Assisted Suicide/Voluntary Euthanasia
-
Ben if you are reading this. Please do not read after this post as it obviously is an upsetting topic for you. Sorry to cause any upset but I believe this is a topic that people should be allow to discuss here.
We are all going to face death at some stage and many of us may be faced with a long drawn out painful death. I just want to discuss the alternatives openly.
Mike
-
I think the documentary was a BBC production, at least it was English. I will search to see if its available on the Net. It was very well produced and gave a good insight into how the whole process works. The interviews were very touching and one felt they were a witness to the occasion.
-
IMO I lean towards Kmead's posting. I am for assisted suicide/Voluntary euthanasia. Stating the obvious is that it should be an individual's choice, no other party (insurance company, hospital, government, family member, etc...) should ever even be allowed to contribute in any way to the decision other than what passes as conversational advice to the patient and prognosis of all aspects of the future for the individual so that they can make a well informed decision. Otherwise, Soylent Green is people.
If I find or expect to find myself in a long, protracted and completely disabling and/or deadly illness that will suck my family's finances dry (especially here in the US where medical bills easily bankrupt personal finance, over 50% of personal bankruptcies are due to medical issues), destroy them emotionally, or worse yet render me completely devoid of companionship (as in the previously related story), I would see no reason to continue to exist on this planet. Why suffer through the pain and total detachment from reality that the administration of drugs will do? Nobody will give you a medal for doing so. Your family doesn't need to remember you in that state. Allow yourself the dignity to be able to say your goodbyes and designate a point where you can elect to depart, sparing your family the torture of watching you suffer.
As far as thinking you should just commit unassisted suicide, you have to be physically able to do so - and a severe illness might render you incapable of doing so. Plus we've all heard stories and news reports of how badly this can go. It doesn't always work, and you can render yourself in an even worse state than you would have been, plus your family would have to find you the hard way. Also, forcing the individual to go this route removes a lot of the benefits of continuing with palliative and sound medical care.
-
Hi Jeff,
You have written a very down to earth response in my eyes.
One question that you raise is the possible financial drain that a longterm terminal illness can have on the individual's own finances or their family's. And yes I know what medical care costs in the USA!
What about this scenario?
Suddenly I am struck down with an illness that puts me into a vegetative state with no hope of recovery only a gradual deterioration.
My family would place me in a care situation which would cost many thousands per month! This situation might last for a couple of years before I die of the illness.
If I had some means to communicate I would ask to be terminated! However I would not have this ability in a vegetative state!
Wouldn't it make sense for me to have some kind of a legal document prepared in advance, resting with my solicitors, advising exactly what my wishes are should this situation arise. In this case they would be to terminate my life as per my wishes / instructions.
I feel the Law should be changed to facilitate this scenario.
Mike
-
Suicide is not a crime in Canada,although Assisted Suicide is.
I think the issue here is personal rights versus legislated rights, and I support personal choice in this case.
There are many counties that accept assisted suicide (euthanasia). There is a process involved. The person usually has to be an adult, with a terminal medical condition, who is still considered capable of making that decision.
There should I think also be allowance for a living will, whereby if I have lost my ability to make this decision, my living will states my wishes.
On the other hand, I do not think that under any circumstance, unless it is a matter of removing life support without which an individual cannot survive, someone other than the individual who wishes to die should be allowed to make this decision. -
@mike lucey said:
Wouldn't it make sense for me to have some kind of a legal document prepared in advance, resting with my solicitors, advising exactly what my wishes are should this situation arise. In this case they would be to terminate my life as per my wishes / instructions.
Mike
Yes, this is very important to have. A will, or "living will" (not sure what they are called in other countries, or if they are possible), that states your specific desires in cases like this will provide legal backing and direction for your desires and needs should an awful event happen. Otherwise you get terrible battles between family members, or leave your fate in the hands of some other legal entity that you, or your property, wind up in the care of - like the Terri Schiavo case.
-
Thanks Dale. I was not aware of the term 'Living Will'. I have now looked it up here, http://www.alllaw.com/articles/wills_and_trusts/article7.asp
-
I don't believe this is a suitable topic for this site, even the corner bar.
It's highly sensitive and I was broadsided by it just looking at new threads.
-
Please read my post with an open mind and respect my view on this question. Subjects like these tend to be a bit ticklish ... Thanks.
A preamble: I take my faith in God as a serious aspect of my life. It influences me in many ways, and I take infinite comfort in what God has promised His children and in His Truth. That being said:
Suicide and "assisted suicide" is a sin. And while I'm pragmatic to understand the suffering and other complications of living with a terminally ill person, euthanasia or suicide is still not an option IMO. We see the hurt and anguish of family and friends through eyes accustomed to this world, and not until a person is deceased do we say "Go with God", or "He or she is in a better place". I have been through this with members of my family and it is a hard, hard thing to bear...
God gives us all the opportunity to come to know Him, all through our lives. While some may say, "Why does God allow a person to suffer?", that's not His intent. Up until a persons last breath, they have the opportunity to surrender to God and know His forgiveness and love. In the midst of suffering, we can know Truth and absolute peace. Euthanasia or suicide can deprive a person of accepting God's love before they are ready to accept Him in their heart.
It's a hard path to God's Truth, and pain and suffering is part of it when it's necessary to bring a person to salvation.
-
Hi IdahoJ,
I respect your beliefs totally and understand for you Assisted Suicide/Voluntary Euthanasia is a 'sin'. I personally have no belief in this God as he or she is normally portrayed in religious communities although I have formed my own beliefs of a possible higher being thought study of the beliefs and conclusions of people MUCH smarter than me.
I cannot understand how a religion which I do not believe in should dictate by influencing governments how I may or may not end my life.
Mike
-
Governments (at least in more fortunate nations), are run by people and listen to the citizens. If the majority, for whatever reason, believe that assisted suicide should not be allowed, then that is what the law will be. The law may have its origins at the root from the majorities religious beliefs, but the law applies to everyone regardless of what they believe in the end. In this case religion is affecting the law, but this is how we choose to let ourselves be governed.
-
Out of curiosity... are there any recognised religions that allow assisted suicides?
-
Yes Pete, I understand that Jainism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism allows suicide along with other 'Cult' religions. Then again, was not Christianity not regarded as a cult religion in its early stages!
-
Being neither religious nor spiritual and having little faith in mankind and even less in the boogeyman I am very curious why religious folks, 'Christians' in this country need the government to impose laws to prevent folks doing things that their doctrine objects to, why not live and let live and those who call themselves Christians refrain from such actions, put your faith where your mouth is and not force it upon us who do not share your obsessions with the supernatural.
Gay marriage is another one where religious folks believe they need a law to prevent same sex couples from having what they believe is an exclusive to Christianity concept and therefore defined by their one and only book. So a law is enacted by government to outlaw decent folks from a legal binding life together because it goes against others beliefs, yet we hear about 'the separation of church and state' but never see it.
-
@unknownuser said:
Being neither religious nor spiritual and having little faith in mankind and even less in the boogeyman I am very curious why religious folks, 'Christians' in this country need the government to impose laws to prevent folks doing things that their doctrine objects to, why not live and let live and those who call themselves Christians refrain from such actions, put your faith where your mouth is and not force it upon us who do not share your obsessions with the supernatural.
This is pretty much how most people view the situation. What they don't comprehend, and this is no slight to you personally Solo, is that one can have faith and seek God's Truth without being either "religious" nor a "Christian".
Jesus taught no ecclesiastical doctrines, nor did he teach any theology. His followers were not called "Christians" until much later and that was by others to label them as "followers of Christ", and not part of an "organized (as we know it today) church". The Christ did however have both His 12 chosen apostles, and many followed Him as disciples, believing in His message of the Good News about the Kingdom of God. My wife and I don't attend any particular church, we consider ourselves His disciples and strive to follow the Word of God as put forth in His Scriptures. Anyone who truly understands God's Truth doesn't need to impose their will, beliefs or views, "religious" or not, upon anyone.
But, there will always be those, both secular and "of faith" who feel that they must ...
Cheers.
-
Jeff, I totally understand what you are saying and respect you for your convictions, but unfortunately you are a minority, almost considered secular by the majority of folks that call themselves Christians and belong to a group of similar fundamental minded like Baptists, Methodists, catholics, etc.
These groups here in the states are powerful, they can make or break an election, they have lobbyists on capitol hill, they are financially so strong that they can and do steer policy and rule of law.My point, going back to assisted suicides is that they implement a 'man made' law so that they are forced to adhere to it as their faith is not strong enough or conviction not resolute enough to live by the word alone.
-
First things first...
Whether there's a God or not is irrelevant to this discussion...
IF there is, then God gave you 'free-will'.
IF there's not. then you still 'have free-will' - because that's part of being human anyway.
[OR if you don't because we are in some sort of simulation 'Matrix' life then it doesn't matter AT ALL as you can stop right here!]So, let's assume you decide to end your own life...
It's your life - that was either 'given' by God OR 'it just is what it is'.
It's your choice: it's the proper exercising of your free-will either way.
Many might disagree with you... BUT who gave 'them' the overriding power to sit in judgment on you?
You didn't AND neither did God.
If you accept that God gave you free-will, then the exercising of your free-will [without divine intervention] is YOUR choice - otherwise it's not 'free'... Remember that God knew the outcome of granting you this choice [God is after all 'omnipotent' and therefore 'knows everything' - including the result of every decision taken - including this granting of free-will].On the other hand, if there is no God, then ending your life is of little consequence to others - beyond yourself, your family and your friends [assuming you don't jump off a bridge and kill a total stranger in the process!] - I don't encourage this AT ALL... BUT it is YOUR choice - it's your life after all - do with it what you will...
IF there is a God who takes a dim view of you having chosen to exercise the free-will [and kill yourself], remembering that this was 'imposed' on you without your initial involvement, then God should consider that it was the very act of granting of this free-will that culminated in you using it to end your life - AND the outcome was predetermined by the granting of this free-will in the first place [God's choice]. So, you can't give someone a choice that is 'entirely free' and then 'punish them' when they make the choice that you didn't prefer - statistically there will be people who don't agree with you and will make what you perceive to be 'wrong', so 'punishing' them for making either of the very choices that you presented them with is completely perverse, to say the least!!!
So killing yourself is never 'wrong' - it can be unbelievably distressing, or down-right sad or simply inconvenient to others - but then we often do many things with those kind of results... but then these are not considered illegal or or even immoral - just 'wrong' in others eyes - e.g. 'adultery' [at least in the West] is 'wrong' but it has no wider ramifications... beyond your personal life and future finances...
...So let's assume that killing yourself - whilst upsetting for those who know you, or distressing for those tangled up in the messy aftermath if you don't do it neatly - is not 'immoral' or against God's will - and certainly shouldn't be 'illegal', anymore than having some 'personal thoughts' that are against the currently accepted dogmas in many aspects of life...
Now we come to the 'assisted suicide' part...
This is somewhat a different matter: helping someone to kill themselves when they have incontrovertibly expressed their wish to do so, but they are somehow incapacitated from doing it themselves [e.g. a debilitating/wasting disease] with a well considered and documented process [and of course willing participants i.e. both the 'victim' and 'perpetrator'] should be allowed - like any other 'social-transaction' in life.
I know it does get 'murky' when 'somehow the nephew encourages his aged aunt to commit suicide and then happily inherits her mansion' - but then that's NOT 'assisted suicide' - it's something more 'subtle' - psychological manipulation, brainwashing, 'conspiracy to harm' etc, that are quite separate offenses. Helping someone to end their lives when it is clear it's their decision, and would happen if they had had the means without you, is considerably different from 'grooming' someone to kill themselves for your own [perhaps perverted or simply fiduciary] ends.A medical doctor's duty is 'to do no harm' to others: so allowing a patient to die peacefully whilst withdrawing further treatment is already established and quite acceptable. If a patient has made it quite clear to a doctor that in certain circumstances they would no longer wish to continue living then letting them die is therefore correct...
I await the ear-bashing...
-
Logical enough argument TIG .... BTW! you didn't happen to inherit any large mansions from rich old aunts by any chance?
Joking aside, I think the religious end of things has to be left out of the debate. It should purely be a civil matter!
-
@unknownuser said:
I think the religious end of things has to be left out of the debate. It should purely be a civil matter!
Then there is no point, as the only real objections are from folks that are religious.
Has anyone ever had to put a pet down due to illness or injury?
-
@unknownuser said:
I think the religious end of things has to be left out of the debate. It should purely be a civil matter!
If one leaves out the "religious" end of things, then how fair to those of us of faith would the application of the law be? Am I to be discriminated against because of my convictions? Would it be fair to only consider the secular aspects of the problem without due diligence in determining the spiritual aspects? The law is expected to be fairly applied to everyone, regardless of sex, age, faith, etc ...
On the pragmatic side: if a person wishes to end his or her life, that's their business. However, if you allow others to assist, then it sets a dangerous precedent for the future. It's all well and good to have "Living Wills" and the like, or to see that euthanasia is administered under strict control and supervision. But what happens when unscrupulous people start to abuse the law? It'll happen, it always does. Allowing this to become a civil law issue would be a disaster IMO. Civil law is MUCH less strict and uses an entirely different set of rules to determine judgments.
@unknownuser said:
Then there is no point, as the only real objections are from folks that are religious.
As far as there being no point. Well, I believe that really is a faith question. I know personally that there is a point, but it takes faith to see it. I can't convey it any other way that would make sense.
Anyway, nice chatting about this with you guys but I think I'll mosey along...
Cheers.
Advertisement