Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Thoughts on Euthanasia

Discussion in 'The Pub' at netrider.net.au started by davidp1984, Aug 28, 2011.

  1. What are people's thoughts on Euthanasia? Should it be legalised or not?

    and no I am not talking about young people in Asia.
  2. I've sat with a couple of relatives, waiting for them to die of cancer.
    It's not a dignified way to spend your last weeks (yes, weeks...), and neither is it comfortable for the person themselves nor the people who care for them.

    Euthanasia would seem to be the most humane outcome, but it needs strict controls in place to avoid the inevitable...
  3. IIRC, Dr. Philip Nitschke is or was a motorcyclist.
  4. It's damned if you do, Damned if you don't.
    Don't allow it and there are people who will suffer. Allow it and no doubt there will be people who pressure family members... "c'mon granny, if you can't take care of yourself, perhaps it is time to concider a more permanent solution, I have my own life to live"
  5. We can Euthanize animals when they are suffering with no chance of recovering, why not us humans ?

    My 1st wife begged both the doc's and me to help end her suffering, all we could do was up her meds and let her smoke/drink etc while in palative care.
    To make her as comfortable as possible.

    She was 38 when we laid her to rest, the kids where only 11 and 15 , they have made me hide or destroy all photos of 'mum' after a certain point in her illness due to the unpleasant memory s, they want to remember her as she was, not as she was when she passed.

    We all knew after 6 months 'treatment' that she was terminal with no hope of any sort of remission.
    Once she was bedridden, and had no quality of life is when she started to ask.

    So am I for Euthanasia .... F*** yeah in these situations, not the your just too old and a burden to your family etc, such as in Killbots post :angel:
  6. The reason we can't legalize it here is because in a certain country without free health care where some states have legalized it when you are refused treatment for a terminal illness or only given a slim chance a brochure is placed in that same envelope asking if you have considered suicide.
    And once it is legalized any borderline cases will get let through until the requirements are parental consent if under 16. It has happened before and will happen if we let it.
    Any way illegal or otherwise all one needs is a few too many sleeping pills and a signed DNR.
  7. Sorry to hear it Bob. My final memories of both my grandmothers aren't ones I cherish either - it's the ones from healthy times...

    Honest question: what stopped you, personally? my maternal gran was ready to go and in great pain, but she kept waking up morning after morning for weeks. She wasn't asking for help, but I wondered to myself if I could do something if she did ask. I decided that I didn't think I could, even if it meant watching her suffer.
  8. its a slippery slide, the mentally ill, those suffering discomfort (not the permanent one), those who cant say otherwise, and those who are simply sick of life would die. Sure at first there would be tough legislation but as we have seen with everything, people get used to it and the safeguards become less and less. Pretty soon the mentally ill and old people would be euthanized simply for becoming a burden to society.

    Those who administer the deadly medication would also suffer.
  9. I think in this stupid country it'd be all to likely to wind up in a Logan's Run type scenario in like 20 years. I do agree with it though, the only problem is that it will be abused somehow
  10. My mother took 12 years to die from Parkinsons disease, Do you think it is Humane in any way possible to look at your mother in a bed, every thing done for her, not being able to speak, move her arms or legs or any other part of her body, waiting for either her heart to stop or her througt muscles to collapse and she suffocates to death,
    this was an extremley active woman, stuck in a bed and cant move,
    No medication of any kind,

    Her brain is fully functional, there is nothing wrong with her mentally. Mid 50's.

    My Girlfriends Mother finally died of Alzeihmers, after 10 odd years, 84 years old, sitting in a chair supported all round, as she could not move or speak or communicate in any way.

    Brain function, Totally devoid, Totally free of medication of any kind,

    Both these horrific disease's are terminal, there is no cure, you just sit back and watch them die a disgusting and irreversible death,

    Is this called freedom of life

    You would not allow an animal to go through the same ordeal.
    Why do you subject or allow humans to be subjected to it.

    Then you self rightous, ignorant and down right disgusting A/Holes (people for want of a better word ) stand up and say we must keep these people alive at all costs, no matter the suffering of the person or the suffering of the family and friends involved,

    You will change your attitude when you watch your loved one slowly die in front of you. knowing you could have done some thing to shorten and stop this miserable and disgusting way of dying from occuring,

    To those that are against euthanasia, For the people that really do need it, and are totally beyond help.

    I HOPE YOU ROT IN HELL, YOU ARE SCUMBAGS. and I am not even religous,
  11. Doctors do it all the time now. Lots of road toll fatalities are in fact suicides (which only drives our safetycrats to enact even more restrictive laws).

    It should be legal, when initiated by the person who wishes to die. While every single Human on this world is precious and valued for the unique person they are (by me anyway), there are 6.5+ billion people on the earth. Letting a few who need to rest in peace before they finally die of some terrible illness is not going to destroy our civilisation.
  12. How can you initiate some thing if you are NON COMPAS,

    That means you are past communicating any thing you may want.
  13. It was bought up by both myself and her mother with the doctors at the time, who morally wanted to help but ethically and legally they could not. As she never required life support in any form, any passing other than a natural progression would have required a full autopsy.

    It was traumatic enough for the kids as it was, but to add possible charges to myself or whoever aided in her passing earlier than expected, as an autopsy would have reveled, nullified that as an option unfortunately.

    As we have seen even giving her something to self administer would have resulted in charges as well.
  14. This is why we should all have very detailed advance directives in place and make sure we have the conversation with our loved ones regarding what we want or do not want should a particular set of circumstances arise.

    FWIW I am in favour of euthanasia.
  15. As others have said, it's a slippery slope that needs to be monitored very carefully, and a very painful and emotive subject for people on both sides of the argument. We're talking about the life and death of those we love, about taking responsibility for their death, about dignity and quality of life in the short time left to us - is it any wonder people get hot under the collar?

    I'm with NiteKreeper. My life is my own. When that's no longer the case then it should end. I don't wish to stay alive in a state where I'm not able to bring an end to it at my discretion. The game is worth playing just as long as I can play it (for the most part) on my own terms. That is the gold standard I'd want for myself. What right do I have to prevent others living their lives (or not) on their own terms?

    The problem comes when the situation is not clear cut. The doctor says it's terminal but the family hold hope, or the family are keen to inherit but the doctor holds hope, or where one child is due to inherit and the other is not, and the one expecting is saying 'pull the plug' and the other holds hope. Then it gets ugly and nasty and angry and bitter, and everyone gets disgusted at putting people down who still have hope, and we all get guilted into doing the wrong thing because of the strident moral minority. (Like that never happens in other aspects of life! LOL.) It's hard to make rules about this, because rules are general, but individual cases are not general, they're singular.

    I am strongly in favour of euthanasia, but it has to be watched like a hawk.

    I am strongly in favour of abortion - up to 12 weeks and no later. You have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. The unborn have rights, but so do mothers, and so does the society that may have to support all the human wreckage. There's no perfect answer, but abortion on demand - without guilt trips and mind games - up to 12 weeks and not one day later - it's imperfect but clear, and a reasonable balance of the interests and rights of all parties.

    I am cautiously in favour of capital punishment, in very rare cases. Unfortunately, it's another one of these things that begs to be abused. The cases that it will end up being considered for, are exactly the sort where it shouldn't be. It ends up on the table in the witch burning cases, like Lindy Chamberlain, and Daniel Morcomb. Lindy was cleared - eventually, but those old enough to remember will know that the mood in the community was ugly. Lots of people would have been very happy to be part of a lynch mob over her. That case is maybe the best demonstration there is of why one needs to be super careful and super cautious about capital punishment. Any fool can take a life. Which one of us can give it back?
  16. Good reply KD,
  17. Same here.

    So long as it's consentual I'm all for it.

    I've always told my family if I'm totally paralised and effectively a veg' then turn the machine off for my sake more than thiers.
  18. I'm in favour of euthanasia as well, and, while I acknowledge that there has to be safeguards, I'm interested to know what some of you mob with strong views either way (KD, Deadman, VTRBob, Azncruiser) would envisage as being sufficient. Is it or is it not sufficient that one (or two or x number) of doctors satisfies themselves that (a) its the patient's will, (b) they are of sound mind, and (c) that they show no evidence of being unduly pressured.

    What is your attitude to to people who are physically capable of performing a lethal act upon themselves (i.e. with syringe filled with something suitable) being aided and abetted short of undertaking the act for them and on their behalf (provided above criteria are filled)?

    Personally I think people have a right to suicide and that any reason they feel sufficiently compelling is reason enough, provided that they are not subject to a psychotic episode. It's an awful thing to have to contemplate, but either you allow people autonomy in this regard or you don't.

    The problem then becomes: to what degree ought you attempt to dissuade or interfere in cases of depression. Just because depression admits of a medical diagnosis does not mean to say that the depressed are not of sound mind (i.e. able to reason for themselves - but then we come up against the hoary old question regarding the limits of reason). Does the duration of the depressive episode make a difference? I think it probably does, but am interested to hear what others have to say.

    I'm in favour of abortion too, but am less inclined to be rigid about any "do by date". People's circumstances simply vary too much, and I'm tempted to suggest that women should have an absolute right over their own body even to the exclusion of the rights of the child. According rights to someone that is not in a position to exercise them is for me philosophically problematic. What are normally considered children's rights are in fact nothing more than the prerogatives of the parent or guardian over the child, and therefore should properly be seen as belonging to the rights of the parent and not the child. This is the case de facto if not presently the case de jure. (Not that I think this should give parents the right to abuse their children, but I do think the liberal conception of natural human rights we've inherited from the likes of John Locke and Thomas Paine is predicated on an acceptance of god and is therefore philosophically untenable. There is no such thing as natural rights of the individual. They are civil rights or they are nothing.)

    I'm absolutely against capital punishment. The responsibility to kill should be an individual responsibility, not some amorphous impersonal responsibility invested in faceless functionaries of the state. I'm not saying that killing can't be a just outcome, just that I don't have enough faith in our ability to set up fool-proof legal processes surrounding it, and the way there is no accountability if the dead man is later found innocent. The question should be what form of retribution should befall those who are later found guilty of wrongly administrating (i.e. false grounds) a legally sanctioned killing? I'd want a good answer to that question before I'd lend my assent to capital punishment.
  19. how can you be in favour of abortion (taking an innocent life without its consent) and against capital punishment (taking a guilty life without its consent) :?
  20. I know it appears to be a contradiction, but that is only because you are focusing your attention on the subject killed (which is important, but not the critical issue). For me it comes down to responsibility of the subject performing the killing, and the forms in which that responsibility is invested.

    Also, to characterise an unborn child as 'innocent' (as you have) is completely by the by. How can there be a question of innocence when there is no question of guilt?