el paciente...


----------



## opsidol

A persar de que yo apoyo la eutanasia, solo debe ser el último recurso y a discreción de los médiocs, es decir que solo debe ser una opción si no hay ninguna posibilidad de recuperación.


----------



## Roi Marphille

According to Michel Houellebecq last book: "the possibility of an island", suicide is going to be a common, accepted and normal practice in future generations. People is going to choice to pass away at 50' or 60' years old aprox., women quite earlier than men. This is another of the controversial issues of his literature, maybe some find it at least interesting or debatable as the cause of suicide is not going to be illness in itself, according to his book, but boredom and the physical effects of age in the body...etc. quite hardcore.


----------



## opsidol

Hmmm, es una idea interesante, pero no la puedo creer. Sí que la cantidad de suicidios va a seguir incrementando sin precedentes, pero eso no significa que todo el mundo querrá morirse. La mayor parte de la gente se disfruta de la vida y tema la muerte. Sin embargo, si fuera así, hay que considerar que la tecnología hace que podamos vivir más largo. Entonces, si se suicidara debido a los efectos de la edad, aún vivirían más largo que hoy. 

Bueno, pues eso es mi opinión solamente... y todos nosotros tenemos opiniones diferentes.


----------



## Carlston

opsidol said:
			
		

> En la sociedad moderna en la que todos están promocionando la libertad, no nos queda mucho tiempo ante se podrá suicidarse también y yo creo que eso es bueno.


 
Esto es duro, no creo que la libertad de una sociedad se pueda relacionar con el suicidio.

No creo que se pueda responder con un -A favor o un -En contra, es un tema demasiado delicado y cada caso deberia tratarse individualmente.

Saludos


----------



## opsidol

Sí estoy de acuerdo, pero para clarificar, quise decir "eutanasia" más que "suicidio"


----------



## Alundra

Yo también estoy de acuerdo en que la eutanasia debe permitirse.

He visto también algunos casos en que el sufrimiento de algunas personas duele no sólo a ellas, sino también a las que están a su alrededor...



			
				Carlston said:
			
		

> es un tema demasiado delicado y cada caso deberia tratarse individualmente.


 
Totalmente de acuerdo, cada caso debería tratarse individualmente...  yo creo que me costaría muchísimo tomar una decisión de ese tipo, y tendría que pensarlo mucho...


En mi opinión, si la eutanasia fuera permitida, todo el mundo tendría el derecho a elegir... los que no están de acuerdo no tendrían porqué hacer uso de ella... y los que sí están de acuerdo, y realmente sintieran que necesitaban ponerla en práctica, estarían en su perfecto derecho...

Alundra.


----------



## Carlston

opsidol said:
			
		

> Sí estoy de acuerdo, pero para clarificar, quise decir "eutanasia" más que "suicidio"


 
Ahora no suena tan duro  

Saludos


----------



## natasha2000

Laia said:
			
		

> Cualquier persona debería tener derecho a una muerte digna en estos casos. Escoger que te apliquen o no la eutanasia dado el caso, es cosa tuya; pero el derecho a poder pedirla creo que debería tenerlo cualquier persona.
> Es mi opinión.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Everybody should have the right of having a decent death in these cases. Choosing if you want or not the euthanasia in that case, is your own decision; but I think that everybody should have the right of asking for it.
> It's my opinion.
> 
> Corrections of my English will be appreciated. Thank you.


 
Completamente de acuerdo.


----------



## opsidol

Aquí están tus correcciones 



			
				Laia said:
			
		

> Everybody should have the right of having a decent death in these cases. Choosing if you want euthanasia *or not *in that case, is your own decision; but I think that everybody should have the right *to ask* for it.
> It's my opinion.
> 
> Corrections of my English will be appreciated. Thank you.





> I might regret answering to this can of worms (_caja de pandora_ in Spanish)  I’ll be very sincere. I’ll appreciate *it if* nobody answers this post trying to make me recover *my* faith. What I’m going to give is my respectable opinion, as an answer to Venus’s question, and nothing else. I say this to prevent misunderstandings. Everyone has the right to think and believe whatever he/she wants.
> 
> My opinion does not conflict with my religious beliefs. I don’t believe in God.
> But I think that if hypothetically God gives you a life where you have to suffer a serious and painful illness that slowly kills you... then God is not love (*as is usually said/as they say*) and then He is a “being” that hurts and damages you. If He gives me a defective life, he can keep it, because I give it back to Him. I cannot understand people saying that this happens because God tests your faith, etc etc, and that life after death will be etern*al* and wonderful. I simply can’t understand this.
> There are people who think that God give you life and death. I think that your parents give you life and nature or the environment or circumstances give you death.
> 
> However, I don’t know what I would do if I was in *that* situation, I don’t know if I would have enough valor to ask for euthanasia, because I am a coward*ly* person (yes, a very human feature). I don’t know. I hope I never have to see *myself* in this situation. But I’d like to have the right to choose.
> 
> That’s all. I repeat: this is the answer to a question. It is an opinion: subjective and respectable, and I’m not looking for replies.
> 
> What yes I would appreciate is to know my English mistakes... Thank you


----------



## Laia

Thank you very much opsidol... I was starting to think that my English was brilliant...


----------



## *Cowgirl*

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> The idea is that it is assisted "suicide," not homicide. Doctors and family members cannot choose this for their loved one. The power would lie in the hands of the patient himself.
> 
> In all honesty, there is not much difference between doctor-assisted "suicide" and the types of Advanced Healthcare Directives signed by patients today, which order doctors to cease any and all life-saving measures (including tube feedings).
> 
> In essence, am I not, by signing away my wish to "live" under certain circumstances, asking doctors and family members to help me die?
> 
> Both measures, whether "active" or "passive" share an end result: the end of life.
> 
> I respect those that do not believe this is a good idea for _them_ or their families. I do not share their idea that their belief should necessarily legislate over me and mine.


 
Geat points Gen. By signing a do not recusitate form, in essence we are supporting a physician assisted suicide because we aren't letting the doctor do everything in his pwer to save us. 

Thought of this yesterday at the vet's office: if we can euthanize our dogs or cats with terminal cancers because there is no hope for survival, why can't people also have that choice. Yes, I'm still undecided, but you can see which way I'm begining to lean.


----------



## la reine victoria

[Thought of this yesterday at the vet's office: if we can euthanize our dogs or cats with terminal cancers because there is no hope for survival, why can't people also have that choice. Yes, I'm still undecided, but you can see which way I'm begining to lean.[/quote]

Cowgirl,

We choose to end our pets' lives as they can't speak for themselves.  Out of love and compassion we (reluctantly) let them go, to end their suffering.

Human beings, however, are able to speak for themselves.

Therein lies the difference.

Regards,

LRV


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

In an otherwise not terribly good book, there was one memorable line from one druidess to another:  "Never name the well from which you will not drink".  I think this point of view is much more sensible than some of the black-and-white views expressed by others in this thread.

Without personal knowledge, how do any of us know for certain what we will do when we come to when we come to a crossroads like this?  

Those of us who have experienced pain and suffering and loss, personally or with loved ones, seem to be much less dogmatic about the issue.  With safeguards to prevent abuses and premature decisions, I believe that we should all have the option to die as we choose.  The word "option" is the key: not to force one's own beliefs upon somebody else in this ultimately personal decision.


----------



## blancalaw

This is a touchy topic with me because my grandma just died a few weeks ago from a chronic heart disease (and was starting to have dementia) and my grandpa died just 3 years earlier from pneumonia from not being able to swallow correctly due to Alzheimer’s.   My dad spent 8 years taking care of both of them before their conditions took their lives. Their last years of life made them seem like people they never have been before. It was very hard for my Dad to see them that way and after all he went through he said if he got that way to just put him to rest.
I can understand where he is coming from and I would support the side of letting the person decide, but I also respect that all life comes from God and it is His decision to give it and take it away. I could never end a life of another because of my beliefs nor would I encourage others to do so either.


----------



## Ratona

Just bringing this thread back to life 

First off, I find it quite hypocritical that people say we should die a natural death yet whilst we're "living" be pumped full of drugs to ease the pain and be more comfortable.

My view on euthanasia? I'm definitely in agreement with the-everybody-should-have-the-choice/option previously expressed by others.

My Grandma died just before Christmas so this subject is quite an open wound for me. Would we have practised euthanasia if it had been permitted? Yes, I think we would; I say we because I'm pretty sure that the whole family would be in agreement and I _know_ that that is what my father would have preferred had it been possible. 

She wasn't rich, she wasn't hated, but in fact caring, loving and very much loved. Famed (and loved despite) her stubbornness she controlled her last years herself and fought as much as she could until she had no fight left and could no longer battle any more, wasn't enjoying her life and hadn't been for a good few years, she had no longer the energy and thus neither the will. But she had to wait in agony (that drugs did not relieve) until she would be "at peace". 

I don't follow a religion but do have beliefs. 
One of these is that you cannot begrudge a dying person their death.
No se puede denegar la muerte a una persona moribunda.


----------



## fenixpollo

Roi Marphille said:
			
		

> According to Michel Houellebecq last book: "the possibility of an island", suicide is going to be a common, accepted and normal practice in future generations. People is going to choice to pass away at 50' or 60' years old aprox., women quite earlier than men


 I don't see it happening, for the reasons stated by opsidol and Shakespeare. 





			
				Hamlet 3.1.56 said:
			
		

> ...The undiscovered country from whose bourn
> No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
> And makes us rather bear those ills we have,
> Than fly to others that we know not of?
> Thus conscience doth make cowards of us all;


Fear of death will keep people from seeking it in large numbers. 





			
				tvdxer said:
			
		

> There is absolutely no dignity in choosing one's own death. It is pure selfishness and cheating in the realest sense (after all, one could recover, and even if there is no chance, it is not the person's choice when there life should end).
> Assisted suicide is yet another perfect example of the culture of death, which ultimately seems to rely on a culture of selfishness and self-centeredness, an individuality which rejects any obligation to society or natural law.


 In addition to cuchu's comments on "natural law", I want to ask, How is choosing death cheating? Of course it's selfish. Why should it not be selfish? If I contract a painful, terminal illness, should I prolong my life to make others happy? How could that be? 

Before you condemn, listen to Chaska's "bad" quote: 





			
				Chaska Ñawi said:
			
		

> "Never name the well from which you will not drink".


 I think that the legalization of assisted suicide may be a bad thing. Why? Because doctors have always done it... secretly. By forcing the practice out into the open and into the courts, doctors become legally responsible for business that might be better conducted discreetly, behind closed doors.  Perhaps the phrase "to die with dignity" means to die on your own terms, in private.


----------



## Saoul

Piergiorgio Welby, 61 anni, da 40 affetto da distrofia muscolare, è morto oggi a Roma. Richiese di poter essere staccato dalle macchine che lo tenevano in vita sin dal 1997, a settembre 2006, ma nè il dibattito parlamentare, nè le sentenze dei tribunali hanno fatto sì che la sua richiesta fosse accolta. 

Just my two cents. This man was not granted the right to not suffer. This man was not granted the right to not endure unbearable pain. This man was not granted the right to die serenely. 
I'm the son of a man who took ten years to die, and this is like living that all again. 
Now please think about what you did in the last ten years. The boys/girls you've kissed, the wine you sipped, the love you made, the books you read, the movies you watched, the laughs you laughed, the smile you gave, the tears you spilled, the friends you hugged, the job you did. Now think that none of these happened and you had only a bed and more pain than you can take. Think about it, and then tell me he didn't deserve to be heard, and helped to die serenely.

My condolences to Piergiorgio's family, with all my heart.


----------



## Etcetera

Euthanasia is officially forbidden in Russia. 
I think it's right. Should euthanasia become legal, I'm almost sure it will lead to a number of abuses. 
Besides, as a Christian, I simply can't like the idea of suicide in any form.


----------



## Saoul

Etcetera said:


> Euthanasia is officially forbidden in Russia.
> I think it's right. Should euthanasia become legal, I'm almost sure it will lead to a number of abuses.
> Besides, as a Christian, I simply can't like the idea of suicide in any form.



Besides, Etcetera, I don't see why your belief is greater than mine. You are a Christian and you don't want to be assisted in committing suicide... ok, fine. Don't. I can deal with it. Why shouldn't I? Why shouldn't people who do not believe in the same things you do? The Christian pressure about this topic in Italy was huge (and intollerable, from my point of view), but what if I am not Christian? What if I don't believe in your God and the rules he's supposed to have set? Why do I have to comply with some rules I don't believe in?
I would never oblige someone to turn to euthanasia if they don't want to, but I want to be granted the right to do so, if I do want to.
Abuses? Well I think that governements role and duty is to make sure that things like abuses don't occur. The fear for abuses didn't stop abortion laws (luckily I may add, since backstreet abortion was one of the worst plague ever), or any laws dealing with Health, Democracy and any other important issue.


----------



## ElaineG

Assisted suicide and euthanasia are two different things.

You could even put Mr. Welby's case into a third category -- the desire to stop being kept alive artificially.

Piergiorgo Welby was kept alive solely by a respirator and a feeding tube THAT HE DID NOT WANT. Unlike Teresa Schiavo, Karen Ann Quinlan or a number of other celebrated cases, he was lucid and able to express his will until the end. He suffered horribly.

Euthanasia conjures up all kinds of ethical and religious questions.

But surely every person has a right to determine -- before or during treatment -- how much treatment they want? 

God didn't put that respirator onto Mr. Welby. People did.


----------



## Saoul

The breaking news is that an Anesthesist Dr. Riccio turned the respirator off. 
If this news is confirmed, I will consider Dr. Riccio an heroe for the rest of my life.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Saoul said:


> Piergiorgio Welby, 61 anni, da 40 affetto da distrofia muscolare, è morto oggi a Roma. Richiese di poter essere staccato dalle macchine che lo tenevano in vita sin dal 1997, a settembre 2006, ma nè il dibattito parlamentare, nè le sentenze dei tribunali hanno fatto sì che la sua richiesta fosse accolta.
> 
> Just my two cents. This man was not granted the right to not suffer. This man was not granted the right to not endure unbearable pain. This man was not granted the right to die serenely.
> I'm the son of a man who took ten years to die, and this is like living that all again.
> Now please think about what you did in the last ten years. The boys/girls you've kissed, the wine you sipped, the love you made, the books you read, the movies you watched, the laughs you laughed, the smile you gave, the tears you spilled, the friends you hugged, the job you did. Now think that none of these happened and you had only a bed and more pain than you can take. Think about it, and then tell me he didn't deserve to be heard, and helped to die serenely.
> 
> My condolences to Piergiorgio's family, with all my heart.



I completely agree with you.
Our (as Italians) problem is that the Catholic clergy still has a large influence over us, regardless of whether people are actually Catholic and therefore want to follow the Catholic doctrine or they are not.
Their idea of freedom is "you are free to do what we tell you".


----------



## HistofEng

What's all this talk about "it's not in God's plan for you"

How can you fully know what God's plan for you _IS?_


----------



## maxiogee

The minute we make any medical intervention in a person's life we "interfere with God's plan" for that person.
Maybe it is God's plan that the man in bed 3, ward 5, floor 7 of The Maxiogee Hospital is going to die tonight.
Then along comes some medical-type who decides that what this guy needs is a shot of Qwerty, the new wonder-drug.

Or at the other end of the scale, did someone put a band-aid on their child's cut last year. Maybe without that, the wound would have festered and not healed, leading to gangrene and septicaemia, followed by death.

If we admit a God, and allow that this God has 'plans' for us, then every un-'natural' thing we do is likely to going against those plans.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

maxiogee said:


> The minute we make any medical intervention in a person's life we "interfere with God's plan" for that person.
> Maybe it is God's plan that the man in bed 3, ward 5, floor 7 of The Maxiogee Hospital is going to die tonight.
> Then along comes some medical-type who decides that what this guy needs is a shot of Qwerty, the new wonder-drug.
> 
> Or at the other end of the scale, did someone put a band-aid on their child's cut last year. Maybe without that, the wound would have festered and not healed, leading to gangrene and septicaemia, followed by death.
> 
> If we admit a God, and allow that this God has 'plans' for us, then every un-'natural' thing we do is likely to going against those plans.



Very good point..
Do you realise how pissed off God is at you since you've been taking those beta-blockers to keep your blood pressure under control??
Maybe you should let your heart burst...


----------



## Saoul

HistofEng said:


> What's all this talk about "it's not in God's plan for you"
> 
> How can you fully know what God's plan for you _IS?_



What if I don't believe God to have any plan, or to exist at all? Why do I need to keep on living, or to walk his path, or to "be sure I accomplish the plan he's got for me", if I don't believe in him? 
Guys this is just personal. You believe! Ok! Fine! I don't! I don't want to be forced doing things that YOU judge as "correct". I want to do what I think is correct. Oh, the Roman curia did not allowed a Catholic Funeral for Piergiorgio. NO COMMENT. Any consideration about this deed would lead to a very long list of "NO LOVE", "NO MERCY", "NO OPENNESS", "NOTHING". I'd better stop.


----------



## Etcetera

Saoul said:


> Guys this is just personal. You believe! Ok! Fine! I don't! I don't want to be forced doing things that YOU judge as "correct". I want to do what I think is correct.


Fine by me, too. 
I'm sure people are free to decide what to believe in and what to do. As long as it hurts no one.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Today the Roman Catholic clergy have denied Mr Welby and all his relatives and friends the right to celebrate the funeral, since he expressed the will of dying.
Is this an example of Christian mercy?


----------



## Etcetera

Paulfromitaly said:


> Is this an example of Christian mercy?


No. 
I am a poor Christian, I know.

But I am absolutely sure that all the circumstances should be taken into account. If someone commits suicide just because "he/she couldn't see any meaning in life", it's one thing; if someone dies from an incurable disease in sufferings, it's another matter.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Etcetera said:


> No.
> I am a poor Christian, I know.
> 
> But I am absolutely sure that all the circumstances should be taken into account. If someone commits suicide just because "he/she couldn't see any meaning in life", it's one thing; if someone dies from an incurable disease in sufferings, it's another matter.



Well, I'm a poor Christian too, but still I can neither understand that choice nor agree with it.
That's a crystal clear example of absolute mercilessness.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Moderator note:  The topic is assisted suicide, not criticism of the Catholic church.  Thank you.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Etcetera said:


> Euthanasia is officially forbidden in Russia.
> I think it's right. Should euthanasia become legal, I'm almost sure it will lead to a number of abuses.
> Besides, as a Christian, I simply can't like the idea of suicide in any form.


  This is the only argument against euthanasia which I recognise. For the rest, I am a keen supporter of this basic right of life - the right  for death. Attempts to prevent this are not only cruel and inhumane, but also border on attempts to assume the functions of the Almighty, If He disagrees, I am sure he will be able to deal with it without human decisions.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Paulfromitaly said:


> Today the Roman Catholic clergy have denied Mr Welby and all his relatives and friends the right to celebrate the funeral, since he expressed the will of dying.
> Is this an example of Christian mercy?


 

 NO. And as a member of the Church I am most aggrieved to admit that this is one of the shameful things we are going through. Hopefully, we will be able to overcome it soon the way we overcame many other dreadful things in our history.


----------



## tvdxer

VenusEnvy said:


> In California, lawmakers are debating a law which allows the terminally ill to choose the right to die. (the article) Some say that if you are given 6 months or less to live, and know that those months will be in pain, you have the right to choose to end your own life.
> 
> What would you do? Do you agree with the law? What does your country say about euthanasia, or assisted suicide?



I would choose to live, because that's the right decision.

I am completely against assisted suicide.  Nobody has a "right" to end their life, and nobody can end anothers' simply because they give consent.   That's God's decision and His alone.  Human life is sacred, not to be disrupted, and intentionally ending it is gravely unethical. 

In my opinion, things like assisted suicide are a symptom of a society that no longer sees the sacred inherent in anything.  Everything becomes a matter of choice, and morals and ethics an individual decision.  "Sacred" becomes merely a term given to certain things by a society, rather than a true reality.  Since life carries no absolute value, and there is no absolute prohibition on ending it past the individual's wishes, assisted suicide becomes acceptable, even a right.


----------



## maxiogee

tvdxer said:


> I would choose to live, because that's the right decision.


You seem exceedingly certain - without even having any background upon which to base the decision.

Let us hope that you never come to be in a position to have to make the decision. Hypotheticals can often fly out the window hwen hard cases come in the door.




> I am completely against assisted suicide. Nobody has a "right" to end their life, and nobody can end anothers' simply because they give consent. That's *my* God's decision and His alone. Human life is sacred *in my religious views*, not to be disrupted, and intentionally ending it is gravely unethical.


My emphasis added to make your statements more validly personal and not appear to be the universal truths which you seem to think they are.




> In my opinion, things like assisted suicide are a symptom of a society that no longer sees the sacred inherent in anything. Everything becomes a matter of choice, and morals and ethics an individual decision. "Sacred" becomes merely a term given to certain things by a society, rather than a true reality. Since life carries no absolute value, and there is no absolute prohibition on ending it past the individual's wishes, assisted suicide becomes acceptable, even a right.


 
Perhaps you would be good enough to define the meaning of 'sacred' here. WordRef's definitions are 
*sacred* *A*_adjective_
*1 **sacred*
_(often followed by `to') devoted exclusively to a single use or purpose or person; "a fund sacred to charity"; "a morning hour sacred to study"; "a private office sacred to the President" _
*2 *consecrated, *sacred*, sanctified
_made or declared or believed to be holy; devoted to a deity or some religious ceremony or use; "a consecrated chursh"; "the sacred mosque"; "sacred elephants"; "sacred bread and wine"; "sanctified wine" _
*3 *hallowed, *sacred*
_worthy of religious veneration; "the sacred name of Jesus"; "Jerusalem's hallowed soil" _
*4 **sacred*
_concerned with religion or religious purposes; "sacred texts"; "sacred rites"; "sacred music" _
*5 **sacred*
_worthy of respect or dedication; "saw motherhood as woman's sacred calling" _

In the absence of a universally acknowledged deity, or even the universally acknowledged existant of any deity, I don't see what agreement can be expected on the concept of anything being 'sacred'


----------



## tvdxer

maxiogee said:


> You seem exceedingly certain - without even having any background upon which to base the decision.
> 
> Let us hope that you never come to be in a position to have to make the decision. Hypotheticals can often fly out the window hwen hard cases come in the door.



If I was in so bad a situation, I might be tempted to choose to end my life or have it ended, but that does not make it right.  It only would make me wrong.



> My emphasis added to make your statements more validly personal and not appear to be the universal truths which you seem to think they are.



Your emphasis (actually mincing my words) was only rude, a violation of common-sense etiquette, and reduces your credibility as a debater on this forum.  

Do you not believe it is true that human life has inherent value?  Why is killing considered wrong?

If you wish to debate rights, obligations, or ethics as they apply to situations, you must assume the existence of universals.  Otherwise such debates are completely pointless: why argue that is wrong for me to take away your "right" to choose to be killed when there is no real basis for such rights to begin with?

(Any idea of "rights" presupposes morals)



> Perhaps you would be good enough to define the meaning of 'sacred' here. WordRef's definitions are
> *sacred* *A*_adjective_
> *1 **sacred*
> _(often followed by `to') devoted exclusively to a single use or purpose or person; "a fund sacred to charity"; "a morning hour sacred to study"; "a private office sacred to the President" _
> *2 *consecrated, *sacred*, sanctified
> _made or declared or believed to be holy; devoted to a deity or some religious ceremony or use; "a consecrated chursh"; "the sacred mosque"; "sacred elephants"; "sacred bread and wine"; "sanctified wine" _
> *3 *hallowed, *sacred*
> _worthy of religious veneration; "the sacred name of Jesus"; "Jerusalem's hallowed soil" _
> *4 **sacred*
> _concerned with religion or religious purposes; "sacred texts"; "sacred rites"; "sacred music" _
> *5 **sacred*
> _worthy of respect or dedication; "saw motherhood as woman's sacred calling" _
> 
> In the absence of a universally acknowledged deity, or even the universally acknowledged existant of any deity, I don't see what agreement can be expected on the concept of anything being 'sacred'



By sacred, I mean possessing an intrinsic value that morally obliges respect and *reverence* for the possessor.  

Simply choosing to end a life because it has become painful, seems bleak, or because you're depressed (which could be the end result of this whole legalized euthanasia thing; after all, if we can't make legislation based on the idea of life having intrinsic value which must be respected, because it is "religious" or contradicts the views of some atheists, why can't we allow those who want to terminate their lives to do so for any reason?  In the absence of absolute morals, who are WE to say what reasons are acceptable and which aren't?) does not seem to qualify as treating it with reverence or respect.  

Simply because some in a country do not acknowledge the existence of something, be it a deity, a right to life, or a right to property, does not mean one can not legislate with such things in mind.  Those who are in disagreement will have to put up with such laws, or they can move out of the country.  Lawmakers are not obliged to accept all systems of belief; otherwise, laws could not be made.


----------



## .   1

VenusEnvy said:


> In California, lawmakers are debating a law which allows the terminally ill to choose the right to die. (the article) Some say that if you are given 6 months or less to live, and know that those months will be in pain, you have the right to choose to end your own life.
> 
> What would you do? Do you agree with the law? What does your country say about euthanasia, or assisted suicide?


I would do it now and I would assist any person with whom I have intimate relations to suicide if they asked me to do so and I would do it in a way so as to ensure that there was no question of suicide so that nosey parkers would have no excuse to poke their unwelcome prurience in private places.

.,,


----------



## cuchuflete

VenusEnvy posed a question about a person facing certain death within 6 months, with pain to look forward to up to that point.

Who would sentence the victim to up to six months of pain?

Some, but fortunately not all, of the medical profession might, just because they can.  They would artificially extend the functioning of a sick or worn-out body, and pump it full of anti-pain and mind-numbing drugs.  That is indecent and obscene.

Who else would prevent the person from exercising their dignity as a sentient being in a failing physical organism?   (dignity: the quality of being worthy of esteem or respect).  The usual suspects:
Those who take fiendish, ghoulish pleasure in trying to control the actions of those who have other values.  These people strut about proclaiming what is moral, not only for themselves, but for all others. The logical grounds for such declarations are, in essence, that it’s the way most people think, and therefore must be obeyed. No, tyranny of the majority is not new, but that doesn’t make it more just or more moral, just more appalling.  It has been used to justify other horrors too numerous to list in full, but the slave trade and the holocaust were acceptable to majorities.


----------



## TimLA

In situations such as this, death is a subtle process.

First, though survival models exist, their accuracy in predicting a survival of 0.5 + 0.1 years is far from adequate. This is seen on a daily basis with hospice services. Generally, to become a hospice patient, you need a diagnosis in which the estimated survival is less than six months. There are many patients who outlive that estimate significantly - often by a year or so.

Second, in my opinion, it should be the decision of a mentally competent patient (and/or family) as to when and how they die. The fact is, the vast majority of patients choose to live a "little longer" to spend time with their friends and family - as long as their pain is reasonably controlled. When their pain and suffering reach a point that it is no longer tolerable, they will often ask for hospice services.

Note my use of "competent". There are patients - some perfectly viable -who are so depressed that they wish to die as soon as possible. Yet with appropriate therapy, their mental state can change and they can literally survive for years. An important part of this equation is the ability of the patient to make those decisions.

Third, in my opinion, the issue is more of politics not of reality. This is because of the concept of "hospice", which is/are ubiquitous in that almost all home health organizations have multiple relationships with hospices. Hospices are no longer those dingy buildings where one goes to die. Most hospice care now occurs in the home or in a medical setting outside of a hospital. Hospice can coordinate all care and can provide all the pain medication necessary to help the family and the patient down that dark tunnel.

Fourth, there is no reason for a patient to be in pain for six months. Appropriate evaluation and therapy can manage severe pain in the vast majority, if not all cases. This is a red herring.

Finally, assisted suicide occurs every day - just not so named. Anyone who has ever worked in an oncology ward or worked with a hospice program knows that medication doses can be "adjusted" to "help" the patient. A common order on an oncology ward might be "titrate morphine drip to respiratory rate >4/min" - this is clearly a euphemism - this is "controlled death". The same occurs at home, when the hospice personnel say, "why don't you give grampa an extra cc of the morphine syrup".

As with most things political, arguments such as this generate more heat than light.
Should "assisted suicide" be available?
In my opinion yes, and it is at present.
Should a patient suffer for six months from a terminal illness?
In my opinion no, and if they do, their healthcare system has failed them and they need to switch systems.
Should the government be involved in making complex medical decisions?
In my opinion no - it's difficult enough without their intervention (they can't even balance a budget). I'm not sure we need goulish administrators strutting about saying when and where a patient should die.


NB - These comments only apply to the US...I know little about other systems.


----------



## cuchuflete

Thank you TimLA, for a compassionate and accurate statement.

I have a minor quibble with one small piece of it:

Appropriate evaluation and therapy can manage severe pain in the vast majority, if not all cases. This is a red herring  _in the vast majority of cases, not all_.


----------



## TimLA

cuchuflete said:


> I have a minor quibble with one small piece of it:
> Appropriate evaluation and therapy can manage severe pain in the vast majority, if not all cases. This is a red herring _in the vast majority of cases, not all_.


 
Point conceded!!


----------



## cuchuflete

Further thought for those who declare that a person should not be allowed to end their own life under certain conditions--  Do you believe in, or have you ever participated in, taking a dying pet to a veterinarian to "put it down" or "put it out of its misery"?  If so, why do you allow for such humane treatment of a pet, and wish to deny it to a person?


----------



## maxiogee

tvdxer said:


> Your emphasis (actually mincing my words) was only rude, a violation of common-sense etiquette, and reduces your credibility as a debater on this forum.


I didn't "mince" anything.
You made a blanket assertion about a deity - one of many worshipped around the world. You make the same presumption as many other people - that 'your' deity is the only one there is. I pulled you up on that.

I don't like to see sloppy thinking and I have even less time for such simplistic statements as "human life is sacred" when it is patently obvious by the volume of murder and slaughter happening all over the world that many, many people don't agree with you.




> Do you not believe it is true that human life has inherent value? Why is killing considered wrong?


I haven't said where I stand on human life. I haven't said anything about the wrongness, or otherwise, of killing. 
What I do remember saying on these forums is that I don't have any right to take anyone else's life - but in saying that I speak only for myself.




> By sacred, I mean possessing an intrinsic value that morally obliges respect and *reverence* for the possessor.


I do not see the evidence to prove the sacredness of life anywhere around me.
The world is full of people prepared to (and machinery designed to) slaughter their fellows at the drop of a hat.
It would appeart that this has been the state of affairs ever since man first came down from the trees in the primeval forests and walked out onto the grasslands.




> Simply because some in a country do not acknowledge the existence of something, be it a deity, a right to life, or a right to property, does not mean one can not legislate with such things in mind. Those who are in disagreement will have to put up with such laws, or they can move out of the country. Lawmakers are not obliged to accept all systems of belief; otherwise, laws could not be made.


And vice versa.
Countries can choose not to legislate with such things in mind - then see the outcry as those who would have their religious views reflected in legislation are told that they can leave the country if they don't like it.
You say "Lawmakers are not obliged to accept all systems of belief" - why should they be obliged to accept _any_?


----------



## Athaulf

tvdxer said:


> I would choose to live, because that's the right decision.



It's easy to issue such proclamations from an armchair, but I'm pretty confident that you would not.  If tormented hard enough and faced with an utter loss of all hope and dignity, you would most likely wish and beg for death, just like (almost) everyone else.


----------



## Bonjules

Saoul said:


> Piergiorgio Welby, 61 ann....this man was not granted the right to die serenely.





Saoul said:


> I'm the son of a man who took ten years to die, and this is like living that all again.
> Now please think about what you did in the last ten years. The boys/girls you've kissed, the wine you sipped, the love you made, the books you read, the movies you watched, the laughs you laughed, the smile you gave, the tears you spilled, the friends you hugged, the job you did. Now think that none of these happened and you had only a bed and more pain than you can take....




This is a very good description of the situation.
It is always amazing to me how so many who have not been around hospitals much or have otherwise seen a lot of people die express themselves about the subject with such ease.

Few physicians ever regret having helped terminate the suffering of those who asked them for this final service because their situation has become unbearable.
After all it is not 'just' pain. Imagine the dread of having to struggle for each breath, knowing it will only get worse until you drown in you own lungs...
What you regret is the times you buckled, because some child or nephew - usually calling from far away, who has not visited in 5 or 10 years - insists on 'having everything done', which of course is a lot these days.
You do remember the disappointment in their faces,  the sense of betrayal they experience, if you, the only one who can help them, cave in out of fear.
You remember it very well indeed, the sights, the noises they make, even the smells. They haunt you until the day you die yourself.
saludos


----------



## Setwale_Charm

tvdxer said:


> I would choose to live, because that's the right decision.


  But who is to decide that? Life is as precious as you feel it to be. Who, except yourself, can estimate the value of your life? Who has the right to do it? 
  And nobody minds your choosing life!! Euthanasia is all about freedom of choice. Nobody can force you into this. If you want to choose life and fight for it - may God be your help. But if you don`t, this should also be respected, entirely. 
 It is all about every individual`s own perspective.


----------



## tvdxer

maxiogee said:


> I didn't "mince" anything.
> You made a blanket assertion about a deity - one of many worshipped around the world. You make the same presumption as many other people - that 'your' deity is the only one there is. I pulled you up on that.



Yes, that is my presumption and I am certain about it.  I will support lawmakers who legislate based on my beliefs, and if those who lack a belief in something so essential as God do not agree on theistic inspirations or basis for laws, that's their problem.  However, I don't think belief in a God is necessary to oppose euthanasia.  Certainly, all one needs to do is see human life as possessing an inherent value, without exception.  



> I don't like to see sloppy thinking and I have even less time for such simplistic statements as "human life is sacred" when it is patently obvious by the volume of murder and slaughter happening all over the world that many, many people don't agree with you.


 
Yes, and they're wrong.  Actually, many of those committing or supporting such slaughters probably believe human life is sacred in general, just certain ones aren't.  But that's beside the point.

What's wrong with these slaughters?

What's wrong with genocide?

What's wrong with murder?

Answer this.  



> I haven't said where I stand on human life. I haven't said anything about the wrongness, or otherwise, of killing.
> What I do remember saying on these forums is that I don't have any right to take anyone else's life - but in saying that I speak only for myself.



And from where do you derive these rights or lack thereof?



> I do not see the evidence to prove the sacredness of life anywhere around me.
> The world is full of people prepared to (and machinery designed to) slaughter their fellows at the drop of a hat.
> It would appeart that this has been the state of affairs ever since man first came down from the trees in the primeval forests and walked out onto the grasslands.



The idea that human life is something to be respected is common sense.  In almost all societies, this is the case.  That's not to say most societies do not make exceptions to the rule - some make many, and that's where sanctioned killings come in.  And of course there are many who choose to differ from the norms and murder.  But this does not do anything to disprove the general rule - it only shows that it is not always obeyed.



> And vice versa.
> Countries can choose not to legislate with such things in mind - then see the outcry as those who would have their religious views reflected in legislation are told that they can leave the country if they don't like it.
> You say "Lawmakers are not obliged to accept all systems of belief" - why should they be obliged to accept _any_?



There is a difference between legislation based on the recognition of the natural law, right and wrong, legislation based on frauds or erroneous notions of it, and legislation based on simply ignoring it or pretending it's not there.  

In the case of euthanasia, as well as in any other case, we need principles to start from.  The idea that human life is something to treat with extreme reverence and value, no matter how hard it may be, is essential to my line of reasoning.  Such extreme reverence precludes intentional termination of a human life.  That would be no less than destroying the sacred.

My own reasoning and that of many others tells me that euthanasia is unacceptable and should not be tolerated under any legal system.  To me, at least, those who disagree are in error, and lawmakers should not take erroneous systems of thought into account.  The primary error of those supporting assisted suicide seems to be the lack of a concept of sanctity of human life.  Indeed, many probably recognize no real sanctity in anything, simply because their materialist or relativistic mindset does not permit such abstract, "religious" concepts like universal morality.  Yet they want to say it is not OK to forbid euthansia, acting as if it is _wrong_.  That leads me to my question for you, Maxiogee:

*Tell me this: what's wrong with me forbidding others from killing themselves?*  Honestly, answer this question.  If you didn't think there was something wrong with it, we wouldn't be having this debate.


----------



## .   1

tvdxer said:


> *Tell me this: what's wrong with me forbidding others from killing themselves?* Honestly, answer this question. If you didn't think there was something wrong with it, we wouldn't be having this debate.


What's wrong with me forbidding you from forbidding others from killing themselves?

.,,


----------



## Flaminius

When they televised Space Shuttle Colombia shooting down in flames, I hoped that the crew would die as soon and painlessly as possible.  Hoping for someone's death is terrible in ordinary situations but, if nothing can be done to save the life, death can be the only succour.  If a terminally-ill patient decides to quicken his death, which is inevitable and more dehumanising, then the choice should be respected.  Doctors who have enough expertise to determine that it is indeed a "Colombia case" may well assist the patient's suicide.

However, here enter practical concerns.  Medicine is a system for saving lives.  Before discussing euthanasia, should we not be interested in what can be done to elongate life at the same time guaranteeing quality of life?  Freedom of choice is oft a pretext for forcing a particular choice not necessarily beneficial for the chooser.  Are hospital staff not always pressured to  						create as many as possible unoccupied beds?  Who benefits most from creating an extra empty bed by euthanasia, between the patient and the hospital?  Don't forget the family who "cannot see you in pain any longer."

I personally don't like to "fight the illness till the very end" if that means that I will be reduced to a demented heap of pain but I don't know if I can make a sound choice with so much fear, doubt and confusion as likely in the terminal ward.


----------



## maxiogee

tvdxer said:


> Yes, that is my presumption and I am certain about it.  I will support lawmakers who legislate based on my beliefs, and if those who lack a belief in something so essential as God do not agree on theistic inspirations or basis for laws, that's their problem.


And what happens when the lawmakers legislate based on other people's beliefs - what then?

How would you feel if after the next elections, the local legislature where you live were you live were to impose laws based on a religious tradition totally at variance with yours?

It's so easy for you to say what you support, and what those who don't like that can do, when you have it already. But what about (a) those who disagree with you - should they really just crawl away in the night and not disturb your cosy relationship with your legislators, and (b) what steps would you take were you to find yourself not catered for by the legislators?







> Yes, and they're wrong.


Again, according to your preferrred moral viewpoint.
To many people human life just _isn't_ sacred. It's cheap, disposable and valueless, and they have social customs which back that up.





> And from where do you derive these rights or lack thereof?


This is about the most sensible question you've asked - but then you don't tend to ask many questions, do you? You know the answers already. You make assertions unfounded on any facts or proofs.
My 'lack of rights' is derived from my own analysis of my relationships with the rest of humanity, and from my experience of life to date. At root my rights / lack of rights stem from my most-inherent belief that I should do no wrong to anyone else. My understanding of those wrongs being dependent on how I would feel if they were done to me.
My guide for knowing these rights and wrongs is very obviously rooted in my comfortable, modern, middle-class life. Things I accept as wrongs now would most likely become rights were I to be uprooted and placed into a different survival-threatened existence.






> There is a difference between legislation based on the recognition of the natural law, right and wrong,


You have mentioned 'natural law'  previously but never defined nor codified it. What makes it 'law'? Wherein lies the 'law' part of it - is it like the law of gravity - a constant throughout nature, or is it more a "mankind ought to ..." sort of thing?





> In the case of euthanasia, as well as in any other case, we need principles to start from.  The idea that human life is something to treat with extreme reverence and value, no matter how hard it may be, is essential to my line of reasoning.  Such extreme reverence precludes intentional termination of a human life.  That would be no less than destroying the sacred.


Just as I, if I wished to, could walk off into a remote place and statve myself to death, or throw myself from a tall place and dash my brains out at the bottom, so I ought to be able to end my life in a medical way, if I wished. You may say that my life is sacred, and that you would be aghast that anyone might ask you, were you in extremis, if you wished to end your life, but that shouldn't give you the power to inflict legislastion on others in this regard.




> My own reasoning and that of many others tells me that euthanasia is unacceptable and should not be tolerated under any legal system.


And my reasoning, and that of may others tells me that you are 'in error'.

The difference between us is that you are requiring that I should be legally constrained by laws which reflect your belief.




> *Tell me this: what's wrong with me forbidding others from killing themselves?*  Honestly, answer this question.  If you didn't think there was something wrong with it, we wouldn't be having this debate.


Firstly two minor questions - How does my (legally) killing myself threaten you, or make you life any different than it would otherwise be? Why does my continued existence or my death concern you?
 and finally ......

What gives you the right to do this forbidding?
By what authority do you claim to be the arbiter of when life should end?You profess a deity. 
Did this deity create mankind?
Did this deity instill absolute free will into each of us? (with limited exceptions)
To whom has this deity given authority to interpose themselves in the relationship between the deity and its creations?​


----------



## Bonjules

Flaminius said:


> ..... Don't forget the family who "cannot see you in pain any longer."
> 
> I personally don't like to "fight the illness till the very end" if that means that I will be reduced to a demented heap of pain but I don't know if I can make a sound choice with so much fear, doubt and confusion as likely in the terminal ward.


I am not sure, but it sounds like you are alluding to the family who has less than honorable motives for agreeing
to not carry out further futile treatment.
The problem is that as a physician you never really know what the motives of the family are, in either case, whether they want that you carry on treatment or not, whether they want that you help someone die or not. It is impossible to know, even if you think you 'know' them; furthermore, they are often divided themselves.
That is why your last point is so important: 
Everybody should leave very clear and detailed instructions covering as many scenarios as possible while they are perfectly well and not under the duress
of acute illness and fear.
Furthermore, the line between when you can agree to things and when not is often fluid or can change suddenly. If there are no clear instructions, you are right back to square one : Trying to figure out what is in the 'best interest' of the patient and balancing that with 'what the family wants', the true motivation for which,as pointed out, you really have no idea about (could be anything, love, hate, compassion, greed, revenge, inter-sibling conflicts, work pressures and problems, anything really.


----------



## Flaminius

> The problem is that as a physician you never really know what the motives of the family are (...)


I agree with what you said above concerning my points but in the previous post I was trying to say that family as well as doctors and co-medicals have various motivations to influence the choice of the patient.  For the latter, I have doubts that some of their motivations run counter to the very missions of medicine.

I might be sounding full of irony and contradictions but freedom of choice can become imposition 					of choice when upheld as a social institution.  I have brought this concern up in this thread since medical staff and family are conceived in many posts here as exclusively reacting to the decision of the patient.  Probably most of them are doing just that, not provided with any legal foundation for euthanasia today.  Yet, with euthanasia legalised, it is anticipated that many parties around the patient would try to influence his decision for euthanasia.  If no influence is desirable at all, then legalising euthanasia is impossible.  If some influence are to be recognised, we should at least a good system of check and balance is also instituted.


----------



## Bonjules

Flaminius said:


> On the first point, I would hope so, too, flaminius.
> But realistically, doctors are also subject to many influences and are not all total saints. Just consider that many, many, particularly in the Primary Care field more or less constantly work on the margin of mental and physical exhaustion(the glamour of the profession is vastly overrated in the public perception). Having struggled with a particular situation for days and weeks, numerous phone calls, conferences....you might very well be tempted to come to some kind of resolution.
> That is why I wholeheartedly agree: any kind of legislation, while necessary in my opinion, needs to be very carefully crafted with plenty of safeguards against abuse.
> The biggest advantage, as I see it, would actually be to bring the issue finally completely out of the closet; to bring about a demension of realism and honesty which right now is lacking: Since traditionally nobody wants to bring up the issue, the patient often interprets the doctor's silence - while things are well- as a taboo he is not supposed to breach. If it it is brought up when severely ill, the patient is already scared and asks : Doctor, are you telling me I'm gonna die?
> 
> T I believe that his legislation, in fact just a broad societal debate about it, would go a long way to create a level of honesty and trust that is sorely needed.


----------



## cuchuflete

> *what's wrong with me forbidding others from killing themselves?*



1. It's wrong to put decision making authority in the hands of a person, any person,
who ignores the value in the thinking of those who have different perspectives.
2. It's wrong to allow a relatively young zealot to make judgments, and impose them on
people who have struggled with difficult questions for decades, and have come up with a variety of
conclusions, some of which contradict not only the young zealot, but also other thoughtful and intelligent folks who have pursued similar struggles with these difficult concepts.
3. One size does not fit all.
4. Needless meddling in other people's affairs contradicts natural law.
5. My deity is bigger and better than your deity.
6. I would rather show compassion than claim omniscience.


----------



## emma42

tvdxer said:


> _Yes, that is my presumption and I am certain about it.  I will support lawmakers who legislate based on my beliefs, and if those who lack a belief in something so essential as God do not agree on theistic inspirations or basis for laws, that's their problem._/quote]
> 
> "Blessed are the meek".


----------



## Dandee

Hola a todos: 
Yo me pregunto ¿Son de la misma categoría el dolor físico o emocional y la vida misma. ¿Una persona que sufre tremendos padecimientos físicos que solicita el suicidio asistido goza en plenitud de una verdadera opción cuando cambia su padecimiento por su propia vida?. ¿Es una solicitud atendible cuando se sabe que es una opción desesperada y desesperanzada?¿Es realmente un derecho el suicidio?.
¿Están en un mismo nivel de juicio y consciencia aquel que pide la muerte por sufrimiento y el que recibe la petición?. ¿Es piedad la del que asiste o o simplemente se trata de evitarse el sufrimiento de ver sufrir al otro?.

Dandee.


----------



## GenJen54

> *what's wrong with me forbidding others from killing themselves?*


What's wrong with you forbidding others from killing themselves is that you are taking away their right of self-determinism.

If I am in the end stages of a painful, debilitating disease, no one has the "right" to impose their self-righteous, moralistic views on how my life's transcendence should play out...whether I choose to allow nature to take its course, souped up on drugs that hold the shell of my body alive for the sake of some moral crusade, or die in a means I feel is dignified to me and my loved ones, going in peace with complete awareness of my transcendence.

Perhaps the fact that I don't believe in the "Christian" idea of "heaven" or "hell" has something to do with it.

The bottom line is, you have no more right to dictate your mores on my life choices than I have the right to dictate my mores on you, as long as my choices do not affect you directly.  Bottom line, it's not your bleepin' business.


----------



## Bonjules

*Cowgirl* said:


> Great topic!.......... I've seen what 12 or 13 years of Alzheimers can do to a family, it's very stressful and costly. This family was dragged through an emotional pig sty. But, I also see that if this is approved it will be misused and will cause problems, so I just don't know.


 
Dementia is truly one of the most difficult situations to deal with. In terms of this thread, a patient would have to ask for help to die while he/she is well enough to fully understand the implications......not very likely (there was a case of a musician woman who was astute enough to realize what was happening and chose not to wait).
 Nontheless Alzheimers dramatically forces us to account for what we mean - life?
If it is 'sacred' - what is it in the first place? Breathing? Excreting? Eating? Eating on your own or being fed?
If one for some time has not known who one is or why one is here -  is he/she him/her still? With the essence of what made them 'them' totally gone, what are we preserving? A caricature of themselves? Would they like it if they could watch from a little corner?
Would they feel there is 'dignity' in this?
Just asking the question. Not offering pat solutions.


----------



## tvdxer

GenJen54 said:


> What's wrong with you forbidding others from killing themselves is that you are taking away their right of self-determinism.
> 
> If I am in the end stages of a painful, debilitating disease, no one has the "right" to impose their self-righteous, moralistic views on how my life's transcendence should play out...whether I choose to allow nature to take its course, souped up on drugs that hold the shell of my body alive for the sake of some moral crusade, or die in a means I feel is dignified to me and my loved ones, going in peace with complete awareness of my transcendence.



Therein lies the problem.

By telling legislators / me / whoever I can't take away your right to kill yourself or the rights of others to do so with your consent, you're imposing YOUR moralistic views on me by saying I can't impose them on you.  Why can't I "determine" to forbid others from killing you with your consent?  Yes, I've heard it before - because my self-determinism ends when it affects others.  But where is this notion from?  What grounding in reality does it have, or is just based on YOUR opinion or YOUR morals, just like my belief supposedly is only based on my own morality, which does not make it apply to all?  If that's the case, I don't see how you could argue it has any more absolute value than my system - and hence this whole debate is absolutely pointless.


----------



## emma42

Because your "self-determism ends when it affects others".  Why would you need to ask where this notion is from or what "grounding in reality" it has?  Do you ask this of your choices about yourself?  It is grounded in the reality that a person's body is their own affair.


----------



## tvdxer

emma42 said:


> Because your "self-determism ends when it affects others".  Why would you need to ask where this notion is from or what "grounding in reality" it has?  Do you ask this of your choices about yourself?  It is grounded in the reality that a person's body is their own affair.



Why?

Couldn't I say that's your personal morality, just like my religion or my belief in the natural law supposedly is?  Isn't "a person's body is their own affair" alluding to some kind of moral law?


----------



## emma42

The difference is that I am not wanting to impose my views on anyone else.  So whether you wish to call it "personal morality" or anything else is immaterial.  I merely wish people to have a choice.  This is imposing nothing on anyone else.

You haven't answered my questions - you have every right not to, of course -  but I would be interested in your answers.


----------



## cuchuflete

tvdxer said:


> Why can't I "determine" to forbid others from killing you with your consent?  Yes, I've heard it before - because my self-determinism ends when it affects others.  But where is this notion from?  What grounding in reality does it have?...



My reality is based on the anti-busybody principle, which has been a fundamental tenet of civilization for thousands of years.  It establishes that what I do under my own roof, and with whom, and how I treat my own body, are none of your (expletive deleted) business.  When busybodies decide that they are smart enough and moral enough and wise enough and clever enough to be useful in my
personal affairs, they are welcome to pay the mortgage, clean the bathrooms, mow the lawn, wash the dishes and then put their arrogant notions up for inspection.  Unless and until they prove themselves worthy, I intend to continue to inform meddlers and busybodies that I have no need of their services, thank you very much.


----------



## .   1

tvdxer said:


> By telling legislators / me / whoever I can't take away your right to kill yourself or the rights of others to do so with your consent, you're imposing YOUR moralistic views on me by saying I can't impose them on you.


That hurt my mind.  that has to take an award for being the most convolutedly lame excuse for interfering in the affairs of others.



tvdxer said:


> Why can't I "determine" to forbid others from killing you with your consent?


 Why can't I "determine" to forbid you to forbid others from killing you with your consent?



tvdxer said:


> Yes, I've heard it before - because my self-determinism ends when it affects others. But where is this notion from? What grounding in reality does it have, or is just based on YOUR opinion or YOUR morals, just like my belief supposedly is only based on my own morality, which does not make it apply to all?


If your morality does not apply to all why are you trying to apply it to all?



tvdxer said:


> If that's the case, I don't see how you could argue it has any more absolute value than my system - and hence this whole debate is absolutely pointless.


Why enter it?

.,,


----------



## Kajjo

Like in the case of many other issues, I again believe that personal liberty is the predominant aspect here. As long as your actions does not immediately affect others in an unacceptable manner, you should be free to do with your body and your life whatever you desire. Thus, people having a clear mind should naturally be allowed to choose to die.

Religious points are of  utterly no importance here, because religion is a very personal matter. Someone who cannot commit suicide because of his religion, surely should not commit suicide. Again, it's his free choice. Allowing other people to commit suicide does not at all influence the range of choices for believers.

Kajjo


----------



## maxiogee

Kajjo said:


> Religious points are of  utterly no importance here, because religion is a very personal matter. Someone who cannot commit suicide because of his religion, surely should not commit suicide. Again, it's his free choice. Allowing other people to commit suicide does not at all influence the range of choices for believers.
> 
> Kajjo



This is one of the few points where I agree that religion should have no influence on law. If X wishes to commit suicide it in no way impinges on anyone else's existence. I can appreciate that allowing divorce can threaten the marriage of a person who opposes divorce or that judicial execution is a threat to the life of every person subject to the law where such applies, but in this and some other cases one person's action can have no legal effect on another. No precedent can be set, or cause pleaded, which would force another to commit suicide unwillingly on the grounds that X successfully committed suicide some time earlier.


----------



## tvdxer

emma42 said:


> The difference is that I am not wanting to impose my views on anyone else.  So whether you wish to call it "personal morality" or anything else is immaterial.  I merely wish people to have a choice.  This is imposing nothing on anyone else.
> 
> You haven't answered my questions - you have every right not to, of course -  but I would be interested in your answers.



You haven't answered MY question...you're imposing your morality on me by telling me I can't impose mine on others.  In fact, all who advocate euthanasia are imposing some kind of morality, or referring to some kind of moral system (which many of you don't think exists outside your own minds or cultures), by saying we *should *act to have the laws changed to permit euthanasia.

Why do I ask about a "grounding in reality"?  You ask me where my morals or conception of the "natural law" come from.  I try to explain and you all go "Ahhh, religion, you can't impose those beliefs on me, blah, blah." or "you made that up, it's YOUR natural law."  But at the same time I must ask where your idea that euthanasia should permitted comes from.  After all, as I said in the last paragraph, because you think it *should *be legal you are implying some sort of morality.  And is your morality really nothing more than personal, like you say mine is?  If we are both just speaking from our personal senses of morality and nothing more, why should we even be having this debate?


----------



## tvdxer

cuchuflete said:


> My reality is based on the anti-busybody principle, which has been a fundamental tenet of civilization for thousands of years.  It establishes that what I do under my own roof, and with whom, and how I treat my own body, are none of your (expletive deleted) business.  When busybodies decide that they are smart enough and moral enough and wise enough and clever enough to be useful in my
> personal affairs, they are welcome to pay the mortgage, clean the bathrooms, mow the lawn, wash the dishes and then put their arrogant notions up for inspection.  Unless and until they prove themselves worthy, I intend to continue to inform meddlers and busybodies that I have no need of their services, thank you very much.



You don't understand.

Euthanasia, at least how the word is usually used, normally involves more than one person - simply killing oneself is simply suicide.  "Assisted" suicide implies that somebody is assisting the person committing suicide.  I'm not so interested in telling you not to kill yourself (although those trying to do so should be referred to psychological help or prevented from doing so, as they are acting in a fashion that is obviously irrational), but rather to forbid others from killing you.  Killing without consent and killing with consent are equally killing, both homicide, both the intentional taking of human life, which I hope we can conclude is wrong.


----------



## .   1

tvdxer said:


> You don't understand.
> 
> Euthanasia, at least how the word is usually used, normally involves more than one person - simply killing oneself is simply suicide. "Assisted" suicide implies that somebody is assisting the person committing suicide. I'm not so interested in telling you not to kill yourself (although those trying to do so should be referred to psychological help or prevented from doing so, as they are acting in a fashion that is obviously irrational), but rather to forbid others from killing you.


Upon what do you base this pronouncment.
Why is the desire to end my own life obviously irrational.
I fail to see any rationality in living beyond the point of diminishimg returns.
Why should someone like you have any say whatsoever in what I do with the last few months of my miserable existence once I am no longer able to cope with the dreadful nausea and diarreah and constipation and bedsores and incontinence and mind numbing pain and creeping-jesus attitute around me.
If worse comes to worse I'llk eat my gun and splatter my brains over the ceiling but I hope that I would be left alone by serpiginous busybodies and allowed some dignity as I leave the world.



tvdxer said:


> Killing without consent and killing with consent are equally killing, both homicide, both the intentional taking of human life, which I hope we can conclude is wrong.


Saddam Hussein was assisted to suicide so it can't be concluded that assisted suicide or suicide is universally wrong based on your particular logic.

.,,


----------



## emma42

tvdxer said:


> You haven't answered MY question...you're imposing your morality on me by telling me I can't impose mine on others.  In fact, all who advocate euthanasia are imposing some kind of morality, or referring to some kind of moral system (which many of you don't think exists outside your own minds or cultures), by saying we *should *act to have the laws changed to permit euthanasia.
> 
> Why do I ask about a "grounding in reality"?  You ask me where my morals or conception of the "natural law" come from.  I try to explain and you all go "Ahhh, religion, you can't impose those beliefs on me, blah, blah." or "you made that up, it's YOUR natural law."  But at the same time I must ask where your idea that euthanasia should permitted comes from.  After all, as I said in the last paragraph, because you think it *should *be legal you are implying some sort of morality.  And is your morality really nothing more than personal, like you say mine is?  If we are both just speaking from our personal senses of morality and nothing more, why should we even be having this debate?



This is circular.  You wish to deny choice - that is imposition.  I wish to confer choice - that is not imposition.  

You need to learn to distinguish between personal morality and the conferring of choice upon all so that all can follow the tenets of _their_ personal moralities.

Concepts such as "natural law" cannot be proven or argued by means of religious faith, as religious faith is just that - faith, not proof or science.
Of course, you have a right to your faith, but you cannot expect others who do not share that faith to accept arguments based on your faith, rather than intellectuality.


----------



## .   1

emma42 said:


> Of course, you have a right to your faith, but you cannot expect others who do not share that faith to accept arguments based on your faith, rather than intellectuality.


This is the most obviously wrongest statement I have read for years.

.,,


----------



## emma42

I don't understand what you're saying, dotcommacomma.


----------



## cuchuflete

tvdxer said:


> You don't understand.
> 
> Euthanasia, at least how the word is usually used, normally involves more than one person - simply killing oneself is simply suicide.  "Assisted" suicide implies that somebody is assisting the person committing suicide.  I'm not so interested in telling you not to kill yourself (although those trying to do so should be referred to psychological help or prevented from doing so, as they are acting in a fashion that is obviously irrational), but rather to forbid others from killing you.  Killing without consent and killing with consent are equally killing, both homicide, both the intentional taking of human life, which I hope we can conclude is wrong.



That a busybody would be a simplistic reductionist, knowing what is right and what is wrong for all others in all circumstances, does not lessen the extent of busyness or busyeattitude.  If a person with very little time to live may prefer not to spend it drugged up to avoid excruciating pain is their affair, not mine.  If they should engage a compassionate helper, that is between the two of them and their own individual consciences and moral standards, not mine.  

If I were so superior that I might consider myself able to dictate behavior of all others in all circumstances, I would hope that someone would put me out of their misery.  

Here is something from any number of old black and white films.  A man has been shot in the gut, and has but minutes or hours of incredible pain before he expires.  His intestines are more out of than in his body.  He asks his faithful companion to put him out of his misery, as an act of mercy.

Then, from over the hill comes the sound of a bugle, and soon the cavalry of the righteous troop appears.  Capitan Morality disarms the loyal friend, and leaves the dying man to his final hours of suffering and agony.   Morality and busybodies throughout the land have been well served.


----------



## .   1

emma42 said:


> Of course, you have a right to your faith, but you cannot expect others who do not share that faith to accept arguments based on your faith, rather than intellectuality.


 


. said:


> This is the most obviously wrongest statement I have read for years.
> 
> .,,


The first post is a wrong statement and my wrongest statement is an acknowledgement of the lack of rightness of your statement but the lack of rightness of your statement does not make you wrong rather the referenced poster obviously believes an obvious fallacy and, further, believes that that belief imparts the compunction to infect everybody that is contactable with the same self-delusional belief.



emma42 said:


> I don't understand what you're saying, dotcommacomma.


 
That is the only thing that the referenced poster has to attempt to shore up his rhetorical tissues, the membranes of which are so transparent that Blind Freddy would be sunburned.

.,,


----------



## emma42

Oh, alright then, dotcommacomma!


----------



## tvdxer

emma42 said:


> This is circular.  You wish to deny choice - that is imposition.  I wish to confer choice - that is not imposition.
> 
> You need to learn to distinguish between personal morality and the conferring of choice upon all so that all can follow the tenets of _their_ personal moralities.
> 
> Concepts such as "natural law" cannot be proven or argued by means of religious faith, as religious faith is just that - faith, not proof or science.
> Of course, you have a right to your faith, but you cannot expect others who do not share that faith to accept arguments based on your faith, rather than intellectuality.



You believe in conferring choice.  You believe we _should _confer choice.  But where does this "should" come from?  Is it not just your "personal morality"?


----------



## tvdxer

emma42 said:


> Of course, you have a right to your faith, but you cannot expect others who do not share that faith to accept arguments based on your faith, rather than intellectuality.



I don't.  I DO expect others to believe in that human life is sacred and inviolable.  Those who do not, in my opinion, should not try to influence the law or society.  This is a basic principle in most any human society.

These arguments aren't based on my "faith" anyway.  They're based on reality.


----------



## cuchuflete

tvdxer said:


> I DO expect others to believe in that human life is sacred and inviolable.  Those who do not, in my opinion, should not try to influence the law or society.



Thanks for speaking from on high about who should and shouldn't try to influence the law and society.   I assure you that you have been, are, and will be ignored by those who disagree with you.

That's how it works in reality.


----------



## .   1

tvdxer said:


> I don't. I DO expect others to believe in that human life is sacred and inviolable. Those who do not, in my opinion, should not try to influence the law or society. This is a basic principle in most any human society.
> 
> These arguments aren't based on my "faith" anyway. They're based on reality.


The reality is that your concept of inviolable life is absurd.
There are any number of lives that are intentionally transgressed, dishonoured, broken and thrown away every single day with the full support of very many societies.
Does it honour a life to condemn it to a single cell for eternity?
Does it mend a life to lock it away in the dark with the threat of execution dangling?

Did Saddam Hussein possess an inviolable life and if he did where is he?

Does a person who murders repeatedly possess an inviolable life?

What does your reality tell you about a serial child molester?

What do your basic principles consider about the inviolablility or inviolableness or a nurse who offs elderly patients because they are so peaceful when they are asleep?

All life is inviolable. What tosh.

You still want to keep bashing your winding argument that it is not fair that people are thoughtfully interfering with your mindless moralistic meddling.

Get a life.

.,,


----------



## Kajjo

tvdxer said:


> I don't.  I DO expect others to believe in that human life is sacred and inviolable.  Those who do not, in my opinion, should not try to influence the law or society.  This is a basic principle in most any human society. These arguments aren't based on my "faith" anyway.  They're based on reality.


None of your sentences is based on logic or reality. 

There are a lot of people who not even accept the concept of "sacred" to be real. How can such a religious term be based on reality when it actually only refers to your faith?

Life obviously is not inviolable in reality. Life gets violated every single day a million times for many different reasons.

The "basic principle in almost any human society" is to devise methods to protect itself from other people who actually do violate life.

Kajjo


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:


> Here is something from any number of old black and white films.
> 
> Morality and busybodies throughout the land have been well served.



And thus proving that morality isn't  just a case of Black & White! boom-boom!




We sanctify what we wish to. We humans do it. Uluru is a sacred place to the original inhabitants of Australia - but it carries no 'aura' by which that sacredness can be indicated to a foreigner. Uluru is not sacred, it's location and associations and the thoughts and memories it evokes are what are sacred.

That same is true of all 'sacred' things - we humans do the sanctifying - that was why people all around the world were aghast whenever an invading horde of foreigners could just barge into the local's sacred places and steal their sacred items. These places and things were sacred to God!!! How could some foreigner not know that? How dare they steal not just the artefacts but the heritage they had tied up with them.




			
				tvdxer said:
			
		

> I don't. I DO expect others to believe in that human life is sacred and inviolable. Those who do not, in my opinion, should not try to influence the law or society. This is a basic principle in most any human society.





			
				[B said:
			
		

> tvdxer[/b]                     ]
> 
> 
> Yes, that is my presumption and I am certain about it. I will support lawmakers who legislate based on my beliefs, and if those who lack a belief in something so essential as God do not agree on theistic inspirations or basis for laws, that's their problem.


And if they assemble and succeed in nominating and then electing lawmakers who agree with their point of view - what then. 





> These arguments aren't based on my "faith" anyway.  They're based on reality.


Aaaah - wonderful reality. And who's to be the judge of that then?
The person who uses - exclusively - a book written many millennia ago as their source of 'knowledge';
The person who speaks to what they call God daily but who has never spoken back to them?;
The person who holds conversations with God on a regular basis - during which God tells them what's wrong with the world?


----------



## cuchuflete

Black and white films are sacred to some people.  They espouse a higher morality than is found in "reality".
They tell stories about good and evil, just like some old books.  In black and white films, the 'good guys' usually win.  In some old books, the bad ones sometimes win.  Pick the playwright or screenwriter of your choice.  

Your "Boom-boom!" is inviolable if it matters to you.  Just don't expect others not to legislate against it.


----------



## tvdxer

. said:


> The reality is that your concept of inviolable life is absurd.
> There are any number of lives that are intentionally transgressed, dishonoured, broken and thrown away every single day with the full support of very many societies.
> Does it honour a life to condemn it to a single cell for eternity?
> Does it mend a life to lock it away in the dark with the threat of execution dangling?
> 
> Did Saddam Hussein possess an inviolable life and if he did where is he?
> 
> Does a person who murders repeatedly possess an inviolable life?
> 
> What does your reality tell you about a serial child molester?
> 
> What do your basic principles consider about the inviolablility or inviolableness or a nurse who offs elderly patients because they are so peaceful when they are asleep?
> 
> All life is inviolable. What tosh.
> 
> You still want to keep bashing your winding argument that it is not fair that people are thoughtfully interfering with your mindless moralistic meddling.
> 
> Get a life.
> 
> .,,



Simply stating cases in which a principle has been disrespected proves nothing.  It's like trying to disprove a speed limit or tax code by claiming that it is often or usually violated.  Whether or not individuals or societies fail to recognize the sanctity of life in certain cases is irrelevant.  The simple fact is that to have a reasonable debate on issues regarding the taking of life, one must first realize that human life has some sort of value, something sacred to it.  If it indeed doesn't, why should we condemn the holocaust, genocides, murders, or any other sort of intentional killing?  

What I have been trying to prove as of late (well, about a month ago, but towards the end of this thread) is that anybody partaking in this debate is by definition making "moralistic" statements.  If you argue that a law should be changed, you are doing it on the basis of what you see to be right: those arguing for assisted suicide believe that it is right to allow the taking of life of others with their consent, and that we should not (read: is wrong to) forbid this liberty.  Unless you are a hypocrite, you can't slam me for trying to impose my "personal morality" when you yourself are simply arguing from your own "personal morality", and trying to influence the law with it.


----------



## tvdxer

maxiogee said:


> And thus proving that morality isn't  just a case of Black & White! boom-boom!
> 
> View attachment 4369
> 
> We sanctify what we wish to. We humans do it. Uluru is a sacred place to the original inhabitants of Australia - but it carries no 'aura' by which that sacredness can be indicated to a foreigner. Uluru is not sacred, it's location and associations and the thoughts and memories it evokes are what are sacred.
> 
> That same is true of all 'sacred' things - we humans do the sanctifying - that was why people all around the world were aghast whenever an invading horde of foreigners could just barge into the local's sacred places and steal their sacred items. These places and things were sacred to God!!! How could some foreigner not know that? How dare they steal not just the artefacts but the heritage they had tied up with them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if they assemble and succeed in nominating and then electing lawmakers who agree with their point of view - what then.
> 
> 
> 
> Aaaah - wonderful reality. And who's to be the judge of that then?
> The person who uses - exclusively - a book written many millennia ago as their source of 'knowledge';
> The person who speaks to what they call God daily but who has never spoken back to them?;
> The person who holds conversations with God on a regular basis - during which God tells them what's wrong with the world?



I would have assumed that all here would recognize their is some kind of sanctity, either religious or its secular equivalent, or inherent value in human life.  It's not that you couldn't assert this while at the same time arguing for euthanasia, making some kind of exception; but it does not seem reasonable to me to do so, considering that euthanasia unnecessarily terminates one's life.  We abhor murder, genocide, and all sorts of killing because what is taken is the most valuable thing in the world, human life.  After all, without life there is no rights - since by living one has the ability to possess rights.  

Your last points are nothing more than silly ad hominem.  Since when do I exclusively use the bible as my source of knowledge?  First, I am Catholic, and do not believe in "sola scriptura"; second, I'm sorry you miss out on prayer, but I do not see what this has to do with the debate.


----------



## .   1

tvdxer said:


> Unless you are a hypocrite, you can't slam me for trying to impose my "personal morality" when you yourself are simply arguing from your own "personal morality", and trying to influence the law with it.


My fur coat I can. Be very careful about hoisting the hypocritical petard. I don't care for that type of personal argument.

My morality is mine and has nothing to do with you.
Your morality is your's and has nothing to do with me.

My moral decision to end my life has nothing to do with you.
Your moral decision to not end your life has nothing to do with me.

Where is the fur coated hypocracy?

.,,
It took you a month to come up with that?


----------



## tvdxer

. said:


> My fur coat I can. Be very careful about hoisting the hypocritical petard. I don't care for that type of personal argument.
> 
> My morality is mine and has nothing to do with you.
> Your morality is your's and has nothing to do with me.
> 
> My moral decision to end my life has nothing to do with you.
> Your moral decision to not end your life has nothing to do with me.
> 
> Where is the fur coated hypocracy?
> 
> .,,
> It took you a month to come up with that?



I have a life that extends far beyond Word Reference.  And it becomes rather fatiguing engaging in hopeless debates with forer@s who disclaim knowledge of the ground moral principles necessary for such discussions.

And by simply being in this debate, you're pushing your "personal morality" by simply saying that lawmakers should allow euthanasia.  What else is it?  I'll be excited to hear.


----------



## .   1

maxiogee said:


> We sanctify what we wish to. We humans do it. Uluru is a sacred place to the original inhabitants of Australia - but it carries no 'aura' by which that sacredness can be indicated to a foreigner. Uluru is not sacred, it's location and associations and the thoughts and memories it evokes are what are sacred.


I left this alone for a while because it irritated me too much to refer to it but it has been dredged up again in this vainglorious argument.

There is a twisted logic involved in associating Judeo/Christian concepts of imagined sacredness with real world sacredness like Uluru.

To say that a thing is not sacred but that it is the location and associatons that make a thing sacred is like saying that grass is not green but it is in fact every colour but green as it absorbs all colours of light other than green and reflects only green wavelengths.

Uluru is 'sacred' for real world reasons.  a person lost in the bush need only find Uluru to be able to live because there is always water and game in plentiful supply.  As times become harder the game is concentrated more densely in and around the great big awful rock.  Koori people are not foolish children.  They do not impose 'sacredness' on a thing because of imagined reasons or because it fits some aesthetic notion like stained glass or children's stories from a magic land.  Food and water during a drought are about as 'sacred' as it is possible to get.  Life is sacred and the great big awful rock gives life.
Uluru is big enough to effect the surrounding climate and has it's own microclimate.  The great big awful rock is regularly struck by the lightning that spawns the 'sacred' fire but where trees and men and beasts are destroyed by a single strike the great big awful rock just slumbers through the centuries.

Perhaps it would be better to use St Paul's Cathedral or something from within one's own religious sphere to hang _merde_ on someone else's 'sacredness'.

It is perhaps appropriate to bring in the old religions.  I will submit that there are few indiginous prohibitions against assisted suicide.

.,,


----------



## .   1

tvdxer said:


> And by simply being in this debate, you're pushing your "personal morality" by simply saying that lawmakers should allow euthanasia. What else is it? I'll be excited to hear.


Yep.  And I am not trying to dress it up in anything else.  I am being open and unhypocritical.  I am trying to not interfere unnecessarily in somebody's life.

Hypocritical
I wonder as I look
at them feeding by the brook
of the ruminations of the feathered mind
They seem all so smug contented
yet with hunger unrepented
comes the deluge heaven centered
from some rather angst tormented frames of mind
Must we all then head the deluge
from these dollar scented feelgoods
 with their smiles of condecention for our souls so unintended
I am trying to be me
Do you mind​ 

.,,


----------



## .   1

tvdxer said:


> I have a life that extends far beyond Word Reference. And it becomes rather fatiguing engaging in hopeless debates with forer@s who disclaim knowledge of the ground moral principles necessary for such discussions.


What are ground moral principles?

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

tvdxer said:


> considering that euthanasia unnecessarily terminates one's life.


How little you know of the suffering of the terminally ill or of the hopeless if you think that 'they' see it as an unnecessary termination. They see it as not only necessary but as the only valid and justifiable option.

You are judging their pain and anguish and finding that you could bear it - and so should they.



tvdxer said:


> Your last points are nothing more than silly ad hominem.  Since when do I exclusively use the bible as my source of knowledge?  First, I am Catholic, and do not believe in "sola scriptura"; second, I'm sorry you miss out on prayer, but I do not see what this has to do with the debate.



My last points were not aimed at you, or at anyone here. They were aimed at those who might be chosen to be the judge of what is 'reality'. 'You' weren't even mentioned.


----------



## alexacohen

Hello:
I am religious and believe in God. My God tells me not to kill. Not to commit suicide. I try to comply with my God's law. I am not trying to impose my God on any other.
My beloved great grandmother died of gangrena. I don't know the term in English, but the result is that you are rotting alive. There is no cure. She was ninety six. She was given painkillers and morphine but at the end there was no use. She was in awful pain. Her legs, her hands, her ears, face were all rotting while she was still alive. 
I believe in what my God tells me is right. But my cousins and I asked the doctor to put an end to her pain. He didn't.
We did not want to ease our own suffering. We wanted hers to end.
I do believe no human being has any right to take the life of another. But I would have liked that doctor to kill my great granny.
I don't know what is right anymore or what is wrong.
Alexa


----------



## .   1

I am sorry for your granny and for you.
That type of situation is a perfect example of the intensely personal nature of such decisions and such decisions should never be influenced by any person who is not an intimate relative of the dying person.

It is also a lucid example of medical science surpassing old notions of morality with regard to extended life.

Your granny was kept alive by doctors far longer than would have been possible only 100 years ago anywhere in the world and is only available in about a quarter of the world now.

People more traditional lives never have to face these problems as there is no artificial life prolonging institution available and modern drugs are not known so death comes more naturally and in the absence of sharps needles and flat faced nurses.

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

alexacohen said:


> I don't know what is right anymore or what is wrong.
> 
> .



I think you do, but you are not yet ready to accept the consequences of arriving at that knowledge.


----------



## .   1

maxiogee said:


> I think you do, but you are not yet ready to accept the consequences of arriving at that knowledge.


Everybody really knows about this question.
It seems to me that the more strident opponents should take a quick squiz at The Old Bard,
Methinks the lady doeth protesth too much.

.,,


----------



## cuchuflete

How sad to read the words of someone who declares that his moral principles are better than those of people who disagree with him, that he would legislate his moral principles to govern not only his own behavior, but that of all other people, regardless of their moral principles.  Your scripture may not be my scripture.  Your principles may not really be derived, even in part, from your own holy book, unless it includes chapters and verses on how to practice arrogance and a lack of compassion.   My moral principles deny me the right to try to 
shove my beliefs down another person's throat.

I support assisted suicide for those in pain, and with no prospect of recovery.  I respect the dignity of their choices to continue their lives or end them.   I am not a deity that has the right to impose my decision on another person, and I do not seek the power to do so. There are enough people running around doing that already, fully convinced that their arrogance is righteous.  They probably have glib answers to questions about the martyrs they revere, some of whom willingly and knowingly put themselves into circumstances that would lead to certain death.  That gets a different label than suicide, yet the decision and effect are the same as for a bedridden person.  Do something that will surely bring your life to an end.  Don't get criticized for doing something so "unnatural", but become an object of reverence and myth for the act of dying.

The rebuttal is all too predictable... "Oh, but that's different."  And out will come the hairsplitters to explain that a choice to die is a noble thing in some circumstances, because it's really, you know, not about that but about blah blah blah.  It is all too like those
who decry bombs or land mines as tools of death used by the military, as if a knife or a pistol or musket would leave an opponent any less dead.


----------



## Athaulf

cuchuflete said:


> How sad to read the words of someone who declares that his moral principles are better than those of people who disagree with him, that he would legislate his moral principles to govern not only his own behavior, but that of all other people, regardless of their moral principles. [...]   My moral principles deny me the right to try to shove my beliefs down another person's throat.



However, if one really wants to be consistent with such an attitude, one would have to be opposed to any and all laws against  victimless crimes, which is an extremely radical attitude (however much sympathy I might have for it). The overwhelming majority of the proponents of the right to assisted suicide certainly aren't such libertarian radicals, so when it comes to most of them, it's an entirely valid objection to note that they are different from their opponents only in the choice of areas in which they are eager to shove their beliefs down other people's throats, rather than in any sort of principled support for personal freedom. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% in favor of the individual freedom to commit assisted (or any other) suicide. But from the standpoint described above, some of the objections of its opponents seen in this thread are logically right on target. There is certainly no essential difference between the attitude "thou shalt not commit suicide, period" and a myriad of other social norms that have overwhelming popular support (and legislative backing) nowadays, and which are held in such regard that opposing them is a sure way to get branded as a lunatic or at least an extreme radical.


----------



## .   1

Athaulf said:


> However, if one really wants to be consistent with such an attitude, one would have to be opposed to any and all laws against victimless crimes, which is an extremely radical attitude (however much sympathy I might have for it).


This is not necessarily a well grounded piece of 'logic'.
Suicide is in a completely different class of acts to any other victimless crime.

If we follow your extended logic humanity would collapse in upon itself under the combined weight of every exception to every moral principle and socal more extant.

This is a single issue and can not be compared to any other act that does not involve the intentional taking of one's own life.

This is just a variation of that uber boring utter misinterpretation of the old testament, 'Let he who is without sin blah blah blah'!

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

Athaulf said:


> However, if one really wants to be consistent with such an attitude, one would have to be opposed to any and all laws against  victimless crimes, which is an extremely radical attitude (however much sympathy I might have for it).



In view of the fact that the relatives and friends of a suicide feel both bereaved by the action and guilty that they didn't 'see it coming' and thus were unable to aid the person when they were in their darkest hours, can we say that suicide is a victimless crime? Is any crime victimless?


----------



## .   1

maxiogee said:


> In view of the fact that the relatives and friends of a suicide feel both bereaved by the action and guilty that they didn't 'see it coming' and thus were unable to aid the person when they were in their darkest hours, can we say that suicide is a victimless crime? Is any crime victimless?


How many friends and relatives would be ignorant of the situation requiring an assisted suicide.
We are discussing a situation of a terminally ill chronically pain ridden probably old person.

This is not the Romeo and Juliet type suicide of foolish youth.

Which friends would be bereaved by the manner of death of an already pain ridden mate.  I would do it for my loved ones and face whatever consequences I was dumb enough to have to face.

This really is a hypothetical for the masses because every really intelligent person will make arrangements as the time approaches.
It is easy to secrete a pill here and there to build up a fatal 'accidental' or 'unintentional' overdose.  It is also easy to do any number of other things that result in a single person fatality.

People making too much noise to change the stupid law are sometimes almost as bad as the rednecks trying to support the monsterous thing.  Leave well enough alone.  Many doctors are smarter than we give them credit for and as they approach their autumn years many are quite happy to slip in under the radar and twist a tube or let an air lock form in a drip or some such subterfuge that only doctors know about.

.,,


----------



## Athaulf

maxiogee said:


> In view of the fact that the relatives and friends of a suicide feel both bereaved by the action and guilty that they didn't 'see it coming' and thus were unable to aid the person when they were in their darkest hours, can we say that suicide is a victimless crime?



That's a good point. But the debate around assisted suicide usually revolves around cases where this element is not present. The opponents of assisted suicide normally oppose it even in cases where absolutely everyone, including the family and friends, supports the decision. For them, it's a matter of morality much more fundamental than people's feelings.

Also, as a slightly off-topic digression, there is also the flip side to the argument above. I'm sure that there are cases of people who are reasonably sure that the rest of their lives will bring only pain and suffering and would like to end their torment by suicide, but still don't do it for fear of causing great sorrow to their families and friends, and instead continue their torturous existence. Who is the victim in such cases?



> Is any crime victimless?


Well, there are certainly many laws on the books that criminalize actions that don't affect anyone except the perpetrators (if even that!) in any observable way whatsoever. But if you stretch the definition of victimhood to the furthest extremes, the answer is probably no. Some people can always claim that they are suffering just because of the knowledge that some act that they deem to be immoral might be taking place somewhere, and I have a feeling that such claims are genuinely true in some cases.


----------



## gaer

My mother will be 90 this weekend.

She sits in a wheelchair each day. She does not know who she is. She does not know who anyone is. Most of her teeth have fallen out. She looks about 110. She has skin cancer on the lid of one of her eyes, which has eaten most of the lid away. It could not be removed because there is no way to stop her from picking at stitches. If WR had existed when she was younger, she would have been a member. Most of what I know about English I learned from her, and she read and spoke French.

Now she can barely grunt.

This is not my mom. It's an empty, rotting thing that no longer looks like my mother and has none of her left. We were tremendously close until she lost what was left of her memory. Now she responds better to nurses. Even when she had great problems remembering day to day things, we could still talk. We could still have fun. I could still do things to make her smile.

I can't make her smile anymore.

I myself am eaten up with guilt, because when I try to visit her, I see only a body, and each time I do make myself visit, I leave shaking, in tears, pissed of at the world and wondering why in hell she is still alive. 

If anyone had been able to tell her that she would be in this state, and if assisted suicide had been an option, she would have chosen to end her life.

If I had the power, I would end her life now. If I had had the power, I would have ended it long before now. If she dies tomorrow—and it seems likely that she will not die for some time, I don't know how long it will be before I stop having daily nightmares about her suffering so.

No one who has not witnessed someone they love lose every bit of dignity they once had can imagine the horror of it. It changes you. Watching pain, humiliation, fear, desperation, helplessness of this sort is Hell on earth. Literally.

G.


----------



## .   1

My father went out like a light. One minute laughing and the next minute dead.

My step father lingered on so long that in the end his butt cheeks had withered away and he lost control of his sphincter but his god bothering daughter in law insisted that he not be allowed to die. He died after an operation and twenty seven days of coma.

My mother stroked his forehead as he died while the daughter in law hid behind her mumbo jumbo.

I do not believe that there is even one person who is making noises about the sanctity of human life who has actually witnessed such a torturous death. The doctors say that they can feel no pain. How could they possibly know? How could anybody see a bloke's bum being eaten away by the acidic discharge from his flaccid anus and spruik about the sanctity of human life?

.,,


----------



## alexacohen

gaer said:


> My mother will be 90 this weekend.
> 
> G.


I am so sorry. No one who has not been through this and feel how terrible
it is can know what it's like.
I am truly sorry.
Alexa


----------



## Max27

Thank you so much for sharing your experience.  I think it really helps people to understand what is at stake for families and individuals who are suffering. I completely agree with your opinion that people should be able to make their own decision about when to end their suffering without government interference or harassment.


----------



## Bonjules

gaer said:


> ...........
> 
> No one who has not witnessed someone they love lose every bit of dignity they once had can imagine the horror of it. It changes you. Watching pain, humiliation, fear, desperation, helplessness of this sort is Hell on earth. Literally.
> 
> G.


Thank you for sharing this painful experience, Gaer. It would be difficult not to be touched by it. And it is little consolation that this kind of thing happens all the time.
Dignity is of course the key in a situation where the person cannnot decide for themselves any more. There is no ethical mandate to prolong
a state that can not really be called her 'life' anymore (would she consider it such, would she opt to prolong it?). In fact, to maintain 'her'
in this state for time to come, is it ethical?
Not feeding her (in case that she can not do so herself) would put the Nursing Home in a difficult position, in lack of appropriate legislation (I have instructions not to be fed myself unless the condition is deemed to be temporary).
But there is no obligation to treat intervening illness here (again, in accordance with the presumed wishes of the patient). Like pneumonia('old man's friend'); to the great relief of some patients families I have pointed that out to them (some though, would have nothing of it) and some situations came finally to a peaceful end.
To those who worry about grieving let me say this: Grieving is important, very much so. But 'endless' grieving(and feeling guilty at the same time) for someone who is not 'them' anymore and is not allowed to die either is an unneccessarily traumatic experience in itself
(as Gaer points out) and can have serious consequences.


----------



## alexacohen

Hello again:


> Dignity is of course the key in a situation where the person cannnot decide for themselves any more. There is no ethical mandate to prolong
> a state that can not really be called her 'life' anymore


My great granny could not decide for herself. She should have died one month at least before she did. But she had a device in her heart, I don't know the name in English, one small thing that makes the heart beat regularly. So, when everything else had already died, this machine kept her heart beating. 
I still wonder why the doctors refused to remove this device, when it was clear that she was in agony and terrible pain. They said it would be alike to kill her, and that they couldn't take it out. But it was an artificial life. I mean, the only thing "alive" in her was the damned machine. So, instead of dying peacefully in her sleep, she was forced to "live", if you want to call it "living", and endure a month's agony.
I don't know if this should be legislated or not, I don't know if this is killing a person or not, I don't know anything.
But what I know is that it is unfair to go through so much suffering when it is clear that death is inevitable........
Alexa


----------



## gaer

Let me take a moment to thank all the people who expressed kind thoughts regarding my post (#127).

Last weekend yet another member of my family died at age 95.

She was a wonderful, optimistic, kind person and was a bundle of energy until she was almost 90, but she spent the last few years of her life alone in NJ with the same problem I mentioned before: senility. She was blind, unable to walk, needing around the clock care, and she is yet another person who was trapped long past a time when she had any quality of life.

This is going to happen more and more often as medicine becomes better and better at keeping people alive without making any breakthroughs that will allow people to live longer and remain useful.

Even worse: with so many people living so long now, when a spouse dies, the one who is left alive is often little better off and has to deal with being "left behind" in a fairly helpless state that will get worse.

Gaer


----------

