what's your definition of euthanasia? is it suicide? do you think it's moral? while taking in these scenarios: a) person who has cancer & is in great pain b) totally brain dead person who has no memory whatsoever, a complete helpless vegetable c) stated in living will, "i don't want to live on machines" d) no living will & the person appears to be simply a vegetable but you don't know for sure what that person wants or even if that person is still mentality intact dying person leaves decision up to you, what would you do?
Putting someone out of their misery. Personally, i dont see anything wrong when the person expresses himself/ herself the desire to end their life when its to a point that is unbearable.
i'm for the euthanasia to a certain extend..like in the first case i'm totally against !!! because the person have only a cancer and then even if that person is on the terminal phase, she can still live a couple more time..and there's no pain that can't be relieve!!!.. but in other case.. euthanasia can be the best choice for the patient and the family..because if u are dependant from other then maybe the death of that person can help others ( not only their family but themselves too).. because i'm sure that when u are the patient and u are in one of these last case ..see other worry about u and always around make u feel more sad than happy( even if ur brain is death).. that's why euthanasia can be for some ppl a suicide ( cancer) and for other just a choice( when u are only a vegetables or in dead brain)..it depend in which case...
If you're alive but not 'living' then I guess euthanasia is reasonable. But if you're still able to function, like A and possibly C, for the most part, then you shouldn't take your life for granted and just choose to end it. Try your best to make the most of what you have. Of course its easy for me to say, never having experienced any of these situations first hand or other.
I say yes to all the above scenarios, but only if the person is VERY sick and can't be cured. There are some illnesses that kill people very slowly and painfully, so in those cases, it should definitely be allowed. Of course, the doctors should get permission from either the person or his/her family members before doing this.
I think if you are talking on moral ground, the choice is first placed on the patient (if he is able) and if he is not, then the judgment falls on his family or whoever he stated to be his proxy. If all thing fails (or he has no proxy to speak of). THEN the doctor get to judge whether euthanasia is in order. I have no problem with euthanasia performed on knowing individuals such as those who stated clearly that they do not want to receive medical treatments (I think there's a form for it) or those with a living will on the same matter. On a side note, I think the patient's will overrules proxy. If he wanted no help (on legal black and white of course), that is final. No amount of protext from the proxy can overrule that authority. @lilydream: There are more pain than can be relieved medically. Unless you consider "putting the person into chemically induced coma" as a relief.
are u sure about what u say? all the pain can be relieve especially with what we call "opiacés"(sorry don't khnow how to say it in english)..and then i talk about the pain that ur body feel and not about ur mind..because this is right that when u are depressed or feel sad or really down..no matter what we will give u it won't help to relieve the pain.... the feelings that u feel in the depth of u will be what ur body explain sometimes and this is true that there no matter what u will give it won't help..but about the real pain that come out from no where and that is not a consequences of ur mind..then u have drugs that can help!!!
Of course I know about opiates, but most opiates' effectiveness decline as the user continue on taking it. Plus, life on opiates (stoned?) doesn't quite qualifies as quality life for me... You cannot function properly, then out the window goes the "enjoy the remaining short period of life".
^ Thanks to advances in pain meds, MD uses a combination of drugs to control pain which is way more effective and less side effects, thus pt being less stoned or even fully functional.
Yet I do not think it's the doctor's call, if the patient (soberly, not drug- or pain-addled) wanted to have euthanasia.
^ Its definitely the pt's call. No one should be forced to have treatment they do not want. However, thats not always the case since many pts do not know their rights and nobody bothers telling them.
And then there's always the annoying relatives who are not legal proxies... Throwing in their unwanted two cents @_@b
Aint that always the case. I've seen family members actually pressing the pain release medication machine (PCA) every 5 min because the pt was in pain. Good thing that those machine only releases after a certain time, otherwise the pt might have died as a druggie.
hmm.. interesting. well, we were just talking about it in class the other day and i wanted to see what you thought. and one more scenario: the person wants to live but the insurance is going to stop covering the money pretty soon and remaining family members cannot handle the enormous daily fee.
But I guess I wouldn't be the best person to answer this question (after this long discussion, I just realize after reading the thread title again) since I am not spiritual in nature. @chickenutbread: That's why the Health Care System in the States is so great. If it's Canada we are talking about... If he's terminally ill I think he's pretty covered... But not sure since I have no experience with these kind of thing *knock on wood* Perhaps someone else may wish to enlighten me on the subject as well?
That really depends on which country you live in. In Canada, every Canadian citizen is ENTITLED to access health care services disregard their economical status. In the US, not too sure, but i would guess that there are some sort of government funded hospital where the bare minimum will be done for the patient. And if you are asking whether i would support euthanasia in this situation, its a definite no. It would be ethically wrong.
If the choice is on me.. I will choose death for any case in which the patient can't survive without machines. There are exeptions though.. on case to case basis.
money is always a big problem..and this is why ppl and esp doctor have to remember what is their promise when they start this work!!..but well it' s more hypocrisis than Hippocrate..and in that case it won't be an euthanasia but a MURDER!!! because refuse to help ppl who is in the needed it's like kill that person ... Euthanasia is a choice..but only a choice for ppl who is really sick and know that no matter what will happen in the future there are no more hope to be in good health in the future...But in the scenario you give you don't precise the nature of his disease then it can be just a cancer that can be cure or another thing that can be repair by surgery....( or whatever..)..but in that case it's not really the patient who make the choice to end his life ..this is because the situation push him to choose that way !!!
What can I say, it sucks to be sick in the States... Because I think it's unethical and immoral to pull the plug just because the person's family cannot afford it. Yes I know it is the idealistic talk, but it is just wrong to think yourselves (family of the patient) more important than the dying patient. The person is NOT dead yet... If HE/SHE made that choice, it's HIS/HER choice. Not a choice to be made by any other.
