Euthanasia

[BeardofPants]

The word Euthanasia originated from the Greek language: eu means "good" and thanatos means "death". One meaning given to the word is "the intentional termination of life by another at the explicit request of the person who dies."

Passive Euthanasia: Hastening the death of a person by altering some form of support and letting nature take its course. For example:
* bullet Removing life support equipment (e.g. turning off a respirator) or
* bullet Stopping medical procedures, medications etc., or
* bullet Stopping food and water and allowing the person to dehydrate or starve to death.
* bullet Not delivering CPR (cardio-pulmonary resuscitation) and allowing a person, whose heart has stopped, to die.

Active Euthanasia: This involves causing the death of a person through a direct action, in response to a request from that person. A well known example was the mercy killing in 1998 of a patient with ALS (Lou Gehrig's Disease) by Dr. Jack Kevorkian, a Michigan physician. His patient was frightened that the advancing disease would cause him to die a horrible death in the near future; he wanted a quick, painless exit from life. Dr. Kevorkian injected controlled substances into the patient, thus causing his death. Charged with 1st degree murder, the jury found him guilty of 2nd degree murder in 1999-MAR.

Physician Assisted Suicide: A physician supplies information and/or the means of committing suicide (e.g. a prescription for lethal dose of sleeping pills, or a supply of carbon monoxide gas) to a person, so that they can easily terminate their own life. The term "voluntary passive euthanasia" (VPE) is becoming commonly used. One writer 3 suggests the use of the verb "to kevork". This is derived from the name of Dr. Kevorkian, who has promoted VPE and assisted at the deaths of hundreds of patients. Originally he hooked his patients up to a machine that delivered measured doses of medications, but only after the patient pushed a button to initiate the sequence. More recently, he provided carbon monoxide and a face mask so that his patient could initiate the flow of gas.

Involuntary Euthanasia: This term is used by some to describe the killing of a person who has not explicitly requested aid in dying. This is most often done to patients who are in a Persistent Vegetative State and will probably never recover consciousness.

So, what are your thoughts? Yay, or nay?

[Andúril]

Yay!

I mean, yes.

[afro-elf]

YEA

[Garina]

Nay. Definitely could never do it myself, and I don't really agree with it. Passive is iffy, active - no way.

[BeardofPants]

Can we have some reasons behind your decisions please? You know, just to get the ball rolling....

[Garina]

Ok, I don't agree with it because it's taking a life, which is wrong. Taking a life is against my religion, and so is suicide. If someone asks you to kill them, that's suicide, and that's wrong. You shouldn't try to persuade someone to do something like that, however much pain you are in.
If someone is going to remain in a coma for the rest of their life, then it might be acceptable, depending on the circumstances. But if they are conscious yet brain damaged, definitely not.

[afro-elf]

Ok, I don't agree with it because it's taking a life, which is wrong.

this makes your argument weak via your others statements unless you qualify it.

NO animal species can survive without something dying to sustain it. even herbivores and human vegetarians KILL plant life.
Read a good botany book and see the amazing life of plants.


So if you are christian your god set up the world in which something MUST die to keep something else alive

You shouldn't try to persuade someone to do something like that, however much pain you are in.

so you would rather have them suffer than put them out of their misery that sound callously cruel

Taking a life is against my religion, and so is suicide.

the bible condones killing many times

Can we have some reasons behind your decisions please? You know, just to get the ball rolling....

well you said that you support if and i'm your nubian synchophantic love puppy cult slave

[Andúril]

I say Yay because:

1) I have absolutely no problem with people doing whatever they want to do, to whoever, whenever, for whatever reason.

2) Between the two, nay would imply that I have a problem with people doing certain things, to themselves or others, but I don't.

3) Yay is the only other option.

[Garina]

How did I know that you were going to respond to that, a-e?

I am a Christian, the New Testament does not condone killing.

I'm sorry if you think that leaving someone in pain is cruel, but I'd rather suffer guilt for that than murder.

There is a difference between killing something for food or survival, and killing someone because they don't want to go on living. One's basic nature, the way the world was designed and the other is conscious choice.

I wouldn't necessarily condemn others for doing it, as everyone has the right to do what they want, but this is how I feel.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by afro-elf


well you said that you support if and i'm your nubian synchophantic love puppy cult slave

That made absolutely no sense, my nubian sychophantic love puppy cult slave.

Here's my two cents. For what its worth. I'm a yay-sayer. I think, especially in the case of involuntary euthanasia, that the patient deserves better than existing in that kind of limbo. In the case of cancer, Aids, etc, I definately think that if the patient can justify their reasoning behind having assisted euthanasia, then yes! definately. However, there needs to be a line drawn, a sort of euthanasia jurisdiction, if you will, so that it is not abused by people who want to "off the victim".

Also, I think its a pretty weak argument to say that you can't kill someone because life is precious. How precious is it to the victim who experiences chronic pain, both waking AND sleeping? What kind of life can you lead doped up to your eyeballs in morphine? And how is it suicide for these people if they just stop taking the drugs and let go? Isn't that kind of argument counter-productive? "No, we can't help them kill themselves. We must force them to take these drugs to stay alive." Hmmmm.

[afro-elf]

How did I know that you were going to respond to that, a-e?

its called induction

I am a Christian, the New Testament does not condone killing.

so are you saying the OT is wrong?

There is a difference between killing something for food or survival, and killing someone because they don't want to go on living

you did not qualify your above statement( until now) as i noted above.

[BeardofPants]

I'm sorry if you think that leaving someone in pain is cruel, but I'd rather suffer guilt for that than murder.

mur·der Pronunciation Key (mûrdr)
n.

1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Euthanasia, is not to kill with malice. Yes, it is premeditated, BUT it is with the permission of the victim, so it can hardly be equated with murder.

[Garina]

No I am not saying the Old Testament is wrong!

The New Testament just introduces different ways of thinking about things!

Note to self: Do not get involved in ethical arguments on Entmoot during exams, as you are distracted!

There are very good reasons for euthanasia, but I just don't agree with them.

[afro-elf]

That made absolutely no sense, my nubian sychophantic love puppy cult slave.

sorry that if should have been an it.

[Andúril]

No I am not saying the Old Testament is wrong!

The New Testament just introduces different ways of thinking about things!

Is that what you call it? Some people call it contradictory doctrine...

[afro-elf]

Some people call it contradictory doctrine...

Some call me Tim... sorry a monty python moment

[Elf Girl]

I think yes ONLY if the person has a disease that will provide them with a horrible, painful, death, and they are in a state in which they cannot enjoy the remainder of their life, and if their physician helps them but they do it. It's wrong if people can still spend some happy time with the people they love.

I don't think any arguing will resolve anything in this thread, because basically, we either believe in letting people live with torment, or letting them slip out of this world.

[Earniel]

Yay, but only if all other options are exhausted. And it needs a very firm and clear law.

[Laurelyn]

When someone is in a huge amount of pain and death is inevitably going to be painful, euthanasia, if it is wanted by that person, is perfectly fine by me. If a person is going to die soon anyways, one might as well let their death come about the way they wish it. If they wish it to be painless at the mercy of a nedle, then that's their choice.

Passive euthanasia-- only if there is no hope and te only thing that sustains a person is machines. In which case they are pretty much dead anyways, if there's no chance of recovery and they're 99.999% machine. Otherwise, don't kill 'em without their permission!

But I can see why active euthanasia and the law don't mix. It would give greedy doctors an easy way to bump off an enemy if the law wasn't careful. And then it would indeed be murder, not doing what someone wished. That would be a problem.

[Earniel]

In the new Belgian law, I believe three different doctors have to give their approval in case of active euthanasia.