Euthanasia

Euthanasia is a concept that any human has the right to die.

In many countries this individual freedom of choice is legally forbidden. What a disgraceful attitude of social freedom this is. If I reached a situation which could only be resolved in death, then I am so sorry Mr.Lawmaker, but like it or not, I have the final choice, NOT YOU. It is MY life and I can do whatever I wish with it,

In Holland, there exists a legal structure for Euthanasia and people are allowed to die according to their wishes on medical grounds providing that certain formal conditions are met.

The down side of Euthanasia is that it is open to abuse by greedy inconsiderate relatives of the person in the drivers seat. It is so easy for relatives to sign off Uncle Tom`s life in order to get their hands on his assets and money. In many cases, people would kill their own Mother if it meant getting a few bucks.

Human greed is total and the life of a relative is simply a walk in the park if the results are attractive.

Me ? I have no problem whatsoever. When my ride comes to an end such that I cannot accept the journey, then regardless of any social concepts, it will be ME that decides the end result, not some stupid law. There is no way I am going to be taken prisoner and suffer natural persecution and pain.

This is OK as long as the person is of sound mind, but in many cases due to a stroke, brain damage, coma or some other condition the person is unable to make their own choice, then relatives have the right of life and death. THAT is where the problem arrives in deciding if the choice is for the benefit of the person or simply pure inconsiderate greed in anticipation of gaining assets and finance on behalf of beneficiaries.

It is also a factor that families will eagerly consent to the death of a person just because they are a daily medical nuisance to look after or costing too much in a care home.

What are your thoughts on Euthanasia ?

Okay, I'll bite...............

"What are your thoughts on Euthanasia ?"

A slippery slope with both legal and moral ramifications that can't be entered into lightly because of everything you said in your post. I personally don't believe in euthanasia but can understand the need in certain situations.

I believe in Euthanasia,if its controlled correctly.

Say a panel of three Doctors hear the evidence for ending ones own life,and if they agree you have a condition that will only deteriorate,that your quality of life is very poor.Then they could grant a licence for Euthanasia to be operated by Doctors who would be willing to operate in the field of assisted death.

When a Dog or Cat is very ill,we say put it out of its misery.But we are quite content to let Human Beings suffer.

You'll never get perfect laws on this that fit every situation but I do believe in the basic principle of having a right to die. It's the trust placed in the help that bothers me.

While suffering is horrible, it's something we have to endure. As for people who are on life support and have no chance of survival without it, I don't really know what I think there. Regardless, though, I strongly believe having the choice to die is a privilege, not a right.

Many people worry that if voluntary euthanasia were to become legal, it would not be long before involuntary euthanasia would start to happen…

This is called the slippery slope argument. In general form it says that if we allow something relatively harmless today, we may start a trend that results in something currently unthinkable becoming accepted.

AS fast as everything is going, my personal opinion is it would be but a short time before '''murder''' would be called 'mercy' and become legal..Everyone is pushing the envelope now..fighting for their individual rights/desires to do as they please without personal repercussion.

I also believe it's not far off in the future before it is made legal..It's going to happen.

I believe that this is a choice each person has the right to make on their own. They may choose to make this choice either of sound mind when incurred with a terminal illness, or have it provided for in a living will/advanced directive.

Medically and ethically, I look at a few points when I consider the whole situation.

• Is the patient terminally ill, with no appreciable possibility of a short or long term recovery?
• Is the patient in significant pain, or physical or mental distress?
• Is the patient currently of a sound mental state to make the decision regarding euthanasia?
• If the patient has an advanced directive, are the conditions absolutely and unquestionably fulfilled?

If all of those are fulfilled and the patient wishes to be euthanised when their condition becomes terminal and treatment becomes futile, who are we to tell them no? The process is simple and relatively inexpensive. Administration of a sufficient amount of a short-acting benzodiazepine or barbiturate rapidly induces a coma with a gradual cessation of respiratory effort leading to death.

So, medically, it's simple. It's the ethics that no one can get past, presumably because everyone is afraid of lawsuits and being sued over trivial matters. When higher-ups start to realize that the right to live is equally as important as the right to die, we might start getting somewhere.

As the numerous posts here attest, the subject of euthanasia continues to generate many varied viewpoints. Many valid points have been expressed here on the issue.

It should be noted that U.S. citizens have the constitutional right of bodily self-determination. The advent and use of Advance Directives is something I both concur with, and also utilize myself. I believe the decision to end one's life (i.e. active euthanasia), is a choice most appropriately made by the individual themselves, based on their personal spiritual beliefs, and adequate consideration (i.e. not something to be suddenly done on the spur of the moment without any forethought whatsoever).

For myself, personally...I have an Advance Directive in place, as well as, a specific clause within my Last Will & Testament which plainly directs that no resuscitation measures are to be initiated if there is no significant possibility of my recovering to live a self-sufficient life (in the opinion of the attending physician). As I have no immediate family or relatives around, and only one close friend...having this directive in effect is the best choice for me.

I have a very good, personal understanding of this issue. For I myself happen to be afflicted with two degenerative diseases which will result in my own departure from this life soon enough.

Regards to all...and treasure each day & every person in your life (including your pet(s))!

When I worked in EMS, there was nothing that irritated me more than a family who wanted full resuscitation for the patient despite the futility of the situation. I remember one specifically, a lady in her late 60's who had a myriad of health problems and we took her to the hospital once or twice a month. She at one point told me "don't do all that crazy stuff if I die one day. I know it's coming". A few weeks later, she stopped breathing at home with her family. When we arrived, she had no pulse and barely any heart rhythm. We asked the family if there was a do not resuscitate order, they replied no. When asked if they wished to let her die, the family insisted we work on her.

Long story short, we resuscitated the patient only for her to spend the next week in the ICU before dying. Just prolonged the inevitable by a few extra days.

As has been mentioned in a couple of other posts here, there can often be "unscrupulous immediate family motives" involved in decisions regarding resuscitation and/or prolonging/ending a relative's life, despite the medical facts (presented to the responsible family member(s)) by an attending physician or group of physicians comprising a hospital's "ethics" committee.

Back in the mid-1980's when I worked for a few years in medical administration with the Department of Veterans Affairs (at a medical center located in Virginia), there was a patient who was in an irreversible comatose state for several years, being kept alive solely by mechanical means, IV fluids, etc.

Despite the immediate family being repeatedly informed by a group of 3 physicians (including a neurologist) that there was absolutely NO possibility of the patient ever regaining consciousness...these family members continued to refuse to permit the patient to be removed from life-support.

The SOLE reason turned out to be because this patient's family was receiving his 100% service-connected disability checks each month from the VA! As long as he remained an inpatient either at the medical center or a VA-contracted nursing home facility, the VA would continue issuing those sizable 100% disability checks to the family. Being a Vietnam vet myself...I found this family's actions outright deplorable. And...by the way...this patient's "family" only stopped by to even visit him once a month for about 10 minutes!.

Some Times delaying the inevidable is a good idea.....

My Father had lung cancer(5 years earlier he had lost half of his lung to lung cancer)
The cancer had returned a vital piece of information that my father kept to himself, to protect his loved ones...the truth would have been better....I knew something was in the wind, I just didn't know what it was,

My father was hospitalized with pneumonia, he was extremely ill....

It was the night of the super bowl, I was with him in his hospital room...I could tell that he needed to rest, BUT he refused to do so, so finally i thought if i left he would rest, so i did, the last words he spoke were to me, He told me that he loved me...a few hours later, they had to put a tube in his throat so he could breath, now my father had a living will, and a DNR, due to some friction in the family, my sister had been given power of attorney, it wasn't worth the paper it was written on because neither she nor my mother had had it notorized, this turned out to be a good thing!

Because were scattered all over the country... as the family began to get here one by one , my sister kept saying that daddy's shouldn't have had the tube put in his throat, because of the DNR, daddy's was still lucid at this point....


3 days later, all of the family had assembled here, by this time a few things had occured, my father kept slipping in and out .. I spoke privately with his DR., this is when i found out that his cancer had returned,they weren't holding out much hope for him.... he remained about half lucid until after FEB. 9th( he and my mothers wedding anniversary)..later that night,,,he slipped into a comatos state and passed away the next day....


I'm telling you this for this reason, always be truthful with your loved ones, they'll be better prepared,
If there is a living will and a DNR, get it notorized(altho i'm awful glad that step was neglected, because daddy wasn't ready to go and still very much alive!)

Armed with the truth, your better abled to deal with what;s happening.

RESPECTFULLY

MissPlaced

If someone truly wishes to die, what right have I to forbid them? I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm saying I have no standing to object.

I’m surprised no one has jumped at the whole youth in Asia joke… (Not really funny b/c in China children are euthanized)

I worked in the ER at a level 1 trauma hospital. I’ve seen it ALL!!! Things shoved places in ways you can’t even imagine. I agree with Mike when it comes to prolonging the inevitable. Medical staff see this time and time again. A father who shot himself in the temple with a 38 revolver (In front of his family) only to find out that you can still live without the frontal lobe of your brain. He was alive for the next 2 months. Why? He wanted to die, he didn’t have medical insurance, he felt every bit of what was going on but his family was hoping for a ‘lifetime’ recovery.

The fact of the matter is, 99% of the time life is not pretty.

It contradicts the concept of "You don't have the right to destroy something which you can't create."

Reply to "The Snake"

I am so sorry to point this out, but :- "You don't have the right to destroy something which you can't create."

Who had the audacity to come up with that expression ? It is the most brainless statement ever made. In the everyday pattern of human behavior, WE continuously destroy just about everything on Earth we have not created, plus a myriad of things we have.

In fact we destroy anything we wish, either for frivolous reasons of personal pleasure or if it gets in our way, which includes natural miracles of evolutionary creation such as animal life and ecological life. OH YES, humans are the most destructive factor present on Earth. So making a decision to pull the curtains on another human, especially if there are monetary or collateral gains to be had, should pose no problem at all.