Euthanasia

[Dr Mindbender]

Heres another hot potato on a par with the abortion debate that i've never seen debated on revleft before.

Are you for or against Euthanasia? I think this is important because it's as relevant to the debate on bodily autonomy every bit as much as abortion.

I am for voluntary euthanasia, that is to say that if the patient wishes it and there is no hope of recovery and is in unbearable pain the option should be available. I am however against refusing treatment to comotosed patients who are unable to give consent, ie. 'switching off the life support machine'. I find this practice barbaric personally and an enditement of scarcity planning - ''Sorry Mrs Smith, your son is taking resources and we need the bed he is taking up, but if it's any consolation his body parts are greatly needed''.

[Holden Caulfield]

I dont think is on the same level as abortion,
it shoud be available, given psychological observations to make sure the individual is of sound mind

[Pirate Utopian]

If the patient wishes it or in case of the patient being a plant it should depend on nearest contacts of the patients.

[Dr Mindbender]

I dont think is on the same level as abortion,
it shoud be available, given psychological observations to make sure the individual is of sound mind

How is the debate on the right to die irrelevant to bodilly autonomy?

Another aspect of the debate is that the patient is seldomly qualified enough to guage their own chances of recovery. They may want to die, but arent necessarilly aware that they have a good chance of recovery.

This is why i was very close to voting for option 3.

[Dr Mindbender]

If the patient wishes it or in case of the patient being a plant it should depend on nearest contacts of the patients.

I don't like the idea of other people making such a decision for me, even if they are family.

I think the hospital should keep me alive until i have regained my desicion making ability.

[Sasha]

Are you for or against Euthanasia?


for, unconditionaly


I think this is important because it's as relevant to the debate on bodily autonomy every bit as much as abortion.


indeed, hence my previous answer


I am for voluntary euthanasia, that is to say that if the patient wishes it and there is no hope of recovery and is in unbearable pain the option should be available

agree, yet not just on your conditions, every human should have the right to end their live for any reason they want, its their body, their live, what they do with it is nobodys buisness.


I am however against refusing treatment to comotosed patients who are unable to give consent,

i'm not, see below


I find this practice barbaric personally and an enditement of scarcity planning - ''Sorry Mrs Smith, your son is taking resources and we need the bed he is taking up, but if it's any consolation his body parts are greatly needed''.

nonsense and a, the religious agenda serving, strawman.

if there is no real hope for recovery and no way for the person in question to give consent its up to those who stay behind (relatives, partner) to decide (after good advice about the sitiuation and posibilities by medical profesionals), its about wheter or not they want their loved one to spend eternaly as an vegetable or not, not about scarcity or after body-parts lusting evil doctors.
off course people should not let get it to this point and should write their wishes down while they are still fully capable (like i did already when i turned 18, i said i dont want to be put on live support and also in case of serious brain damage i want active eutinasia and if its not a 100% clear situation my parent have the decision)

i regard live as more than a beating hart/breating lungs

[Dr Mindbender]

^ Psycho

I think pro-under any circumstance is the ultra radical knee jerk reaction to this one.

If the patient isnt of sound mind to give their consent, then euthanising them when they're comotosed is taking away their autonomy as much as denying them euthanasia when they want it.

I dont want other people making desicions for me, especially ones that involve a trip 6 feet underground.



i regard live as more than a beating hart/breating lungs

Oh, behave. So what, do you plan on returning as a floating protoplasmic entity?

:D

[Pirate Utopian]

I don't like the idea of other people making such a decision for me, even if they are family.

I think the hospital should keep me alive until i have regained my desicion making ability.
I ment a plant as somebody clinically braindead, eternal coma.

[Holden Caulfield]

How is the debate on the right to die irrelevant to bodilly autonomy?I never said that, but i do think it is a entirely different ball park



Oh, behave. So what, do you plan on returning as a floating protoplasmic entity?he means experiencing life, to be in a coma is not to live even though you are technically alive.

--------------------
I think as long as the individual is of sound mind, then they should be able to end their own life on their own terms.

[Dr Mindbender]

I ment a plant as somebody clinically braindead, eternal coma.


I understand that.

As a technocrat I regard 'eternal coma' as a symptom of scientific stagnation. Not an argument in favour of deciding the euthanasia debate.

[Dr Mindbender]

he means experiencing life, to be in a coma is not to live even though you are technically alive.

.

Yeah well i think someone who euthanised a person who spent their life comfort eating and wanking over internet porn would have a lot to answer for.

[Sasha]

I think pro-under any circumstance is the ultra radical knee jerk reaction to this one.

radical? maybe. knee jerk? no, its actualy a topic i gave great thought to and was able to read a lot of medical/moral/philosophical articels and discussions on thanx to the fact that i was in my teens when my home country passed (thankfully) one of the most liberal euthanasia laws in the world.


If the patient isnt of sound mind to give their consent, then euthanising them when they're comotosed is taking away their autonomy as much as denying them euthanasia when they want it.


for me being being of sound mind and in control of my own body and desicions is part of my definition of being alive.
and while dying is about/up to you, being death is imo about those left behind.


I dont want other people making desicions for me, especially ones that involve a trip 6 feet underground.


why would i care about dying if i'm not aware of me dying/going to be dead anyway? i dont believe in a afterlive (other than in the memory of those still alive) so as soon as i dont care anymore its imo mostly up to those who do care about me being dead or not.

[Dóchas]

i went for option 2 but i think the patient should be told what exactly is going to happen and be helped in their decision making but ulimately it is up to them

[apathy maybe]

I believe that as soon as you have to go to hospital for more than a couple of days, the doctors should just pump you full of drugs 'cause you are a drain on society and don't deserve to live.

So there.

Oh, and I think that the right to die when you want (whether you are sick or not) is fucking important. It comes down to who's body it is.

Take you, for example, do you think I should be able to prevent you from killing yourself? I don't, if you want to kill yourself, go ahead! Same for you preventing me, just don't.

Euthanasia is just fancy talk for assisted suicide for sick people. Sick people have rights to you know (unless they have been in the hospital for more than 2 days), and they have the right to kill themselves. If a doctor doesn't want to help someone kill them self, they should get out of the room, and the patient can have a doctor who is willing to put some morphine in a syringe.

On the issue of folks in comas, I don't think that just because someone is in a coma that is excuse enough to let them die. It would have to be a coma where the doctors feel that there is no (or very little) hope for recovery. If they are in a coma for what is expected to be less than (say) a couple of days, then don't kill 'em.

[apathy maybe]

Oh yeah, what do the options mean? The first is quite unclear in the circumstances.

[kiki75]

Who decides someone is of "sound mind"? Most ppl tend to equate the desire to die with unsound mind. That's why ppl who attempt suicide are put under the care of psychologists and psychiatrists.

I'm pro-e under any circumstance.

[Dr Mindbender]

I don't think that people should be prevented from killing themselves, however i do think the doctor, regardless of wether or not euthanasia is legal or not has a responsibility to present the facts and options to the patient without making the patient feel as though they are being encouraged to take one option over another.

Something that troubles me over ultra-liberal attitudes on euthanasia is that the doctor may use it as an 'easy option' rather than pursue saving a patient until every possible avenue has been exhausted.

[Post-Something]

Option 2. Number one is way too vague and could mean anything from a family member taking the decision to involuntary euthanasia/genocide.

[apathy maybe]

Something that troubles me over ultra-liberal attitudes on euthanasia is that the doctor may use it as an 'easy option' rather than pursue saving a patient until every possible avenue has been exhausted.

What if the patient doesn't want to purse every possible option? What if all the side effects seem like too much?

If I was offered the choice of a course of treatment that only had a 10% success rate, and had horrible side effects like vomiting twice a day, all my hair falling out etc., and killing myself, I suspect that I might just kill myself.

[Dr Mindbender]

What if the patient doesn't want to purse every possible option? What if all the side effects seem like too much?

If I was offered the choice of a course of treatment that only had a 10% success rate, and had horrible side effects like vomiting twice a day, all my hair falling out etc., and killing myself, I suspect that I might just kill myself.


I would choose the treatment personally.

Maybe it's just me but any option is preferable to certain death.

[Iowa656]

A controversial and difficult debate this one.

I believe it should only be legal if someone has a long term permanent degenerative disease, (e.g. Alzheimer's) they have given their consent when they were diagnosed AND have the written consent of AT LEAST 1 doctor.

A consent form would be offered when someone was diagnosed in the first stages of the disease, stating something along the lines of: "I am freely wishing my life to be ended when I can no longer perform x ". x being some task or interaction, ie communicate, move, speak, breath unaided etc.

So, from this logic, if someone is unconscious in a coma, they should NOT be killed unless they have given permission previously. Imagine the scenario of waking up after a coma and being told that you were almost turned of.

However there is the difficulty of changing your mind. Say a certain time after you agreed to die when you couldn't communicate, how would you tell someone you don't want to die.

Also extra caution should be taken to ensure that no one is pressured into choosing death. If a patient becomes too difficult for family they should be taken into FREE constant state funded care, the family should NOT be allowed to pressure the patient into suicide. "If you just agreed to die our life would be so much easier" How would you feel if you were told that every day?

Hospitals should NEVER have to kill someone to save time or resources, that is no different than refusing someone treatment because they are saving resources. "Sorry we can't treat you today, we are cutting back today".

I have to take disagreements with what Psycho and apathy maybe have said.
You can't just allow people to die if they want to.

Very very often the person who wants to die is having some form of mental health issue and so allowing them to die would be unacceptable. What you are basically saying it that if someone wants to commit suicide then we should do absolutely nothing to stop them. The truth is that so many people attempt suicide because they are depressed, depression is something that can be treated, thus their life can be saved. Would you try and save someone's life if they are drowning? So how is depression any different? Psychological problems can be as damaging and physical problems.

Also I have to take disagreement that you have the right to refuse treatment. I genuinely feel that you should not be allowed to say "no don't treat me". Again I state, this mindset is almost certainly caused by some psychological problem. If someone is in constant pain, through some condition, then the care should be adequate to give them a good a life as possible.

[Rjevan]

I voted for the 2nd option.
If the patient wishes to die, it's his/her decision, which has to be respected. But I agree with Rise As One, the doctors should inform the patients and talk to them about their decision, but under no circumstances force them on anything.

[Dr Mindbender]

Option 2. Number one is way too vague and could mean anything from a family member taking the decision to involuntary euthanasia/genocide.

Option one is intended for circumstances where the doctor may decide to euthanise without the permission of the patient or possibly even without the permission of relatives.

I don't think allowing the next of kin to decide is always applicable because not everyone has a next of kin.

[Dr Mindbender]

A controversial and difficult debate this one.

I believe it should only be legal if someone has a long term permanent degenerative disease, (e.g. Alzheimer's) they have given their consent when they were diagnosed AND have the written consent of AT LEAST 1 doctor.


The problem with only relying on 1 doctor is that you can end up with a biased or distorted prognosis. That is why when a patient is being rescusitated for example, at least 2 doctors must be present to agree on stopping CPR.

Harold Shipman ring any bells?

[Iowa656]

Apologies, I did in fact mean 2 doctors.

You are indeed correct, relying on only 1 doctors words can in a few circumstances lead to a skewed and distorted diagnoses.

[apathy maybe]

Does not body else see the link between voluntary euthanasia and suicide?

Now that the first option has been "explained", it is obviously unacceptable for people who are still conscious and/or have a good chance to live. Doctors killing people without their permission, big no no.

[Dr Mindbender]

Does not body else see the link between voluntary euthanasia and suicide?


I think they're very different. Suicide is usually caused by depression, which as already been said is a treatable condition.

Many debilitating illnesses which are not curable, present unbearable pain for the sufferer. While i regard this a problem caused by scarcity science, it is deeply insulting and patronising to tell someone like this to 'just get over it' like you would tell someone who is depressed.

[butterfly]

I hope you would not tell someone suffering from depression to 'just get over it'. Depression is also a medical condition that is not always curable.
One would not choose euthanasia merely because they were diagnosed with an incurable condition but the prolonged suffering the condition entails...so if this happens to be the case in some instances of mental illness, where a patient has no prospect of being cured and experiences constant suffering, should these people be allowed access to such relief?

[Knight of Cydonia]

i'm Pro if the patient wishes it. why let the patient suffer to death if we can just easily send him/her(the patient with unheal-able disease) into a peaceful silent death, instead of suffer dying.

[BobKKKindle$]

A patient should have the right to die if they are suffering from a terminal illness. In order to ensure that patients do not make rash decisions when they are in a state of intense pain, or under the influence of medication, it should be necessary for a patient to request euthanasia on several occasions over a specified period of time, and to sign a consent form. It gets more complicated if a patient is in persistent vegetative state (PVS) because in that situation the patient is incapable of communicating their desires to the doctor, and so the only way to carry out euthanasia and respect the patient's wishes would be to rely on the desires of family members, or a statement made by the patient before they entered PVS. I'm still undecided on whether euthaniasia should be allowed in cases of PVS, because family members could potentially take advantage of the situation in order to recieve inheritance. This is an issue bound up with bodily autonomy, because bodily autonomy means the right to exercise control over your own body, which involves the right to harm your body and die if you see fit.

[Sliverworst]

I think both euthanasia and suicide (which are practically the same thing) should be legal. A person's body doesn't belong to society or "God". It belongs to the person himself/herself.

Having said that, I think some people are a little too quick to flick off the switch on a person's lifesupport. The Terri Shiavo ordeal is a case in point. I don't remember her having ever given her consent to being euthanised beforehand in the event that she should suffer the fate she did. And that he did it despite knowing her parents we're will to look after her show what a prick he is.

[CommieCat]

Just on the point raised by another person regarding PVS, it's always a good idea to sign an enduring power of attorney - basically, something which allows someone whom you have elected to act on your behalf in your best interests, including, if other laws don't interfere, withdrawing life support. You can limit their powers too, and provide specific instructions on what the person is to do, which they are required to follow. Takes 15 minutes to do, could save you 15 years in a coma.

So far as euthanasia is concerned, I think it should be legal. I was talking to a nurse the other day, however, and basically she was telling me how they can get you so cooked up on drugs that you're not (generally) going to go through a long, horrible drawn out painful death. It just strikes me as somewhat pointless that it's legitimate and okay for them to do THAT but administrating some form of painless lethal injection or whatnot is NOT okay...

[WhitemageofDOOM]

From a personal liberaties standpoint pro.

On the other hand anyone who wants to terminate there existence for fixable problems is clearly not of sound mind.
Dying and in horrible pain however? Definitely truly pro.

[turquino]

I can agree with the option of euthanasia for those who are terminal and want to curtail their inevitable suffering, but I'm opposed to the general promotion of euthanasia/assisted suicide at the moment because I think it could be discriminatory toward disabled people. One reason why the disabled could suffer more than the mentally and ably-bodied is because they live in a society that oppresses them; one that often leaves them poor, discriminated against, and marginalized. In this case, it's hardly surprising that more disabled people would choose an option of assisted suicide/euthanasia. The left aims to create a better, more humane society. For example, we fight for reforms to the justice system and for human rights in prisons because right now these institutions are oppressive. However, we don't fight for the right of prisoners to choose suicide over incarceration as a means of saving the state money. In the same way, I think our orientation toward the issue of euthanasia should be one that upholds the rights of the disabled first.

[Angry Young Man]

The last I heard, Euthanasia is legal in only two countries in the world: Netherlands and Australia. Which is bloody stupid. It should be legalised, and people encouraged to write whether they want to be shut off or kept alive if they end up in an irreversible coma. The arguments against liberalisation in the UK were bloody stupid - pseudo-science and -psychology as a painted veil for the proponents' irrational religious beliefs. It must have been exactly the same as the debates around the time homosexuality was legalised.

What asshole voted no in any circumstance?

[CommieCat]

The last I heard, Euthanasia is legal in only two countries in the world: Netherlands and Australia. Which is bloody stupid. It should be legalised, and people encouraged to write whether they want to be shut off or kept alive if they end up in an irreversible coma. The arguments against liberalisation in the UK were bloody stupid - pseudo-science and -psychology as a painted veil for the proponents' irrational religious beliefs. It must have been exactly the same as the debates around the time homosexuality was legalised.

What asshole voted no in any circumstance?

No, it is not legal in Australia. The status differs from state to state (or territory). From memory, the Northern Territory legalized euthanasia. However it was later reversed. As far as I know, there is no state or territory in Australia where euthanasia is legal today.

Mind you, refusing medical treatment which results in your death is perfectly legal, both here and in the UK. For example, the Bland case where a man who was in PVS, the House of Lords supported that right. Even force-feeding hunger-striking prisoners has been found to be a tort of trespass to the person, from memory.

[Dr Mindbender]

The last I heard, Euthanasia is legal in only two countries in the world: Netherlands and Australia.

Add Switzerland to that list. I'm pretty sure its legal in Belgium too.

[apathy maybe]

As of 2008, some forms of euthanasia are legal in Belgium,[1] Luxembourg,[2] The Netherlands,[1] Switzerland,[1] the U.S. states of Oregon[3] and Washington[4] the Autonomous Community of Andalusia (Spain),[5][6] and Thailand.[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia
It was legal in the Northern Territory of Australia, however, the federal government of the time (the Liberals lead by Mr "Scum fucker" Howard), voted to over turn the law.

[Coggeh]

I think their should be 1 doctors notice , in the scenario i was given just last night , when two alcoholic parents told the nurse if their kid they never visit and don't give a fuck about IMO stops breathing they don't want her resuscitated and that they had a note and everything .

This can't be allowed like ...

[CommieCat]

Eh, Thailand has restrictive abortion laws, i.e only grounds to have abortion is if the woman was raped or if the pregnancy is a threat to the mother's life, so I SERIOUSLY doubt that euthanasia is allowed.

The legislation says:

"Section 12. A person shall have right to express in a written form the intention not to receive the public health service as provided for prolonging the death in the final stage of his or her life or for extinguishing the sufferings occurred from illness.

The performances according to the written document under Paragraph One shall be in accordance with the rule and procedure as prescribed in the Ministerial Regulations.

After the medical practitioner has followed the intention of the person under Paragraph, such performance shall not be deemed wrongful and he shall be exempted from all liabilities."

Well, as for the first part, people in most Western countries are allowed to deny medical treatment, so Thailand is only catching up in this respect. As for the 'extinguishing of the sufferings occurred from illness' that seems more to be about the use of drugs to reduce pain/the symptoms of that illness versus allowing the patient to request a medical practitioner to assist their suicide (which, as far as I know is still illegal in Thailand).

Hence, its very misleading to say that euthanasia is legal in Thailand. If that defines euthanasia, then many countries already meet that standard. When most people talk about euthanasia, they talk about doctors assisting a suicide, not the so-called 'passive euthanasia' some talk about (versus the 'active euthanasia' commonly meant).

[Miscreant]

Having said that, I think some people are a little too quick to flick off the switch on a person's lifesupport. The Terri Shiavo ordeal is a case in point. I don't remember her having ever given her consent to being euthanised beforehand in the event that she should suffer the fate she did. And that he did it despite knowing her parents we're will to look after her show what a prick he is.

He probably didn't euthanize his wife to be a prick. He probably did it because he hated seeing her like that and thought she would have preferred death. I know I would. Forget mom and dad wanting to keep an empty flesh sack alive out of sentiment.

[political_animal]

As with most things, I am pro-choice. Of course there are going to be certain situations where someone is not in control of their faculties and may be driven to despair but for me, euthanasia is about dying free from pain. Anyone choosing to kill themselves for any other reason is suicide.

If I was in agonising terminal pain, I would want to be able to have the choice. Similarly, I would like to have the opportunity to state in any medical notes that if my quality of life was to fall below a certain level that I would list (ie a vegetative state), I should be allowed to die because of my written consent. I would not wish to live if I couldn't enjoy life or contribute to life in any way.

It reminds me of when I was at college and we had a debate about it. Most of the class were reactionary and just said no to euthanasia without any thought. I tried to bring out the question and develop the thoughts a little, but the teacher rejected my idea's and arguments completely and disallowed my vote for freedom of choice. That made a big impact on me, realising that even those who are supposedly there to teach us, have their own agenda.

[stop!]

It should be allowed to any person in any country seeking their own passing. People should be in charge of their own fate.

[Atrus]

Ultimately it should come down to individual choice, I believe. No one else can decide for a person, but if a person is right minded and that's what they want, then I believe it's entirely unfair to stop them. If they are not able to do it alone, then by not helping we are stopping them.
Of course, as with anything it is no perfect, and unfortunately people in a vegetative state are missed out as they can't consent, but I believe this is still the best approach to Euthanasia.

[stop!]

. No one else can decide for a person, but if a person is right minded and that's what they want, then I believe it's entirely unfair to stop them.

I don't think there should be any qualifying prerequisite before a person is allowed to choose their death. "Right minded" and "sound mind" are all highly subjective catch phrases that could be setup in such a way to disqualify many people from choosing their death.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Euthanasia should be entirely up to the patient. If they're in pain and wish to do it, they should be able to make the decision without being pressured into doing so(or not for that matter). Same as with the abortion issue, it's their body so they should have control over what to do with it. However comas are a different situation. Because the patient isn't consious to give their say, it should not be done to Comatose patients.

[Atrus]

"Right minded" and "sound mind" are all highly subjective catch phrases that could be setup in such a way to disqualify many people from choosing their death.

I agree entirely, apologies for my poor wording. I essentially meant that the person is not being influenced by other people, so we know it is entirely their decision. People such as the brain damaged etc should not be prevented from going as they choose, but provided it is entirely their choice, otherwise their is plenty of room for corruption/abuse of the system from many aspects.

[Atrus]

Euthanasia should be entirely up to the patient. If they're in pain and wish to do it, they should be able to make the decision without being pressured into doing so(or not for that matter).

Why must they be in pain? Surely, it is their body and they can have complete control, whatever their reasoning for their choice? By making it only for those in pain, we are withdrawing from others the right to do as they please with their body, and forcing upon them the idea that "as long as you aren't in pain, life is the better choice". That may often be the case, but it must be their decision.

[Pogue]

I voted under any circumstances but that was perhaps inaccurate.

I think if the patient can't consent but we know they will have a really shit, vegetable existence, killing them can be justified and I think most people would want to die in such circunstances rather than face the 'life' that waits for them.

[Atrus]

I think if the patient can't consent but we know they will have a really shit, vegetable existence, killing them can be justified and I think most people would want to die in such circunstances rather than face the 'life' that waits for them.

I agree that it may well be justified, but I worry that then the system is much more open to abuse, if explicit consent is not required, even in special cases. Perhaps they have to be able to prove that the person is entirely brain dead first, or something along those lines?

[Pogue]

Yeh maybe.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Why must they be in pain? Surely, it is their body and they can have complete control, whatever their reasoning for their choice? By making it only for those in pain, we are withdrawing from others the right to do as they please with their body, and forcing upon them the idea that "as long as you aren't in pain, life is the better choice". That may often be the case, but it must be their decision.

They don't have to be in pain. They can do it if they wish to. Excuse my wording.

[RedAnarchist]

I think that people should have the right to end their life when they want to end it, and that resources to help them do so should be available to all. Such a decision should always be made only by that person.

[Forward Union]

There are four kinds of Euthanasia.

Passive - This is Euthanasia through inaction
Active - Euthanasia through pro action
Voluntary - The patient wishes it
Involuntary - The patient does not wish it.

In my opinion the first two are perfectly acceptable given the third one. But the fourth one is dodge. Who do we grant the authority to make such judgements? Granted there will be cases when it will undoubtedly be better to put someone out of their misery, but if we grant some individual or institution that kind of authority we invite problems.

Voluntary Euthanasia is simply a doctor acting as an extension of the sufferers will. Involuntary is society making ultimate decisions about someones life without their consent. Though I think we can make exceptions for Passive Involuntary Euthanasia. Turning the life support machine off is perfectly acceptable imo.

[Nietzsche's Ghost]

I chose option two, because (as said earlier) one is too vague. I saw my grandfather suffer through Alzheimers and Ive had to watch my uncle with MS degenerate. I would never want to live with that(If you could call living with any horrid disease actually living).