EUTHINASIA - Page 3

vorlon24 · 02-12-2004, 15:27

Then the answer is to move to Holland.

If I was going to be a vegetable for the rest of my life I would want to die. At the time I probably wouldn't realise that, but while I am of 'sound mind' I would not want to put my family in the position of financial hardship looking after me, and when I did finally die, remembering me as an incoherent lump of uselessness for a number of years, and being relieved when I have gone.

There are policies you can take out to pay for critical illnesses, but they don't really cover the full costs of caring for someone who is completely incapable.

Acrylic-bob · 02-12-2004, 15:57

An opinion from another side of the debate. I found this in the blog of a medical student.

"I work in a place where the mortality rate is extremely high. It gets hard, especially when the time comes to tell the fmailies of the passing of their loved ones, but by far the worst moment was, when, i ndesperation, a mother asked my consultant and I who were studying her son's case notes to relieve his sufferring. It came as a shock at first, but for something I've always thought would be a straightaway 'no', I found it very hard to deny her anything in that state. Her only son was dying of a disease which I am bound by oath not to divulge. He was in great pain, contrary to popular belief, pain is very dectable to the naked and even untrained eye. To see a mother have to watch her son die, its heartbreaking, and its very hard to say no.

For that simple reason, I am not against euthanasia. I may have left out the religious aspect of it, but only because I believe the practice of medicine should be as independent of religion as possible, to the patients concern. I am a Roman Catholic by birth, and I believe in one God, but if a patient does not, it is not the duty of the doctor to force it upon him/her as a choice of whether to continue sufferring or not. True, it is similar to playing God, and I would not do it if given the chance, my point is that euthanasia, for all the media portrays it to be, is more often than not, an act of extreme mercy rather than a murderous one.

In all its belittling of the medical profession when we go wrong, the media conveniently forgets that doctors are human, with the enhanced ability to empathize with patients, so much so that most would give up their family time, sleep and other activites to help save the lives of strangers they are morally bound to help. We are not gods, we're not perfect, and we cannot always make the right decisions. Performing euthanasia may be socially frowned upon, but many like to forget the fact that the doctor is in a very difficult situation when approached. The guilt of performing an act is always there, and it doesn't matter how good you are, you make on wrong move, and a life is either gone, or another person has to live with the consequences of your actions for the rest of his/her life. Its not easy to make decisions, and the ones on euthanasia are right up there with the most difficult ones.

My response to the mother?

"We can never give up hope."

No one who has not experienced the situation will ever know how insincere and empty that answer sounds."

Darby · 03-12-2004, 06:10

Another fine perspective....It's so difficult...nay impossible to answer!!

WillowTheWhisp · 03-12-2004, 07:22

That doctor refers to the fact that he is Roman Catholic by birth and believes in God but also that he is not against euthanasia. I find that quite interesting because I've heard the "religious viewpoint" that euthanasia = murder = sin from people not in the medical profession. Obviously the legal aspect must play a part in it also where a doctor is concerned because if he were to break the law he would risk everything.

From my point of view, my religious beliefs put a different perspective on the situation because I don't believe that this life is the be all and end all so I would see euthanasia as a means of allowing the person to move on and in contrast keeping them artificially alive could be interpreted as being against God's will. But that's only a personal viewpoint.

I wonder how a Hindu would feel about it? Or anyone else for that matter who believes in re-incarnation - would they see it as preventing the person from moving on to their next life?

vorlon24 · 03-12-2004, 14:53

The main problem is where the beliefs of the doctor conflict with those of the patient - the fact that someone is Roman Catholic is irrelevant as far as the patient is concerned.

Bazf · 03-12-2004, 16:19

As a complete non beliver in imaginary people up in the sky I still think it should be the wishes of the Person and not those of the carer,staff,doctors, polititions or any other 3rd party.

How about the Jehovah witnesses would they be treated differently "religious viewpoint" that euthanasia = murder = sin. Another talking point.

mel3ft · 05-12-2004, 18:09

im doing this subject in my re class at school i cant decide weather to agree or disagree but if i came to the state that some people have been through id deffinately agreed with it i watched this video were it showed you some of the states people were in and you couldnt help but feel sorry for them one woman didnt have any feeling in her body at all. And the people that went through it all had incurable diseases.

lettie · 05-12-2004, 19:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by vorlon24

The main problem is where the beliefs of the doctor conflict with those of the patient - the fact that someone is Roman Catholic is irrelevant as far as the patient is concerned.

The beliefs of the medical staff are completely irrelevant at this moment in time. Their practices have to comply with the law of the land. We all know that euthanasia occurs one way or another either by a relative, carer or abroad. I believe that if I was in a position of total dependence and pain which I knew to be terminal, I would want some kindly soul to help me out. Many doctors and nurses feel the same way, but it is really not worth trying to end it for someone as you would lose everything if you did. The only thing that medical staff can do is impose a not for resuscitation order or switch off ventilators (like they did recently with the baby with Edwards syndrome) This means that if someone who is terminally ill and in hospital dies, no measures are taken to resuscitate them. If you are in decent health and have, for example, had an operation and your heart stops measures will be taken to resuscitate you because you have the chance of complete recovery and a decent quality of life.
It is the 'not for resus' orders that cause problems for some families who cannot accept that their loved ones have no chance. That's why these cases end up in court..

WillowTheWhisp · 05-12-2004, 22:00

I think the doctor was pointing out that although he is Roman Catholic his personal opinion was in favour of putting the person out of their misery even though his church would tell him that is a sin. However, despite his personal feelings he had medical guidelines to follow which is why he ended up giving advice contrary to his own personal beliefs.

Less · 14-01-2005, 12:15

I'm happy to have seen on the news today that Mr. Blackburn has only been given a suspended sentence for assisting his wife to end her life. It was equally relieving to hear about the support he is getting from his two step-sons.

vorlon24 · 14-01-2005, 13:07

From what I saw, this support was taken into account by the judge, and that was a contributing factor to him not receiving a custodial sentence

WillowTheWhisp · 14-01-2005, 23:24

It's such a difficult subject and they would of course be most affected and most personally involved. The judge in this case sounds very wise.

Acrylic-bob · 15-01-2005, 06:09

I agree. The Judge was pushing the boundary of the law as far as he could, but Mr Blackburn will now live the rest of his life with a criminal record.

Is it fair and just and equitable to criminalise a person for acting out of the highest and most honourable motives of compassion and love? And how terrible it is for them both to have had to resort to this dreadful, clandestine performance, on top of the grief, pain and heartache caused by the illness itself.

An acquaintance of mine is currently too-ing a fro-ing between BRI and home waiting for his father to die. This has been going on now for a fortnight. Slowly, painfully, the old chap is sinking into insensibility, his vital organs are beginning to fail. There is absolutely no chance whatever of recovery. But despite the patient's repeated requests, there is no one who can help him end the pain and distress that he is in.

His son said to me the other day "If he was an animal, I would be sent to prison for allowing him to suffer like this." It makes it all the more difficult to witness his father's decline when he remembers how his father did everything that love demands to spare his son pain and distress.

What do you say? How do you make the unbearable, bearable?

Acrylic-bob · 15-01-2005, 06:16

Following the heart attack a couple of years ago, all my kin have been instructed that should the necessity arise I do not wish to be resuscitated. I am so concerned about this I am even considering having the instruction tattooed on my chest.

black_flights · 15-01-2005, 11:27

ooh what a good debate. I had to do this at college. euthanasia is illegal in this country. Doctors have take something called the 'hypocratic oath' 3 rules preserve life, prevent deterioration and promote recovery. I don't believe that people should be made to suffer and should have the right to say what happens to their bodies. However i think if the legalised it would be hard to draw a line with where to stop. Also euthanasia goes against one of the commandments 'Thou shalt not kill'

they say it's god's right to say if you die or not (im not a big religious person so it's all codswallop to me)