Our BetterMost Community > The Polling Place

Euthanasia - What's Your View?

<< < (2/3) > >>

Kerry:

--- Quote from: Jeff  Wrangler on February 26, 2010, 01:38:59 pm ---Actually, at the risk of being contrary, I have a concern about the wording of the first selection, specifically with the statement that it should be each individual's free choice. The problem I have with that is, unlike suicide, euthanasia requires the action of more than one individual, not just the individual who decides that it is time for his or her life to end. So an act of euthanasia requires the free choice of at least two individuals, not just one individual.

But maybe I'm just being picky. Sorry about that!

--- End quote ---

That's a very valid point, Jeff, and thank you for raising it. I guess what I was thinking about was a situation like "Not For Resuscitation" (NFR) orders. Here in Australia, under certain circumstances, patients can choose not to be resuscitated:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_not_resuscitate
Likewise, I was thinking that in the case of euthanasia, one could make a similar choice. Perhaps you have a history of dementia or Alzheimer's in the family. Or you fear being kept alive by machines indefinitely, in a vegetative state. You could leave specific instructions, just as one does re NFR or in choosing to be an organ donor, for example.

It would be your own individual choice. Perhaps the form could be kept by your lawyer with your Will and other papers.

Kerry:
And there's the euthanasia / suicide debate. Why not just commit suicide? Why involve others in your death?

I'm thinking that euthanasia would be a last resort for those who are not physically capable of committing suicide; Alzheimer's, dementia, coma, etc. And it would need to be strictly regulated; terminally ill and in excruciating, unmanageable pain.

It's true that people do come out of comas, but many don't. Just as with NFR, perhaps a 97yo with a long history of cardiac arrest could be resuscitated and live another 10 years. It would be your choice to sign the euthanasia form,  outlining your own individual choices and requirements.

I'm not sure about elsewhere in the world, but here in Australia there's a small band of elderly people who fly to Mexico to buy a drug (?name?) that pretty much kills you instantly. They then smuggle it into Australia. Why do they do it? Well, from what I understand they, or a loved one (for the drug is often not for themselves, but to assist  a loved one),  have been given a diagnosis of terminal illness and fear pain, and the loss of their independence and dignity. And they have heard horror stories about mishaps involving the taking of overdoses of over-the-counter drugs that could leave you disabled or worse, but not have the desired result of killing you. I am guessing that these people prefer not to take the violent-end option, such as jumping off a cliff or hanging oneself (guns are not widely available to the general population here in Australia). And who could blame them? They are wanting to retain a little dignity and control.

I strongly believe that this would need to be strictly administered.

For these reasons, I chose the first and third options above.  

delalluvia:
I voted #3

I believe there should be strict guidelines that would be adhered to under strong penalty.

For example in the case of Ray Gosling, he murdered his lover.  Yes, the patient had no hope and was dying anyway, but we only have his word that his lover wanted to be put out of his misery.  For all we know, Mr. Gosling made that decision on his own FOR his lover.  I can't imagine the horror of being terminally ill, in pain, still stuggling, just to have the one you loved most suddenly start to murder you - with no warning, no time for goodbyes, no time to make peace.

I'd've rather have heard it from the lover that he wanted to go and not he who killed him after the fact.

louisev:
It's called assisted suicide, and it is ALWAYS the choice of the person who is ill.  It just might not be the choice he or she made at the time of death due to incapacity.  But the choice is always the individual's.

That's what a Living Will is for; the documented choice for Do Not Resuscitate. 

ifyoucantfixit:
   First I will say that it is legal in Oregon to have assisted suicide.  When it was first
voted into law, the US then overturned the law.  It was sent to the supreme court, and
now it is law again.
   I personally believe that it should definitely be an individuals choice.  Rather than have
to live in abject pain, and horrible disability.  If that is your choice, you should be able to
write it in a legal document, and have that wish carried out, if you have sufficient reasons
for that decision.
 That way the person that helps you, wont be placed under arrest, or
incarcerated for helping the loved one.
   Death should be a choice, just as life should be.  I dont believe in mental illness as a
sufficient reason for it, but a logical and proper misery in life, should not have to be
endured.  I think you should have enough support from Doctors, etc. that show that
you are going to die anyway, but it will be a long and miserable death.  I am a person
that believes in personal choice in all things.  As long as you are not mentally impaired,
 to the degree, that it makes your decision from a mentally impaired directive.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page