A question regarding euthanasia

Miller wrote:

Many patients never respond to anti-depressants. Are they, then supposed to live out their lives in perpetuation phsychological pain?

That is there choice to make.
If they choose to end their lives, and are physically capable of doing so themselves, they must if they have any concept at all of humanity, do it themselves, without involving another person, and doing it in a way that will not harm other. Again, the onus of it going wrong is their responsibility, no one elses.

A physician is merely a human being, not God. If a doctor was to assist someone who is physically able to do it themselves, don't you think that weighs on his/her conscience? Perhaps not with those who already have a God complex, but with those who realize they are mere mortals themselves.

Botched suicides, harming others while doing it.....what about the harm done to the mind of a doctor who later had second thoughts.

Naj - again, you appear to be looking for some type of easy(ier) out to this situation. Anything said after this would be repeating myself.

0 Replies

Chai Tea. No, I'm not opting for an easy out. Your point is entirely valid and completely rational. Actually, I keep trying to make this more and more difficult, even for myself. Your answer is cogent, but as you can glean from my earlier points, not entirely satisfying from my POV. Be that as it may, thank you for your valid and good contributions. They help indeed.

Regards,
Naj

0 Replies

You're welcome.

0 Replies

For people coping with severe depression,
euthanesia is not an acceptable form of suicide, despite a non-responsiveness of psychological treatments.

It would be an easy way out, no matter how much you'd
dispute it.

0 Replies

Quote:

If they choose to end their lives, and are physically capable of doing so themselves, they must if they have any concept at all of humanity, do it themselves, without involving another person, and doing it in a way that will not harm other. Again, the onus of it going wrong is their responsibility, no one elses.

This is true. If they really want to save their organs for harvest, they should do some research, and see how to 'do themselves in' such that their organs are still good i.e near a hospital that does harvesting. There is nothing in it for the assistant in the suicide. "I need you to kill me" is not a request that many people find reasonable.
I think thats the first thing we've agreed on chai tea Very Happy

, but thats probably cos I dont agree much

(rolling eyes)

0 Replies

Wow, that's cool Racer X...

I just looked and I don't think there's many occassions we've even posted on the same thread.

Are you.....stalking me?

0 Replies

Calamity,

Ok. You say that euthanesia is not a proper solution for these people, but you do not give a valid alternative way. What do you suggest such people do then? Keep on being depressed, spent their money on psychiatrists and die without every feeling as having contributed anything positive to society in their lifespans?
Or do you propose an answer lies in unassisted suicide?

Curious to know what you suggest...

Racedriver,
Ehm. How does one conduct such research? I'm not necessarily niterested in conducting it, but I think this type of knowledge isn't readily available... And asking a doctor or other medical specialist for information on how to commit suicide in such a way the organs remain 'eligible' for harvesting might be just as disturbing to them as asking for assistance would be...

Naj.

0 Replies

Quote:

Ok. You say that euthanesia is not a proper solution for these people, but you do not give a valid alternative way. What do you suggest such people do then? Keep on being depressed, spent their money on psychiatrists and die without every feeling as having contributed anything positive to society in their lifespans?
Or do you propose an answer lies in unassisted suicide?

naj, life never remains at a status quo, so you'd never know
what the future brings. If you're brave enough to face it (life)
go ahead and live it - after all it is the best thing that can happen to us. The journey is the goal....

If you're determined to end your life, then unassisted suicide
would be more appropriate.

Can you imagine if euthanasia would be allowed as a form
of assisted suicide, what it would do to the psyche of a physician, dealing with such emotional turmoil, never mind the litigious aspect of it, arising from family members of the suicidal patient. It would be a sheer nightmare for all involved, except the suicide victim.

0 Replies

Calamity,

Quote:

naj, life never remains at a status quo, so you'd never know
what the future brings. If you're brave enough to face it (life)
go ahead and live it - after all it is the best thing that can happen to us. The journey is the goal....

It's really a matter of how you value life as a goal for itself then, right? Most posters here tend to agree on labelling choosing suicide over life as a form of cowardice. I'm not sure I second that. I've known one person who tried to commit suicide once (she is not the person I base this hypothetical situation on, however.) She just figured it was all pointless, a 'meaningless string of days following nights until your body gets too bored with the concept to continue enduring it.' I'm not sure if she is right. I'm not sure about much regarding this topic anymore, to tell the truth.

Quote:

Can you imagine if euthanasia would be allowed as a form
of assisted suicide, what it would do to the psyche of a physician, dealing with such emotional turmoil, never mind the litigious aspect of it, arising from family members of the suicidal patient. It would be a sheer nightmare for all involved, except the suicide victim.

Yeah. I have thought about this. It will require a large change in ethical and moral values on the part of both doctors and people to make said system work. I am not sure that it is necessarily a change for the better, mind you.
Thanks for your comments.

0 Replies

Quote:

I just looked and I don't think there's many occassions we've even posted on the same thread

lol, I think there must be, Im afraid that nonsensical rabii quote and the cute chick on your avatar stand out like a smart person on big brother. (Oh, and for those who dont know about the mindlessness that is the Australian show Big Brother - thats one extra thing you have going for you)

0 Replies

i would say NO you not gonna kill yourself on my watch. and i am NOT gonna kill you either.

(actually, i wouldnt only say no if it were on my watch, euthanasia is objectively wrong. as is abortion, murder, geneside, etc.)

0 Replies

I'm not sure if anyone else has really pointed this out, but it's irrational to assume one's life would NOT take some kind of turn for the better. If you could somehow show the person of 40 what they may actually accomplish and/or experience by age 80, would they persist in thinking their life was pointless?

I think in this case, psychological help should continue to be attempted for as long as possible. As a doctor in this case I would not assist.

0 Replies

nick17 wrote:

euthanasia is objectively wrong. as is abortion, murder, geneside, etc.)

from your subjective Christian POV of course.

0 Replies

Isn't Nick a Buddist?

0 Replies

Hmm, Nick, I can understand why you could compare euthanasia with murder, but not with genocide.
And please feel free to give an explanation. Saying 'I wont let you do it because it's wrong' doesn't really add anything significant to this topic.

Naj

0 Replies

najmelliw wrote:

Hmm, Nick, I can understand why you could compare euthanasia with murder, but not with genocide.
And please feel free to give an explanation. Saying 'I wont let you do it because it's wrong' doesn't really add anything significant to this topic.

Naj

Genocide is the systematic extermination of a political, national or cultural group. Im not saying that euthanasia is genocide, only akin to it.

(Excuse me for laying aside the first post for a moment) Euthanasia doesnt just effect a single person, but a whole group of people: the terminally ill, the mentally retarded, manic depressives... Euthanasia is the systematic extermination of these people.

0 Replies

Euthanasia is even in the most liberal of countries a method only sparingly applied on a per case basis, after careful and strenuous examination and rejecting all alternatives. As such, it most certainly does not affect whole groups of people.
You could just as easily say suicide is genocide, because it affects for instance manic depressives.

Naj.

0 Replies

Quote:

(Excuse me for laying aside the first post for a moment) Euthanasia doesnt just effect a single person, but a whole group of people: the terminally ill, the mentally retarded, manic depressives... Euthanasia is the systematic extermination of these people.

I have an interesting conundrum you might like: Medicine makes people unhealthy.
Think about it. Every person with a disorder who is saved passes it to the next generation. So there will be more sick people the next generation, and so on until the health service requires massive amounts of resources to support a population of "flawed" medicine dependant people. But what if we said "no medicine for you", imagine the outcry!
Indeed, making a population healthier may also require limiting medicine!
Freak out. Shocked

0 Replies

RD You take the argument for 'quality of life' rather than 'sanctity of life'. As a Christian I take that for 'sanctity of life'

0 Replies

A question regarding euthanasia

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know