A subject being debated at the moment - should mercy killing be allowed?

What do you think? Should Voluntary Active Euthanasia be allowed?

I for one wish to be able to decide whether I'll rot away in tubes or go less painfully. As long as the patient has a sound mind and is capable of expressing the desire, or can be proven of having done so at an earlier time, I'm all for it. One shouldn't be forced to live if they don't wish to.

You sure have a knack for choosing touchy topics, wobbly fella. I can already hear the galloping horses ...the knights are riding into town.

I am very much Pro on this issue. My mother died a very painful death due to lung cancer (she loved her cigarettes). I don't believe anyone should have to go through that. By that I mean the dying and the dying's family.

Completely, yes. This is one of very few subjects that I will NOT argue on. If anyone's against it, then I hope you die a long and excruciating death.

I agree with my feline friend here.

It's a difficult question. I think it depends very much on the individual case rather than the issue in general, every situation is different. Although I am wholly against the case of Charlotte Wyatt, the terminally ill baby in the news at the moment. She was born early and has a brain that's complete mush apart form one emotion : pain. Her parents are fighting for the doctors to resuscitate her should she have a crisis, and have just been given what they want. The poor child feels nothing but pain, all day every day. It's cruel beyond words. :(

Completely, no. This is one of few subjects that I will NOT argue on. If anyone's for it, then I hope you'll die as soon as your family decides that.

Against. Against buying hours or days with artificial means if the person doesn't want it but against euthanasia, as well.

I'm for it. And this reminds me of one song by Death, Pull the Plug:
Memories is all that's left behind
As I lay and wait to die
Little do they know
That I hear their choise of life

End it now, it is the only way
Too cruel, that is what they say
Release me from this lonely world
There is no hope - Why don't you

Pull the plug
Let me pass away
Pull the plug
Don't want to live this way

Once I had full control of my life
I now behold a machine decides my fate
End it now it's all to late

What has now been days, it seems like years
To stay like this is what I fear
Life ends so fast, so take your chance
And make it last

End it now, it is the only way
Too cruel, that is what they say
Release me from this lonely world
There is no hope - Why don't you

Pull the plug
Let me pass away
Pull the plug
Don't want to live this way

Against. Against buying hours or days with artificial means if the person doesn't want it but against euthanasia, as well. I don't see any solution in this. You don't want a person to suffer being connected to all those artificial means but you also don't to "pull the plug".

@Arendil:
Ha ha. And in all seriousness, I hope I do too. You might hold it against your family if they did it to you, but I know my family and wouldn't hold it against them even if it was done for the worst of reasons.

I don't believe it's obligatory to fight for each passing minute if it's already known that the person is dying. But I don't believe in stepping in and cutting it, either.

Very hard subject, I'm against letting people die when there's still hope, but on the other hand, keeping people alive while death is inevitable is useless too. But I find it nearly impossible to draw a line here, people in coma can come back after 15 years or more, and some deadly ill people can recover a bit and live a few more years in relative happiness.

So i'm against euthanasia as a concept, but ''letting someone go'' is sometimes okay, I'm not sure if this is really euthanasia...

I'm for, if the person has absolutely no chance of surviving why let him/her continue suffer? Not only euthanasia will end the suffering of the ill patient it will also give time to doctor to concentrate on other person who can be saved. I don't want to sound insensitive but it's a waste of time and medical ressources that could be used for other patients.

I am clearly for. but only if requested by the person or family. No Doctor should have the right to determine if a patient require euthanasia.

I'm with Ofelix. In fact, that is almost exactly what I was going to type.

You just love starting fights, don't you, Barmy? :p

And to answer the question, with some reservations, yes. Having watched both my grandfathers suffer (paralysed and with no hope of recovery) following multiple strokes has inspired me to write up a living will which makes it abundantly clear that I don't want to exist like that.

Because of my ill-health I've had to create a will and also look at a medical power of attorney and tried to sort out some of these questions.

For instance I have a DNR for hospitals now and have stated my wishes that if I'm in a permanent vegetative state that a court order should be applied for to remove the machines and euthanasia to kill my body rather than leaving it to starve to death.

Hm... We had to debate this in civics class.

I am for. All the way, and in almost all cases. If a doctor declares there is less than 5% recovery,someone is in a vegitative state should have their pulled. Yes, there are cases when a person does come back after so many years, but they're destroyed. The technology age has increased so much every year, a person waking up after 15 years would have a traumatic experience. They have no job, no money, no technical skills, their family is 15 years older, their friends moved away, some people they've known may have died or be on the verge of dying. What's the point of bringing someone back only to let them face chaos psychologically?

However, I shall bring up my final decision for law. If someone is in a vegetative state, then if in 3 years the doctors still conclude nothing can be done for them, pull the plug. If, like Susan Rodriguez, someone approaches the court for permission to die earlier, then it should be granted.

I am against youth in Asia.

I am against youth in Asia. What? I don't see your point there, what's the link with euthanasia ?

"Euth...an...asia"
Youth...in...Asia

/me waits for Ofelix's :doh:

See here for Wkipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia)

Euthanasia (Greek: ευθανασία - ευ "good", θανατος death") is the practice of killing a person or animal, in a painless or minimally painful way, for merciful reasons, usually to end their suffering. 'Pulling the plug' is not considered euthanasia if there is a Living Will.

I have a Living Will.

Definitely for it. It pained me greatly to see my late uncle suffering with lung cancer.

If the person doesn't want to live the rest of whats left of their painful and excruciating life, its his decision. Heck, I wouldn't want to be forced to live under such conditions.

Grillen - It's the AoDA, so bad jokes with no content are not acceptable (bad jokes with real content generally will be OK depending on how bad the joke is).

Im for it, as long as the person is in a irreversible state and is clearly in pain or similar, or if the person can say/make a sign that he/she wants to die.

I wouldn't like to end like vegetable. DNR (*takes The Gathering album by Testament and plays the first song on full volume*)

Pro.

For euthanasia.
Trying to keep a person alive on machines when they may not want to or cannot express their decision is always a dicey problem. But there must be a freedom to make that decision. A blanket ban on euthanasia for no reasons other than supposed morality of the vocal old is plain wrong.

I for one would not want to lie in a comatose or painful condition forever hooked on machines while my chance of haveing a real life is minimal to negligible. Nor would I want it suffered by anyone I care for. That I guess is why most of our treatments are done in private hospitals. Government hopises may have to abide by rules but private ones are quite willing to ignore them and stop taking measures to keep a body warm.

It seems here on SP we have a majority (thus far) of pro for euthanasia. It's interresting I never would have thought of that. I was pretty sure the ''Nays'' would've been in majority.

And why would that be ?

Pro btw.

What suprises me that given the intelligence of the average SPer they are confusing euthanasia and the removal of life support or the refusal to use it.

I can understand that there may be cases where someone would choose euthanasia but it should be strictly controlled and monitored.

Well, Nakia, technically the removal of life support isn't euthanasia, but isn't it often referred to as passive euthanasia? So, I can see the point of confusion.

I'm in favor of active euthanasia, and it is actually legal here in Holland, however there is a major flaw in the system. The patient must be in unbearable pain with no prospect of improvement, and at that moment consciously (and often repeatedly) say that he/she wants to be euthanised. This eliminates the possibility for the demented to be euthanised, no matter what pain they are in. It is argued that a demented person does not know what he/she wants anymore and might just as well say 'yes', when they actually don't want to be euthanised. Wishes expressed in the past, or even documented are not respected. The family should be able to decide over active euthanasia, just like they can over passive euthanasia, if a person can't make the decision himself.

Well it would be pretty stupid to pump the patient with a little morphine, pull the plug and wait for nature to take its own course. The whole point here imo is to relieve the patient and the family's pain that comes from the former being kept alive artificially in a situation where there is no hope of recovery. Its not as if an OD of any one of the myriad of available drugs wont do 'em in.

Nakia, it just so happens that I was a bit ignorant on the difference in definition, so thanks for the article, it was informative.

Come to think of it, haven't there also been trials on "pulling the plug" -type of cases? Some people are steadfastly against that too, considering it tantamount to murder. That's probably where my confusion came from.

I'm still "for" though. It's a choice thing. If I was terminally, hopelessly ill and in a lot of pain, I'd really like the option to be on the table.

I have to echo Nakia's thoughts on this. "Pulling the plug", removing life support, having a DNR order, etc., do not constitute euthanasia. At best, they can be described as passive euthanasia, as Mesmero mentioned, but I'm not sure I'd even qualify it as that. Euthanasia is doing something to actively end one's life (usually the equivalent of a lethal injection), not the removal of life-sustaining equipment or nutrients. It's what Dr. Kavorkian does, not what happened to Terri Shaivo.

I have a living will, but that doesn't mean I would be euthanised. In fact, since I have not explicitly stated that I would want that to happen, I think I wouldn't be. However, if I was in a persistent vegetative state, I wouldn't want life sustaining treatment - but that doesn't mean I'd be euthanised.

I'm pro on the condition that the person him/herself asks for it. If you fall into a coma or something, I'm a little more iffy, maybe if they can prove you requested it at an earlier date, kind of a DNR order, but the family shouldn't be able to decide for you. I also think that, as long as you have not specified your wishes, and someone is willing to pay the hospital bills, they should keep you on life-support. If I'm in a coma and my parents have no hope, but my wife does, or vice versa, I don't want one to be able to order my death against the wishes of the other. The best someone can do is refuse to pay. The only time I think parents/guardians should have any say is in the case of young children who haven't had a chance to express their opinions.

I want to die as a man, not a vetegable.

I'm with the "suffer horribly if you want it outlawed" group.

I want to die as a man, not a vetegable.

I'm with the "suffer horribly if you want it outlawed" group. So does this mean you're for or againts? Your post isn't clear IMO.

Now with the help of Nakia, Mesmero, and some other (thank!) the subject is more clearer, and some others. The ambiguity (spelling? :hmm: ) between euthanasia and pulling the plug is no more. Now people does that change your view? Not mine though in fact I'm pro for both of them.

I believe he means that he is pro-euthanasia.

And I'm still with Ofelix, after the clarification of the words.

This may sound ambiguous but I am in favor only of a case by case descision. I just think that there is too much chance of misuse of either. I am not in favor of a blanket legalization of either. In the case of "pulling the plug" I am more liberal but with euthanasia I am more conservative.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that if someone is in a vegtable state then they are brain dead. Based on personal experience I don't think it takes very long for the person to be legally dead once the plug is pulled.

Yes Nakia, you have brought a good point. Some people might see euthaniasia of a quick way to commit suicide. Yes I haven't though of that. Still I'm pretty sure with a strick reglementation and a case by case attitude euthanasia can be a good thing.

While I don't advocate killing someone, I do agree with a DNR order and no machines to keep me alive. Let God's will take it's course, but do not fight it or seek to accelerate it.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that if someone is in a vegtable state then they are brain dead. Based on personal experience I don't think it takes very long for the person to be legally dead once the plug is pulled Brain death occurs when the cerbellum and thereby the higher functions of the brain cease functioning, in this state unless damaged the autonomic functions (heartbeat, breathing, digestion, enzyme production etc) continue; though sometimes aided by machines. It's my understanding that when the machines are switched off the autonomic functions continue until the body dies; as a process this can take anywhere from hours to weeks dependent upon such factors as fitness, atrophy levels. In most cases death occurs as the body starves itself.

This is why the person who has my medical power of attorney has specific instructions in this case to apply to the courts for assissted death rather than to leave me to starve to death. We wouldn't treat an animal that way why should we a human ?

On an interesting note, I've read this from several science reviews for my university courses. Here is some food for thought:

With modern technology, some people who have lost all thought processes (brain dead) can have their body sustained with continued function with machines. Up until the point where the body can actually have a normal pregnancy and give birth to a healthy child!! :eek:

@Faye - yes. In fact there was a woman earlier this year who was pregnant, and during the pregnancy she was diagnosed with terminal cancer. She slipped into a coma, and was kept alive by artificial means until the fetus was able to survive outside the womb, and which point, a C-section was performed. The mother was subsequently removed from life support, and died, but the baby is apparently healthy.

@Nakia - it depends. Someone like Terri Shaivo was brain dead, but as you can see, it took quite some time for her to die. Now, if someone is on life-support as well as being brain dead, pulling the plug will result in death much quicker. So, if Terri Shaivo had, for example, been hooked up to a respirator, then it is quite likely that removal of the respirator would have resulted in her death in the matter of minutes.

Aldeth, bad news for you -- the baby did not make it. They kept the mother alive until the start of the third trimester then performed a c-section to remove the baby -- it was only a little over 2 pounds. The baby only survived a few weeks (premies do not have the best survival rates).

I'm definately with Nakia on this one. Euthanasia can be too easily abused. Assisted suicide sometimes falls under euthanasia, but not always -- I am for helping someone relieve suffering, but I don't agree with the extent Kavorkian went to (or that soldier in Iraq). There needs to be limits and close monitoring.

While I believe that human choices should be respected, especially about not prolonging burdensome and painful treatment. I am worried that legislating for euthenasia would inevitably lead to less research into and resources for good palliative care. No decision is cost-free and the cost of allowing people to end their own lives might be a significant deterioration in palliative care and this too must surely be considered.

SatansBedFellow brings a thought to my mind. How would insurance companies view this? Euthenasia would be cheaper than keeping someone alive indifinitely. In which case they might be in favor of euthenasia and willing to pay for it.

Which convinces me more and more that this something that should be very closely monitered and regulated.

Oh, most certainly, especially if the insurance companies deem euthanasia as 'not a natural cause' even if a natural death was only days or weeks away. I wouldn't put it past them.

This whole issue would require some extremely careful and thorough research to cover all angles with the legislation. I'd like to see it legal, but making the laws fool-proof (or greedy insurance company weasel-proof) is a hard task.

Every time anyone declares anything fool-proof, someone else invents a better fool. No law is fool-proof and I can't think of many that greedy insurance companies can't get around if they really want to.

I guess the only circumstance in which I would want to be kept alive artificially is if my organs would be viable to give someone else a chance at life. Otherwise, don't resist the will of God...

Gnarff,

They don't take your organs until after you die anyway. If you're an organ donor, they wait until you die, and THEN they take your organs. Maybe I'm just reading this wrong, because it doesn't make much sense.

Pro. When properly motivated and when there is proper support for the person in question and the relatives.

Now if only they managed to make a proper, non-ambigous law for it. :rolleyes:

[ October 26, 2005, 16:18: Message edited by: Uytuun ]

Well, if I wasgoing to die, and there was a chance to keep me on life support to make an organ viable for transplant, then do it. Otherwise, don't fight God's will.

Pro, but agree with Nakia that it needs to be on a case by case basis.

However, I also have concerns for the doctors involved. Obviously it would need to be a voluntary thing, but I heard some statistics on suicides in vetinary staff, these are actually extremely high in comparison to other high-stress professions (Three times that of doctors I think)
One of the main reasons could be that because they are used to relieving animals of their suffering they are more likely to chose the same path for themselves, rather than seeking alternative help.

I'm a little behind the news at the moment, but I believe the current House of Lords debate is regarding Doctors offering assistance for the patients to administer their own death. Theoretically this would nulify my concerns, but it doesn't offer much help to patients in a PVS or total paralysis.

If it were my brother in law, I'd gladly pull the plug, even if he were saying "I feel no pain, I'm happy, no, DON'T TOUCH THAT!!"
"Bring out your dead!"

Sorry, this is not the proper place for humor. What worries me is not the idea of a willing person wishing to spare himself unnecessary pain and his family unnecessary costs and anguish. What I am concerned about is this:

LKD is in a horrible crash. His injuries are serious. LKD is a decent, contributing member of society with no criminal record, just for those who don't know. Anyhow, he's in the hospital, and here comes a guy (I'll call him Rufus, sorry if there's any new members here by that name) who is having liver failure. Rufus has a criminal record that fills 3 CD-ROMs, with multiple convictions for rape, murder, theft, bestiality, fraud, and bad grammar. However, he is in need of a liver transplant, and the doctors say "well, LKD happens to be a viable donor, and, well, no one will know the difference. We'll just load him up on drugs, con him into asking to die while stoned, and Rufus can get his liver and go out and rape LKDs kids."

I'm being deliberately facetious here, but my fear and my point is serious.

@LKD:
That seems like just another variation on the 'crooked doctors looking for organs to harvest' theme. If you don't want someone to have your organs after your death, just don't put the sticker on your driver's license. (Maybe it's different in Canada, I don't know; but even if it is, the US and freedom of keeping-your-body-parts isn't too far away. ;) )

Felinoid, you're right, but my argument is that I want as many safeguards as possible in place to prevent any possibility of someone being tricked into euthanasia for the convenience of others. As for someone who is in their right mind and the situation is clearly hopeless, on that basis I'm all for alleviating unnecessary suffering.

I was watching a reality medical show once, and there was a guy who broke his neck while on vacation with his family.

He was in the emergency room paralyzed from the neck down. One of the doctors was urging him to have surgery performed ASAP to save his life. He would most likely be paralyzed from the neck down forever. He said he was thinking of refusing the surgery and just letting nature take its course (i.e. dying) but the doctor said something like "well, you're not in the right state of mind to make that decision." Ultimately, they did the surgery and he did live.

I just wonder when you're considered to be in the "right state of mind" to decide if you want to live or die.

And am I the only person bothered by the government, Big Brother, a doctor or (God forbid) Pat Robertson deciding whether I can die when and how I want? It seems like the ultimate freedom, to decide when one wants to die.

The idea of the government stepping in and saying "no sir! you're going to live whether you like it or not!" really doesn't sit well with me.

There has to be some safeguards in place, though. I've read of many people who considered suicide or euthanasia while under great stress who later expressed great appreciation for the people who stopped them so they could think it through a little more.