Agnostic.com

60 9

Should euthanasia or "death with dignity" be available to anyone upon demand under controlled circumstances?

When I hear people talk about the difficulty of euthanizing their elderly or desperately ill pets I immediately think that at least we accord our pets a more logical and merciful death than we do to our fellow humans. The wonders of modern medicine can be as much a curse as they are a blessing. We live in an unprecedented time when we can know what will probably kill us twenty years down the line. To modern doctors death is the enemy which must be fought to the last possible moment. Little concern is given to the quality of life of the patient/victim, only that they be kept alive.
The conspiracy is broad-based. Big Pharma wants to keep you on maintenance drugs and never seems to come up with cures. A patient cured is a customer lost. If they stumbled across a $1 cure for AIDS or cancer would we ever hear of it? And then there are the private, for-profit health insurance companies that are really legalized extortion and protection rackets sucking billions out of the health-care system for administration, profits and to pay lawyers to find ways not to honor the benefits spelled out in their policies. The patient is but a scrap of meat ground up in the gears of corporate medicine. If we truly have free will shouldn't we be allowed to opt out?
There are many reasons someone may want to take advantage of doctor assisted suicide. One would be to avoid a prolonged and torturous illness. Another might be to avoid being a burden to loved ones. There are also those who are alone in life and don't want to go through the steady drip, drip of watching their bodies deteriorate due to age. If the request is initiated by the patient, there is no outside duress and the patient has thought through their decision with the consul of medical professionals what gives the state the right to deny such a request no matter what the circumstances? Like back alley abortions unassisted suicides can be messy affairs that can lead to unintended consequences like paralysis or brain damage. The primary reason for legalizing abortions was to end horrific atrocities committed in non-clinical circumstances. Wouldn't the same argument apply to suicide?

GareBear517 7 Nov 13
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

60 comments (51 - 60)

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

3

Yes, ditto to @gearl.

4

Yes. 100%

gearl Level 8 Nov 15, 2017
7

In my opinion - absolutely !

Just because we CAN extend life in an otherwise useless body, doesn't mean we SHOULD indefinitely .

11

We have no problem doing it for animals... yet we have problems when it comes to the suffering of our loved ones... go figure...

2

Unfortunately, we have these evangelicals and other religious bodies who feel that we must keep these individuals in pain and suffering because life means everything. They never take into consideration the choice the person should be permitted to voice as is their right.This is also a position that should be provided at birth if a child is born with terrible diseases or conditions that would not allow them a normal life. If the child healthy this would not be an option ,but to place a child in the world that is badly crippled or has another problem that would provide a life of pain and suffering is not humane.

Agree

3

If a person is ill, and suffering with no real chance of recovery, then I think they have the right to determine if they want ot save themselves suffering and end their own life, with or without assistance.

But what if they don't want to go on living - even without a terminal illness? Shouldn't that be their choice? If you don't think so - why not?

That is a tougher question. If a person doesn't have a debilitating illness, but still wants to commit suicide, I fall back on the old saying that "suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem".

Of all the people who attempted suicide by jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge, everyone who survived changed thir minds after jumping... usually on the way down.

I think in al;most every case persons who are suicidal have built a kind of psycholigcal box for themselves in which they can see no way out. I myself have had suicidal feelings, and one of my sisters attempted suicide twice (persons raised in a rigid religion are at least three times more likley to commit suicide). In both of out cases, all we needed to do was knock out one of the walls of our psychological box, simply by leaving the religion, and we had a way out other than suicide.

In the end we all die anyways. I look at it as staying to see how our life story goes I've had a pretty miserable childhood, nto as bad as some, but not happy, and I only have the one life. I'd like my adult life to be much a happier, as i have more control over that part of my life than I did as a child. I want to see how the adventure ends based on my own, not somebody else's decisions about how to live my life.

So, for the vast majority of those who are suicidal, I think they can adequately recover and live happy and fulfilling lives. However, I cannot say for sure who can and who can't recover. I think help should be offered and be available for suicidal persons.

From a stand point of valuing human life, if there were no efforts to prevent suicide, then human life itself would be devalued, and then how would we feel about people taking the lives of others? For that reason, even if it only makes a light difference in valuing human life itself, suicide of physically healthy people should be prevented if possible.

2

The terminally ill should be able to check out when they are ready. There shouldn't even be an argument to the contrary.
Assisted suicide is another thing entirely. What criteria would a person need to meet to be considered a candidate? Who would be administering the lethal dose or pulling the trigger? Most doctors ARE all about saving lives. Do we let people on death row do the killing for us, since they seem to be fine with taking lives? Are we rewarding them somehow if we do allow them to do it? Is it so terrible to reward someone, even a murderer, who can bring final peace to someone who is suffering so much that they actively seek ways to die?

Orly Level 5 Nov 14, 2017

There is only one criteria that the person considering assisted suicide should have to meet. Namely, that it is their desire to do so. Despair, depression, loneliness are really terminal illnesses in their own right. Should those suffering have only violence (guns, jumping) or risky homemade poisonous concoctions as an option? Counseling should be part of the process but the ultimate decision should be left to the individual. Squeamish doctors should not put their values above those of their patients. But if many opt out there would still be those who would probably have a practice specializing in such assistance. The idea of using condemned convicts as the supervisors over such acts is outlandish and unnecessary. The whole idea is to allow assisted suicide in clinical surroundings.

Doctors are not all about saving lives..just customers

13

Absolutely, it should be available. Legal or not, if I reach the stage of being so disabled that life has little quality and/or if I am a burden on others, I WILL exercise that choice.

Many seniors, including myself, stock pile drugs against the day that we decide enough is enough. But this is risky business as the drugs may not be effective or would lead to a painful death.

I agree. I have no others, so I do feel it's my responsibility to make the decision for myself before I'm too far gone.

GareBear517: There is information online and groups with information on preferred medications or cocktails but they all urge caution because too little or the wrong combination of drugs can have terrible consequences. Vanilla yogurt is easy to swallow and honey for any bitterness.

I am making an exit bag kit for helium for myself. It seems easy to make and use and it's a very quick peaceful transition..Regardless of how it's done one should still have supervision or assistance. Even with something as straight forward as an Exit Bag, a hose can come loose as your posture changes or the gas can run out with disastrous results if you are alone.

Have you seen the movie Soylent Green? I love the part when you decide when to die, go to a clinic and they put on your favorite music, you lie down and peacefully go to sleep. I think euthanasia is the most humane way to die. All pet owners who have had to do this agree that the elimination of suffering is the most important when it's time to go. It should be a choice, not governed by someone else religion.

@SoloSentient With passing of my 91 old mother who wanted to be euthanatized, I would also want an exit kit. Dying slowly is not pretty. As I understand the right type of helium is hard to get a hold of. If you have any info to help me prepare, please share🙂

2

Yes, it should. Great post.

By the way, I believe there already is a cure for cancer, Newcastle disease virus, which replicates about 10,000 times faster in cancerous cells than healthy cells. Last I checked, all clinical trials proved inconclusive. I doubt there's much profit in a virus. [cancer.gov]

Over the years I have participated in innumerable fund raising activities for every disease from cancer to AIDS. The hook is always, "Help find a cure for__!" fill in the blank. Millions are raised but all we get are more maintenance drugs, never cures. I am beginning to think that instead of making grants to pharmaceutical companies, universities and the like that the search for cures be nationalized and the NIH stop making such grants.

I totally agree.

2

Absolutely a person's life is their own and no one else's that is why in most places attempted suicide is not a crime but, rather considered to be a sign of mental illness. Euthanasia should not be a crime either as long as the decision to be snuffed remains with the individual and no one else.
Such a decision cannot be taken lightly and needs to be subject to medical and psychological review because it would need to be a medical procedure, which leads to the next problem finding a doctor to do it. Legal consequences can change and what one day is legal the next could be declared murder with those penalties now falling on the doctor.

Our recoiling in horror at the idea of euthanasia and its being legislated against is mainly the work of religion. Another good reason to build an impenetrable wall between church and state. Like abortion this matter should be left strictly to the individual and his/her physician. And physicians should learn in their medical educations that sometimes death is the cure.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:3689
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.