You probably have been or will be in this situation at least once in your life.
Many people, when their relatives are ill, ask the hospital to do everything that they can to cure the person.
What if the person is uncurable and wants to die?
Why don't they let them die?
All they are doing is prolonging that persons pain. If it for a few months, go ahead! If it is for a couple of days... Let them go. It is in their best wishes.
If it is impossible.. Should they? It still could be possible that they may survive the ordeal.
What are your opinions?
some would think it's like murdering a still-living human being, even though the person is beyond repair. Some religions think that God still wants the person even in the vegitable state. It's my personal opinion that if the person is beyond repair to just let them go.
I saw recently a friend of mine was dying from ALS. The 911 could help him and he was transported to intensive care, but the doctors saw that he couldn't survive for long, so the doctors and the family has gattered around the table and the solution was that let go in a deep sleep and so let him go.
If i would be injured and i am beyond repair and there is no way to cure me, then i would give in special document the authorisation that the doctors may let me die.
yeah, truely I am agree with needra, but it will be difficult if you not have enough money to pay hospital. Better to die than bothersome others people, right ?
We have to remember that to live is not the same as to survive. When someone is very ill in an hospital bed he is not living he is surviving. And I think it is not fair to let someone to suffer more just because "we" do not want him to die. we should let him go.
| Lord Klorel wrote: |
If i would be injured and i am beyond repair and there is no way to cure me, then i would give in special document the authorisation that the doctors may let me die. |
But the problem with that is like organ donations -
If you are unconscious, how to you give them the document?
Even if you asked your relatives and friends, they will still tell the doctors to do "Everything Possible", which takes up resources.
Notice how with organ donations, not all of them go through because the families want their braindead relative to be buried whole?
| risuarez wrote: |
| We have to remember that to live is not the same as to survive. When someone is very ill in an hospital bed he is not living he is surviving. And I think it is not fair to let someone to suffer more just because "we" do not want him to die. we should let him go. |
I like your opinion and agree for thatmmmmmmmmm....... quite a serious thing. Its just love I think.
Euthanasia is largely legal in Europe, so if you want to slaughter your family like that, get out of the states. Thankfully euthanasia is still illegal (but that doesn't stop people from doing it).
I'm quite surprised that people would be for euthanasia. Regardless of pain, life is unique and cannot be given back once you take it away. We only have one life (or at least that's all we're conscious of), so why would you ever want to cut it short, just to satisfy your selfish desires? Of course, many would say that letting them live is being selfish, because you are satisfying your want to be with that person. However, I submit that perhaps we're being selfish by saying we want them to be let go. The person's in pain, or so we presume. We want to see them happy--we don't like suffering, and turn a blind eye to its obvious presence in the world. Hence, we feel it necessary to euthanize the person so that we don't have to deal with a guilty conscience.
Being religious has largely influenced my opinion, but I'll refrain from quoting the Bible or using "Time of Grace" as my argument, because I know some will do anything to ignore it. 
Still, think to "way back when," before the olden days ever existed. Back when people lived in harmony with nature, instead of defiling and feasting off of her. If someone was dying (for unknown reasons, since doctors didn't exist), would they really euthanize the person? The best they could do (and the "fastest") would be to smash the person's head in with a large rock. But that doesn't seem pleasant, now does it? Euthanasia is something man-made, and simply doesn't belong in the natural cycle of life. Whether you believe in "Mother Earth" or "God," euthanasia is simply nowhere to be seen until humans are added to the picture. It's not natural, and it's not meant to be. People justify it by using words such as "release," when for all we (the living) know, we're condemning that person to an eternity of emptiness and horror. Nobody alive knows what comes after death, so why should we force someone to pass that gate, when we really have no clue what we're doing to them?
Feel free to argue--I love debates. 
| risuarez wrote: |
| We have to remember that to live is not the same as to survive. When someone is very ill in an hospital bed he is not living he is surviving. And I think it is not fair to let someone to suffer more just because "we" do not want him to die. we should let him go. |
Excuse me? I beg to differ. Living may not be exactly the same as surviving, but surviving is still living, damnit. Suriving is escaping death. If you're not dead, you're alive. Dying people are still alive--we say they're dying only because we know they will transfer to death soon. But for that moment in time, they are still living.
I think I explained above why I think we're being selfish when we "let go" said dying person. Frankly, it's not fair to the dying person. | Lord Klorel wrote: |
I saw recently a friend of mine was dying from ALS. The 911 could help him and he was transported to intensive care, but the doctors saw that he couldn't survive for long, so the doctors and the family has gattered around the table and the solution was that let go in a deep sleep and so let him go.
If i would be injured and i am beyond repair and there is no way to cure me, then i would give in special document the authorisation that the doctors may let me die. |
however there are some hospitals here that suggest more expensive treatment for a hopeless patient, and keep the freakin $$$$$$$ flowin.Euthanasia is for the weak of mind.
People have to realise that despite human attachment being at its peak in situations such as these, human pain far exceeds it. Frankly I'm neutral(ish) on matters like these, but I do think that keeping someone happy is not worth another person's agony.
| Quote: |
| Euthanasia is largely legal in Europe, so if you want to slaughter your family like that, get out of the states |
Euthanasia is not largly legal in Europe. It's legalised to one country, I think it's Holland, but I can't be sure.
I belive if a person is incurable, they should be kept as painfree as possible, warm and nourished, but not kept alive artificially.You know, at Youth in Government, there was a well-written bill about physician assisted suicide. I still haven't decided whether I am for it or against it, because it seems it would be the person's choice.
On one hand, a doctor shouldn't have to kill a patient because the patient says so. I think it should be a patients choice to live/die, and a doctor's choice whether or not to kill. If the doctor doesn't want to kill, then bring in someone else.
This whole thing made sense in my head, I don't know if you understand it at all, I tried to word it the best I could (but I think I've failed).
Soulfire, I agree totally with your position here (actually,I could have written your exact words) even though we have quite different viewpoints on many things.
Sombody above (forget who) posted that euthenasia is largely legal in Europe - I don't think that is true. It is legal in some countries, and some countries quietly tolerate it at a low level but it is still technically illegal - so if anybody oversteps the mark "too much" then they can get clobbered. But it's very hard to define where the line of acceptable practice lies.
I've seen people I know personally go through weeks or months of slow death (you couldn't call it life), just waiting to die because they knew it was inevitable, and sometimes in terrible pain. On the other hand, how can we ask somebody to kill somebody else? How do you stop abuse of such a system by either the medical staff or friends and relatives? How do you regard that relative to the executioner of a prisoner who is facing the death penalty? What about physician-assisted suicide? What about the thousands who die each year of hospital-acquired infections such as MRSA, because some physicians/nurses etc "forgot" to wash their hands between patients?
This is one of the classic thorny issues of morality and ethics (see other threads...).
Ok, so I mispoke--I apologize. I guess I've heard too many stories from those few countries that tolerate euthanasia. I take back what I said.
Back to the topic, though, I would still push that a person deserves to live, despite the pain that we think they are enduring. We all still have a lot of opportunities to do good--even dying on a bed can set a good role model--yet others who cringe at the situation (which I think is just a bit oversensitivity) think the person needs "release" through death. But we don't know what comes after death! At least the living have family, friends, and generally people to communicate/bond/whatever with. After death, there could be nothing.
Would you rather live a life of pain, or never to have lived at all?
It's hard to say unless you were a non-living soul left to drift in emptiness for eternity, until the question were presented. I say it's that uncertainty of "what's beyond" that should keep most people alive. They are still able to impact the lives of others, however most wallow too much in their own despair to do anything about it.
| Juparis wrote: |
| Ok, so I mispoke--I apologize. I guess I've heard too many stories from those few countries that tolerate euthanasia. I take back what I said. |
No need to apologise - you just didn't have all the infomation and that is OK. And you did highlight a difference of emphasis that is real, just not perhaps as big as you thought.
| Juparis wrote: |
Back to the topic, though, I would still push that a person deserves to live, despite the pain that we think they are enduring. We all still have a lot of opportunities to do good--even dying on a bed can set a good role model--yet others who cringe at the situation (which I think is just a bit oversensitivity) think the person needs "release" through death. But we don't know what comes after death! At least the living have family, friends, and generally people to communicate/bond/whatever with. After death, there could be nothing.
Would you rather live a life of pain, or never to have lived at all?
It's hard to say unless you were a non-living soul left to drift in emptiness for eternity, until the question were presented. I say it's that uncertainty of "what's beyond" that should keep most people alive. They are still able to impact the lives of others, however most wallow too much in their own despair to do anything about it. |
I agree with much of what you say. I'm just not sure that it is always such a clear-cut black vs white issue.
Suppose somebody has lived a full and very successful life for many years, but lost a wife/husband/friend a while back and strongly believes in the afterlife. Suppose that same person is now in the late stages of a terminal illness and in great pain, and maybe they have no relatives or friends left in this world. Not a nice scenario, but it *does* happen. Would it be wrong in those circumstances to make a positive decision to end this phase of life and move onto the next?
Now clearly I am stacking the argument in favour of allowing such a person to die - we could go on inventing ever more complex scenarios. My gut feeling is that euthenasia is wrong and always will be wrong; but maybe sometimes it might be the best option available. I would work to make that as rare as I could, by being a friend to the dying or whatever and not cringing away from death, illness and pain. But I won't rule out the possibility.Active euthanasia is, last time I heard of it (a few years back), only legal in a single European country: The Netherlands. Passive euthanasia, however, (i.e., withdrawal of medical help, "letting the patient die") is legal in several countries, including Denmark, Germany, Finland, Italy and to some extent the UK and France.
And, for once, I agree with Soulfire. The terminally ill patient should have the right to choose whether he wants to live or die (certainly in the case of passive euthanasia, maybe in the case of active euthanasia), but the doctor, carer etc. who might be asked to carry this out (or stand passive) should have a choice too. It should never be turned into a person's duty to end another person's life. This goes for war as well as it goes for healthcare.
| make_life_better wrote: |
I agree with much of what you say. I'm just not sure that it is always such a clear-cut black vs white issue.
Suppose somebody has lived a full and very successful life for many years, but lost a wife/husband/friend a while back and strongly believes in the afterlife. Suppose that same person is now in the late stages of a terminal illness and in great pain, and maybe they have no relatives or friends left in this world. Not a nice scenario, but it *does* happen. Would it be wrong in those circumstances to make a positive decision to end this phase of life and move onto the next?
Now clearly I am stacking the argument in favour of allowing such a person to die - we could go on inventing ever more complex scenarios. My gut feeling is that euthenasia is wrong and always will be wrong; but maybe sometimes it might be the best option available. I would work to make that as rare as I could, by being a friend to the dying or whatever and not cringing away from death, illness and pain. But I won't rule out the possibility. |
Yea, the whole topic is still a bit foggy to me simply because such cases can vary so wide--you can't really give a straight-a-way answer when everything's so diverse.
As for your scenario, I would like to think that if the person were conscious, (s)he would still try to make a last impact on life, but I know the environment of the situation is usually too depressing. We speak so optimistically, but what happens when we're the one on the death bed? Too many other factors in the real-life situation, I suppose. I keep thinking that we should keep it illegal, but placing yourself in the dying person's position complicates it all... Blah--maybe I'm just tired... Off to bed...If it's only a machine that is keeping the person alive, I suggest take it off of him already. I know it might be hard for people to accept that they're loved ones don't have anymore hope, it's better to accept than to linger their feelings on something that will end up in the same way.
Its against to law to kill people and with good reason.. Any law like that will allways result in the system being used for bad things. But thinking back at my mothers death... I would have given her peace if i had that option.
Come on man!. Someobody who can do nothing but lye in bed and wait with tubes connected to support biological systems. They can see how they suddenly dont react like they used to and behave weirdly in situations. Then they sometimes wake up and they dont understand. They are in constant pain helloo!. Would anyone want to live like that?.
| moonblade wrote: |
| Its against to law to kill people and with good reason.. Any law like that will allways result in the system being used for bad things. |
I can agree with you here--once you give an inch of lee-way, they'll take a foot by abusing the opportunity.
| moonblade wrote: |
| Come on man!. Someobody who can do nothing but lye in bed and wait with tubes connected to support biological systems. They can see how they suddenly dont react like they used to and behave weirdly in situations. Then they sometimes wake up and they dont understand. They are in constant pain helloo!. Would anyone want to live like that?. |
This is my Christian side speaking (a rare occurance), but if that is what I have been blessed with, I will accept it. Life is a one-time only gift. Saying you don't want it is like spitting in God's face, and we should all be thankful to be alive at all, let alone living the luxurious life of modern times.
Additionally, nobody really knows whether or not the person is in pain. Doctors can only guess/presume pain based on what they were taught--it is not always 100% accurate. People seem to think otherwise, though.My grandmother is very ill with Parkinson's Disease. She has been hospitalized for over 10 years. She lost her husband to cancer. She can no longer speak clearly or see very well. She has not walked in over nine years. She cannot feed herself and wears diapers. Influenza spreads through the hospital every now and then, and a few people die each time. Recently she started to choke on her food a lot, due to some of the medication she was on.
It hurts me very much to visit my grandmother and see her suffering ... but it also inspires me.
It hurts me very much to visit her and see her suffering ... but it also inspires me. She wants to live her life to the best of her capabilities as long as she possibly can. She is in pain and she is lonely and she is paralyzed, yet she still goes on living with a courage most people never see.
How can we judge for someone else whether they want to be alive or not if they cannot speak? It is not our place to take away from them the chance to try.We can pray for their recovery, but if none comes, it is not our place to destroy something that God made. I just do not think that they SHOULD be KEPT ALIVE via machine as it is unnatural. IT was UNNATURAL TO have kept that news broadcasted case of whats her name (?) alive.
I'm Chinese.
Doctors here don't have a good reputation.
If I had a serieus disease, I would not go to hospital.
