Of course, if one doesn't believe in God and also doesn't believe that God created life in humans to fulfill a purpose, than what more can I say.
I'm not a Rabbi, Priest or Minister. Do you know the opinions of the clergy in this matter?
All of the ones I've heard from, are against assisted suicide.
New Haven wrote:One must ask whether God has intended life to have a purpose.
Before on ever gets to that question one must ask "Is there a God"?
NH, the imposition of someone's statements about the "will of god," absent any proof that such a being exists, have always had the the effect of disgusting me. When issues such as this, crucial to many people in pain, as well as their families, are considered, i would prefer that popular superstitions not be needlessly introduced into the conversation. If such beliefs are held by the person considered for euthenasia, or her/his family, time enough to consider that in the individual case.
New Haven wrote:All of the ones I've heard from, are against assisted suicide.
Dead parishioners don't kick in to the collection plate every Sunday morning... :p (sorry!
)
No!
But they frequently have wills with much $$ to donate to the church or temple.
Neither do families who spent it all keeping Grampa breathing in a hospital room as he begged for death. ;-)
(Okay, sorry too, I'm done...)
Shalom!
Have a peaceful night. Till Thursday!
Walter
I can understand the Germans being sensitive about the subject because of what the Nazi's did. However, any comparison to that and what we are discussing is in name only.
If any person was to decide for themselves that the path on which they are going to live, or are living, while in stable mental health that they would like to end the course of which their body continues to function at a point in which they believe they no longer want it to function at...should be able to have that functioning stopped.
A very close relative of mine is a nurse, gerentology and terminal illness, and has been doing this for many years. It is general practice to medicate a person to the point at which they are in the least amount of pain AND which will shut down their bodies the quickest, in the most legal of fashions, by MDs. And, nurses must administer the medication, the caring of the failing body, and the care of the ones left behind. There are many times that the body does not cease to function at a quick enough rate to be comfortable for anyone involved but, without a change in laws, a way to make this a better transition, people continue to suffer needlessly.
My opinion is that being humane should be first when these situations arise. When we are told that an animal is beyond saving and will suffer needlessly, without a second thought, they are euthanized. Before you go nuts here...yes, they are animals and many people have their own beliefs on this but, my point is that we cant accept the same diagnosis and/or end result for people. There are differences and those differences are what I think need to be legalized, enforced, etc. Also personal opinions/beliefs need to be taken into account as well.
Heres what I suggest-if you would like to be euthanized at a certain point in time, under certain circumstances, then you should be able to have a legal document stating this- much like living wills, organ donoring, DNR, etc. If you are unable to do this and your doctor has this option to give to your loved ones, that should be done as well, under guidelines. If a medical staff can come to a consensus that okay..this person is suffering and will continue to suffer for the next three days from what we know, can we simply euthanize and go forward? This should be allowed in my opinion, and it is something that should be worked on. As well as this, if you would rather not be euthanized, that should also be a choice you are able to make, and if you are that serious about those beliefs then you would make sure it was available legally when needed.
I think we have been building up to this with the DNR orders and living wills, and we simply need to get it moving to a more sensible position for everyone.
I also hope that it doesnt turn into something like Soilent Green anytime soon, but that is also a possiblity for some distant future.
yes, it should be legal. When faced with terminal, untreated illness. Whatever else is up to law-makers.
The Euthanasia in Holland link is great walter...thanks. I found it very interesting that hospices as we know them are attached to each hospital.
I believe that euthanasia should be decriminalized, with appropriate safeguards. I would hate to think of a person being killed because of expedience, or greedy relatives.
I feel the same way about assisted suicide. I don't believe that the government has the right to tell me what I may do with my life, and if I wanted to end it that would be MY choice.
http://www.ask.com/main/metaAnswer.asp?t=ai&s=a&MetaEngine=directhit&en=te&eo=4&o=0&frames=True&url=http%3A%2F%2Fweb%2Elwc%2Eedu%2Fadministrative%2Flibrary%2Fsuiart%2Ehtm&ac=7&adcat=hlth&pt=Doctor%2DAssisted+Suicide+%2D%2DA+Guide+to+Journal+and+Newspaper+Articles%2C&dm=http%3A%2F%2Fweb%2Elwc%2Eedu%2Fadministrative%2Flibrary%2Fsuiart%2Ehtm&io=0&qid=BEB4FB2F1BDFC04BB294D61B0E4B9BA3&back=ask%3Drecent%2Bnews%2Bdoctor%2Dassisted%2Bsuicide%2BOregon%26o%3D0%26x%3D7%26y%3D8&ask=recent+news+doctor%2Dassisted+suicide+Oregon&dt=030108165155&amt=&pg=1&qsrc=0
Good grief, that's a long link!
I live in Oregon and had mixed emotions when this issue came up for a vote. I thought the basic idea was an excellent one, but that if it became law, it would be abused. That is definitely not the case, as you can see if you check the link within the link - "report 2000, 2001" (or something to that effect - it's fairly near the top.) The statistics show that very few people have requested this treatment, and of the ones who have, many have never used it.
I'm not sure of the status of the litigation right now, but it certainly has been a hot issue between the state and the feds.
I'll see if I can find another link.
This is within that link under FAQ's.
On November 6, 2001, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a new interpretation of the Controlled Substances Act, which would prohibit doctors from prescribing controlled substances for use in physician-assisted suicide. To date, all the medications prescribed under the Act have been barbiturates, which are controlled substances and therefore, would have been prohibited. In response to a lawsuit filed by the State of Oregon on November 20, 2001, a U.S. district court issued a temporary restraining order against Ashcroft's ruling. On April 17, 2002, U.S. District Judge Robert Jones upheld Oregon's physician-assisted suicide law. At this time, Oregon's law remains in effect.
Further information on the case of the State of Oregon v. John Ashcroft, et al. can be found at the Department of Justice's Physician-Assisted Suicide website
http://www.doj.state.or.us/11072001.htm
I know Ashcroft does not act alone in these things, but the man makes me nervious.
maybe euthanasia plans should be regulated by state/fed liscensed lawyers/notaries in order to be considered lawful....?
Then again, maybe not - after checking out chat's link....
chatoyant - I was very disappointed to see Ashcroft try to trample a state's rights in this issue. I think it's clear that this is an issue for the state to decide and the federal government should not be trying to assert itself in the matter.
Agreed, trespassers. The state voted for it to be law. Ashcroft should stay the heck out of it!
States' rights? Since when is a Republican administration supposed to be about states' rights? ;-)
(Really, though, the 1st Repub. pres. stomped pretty hard on states' rights, so there you go...)
