Your Views on Voluntary Euthanasia

[winstonjen]

I''m new here, so I apologise if this is in the wrong forum.

I fully support euthanasia. It's a touchy subject, but here are my views. I'm definitely for it. If they are suffering with no hope of a cure, they would thank you for ending their pain. Those who oppose euthanasia haven't experienced the pain, so they can't judge it for themselves. They don't care about the poor patient, they just want to appear morally correct by opposing it. People who oppose it need to be GIVEN a terminal illness. It sounds cold and harsh, but I'm not trying to flame. The ones that oppose it have NO IDEA what it is like to be in a terrible condition with no hope of recovery. They would most likely change their mind. Keeping the terminally ill alive against their wishes is nothing short of torture. Don't we have laws against that? Also, 'freedom' comes from the words 'free' and 'doom'. Laws against UNassisted suicide are meaningless, because if they succeed, they are beyond the reach of the law.
The anti-euthanasia/assisted suicide people don't care about the person in suffering. Why? It's very simple - 99% of their 'arguments' focus on the moral aspect, NOT the person in suffering. As far as I know, they care more about being seen as morally correct than anything else. They also want the terminally ill to stay alive - for their own happiness - not the happiness of the one in suffering. It also seems that they've never heard of the phrase, "When you love someone, set them free." Another thing that makes no sense in the law is how if you don't euthanise a pet, you get jailed for cruelty. Yet if you do the same for a human being, you get jailed. Why? Religious bigots forcing their views on everyone whether it was their business or not! The trick is to die when you want to die. It's tragic when these people become too weak to commit suicide by themselves, and they need help, but they can't get help because of the legal issues. This motivates other people in a similar situation to commit suicide before they lose the ability to do it alone, so they end up dying earlier. Anti-euthanasia right-to-life (who actually advocate a DUTY to life) bigot bastards also support slavery, because they're telling people that their life is not their own. Hmm. Didn't Abraham Lincoln abolish that foolishness centuries ago?

There's also evidence of Euthanasia in the Bible, so I don't understand why Christians are against it. Jesus only hung on the cross for a few hours, compared with the others, and then died. It usually takes much longer to die from crucifixion, and death is preceded by coma and heart failure. The Romans stabbed him because 'they were surprised he had died so soon'. Death by cruxifixtion is usually preceded by respiratory failure and coma.

There was an Australian Senator who opposed organ transplants (he said that if someone had a heart attack, that was God saying they should be dead). Then HE himself had a heart attack and needed a transplant. He said that God wanted him to have a transplant. Well, why him and not so many others?

What a hypocrite! The people that oppose euthanasia need to be put in similar pain to those that desire it. Otherwise, they can't understand the pain and shouldn't judge those that want euthanasia. Also, the opponents of it aren't going to be affected by it (they're not the ones dying), so why complain? I think they are a bunch of bigots (no offense to anyone here - everyone here tends to have good opinions and good reasons).

Also, check out www.nancycrick.com

From the main page of that site:

My name is Nancy Crick. I'm 70 years of age and have been suffering from bowel cancer for three years. To say my quality of life has deteriorated is a gross understatement.

I have gone from being an active, vital, healthy woman (I had no symptoms on diagnosis) to a 27kg shell. I've lost almost all of my teeth, energy and, most importantly, the will and desire to live.

Most of my day - and night - is spent leaning over the toilet bowl dealing with chronic vomiting and diarrhoea. I am also in almost constant pain.

I can no longer leave the security of my home because of the vomiting and diarrhoea, and have had to cancel most of my medical appointments for this reason. Would you wish to have me in your car? My energy level is so low that it is as much as I can manage to venture as far as the letter box. On occasions I have made that distance, but have not been able to make the return journey before collapsing.

I require medication to sleep, but am often too tired to allow myself the luxury of sleeping as I lose control of my bladder when asleep, and also am not aware if my colostomy bag fills and overflows.

Imagine if you had to wake up in a wet bed, covered in your own faeces; it's not dignified, comfortable nor compatible with a relaxed start to a new day.

Through all this I am still at home, managing my household and cooking as best I can, sometimes forcing myself over the limit and paying the price. I have some help with stoma management, and am lucky in that I have friends who visit.

Other than visitors, the phone and television, I am cut off from the world, a world I fully embraced before this befell me. I am a prisoner in my own home. If family and friends cannot come to me or phone, I am alone with my pain. I cannot go to them.

As the pain and indignity worsen, I am frightened of the future. Not the future as others envision it: my future - becoming so weak I am unable to leave my bed to clean myself up; being unable to reach my pain medication; having the pain become so unbearable I lose my mind. The only future I have to look forward to.

This type of future would not be visited on a pet or farm animal. Compassionate vets will not let this happen; they gently euthanase our animals. Why then is it so unreasonable to expect compassionate doctors to do the same for human beings? Yours sincerely Nancy Crick"

Another issue is that some people don't know what euthanasia is. One person said, "Euthanasia isn't murder, is it? OK, how about if I euthanise you when you're asleep in bed?" That guy is foolish. That isn't even euthanasia. Euthanasia requires consent, awareness and probably a legal signature.

About a year ago, Nancy Crick took a lethal cocktail of drugs to end her suffering. The pro-lifers want to prosecute the 21 witnesses who were with her to give her comfort (she didn't want to die alone). The pro-lifers also accuse the voluntary euthanasia advocates of manipulating her into commiting suicide. They use the evidence that Nancy did not have cancer when she died. Even so, she was suffering from the consequences of cancer and the treatment. She was a 27kg shell when she died. The pro-lifers make me sick.

I believe that anti-euthanasia = pro-torture. Take the example of Diane Pretty, a British woman with Motor Neurone Disease. She choked to death painfully over a week because the law did not allow her husband to assist her with her suicide. She was paralysed from the neck down and was helpless.

What are your thoughts on the issue? Sorry if this is a bit long.

[yxboom]

That is a great topic for discussion but let me give you a few pointers. First, HTML code isn't allowed so instead there are bbcode tags used to replace them. Your links won't parse unless changed to bbcode. Second, this is the liberal arts dept. I am going to take it you understand the guidelines here that it is strictly Q&A so if you are seeking more of a debate atmosphere of challenging views than you may consider having this thread moved to another section. Anyway welcome to TWeb.

[winstonjen]

Hi and thanks for the welcome! I was looking for more of a debate atmosphere, but not a one-on-one style. If you or another mod could move it to another forum, I would greatly appreciate it. :)

[yxboom]

Done. I also fixed the URL in your post so it will parse properly.

[Bartholomew]

Laws against UNassisted suicide are meaningless, because if they succeed, they are beyond the reach of the law.

I completely disagree. If a law cannot be enforced, should the law cease to exist? I would say no, simply because the legislation of moral behavior, whether or not it can be enforced, reflects not only the society's values, but actually discourages the kind of activity in question. Currently, laws against copying illegal music are almost unenforcable, but does that mean they should be done away with?

The anti-euthanasia/assisted suicide people don't care about the person in suffering.

Quite the contrary, those of us who are not Euthainsts (sp?) are not sadistic. I personally take no pleasure in the suffering of fellow man.

The problem with assisted suicide is that is simply using a greater evil to solve the problem of a lesser evil. Two wrongs do not make a right.

The ultimate question is how much you believe in the sanctity of life. I personally hold life to be the end, and will allow someone to live, even if terminally ill, because there is still a chance they could recover from their illness. Why risk the chance of denying someone of their very existence by terminating it because of a "fatal" disease?

It's very simple - 99% of their 'arguments' focus on the moral aspect, NOT the person in suffering.

I will focus my argument on the moral aspect because I believe unproper morality imposed does cause suffering. Morality is an unavoidable issue in this discussion.

There's also evidence of Euthanasia in the Bible, so I don't understand why Christians are against it. Jesus only hung on the cross for a few hours, compared with the others, and then died. It usually takes much longer to die from crucifixion, and death is preceded by coma and heart failure. The Romans stabbed him because 'they were surprised he had died so soon'. Death by cruxifixtion is usually preceded by respiratory failure and coma.

Non sequitor. How does the Bible support Euthanasia? Christ died of natural causes--albeit imposed by humans around him--didn't he? And I don't believe his execution/death was to alleviate pain. In fact, if I may be so bold, I purpose that the mode of death choosen for Jesus was to create the most suffering possible.

btw, nice to meet you. =)

My name is,
~Matt

[winstonjen]

Today @ 01:03 AM post located here
yxboom:

Done. I also fixed the URL in your post so it will parse properly.

Thanks!

I completely disagree. If a law cannot be enforced, should the law cease to exist? I would say no, simply because the legislation of moral behavior, whether or not it can be enforced, reflects not only the society's values, but actually discourages the kind of activity in question. Currently, laws against copying illegal music are almost unenforcable, but does that mean they should be done away with?

How does punishing someone who FAILS to commit suicide going to discourage them? It will encourage people to succeed, so they do not get punished.

The problem with assisted suicide is that is simply using a greater evil to solve the problem of a lesser evil. Two wrongs do not make a right.

How is it a greater evil? Would you prefer them to commit suicide by cop, taking out other people with them? Or would you rather have them die sooner, leaving the body for family members to find?

The ultimate question is how much you believe in the sanctity of life. I personally hold life to be the end, and will allow someone to live, even if terminally ill, because there is still a chance they could recover from their illness. Why risk the chance of denying someone of their very existence by terminating it because of a "fatal" disease?

To me, that's like saying that people have a duty to live, and should be forced to live even if they don't want to. If you would allow them to live, why won't you allow them to die?

Non sequitor. How does the Bible support Euthanasia? Christ died of natural causes--albeit imposed by humans around him--didn't he? And I don't believe his execution/death was to alleviate pain. In fact, if I may be so bold, I purpose that the mode of death choosen for Jesus was to create the most suffering possible.

Jesus died after a few hours. The thieves who were cruxified with him died much later. Cruxifiction causes coma before death, and according to the bible, Jesus cried out just before dying, so he was nowhere near a comatose state.

As for painful, suffering deaths, well, the methods devised in the Inquisitions and Crusades lasted over days.

btw, nice to meet you. =)

Nice to meet you too.

[Bartholomew]

Today @ 12:52 AM post located here
winstonjen:

How does punishing someone who FAILS to commit suicide going to discourage them? It will encourage people to succeed, so they do not get punished.

It's not completely the punishment, but the law that discourages the suicide.

Secondly, the punishment is to remind them that they are doing something that the state does not approve of. In the end, I have no idea if it will antagonize them to commit suicide, but my guess is that they will come to their senses regarding the gravity of the crime (yes, it is a crime--it is illegal) they almost succeeded in completing.

How is it a greater evil? Would you prefer them to commit suicide by cop, taking out other people with them? Or would you rather have them die sooner, leaving the body for family members to find?

The greater evil is ending life. The lesser evil is physical suffering. This is so because I believe the physical evil of suffering is less evil than actually ending the life of a person.

In other words, do you believe a man who is dead or a man who is suffering is worth more?

I would not prefer that the person take-out a cop in committing suicide, but I don't understand your comment about the family. What are you saying?

To me, that's like saying that people have a duty to live, and should be forced to live even if they don't want to. If you would allow them to live, why won't you allow them to die?

Yes, I do believe people have a duty to live. I have people's best interests in mind when I encourage them to live. What makes you believe otherwise, that allowing someone to die--to commit suicide--is correct?

Jesus died after a few hours. The thieves who were cruxified with him died much later. Cruxifiction causes coma before death, and according to the bible, Jesus cried out just before dying, so he was nowhere near a comatose state.

This still has nothing to do with Euthanasia. If it does, please let me know and I'll chage my view.

As for painful, suffering deaths, well, the methods devised in the Inquisitions and Crusades lasted over days.

Yes? And I'm sure we have even more painful methods today as well. The point is that Jesus died a very painful death, and that the Bible does not endorse Euthanasia here simply because Jesus was not euthanized on the cross.

Nice to meet you too.

Hope you found the debate forum you were looking for,
~Matt

[Sauron]

Today @ 09:35 PM post located here
InquisitorKind:

I completely disagree. If a law cannot be enforced, should the law cease to exist?

Yes. Of course it should cease to exist. One of the legal tests for a law is whether or not it is enforceable.

One of the reasons why there are no laws against homicidal thoughts is because such a law can't be enforced.

I would say no, simply because the legislation of moral behavior, whether or not it can be enforced, reflects not only the society's values, but actually discourages the kind of activity in question.

The law is not intended to reflect moral behavior. It's intended to reflect prohibitions on violations of civil liberties, not be a tool to enforce one person's views of morality.

A law is a thing of the current physical world and the government; it is bound up in the discussion of courts, police, penalties, and the like.

What you're looking for is a moral taboo, not a law. You can have whatever taboos you feel like having; others will disagree with your taboos, of course. But when you're discussing the proper use of public resources and passing legal restrictions (with real consequences) on the broad population, then your argument is orthagonal to that situation.

[Bartholomew]

Today @ 01:07 AM post located here
Sauron:

Yes. Of course it should cease to exist. One of the legal tests for a law is whether or not it is enforceable.

One of the reasons why there are no laws against homicidal thoughts is because such a law can't be enforced.

So you say that all laws which cannot be effectively enforced should be removed?

The law is not intended to reflect moral behavior. It's intended to reflect prohibitions on violations of civil liberties, not be a tool to enforce one person's views of morality.

The law is intended to enforce the government's morality on its citizens. I will continue this thought below...

A law is a thing of the current physical world and the government; it is bound up in the discussion of courts, police, penalties, and the like.

What you're looking for is a moral taboo, not a law. You can have whatever taboos you feel like having; others will disagree with your taboos, of course. But when you're discussing the proper use of public resources and passing legal restrictions (with real consequences) on the broad population, then your argument is orthagonal to that situation.

I am actually looking to up hold the law of the land--the constitution, which affirms the sanctity of life, if I remember correctly. As such, I think it's within the law to have a law against suicide.

I honestly don't think pragmatism is the final test for whether a law should exist or not.

~Matt

[winstonjen]

The greater evil is ending life. The lesser evil is physical suffering. This is so because I believe the physical evil of suffering is less evil than actually ending the life of a person

Then by all means, shun suicide, assisted suicide and euthanasia, but don't expect everyone else to conform to that viewpoint.

I would not prefer that the person take-out a cop in committing suicide, but I don't understand your comment about the family. What are you saying?

I'm saying that the family would not like to see a violent death by suicide. They would be more at ease with a peaceful death that was requested by the person in suffering.

Yes, I do believe people have a duty to live.

That's slavery.

I have people's best interests in mind when I encourage them to live. What makes you believe otherwise, that allowing someone to die--to commit suicide--is correct?

How can you claim to have their best interests in mind, when you're not them? I respect their autonomy, they should be able to choose when they have had enough of life. After all, they never asked to be born now, did they?

This still has nothing to do with Euthanasia. If it does, please let me know and I'll chage my view.

Yes? And I'm sure we have even more painful methods today as well. The point is that Jesus died a very painful death, and that the Bible does not endorse Euthanasia here simply because Jesus was not euthanized on the cross.

See this site - http://www.vesv.org.au/docs/symereligion97.htm

The law is intended to enforce the government's morality on its citizens.

Only in a dictatorship.

I am actually looking to up hold the law of the land--the constitution, which affirms the sanctity of life, if I remember correctly. As such, I think it's within the law to have a law against suicide.

What about the right to pursue happiness? Some may view death as a happiness because no pain > pain.

[Bartholomew]

Today @ 01:24 AM post located here
winstonjen:

Then by all means, shun suicide, assisted suicide and euthanasia, but don't expect everyone else to conform to that viewpoint.

Neither do I. I always expect people to degrade the value of life.

But you came here to assert a viewpoint. If you wish for me (and others) to continue to hold my viewpoint and not conform to yours, why did you decide to discuss this issue at all?

I'm saying that the family would not like to see a violent death by suicide. They would be more at ease with a peaceful death that was requested by the person in suffering.

I don't believe it's worth the risk of that person not actually committing suicide. Do you think the family's distaste for witnessing a suicide superceeds the possibility of the person living and not committing suicide?

By your logic, we should kill each other right away, in small, contained rooms, so that we will not cause potential discomfort to people.

That's slavery.

Why is it slavery? And why is it wrong?

How can you claim to have their best interests in mind, when you're not them? I respect their autonomy, they should be able to choose when they have had enough of life. After all, they never asked to be born now, did they?

I claim to have people's best interests in mind because I believe it is best for them to live. And I believe this to be a universal truth.

See this site - http://www.vesv.org.au/docs/symereligion97.htm

Why? What will I find there?

Only in a dictatorship.

Then welcome to the dictatorship of America.

What about the right to pursue happiness? Some may view death as a happiness because no pain > pain.

If you believe torturing your children was a "right to happiness," should I interfere with you and your affair?

The right to pursue happiness must always be subservient to the sanctity of life.

~Matt

[Sauron]

Today @ 10:14 PM post located here
InquisitorKind:

So you say that all laws which cannot be effectively enforced should be removed?

BZZT. Invalid comparison.

Your example was of a law that can almost NEVER be enforced, because as soon as any such law is violated, the person is automatically beyond the reach of the law. Why? Because they're already dead.

The law is intended to enforce the government's morality on its citizens. I will continue this thought below...

No, it isn't.

I am actually looking to up hold the law of the land--the constitution, which affirms the sanctity of life, if I remember correctly.

It does not. It establishes a framework for civil liberties and an "operating plan" for government.

As such, I think it's within the law to have a law against suicide.

Your opinion is nice. But the Constitution has nothing to do with it.

I honestly don't think pragmatism is the final test for whether a law should exist or not.

I haven't made myself clear. Enforceability is already a ltimus test for whether or not a law is legal. What you think about that litmus test is irrelevant.

Now, if you want to change that litmus test, then fine. But it exists already, in spite of your viewpoint of it.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 12:07 AM post located here
Sauron:

The law is not intended to reflect moral behavior. It's intended to reflect prohibitions on violations of civil liberties, not be a tool to enforce one person's views of morality.

I would disagree. According to the academic definition (the one that was provided to me by both philosophy and sociology textbooks and professors), law is an expression of morality. The problem is, the average layperson, especially those whose definitions are informed by their religious upbringing, often misdefine "morality," when what they really mean is "ethics."

Morality essentially refers to the state of having morals. Morals are classified in two ways:

Folkways -- cultural traditions that are not necessarily written down or carry strict sanctions. Sanctions for violating folkways are generally light and are imposed more in a social context than a legal one.

Mores -- in effect, laws. These are cultural rules and codes that are written down as a matter of policy and carry specific prescribed sanctions when they are violated. Many of our laws are mores.

There are some items that exist as both folkways and mores. For instance, in many conservative Christian homes, it is against the beliefs of the household for women to wear makeup or for men to have long hair. However, in most cases, there isn't going to be a heavy sanction handed down if a girl is caught in makeup or a boy lets his hair grow out. They might be scolded or even grounded, but nothing serious. In Amish society, however, such things can lead to excommunication, because in that society, it's not a folkway, it's a more -- it's written law.

In any case, these are morals, whether they are written laws or not.

[Bartholomew]

Today @ 01:43 AM post located here
Sauron:

BZZT. Invalid comparison.

Your example was of a law that can almost NEVER be enforced, because as soon as any such law is violated, the person is automatically beyond the reach of the law. Why? Because they're already dead.

Interesting. I don't remember making a comparision in my last post, just asking a question. Care to answer it?

It does not. It establishes a framework for civil liberties and an "operating plan" for government.

Which would be imposing it's morality--what it believes is right and wrong--on the people under it.

Your opinion is nice. But the Constitution has nothing to do with it.

Actually, I am not stating my opinion, but a fact. Does not the Constitution hold to the sanctity of life? And is not this the law of the land? As such, would it not be my duty to enforce the law against Euthanasia, or suicide, as it violates the Constitution?

I haven't made myself clear. Enforceability is already a ltimus test for whether or not a law is legal. What you think about that litmus test is irrelevant.

I was not aware of this litmus test. Where might I read that this is the test by which we are to test all laws?

Now, if you want to change that litmus test, then fine. But it exists already, in spite of your viewpoint of it.

Where does it exist?

~Matt

[Woman]

Welcome Winston

I agree with you 100%

No one has a right to tell me when to continue or stop struggling to live or when to end intractable pain. And by the way, the puritan ethics that have allowed people in this country (the US) to suffer needlessly is inexcusable. So terrified of "drug" dependence and a wee lingering bit of "suffering is part of life" attitude has meant that we are way behind other nations in our handling of pain on the scale of say...bone cancer. Most of Europe has used heroin effectively for decades. The tide is shifting here, but slowly.

If you have never held a loved one who begged for death or had the experience of the equivilant of being kicked in the nether-regions once every 30 seconds, I suggest you know not of what you speak.

Every member of my family knows my wishes about this and I know theirs and let me tell you, a silly legality would never stop me from choosing death with dignity for myself!

The law is not a moral arbiter.