EUTHINASIA - Page 2

Mik Dickinson · 14-09-2003, 08:36

Sorry about that last sentence but it is a subject i really do feel strongly about

lettie · 14-09-2003, 11:32

Sorry about your grandfather Mik, but giving morphine actually helps end it, as it depresses the nerves of the respiratory centre of the brain therefore stopping breathing. If your granddad was in pain they should have given him more. I asked them to with my gran, who also died of cancer, and it did the trick, died within 2 days of them upping the dose.

Mik Dickinson · 14-09-2003, 19:38

Still it would have been nice to see him have died with more dignity.He was a gentleman until the day he died and he deserved more.Legailsed Euthanasia would have given him a better way out

ANNE · 14-09-2003, 20:19

The Mcmillan nurses due an excellent job and some patiants handle pain better than others and I do think it should be a matter of choice. Dignity, should be allowed to the end.
It bad enough haveing the fear of the unknown and the worry about leaving loved ones behind without the added fear of someone getting into trouble for helping retain that dignity. helping

Romps · 04-02-2004, 21:46

couldn't have put it better myself!

You alway here the term "Playing God", but it works both ways not just in death but in saving, administering drugs/treatments its all invasive and is it right to interfere with nature by ending or even preserving life?

This is an area i have researched a great deal on, I have read many ethics books & wrote many an essay on Euthanasia, its a huge interest of mine.

Do i aggree with it..........still not sure it could be open to abuse by the medical profession, ie a person with not much hope in one bed and a young girl needing a heart transplant in the next bed???? how much hope would they really have for the first patient? or would it seem more easier or ethical to help the youg girl??

How scary is that scenario?

Sparkologist · 05-02-2004, 03:38

I'm in agreement with Mik on this one. It's an emotive subject with no absolute right or wrong answer. In '97, I watched my dad suffer in agony from lung cancer, the suffering being prolonged by an intravenous morphine pump. He had a heart attack and the doctors kept him alive for one more week of intolerable agony. I have a verbal agreement with my mum that if the same occurs with her, there will be no artificial extension of life. But this may just be rhetoric, who knows what will happen if this circumstance arises?

MUMMIBOO · 02-12-2004, 10:23

I think if a person decides that life is not as it should be, or once was then it should be down to the person in alot of cases it has been discussed within the family when they are of sound mind to the point where this kind of decission cannot be made lightly and with alot of thought, surly if the person can make the decission for themselves as an adult then who is anyone to stand in their way?
At the end of the day whos life is it ours no theirs.
For the people who are not of sound mind and body then it should be the decission of the loved ones at the end of the day it will be a great loss to them and again not a decission that would be taken lightly if you see someone in pain you feel the pain and instinct is to ease that pain if your child falls you automatically do what you can to ease them, well the same goes if you know someone in pain and you know it is long suffering and the only way to ease that pain is to let them go if they are going to go anyway then that is what should be right surely. If you prolong life by artificial aid when the outcome would still be the same then that should be wrong because then you are only doing it to hold off your pain not theirs.

Maybe none of this makes sence but i know what im trying to say.

Acrylic-bob · 02-12-2004, 10:59

I agree that the right to die at a time of ones own choosing and in a manner of ones own choosing should be as much a part of human rights legislation as the right to life.

I reject utterly that another person should have the legal right decide what is best for me over my own wishes in the matter. I certainly do not agree that such an important decision should be placed solely in the hands of a Doctor.

As far as I am concerned it is my life, my body, and it should be my decision what I choose to do with it.

However, I do recognise that we live in a less than perfect world and any situation is open to abuse by the unscrupulous. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that the old and frail might feel pressurised into taking that final decision by relatives acting from less than perfect motives. But surely some system of living will could be put in place to reduce such unpleasantness to the absolute minimum. After all they seem to be able to manage it in Switzerland and Holland.

Darby · 02-12-2004, 11:04

It's too emotive a subject to reach any decisions. We all have our own viewpoint, and they are right to each and every one of us.

I know what I would do...never mind the consequences..........................

Bazf · 02-12-2004, 13:03

Dont know if this case was ever reported in the UK but its been an on going saga here in Florida with a woman in a vegative state having her family keeping her alive and her husband wanting to let her die. Many reasons abound about what should be done and it brought about a lot of people making living wills, myself included, so you dont get interferance from outside.
http://reports.tbo.com/reports/schiavo/
http://news.tbo.com/news/MGAGC7TE1MD.html
http://reason.com/links/links102303.shtml

http://cbs11tv.com/health/healhttp://news.
some of these may give an insight in to the case but it does open up discusion on euthinasia, living wills etc should politions be involved? who has the right to terminate? how do you know the wishes of the person?

WillowTheWhisp · 02-12-2004, 13:46

It's a very complicated issue and I don't think there is any one simple straight forward answer, but I don't think people should be kept artificially alive only to prolong their agony when death is inevitable.

As many have already said, we are far kinder to animals.

Acrylic-bob · 02-12-2004, 14:05

There are some who will call me harsh and unfeeling when I say this, but here goes.
I really do not see the point of expending time and resources trying to keep people alive who are in a persistent vegetative state. 'Just because we can' does not seem like a really sound ethical reason for maintaining the life of someone for whom that concept has ceased to have any effective meaning. What purpose is served by keeping someone alive who is, to all intents and purposes, dead and who could not survive without constant intervention. It has always seemed to me to be an abuse rather than compassion. Far better to let the person involved die with dignity and encourage the relatives to accept the unfortunate fact and get on with their lives, rather than have them tear themselves apart in this unseemly and desperate attempt to hold onto a person that is lost.

I do sympathise with relatives who find themselves in this awful position, and I hope that I never have to face a similar dilemma. But if I were to have to face it, my response would be; let them go, give me a little space to grieve and then let me carry on. I would rather have the memory of a loved one as being happy and active, than hooked up to a bank of machines slowly wasting away.

Darby · 02-12-2004, 14:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acrylic-bob

There are some who will call me harsh and unfeeling when I say this, but here goes.
I really do not see the point of expending time and resources trying to keep people alive who are in a persistent vegetative state. 'Just because we can' does not seem like a really sound ethical reason for maintaining the life of someone for whom that concept has ceased to have any effective meaning. What purpose is served by keeping someone alive who is, to all intents and purposes, dead and who could not survive without constant intervention. It has always seemed to me to be an abuse rather than compassion. Far better to let the person involved die with dignity and encourage the relatives to accept the unfortunate fact and get on with their lives, rather than have them tear themselves apart in this unseemly and desperate attempt to hold onto a person that is lost.

I do sympathise with relatives who find themselves in this awful position, and I hope that I never have to face a similar dilemma. But if I were to have to face it, my response would be; let them go, give me a little space to grieve and then let me carry on. I would rather have the memory of a loved one as being happy and active, than hooked up to a bank of machines slowly wasting away.

Sounds like common sense to me A-Bob, but it's your own opinion. Whatever anybody says..it will displease somebody. So I don't for one minute think we will ever reach any sort of conclusion. And for any conclusion there will be a dozen or more additions, amendments, extras etc.

I think it's fair to say...EACH UNTO THEIR OWN...

But anybody who preaches right or wrong on this subject....is just that .....Wrong!!

WillowTheWhisp · 02-12-2004, 14:49

Absolutely - to each their own. The problem is at the moment that each has not their own as we do not have options. If it were legal then the choice would be there - choice not compulsion. As it is illegal we have no choice.

Darby · 02-12-2004, 15:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

Absolutely - to each their own. The problem is at the moment that each has not their own as we do not have options. If it were legal then the choice would be there - choice not compulsion. As it is illegal we have no choice.

Quite right Willow, but there are always choices...illegal or legal. The law (as everyone knows) is an Ass!!