euthanasia?

[Centaurion]

What's your point of view when it comes to this highly controversial subject?

Anyone have some links for sites with indepth info on euthanasia?

 

[Skel]

It depends on the circumstances. Ill leave that open to interpretation.

 

[RedPill]

What's your point of view when it comes to this highly controversial subject?

Anyone have some links for sites with indepth info on euthanasia?

When it's done to stray animals it's called putting them down.
When it's done to people in pain it's called assisted suicide.
When it's done to race horses it's called destroyed on the track.
When it's done to criminals it's called the death penalty.
When it's done to pets it's called putting to sleep.
When it's done to people who'd die anyway it's called mercy killing.

Funny how the same action needs so many different descriptions tied to it.

EDIT: I fully expect this thread to deteriorate over the next 24 hours. Place your bets now.

 

[MuayThai]

I'm for it. I see it as neither unessesary, barbaric, or inhumane. It takes alot of courage and coviction to make the decision to have someone killed, and then alot of love to do it.

Maybe someday.

 

[Teflon_Mcgee]

I'm for it. I see it as neither unessesary, barbaric, or inhumane. It takes alot of courage and coviction to make the decision to have someone killed, and then alot of love to do it.

Maybe someday.

Are you talking about involuntary euthenasia? Having "someone killed" is usually murder.

Anyway I'm for it. I've studied alot of the ethical philosophies for/against and I think it's ridiculous to say you can't be allowed to end your life in a humane way even if you are in intense pain and just going to die anyway.

 

[CLOONEY]

RedPill, haha, good list.

Teflon_Mcgee, I agree.

I dont think it should be made possible to everyone (otherwise many depression victims will take the easy way out), but someone with a terminal illness, who is in intense pain, should be allowed to do it. It is rediculous to make humans suffer, but anything else with the same illnesses is allowed to end their life in peace.

Its interesting actually to think its even possible for governments to tell you when and how you can end your life. So much for freedom!

 

[Bible_Belt]

It's a slippery slope. The problem lies in determining who is capable of making that decision. Many elderly people go through periods of depression, where they would be receptive to the idea, but their mood depends on the day. Any nursing home is full of very sick people, but a relative who gave consent to pull the plug would almost always be getting thousands of dollars in life insurance money. There's no way to tell whose motives are genuine.

The only right way is to just let people die. I am fine with rejecting health care to go home and die in peace with your family, but health care should not be used as an instrument of death.

 

[Centaurion]

When it's done to stray animals it's called putting them down.
When it's done to people in pain it's called assisted suicide.
When it's done to race horses it's called destroyed on the track.
When it's done to criminals it's called the death penalty.
When it's done to pets it's called putting to sleep.
When it's done to people who'd die anyway it's called mercy killing.

Funny how the same action needs so many different descriptions tied to it.

EDIT: I fully expect this thread to deteriorate over the next 24 hours. Place your bets now.

That is totally sweet. I'm writing a philosophy paper on euthanasia and I think I'll reference your post here.


On another note, anyone here watched that old "One" music video from Metallica. They have this clips of a guy without arms, legs and who is completly deaf and blind. I think it's from some movie made in the 1930s...Anyone remember the name of that movie?

 

[Centaurion]

Nevermind, I found it.

They are from the movie "Johnny Got His Gun" which is based upon the book by Dalton Trumbo who also directed the movie in 1971. The movie is about a soldier who's arms and legs were blown away by a grenade during World War I. Metallica purchased the rights to this film to use it for the music video.

 

[MuayThai]

Are you talking about involuntary euthenasia? Having "someone killed" is usually murder.

Anyway I'm for it. I've studied alot of the ethical philosophies for/against and I think it's ridiculous to say you can't be allowed to end your life in a humane way even if you are in intense pain and just going to die anyway.

Well you can't anybody and everybody deciding the want to euthanise themselfs, if would have to be done by doctors/lawers/courts ect to a certain extent. That is what I ment by "deciding to have someone killed" the legal process of decision, much like sentencing someone to death for a crime.

I guess the main objector to euthenaisa are religous groups.

Eugenics, now theres a question. lol

 

[Teflon_Mcgee]

It's a slippery slope. The problem lies in determining who is capable of making that decision. Many elderly people go through periods of depression, where they would be receptive to the idea, but their mood depends on the day. Any nursing home is full of very sick people, but a relative who gave consent to pull the plug would almost always be getting thousands of dollars in life insurance money. There's no way to tell whose motives are genuine.

The only right way is to just let people die. I am fine with rejecting health care to go home and die in peace with your family, but health care should not be used as an instrument of death.

There have been estabalished precedence for this. If you look at places were this is allowed there really are no logical slippery slope arguments.

<disclaimer: I'm operating entirley off of memory and these facts are a year old and may be different now. If it gets messy I *can*post a source to back this up>

There are mainly three slipery slope arguments.
1. Elderly or sick people will choose death over being a burden. This is known as a duty to die. This is, IMO, the most valid argument. But on an entirely different philosophical argument we need to decide if there is ever a legitiamate duty to die. We won't get into that.

2. Depressed people will use this as a way out.

3. People with curable diseases will choose this (deliberatly or mistakenly thinking they are terminal.)

We won't even get into the murder/personal gain, passive killing/active killing, right to die/right to life arguments. However, these need to be understood to form a competent opinion on euthanasia.


If you look at all the slipery slope arguments you will see they have no validity under a regulated and careful system. And yes, these systems have been estabalished and to my knowledge have never failed. (If we get into it I may post statistics)

Dying in peace is not always an option. There are many people who spend there last days/weeks/months in excruiating pain. And more so than that many fear losing there diginity as they die.

If technology allows a person to die peacefully, with dignity and no pain, and they, in a sound and competent mind, along with their doctor agree termination is the best choice then who are we to tell them to go home and suffer so they can live for another 2 months while being stripped of their dignity and sanity?

Outside of the slipery slope arguments (which with a little studying are easy to destroy) the only other argument is that of religion.

And we won't even get into that other than by saying philosophies based on divine command should hold no merit for many reasons but can also be shown to hold contradictions and fallacies.

 

[Bible_Belt]

the slipery slope arguments (which with a little studying are easy to destroy)

You've obviously made up your mind that a death-on-demand society is for the best. But you do so by simply ignoring everything wrong with the idea. Your assertation that the slippery slope arguments are invalid is backed only by your opinions.

The biggest problem with letting someone choose to die is that they are hardly ever in a sound enough mental state to make that decision. No court is going to hold someone to a contract that they sign from their death bed. It would be void for duress, no rational choice, and lack of mental capacity.

One of Kurt Vonnegut's stories mentions government-run suicide parlors. This is not the direction that I think society should go:

[Kilgore Trout] hypothecated an America in which almost all of the work was done by machines, and the only people who could get work had three or more Ph.D's. There was a serious overpopulation problem, too.

All serious diseases had been conquered. So death was voluntary, and the government, to encourage volunteers for death, set up a purple-roofed Ethical Suicide Parlor at every major intersection, right next door to an orange-roofed Howard Johnson's. There were pretty hostesses in the parlor, and Barca-Loungers, and Muzak, and a choice of fourteen painless ways to die. The suicide parlors were busy places, because so many people felt silly and pointless, and because it was supposed to be an unselfish, patriotic thing to do, to die. The suicides also got free last meals next door.

And so on. Trout had a wonderful imagination.

One of the characters asked a death stewardess if he would go to Heaven, and she told him that of course he would. He asked if he would see God, and she said, "Certainly, honey."

And he said, "I sure hope so. I want to ask Him something I never was able to find out down here."

"What's that?" she said, strapping him in.

"What the hell are people for?"

 

[Teflon_Mcgee]

edit: double post

 

[Teflon_Mcgee]

the slipery slope arguments (which with a little studying are easy to destroy)

You've obviously made up your mind that a death-on-demand society is for the best. But you do so by simply ignoring everything wrong with the idea. Your assertation that the slippery slope arguments are invalid is backed only by your opinions.

All ethic are based on opinion. My ethics are no exception. I didn't ignore everything wrong with the idea. Everything you think is wrong I do to. I guarantee it, with the exception of ruling it out in every cases.

And before I made up my opninion I carefully studied ALL arguments on both sides. I also studied all the parallel philosophies that are required to fully understand all of the arguments for euthansia.
Including:

right to die.
passive vs. active euthanasia.
human autonomy.
allowing to die vs. killing.
killing vs. murder.
when is killing justified.
when is letting die justified.
what constitutes "sound mind."
what constitutes "life."
what constitutes "life worthy of living."
duty to die.
duty to society.



Among numerous others and actual case studies.
Trust me, these are very important philosophies to understand to FULLY understand euthanasia.

The biggest problem with letting someone choose to die is that they are hardly ever in a sound enough mental state to make that decision. No court is going to hold someone to a contract that they sign from their death bed. It would be void for duress, no rational choice, and lack of mental capacity.

This is hardly the biggest problem. In fact if you look at times and places (Even in the U.S.) where voluntary euthanasia (both passive and active euthienasia) is allowed you will see there are no recorded cases and all measures have been taken to guard against this. And there can even be arguments made that rationality should not trump a persons autonomy. I won't go there as that drasticly deepens/complicates the discussion and I don't know your knowledge of ethical philosophies.

One of Kurt Vonnegut's stories mentions government-run suicide parlors. This is not the direction that I think society should go:

Come on Bible_Belt. I know you're smarter than that. There is a far cry from a closely regulated right to die case and a "goverment-run suicide paror."

That argument is so ridiculous I won't even bother. That's not even a question of euthenasia but one of a degraded society.

NOw let me ask you this.
Have you ever taken care of a terminaly ill loved one? One who had lived a full life. One who had stomach and colon cancer that had spread to an impossible degree. One that at best had 2 months to live as determined by a staff of severly qualified doctors. One that had been sent home to die because there was nothing medicaly more to do besides *try* and alleviate the pain. One that had expressed a desire to be euthanised while in a SOUND and fully capable mind. One that begged even now to be helped to die. One that kept you awake at night screaming in pain. One that in moments of lucidity asked you just to give them a little more morphine to end the pain. Of course you couldn't cause it would probably kill them.

So you would let them carry out the rest of there short, pitiful, undignified *existance* (the word life cannot be used, refer to including arguments above) because giving them a fatal yet humane concoction will lead us to death-parlors?

 

[Bible_Belt]

Fine, get out your gun and blow away Grandma when she gets old and sick. I suggest that you do it yourself - no wussy needles and drugs. Choose a large caliber or shotgun, stick it in her mouth, and blow her head completely off. If Euthanasia is so great, then surely you should have no hesitation to help out your elderly loved ones in such a kind manner.

 

[Jimbo2k]

You haven't researched sh*t. Bible Belt is right with the abuse arguement. You casting a blind eye to it shows your not such a specialist you deem yourself to be.

Take a look at Holland, where Euthanasia has been legalized...

DUTCH EXPERIENCE WITH EUTHANASIA

Holland is widely regarded as one of the world's most civilized countries. Active euthanasia is legal there, but for the past decade the government has not prosecuted doctors who report having assisted their patients to commit suicide.

A recent Dutch government investigation of euthanasia has come up with some disturbing findings. In 1990, 1,030 Dutch patients were killed WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT. And of 22,500 deaths due to withdrawal of life support, 63% (14,175 patients) were denied medical treatment WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT. Twelve per-cent (1,701 patients) were mentally competent but were NOT CONSULTED.

These findings were widely publicized before the November 1991 referendum in Washington State, and contributed to the defeat of the proposition to legalize lethal injections and assisted suicide.

The Dutch experience seems to demonstrate that the "right to die" can soon turn into an obligation. This concept is dangerous, and you could find yourself the victim if Euthanasia becomes legal in North America.

We have all heard and some of us have experienced, moving stories of elderly people in great pain, unable to perform even the most basic human functions, who have asked to die, or have perhaps brought about their own deaths.

What these stories overlook is that today, in almost all cases, it is possible to kill pain without killing the patient. When someone's pain is relieved that person usually wants to go on living. We need to reflect carefully on the consequences of legalizing active euthanasia. If we enshrine the absolute right to die, will it then become illegal to intervene to obstruct would-be suicide? Will pharmacists be obligated to sell a lethal dose of hemlock to anyone who is temporarily depressed?


(http://www.euthanasia.com/mercy.html)
This is one of a hundred sources that can cite research done that suggests Legalization of Euthanasia can, and will, be abused.

 

[Teflon_Mcgee]

My replies in bold.

You haven't researched sh*t. Bible Belt is right with the abuse arguement. You casting a blind eye to it shows your not such a specialist you deem yourself to be.

Take a look at Holland, where Euthanasia has been legalized...

DUTCH EXPERIENCE WITH EUTHANASIA

Holland is widely regarded as one of the world's most civilized countries. Active euthanasia is legal there, but for the past decade the government has not prosecuted doctors who report having assisted their patients to commit suicide.

A recent Dutch government investigation of euthanasia has come up with some disturbing findings. In 1990, 1,030 Dutch patients were killed WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT. And of 22,500 deaths due to withdrawal of life support, 63% (14,175 patients) were denied medical treatment WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT. Twelve per-cent (1,701 patients) were mentally competent but were NOT CONSULTED.

These findings were widely publicized before the November 1991 referendum in Washington State, and contributed to the defeat of the proposition to legalize lethal injections and assisted suicide.


Actually I have researched Hollands experience with euthanasia.

And I doubt you understand them very well. Research moral and ethical philsosophies on KILLING and get back to me. I solid understanding is needed to discuss your "without their consent" argument. In particular, read the philosophies of Peter Singer. (for the record I do not agree with his radical ideas but he has some very important ideas to question in regard to the EXACT same ideas of the statistics you quote.) These statistics are simple rhetoric unless you FULLY understand them.

The Dutch experience seems to demonstrate that the "right to die" can soon turn into an obligation. This concept is dangerous, and you could find yourself the victim if Euthanasia becomes legal in North America.

And I might become a victim of an automobile death squad if driving remains legal.

We have all heard and some of us have experienced, moving stories of elderly people in great pain, unable to perform even the most basic human functions, who have asked to die, or have perhaps brought about their own deaths.

What these stories overlook is that today, in almost all cases, it is possible to kill pain without killing the patient.

While pain relief has advanced some it is still not miraculous. Besides, there are more reasons to die than pain alone.

When someone's pain is relieved that person usually wants to go on living.


Sometimes. And just because *I'm* allowed to die doesn't mean they *can't* go on living. My right to die has no impact on their right to life.


We need to reflect carefully on the consequences of legalizing active
euthanasia.

I agree

If we enshrine the absolute right to die, will it then become illegal to intervene to obstruct would-be suicide? Will pharmacists be obligated to sell a lethal dose of hemlock to anyone who is temporarily depressed?

This is the worst form of the slippery slope argument. You know damn well there is an easily detectible and apparent difference between a medical staff consulting with their terminal patient who meets strict guidelines and some 16 year old emo kid trying to slit his wrists.


(http://www.euthanasia.com/mercy.html)
This is one of a hundred sources that can cite research done that suggests Legalization of Euthanasia can, and will, be abused.

Yes it can be abused. What does that have to do with my right to die? Trucking kills tens of thousands of people a year. Cigarettes kill people by the thousands. McDonalds kills untold amounts of people. Anything can be abused or dangerous. The idea that something can be abused is not an argument to why it is wrong.