This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.

Welcome to Our Community

Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.

Euthanasia

Discussion in 'The Philosopher' started by DeathBlade, Apr 11, 2005.

  1. DeathBlade

    DeathBlade Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2003
    Messages:
    490
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Chicago
    I haven’t read through all the other forums yet, so I don’t know if this has been discussed or not, but just from skimming some of them there is a lot of talk about killing/life/living/dead etc. Now what are your thoughts on euthanasia?

    Personally I support euthanasia especially for cancer patients/people in a lot of pain. If they are suffering why not put them out of it (if they want to be)? We treat are animals like this, and I think that people should be able to have a choice in this matter also. Also for people like Terri Schavio I think that they could be injected with a lethal poison instead of starving to death. If I was in that situation I would much rather be killed then starve to death. I also think that euthanasia should be legal as a form of suicide. It would be somewhat regulated and before you got it you would have to go through counseling and some sort of process to make sure that you do really want to die.

    What are your thoughts?
     
  2. no country for old wainds

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2002
    Messages:
    24,182
    Likes Received:
    7,316
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Euthanasia:

    (At Least Partially) Sane People vs. Religious Fanatics
     
  3. Fourka

    Fourka Forget it

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2003
    Messages:
    1,071
    Likes Received:
    71
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    In a cuckoo's clock
    Sane person here! :)
     
  4. Goreripper

    Goreripper Metal as fuck

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2001
    Messages:
    18,844
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Blue Mountains, Australia
    In my opinion, it should all come back to something called "quality of life", not just life itself. Do-gooders and fundamentalists might argue that all life is sacred and should be preserved, but for a person who can't see, touch, hear, or speak and has lost all cognitive ability, has no thought processes and no memory, what's the point of keeping them alive? It's not like someone who's that badly brain damaged is just going to snap out of it and be back on their feet again one day. Besides, they neither know nor care if they're alive or dead, so what does it matter if they're allowed to die. People made a lot of Schiavo starving to death, but her brain was practically mush. Most of the pain centres would have been destroyed and any that were left would have been deadened by painkillers. Even if she had felt some pain, she wouldn't have known what it was, what to make of it or why.

    Euthanasia is a touchy subject obviously, but it should be considered on a case-by-case basis and the "quality of life" issue should always be addressed. If someone is in constant, agonising pain with no hope of recovery or if they are in such a regressive state that they can no longer think and even their motor functions have to be stimulated by a machine, what sort of life are they living? Ultimately too we have to ask ourselves, if it was us, what would we choose?
     
  5. no country for old wainds

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2002
    Messages:
    24,182
    Likes Received:
    7,316
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you're going to look at it from a Humanist angle then Goreripper's views are the most logical.

    If someone wants to die, or is unable to think clearly enough to inform people as such, let them die. You're respecting the person's wishes (or you're just killing what's already basically dead, in the latter's case), and you're avoiding wasting resources for more than likely no reason whatsoever other than keeping those alive who don't want to be here, for some *God* or *universal value* that's not proven to exist.

    Issues like this and abortion don't really hold importance to me though, I certainly don't think any cases should be brought into the national spotlight. The only thing that's even remotely significant to the world is whether or not the person might serve some great purpose if they continued to live, but in almost all cases this is all but ruled out.
     
  6. cthulufhtagn

    cthulufhtagn stop. just....stop.

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,640
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    south of washington
    i agree with goreripper completely

    i don't think she suffered much, if at all
     
  7. MasterOLightning

    MasterOLightning Optimator

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2003
    Messages:
    6,815
    Likes Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Chicago
    Yeah, this isn't the most thought provoking issue. I am in agreement with what was said earlier.
     
  8. Intoxicator

    Intoxicator Hell On Earth

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,863
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Hubbard, Ohio
    If you want to fucking die you should be allowed to fucking die. Especially those with a terminal illness who don't want to go through all the suffering. As everyone seems to agree, Goreripper put it well.
     
  9. Zack

    Zack charting my way to top :)

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,642
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    What exactly is eunthanasia?
     
  10. no country for old wainds

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2002
    Messages:
    24,182
    Likes Received:
    7,316
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Assisted suicide of the unhealthy.
     
  11. Intoxicator

    Intoxicator Hell On Earth

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,863
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Hubbard, Ohio
    Does anyone think there was anything wrong with what Dr. Kevorkian did? Is it really such a crime to give those who want to die a peaceful death? I don't think so.
     
  12. Darth Kur

    Darth Kur Misanthropic Naysayer

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    481
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    NC, Vinland
    I think Dr. Kevorkian was doing great good and humane work. It's an atrocity the way he has been treated and imprisoned.
     
  13. cthulufhtagn

    cthulufhtagn stop. just....stop.

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,640
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    south of washington
    another victim of the "moral" right
     
  14. NeverIsForever

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    937
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    I absolutely agree with euthanasia if that is what the person wants, or in cases such that of Terri Schiavo. I don't think they were wrong at all to decide that prolonging her vegetative existence was pointless, but I still can't believe the government sanctioned starving her to death as the method by which they would "let" her die. Whether doctors thought she could feel it or not is not the point, in my opinion. There is no way they can be sure she didn't. The only one who will ever know for certain how painful (or not) slow death by starvation might have been was Terri, and obviously she's not here to tell us what it felt like.

    Hell, even serial killers get a lethal injection--quick, dignified, and certainly more humane than starvation. I guess it's kind of pointless for me to rant about this because Terri's dead now, but I just don't see any logic in it. How hard would it have been for them to give her a shot she'd never wake up from?

    Back to the original topic, though--if a person is terminally ill, in pain, and doesn't want to suffer any longer, I see no reason why they should be prevented from ending their life. So I've got no problem with Dr. Kevorkian...
     
  15. Intoxicator

    Intoxicator Hell On Earth

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,863
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Hubbard, Ohio
    Indeed.
     
  16. cthulufhtagn

    cthulufhtagn stop. just....stop.

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,640
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    south of washington
    I really don't think she suffered at all, to be honest. But giving her a shot wouldn't be an option, because that would be killing. And that's always wrong. Always. Unless you killed somebody else, then it doesn't matter if you're retarded or 16 years old or didn't have competent defense council. :rolleyes:
     
  17. NeverIsForever

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    937
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    I see what you are saying. But if allowing her to starve when they could easily have fed her does not count as killing her, then why are parents who willingly allow their children to starve when they could easily have fed them charged with a crime? Every so often you read in the paper how some poor kid was locked in a closet for years and denied food, so now at age 16 or whatever they weigh 50 pounds. Or maybe they're dead already. And then you read about how their parents have been arrested for it.

    Or another example: The Nazis starved people during the Holocaust. That was murder, wasn't it?
     
  18. speed

    speed Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2001
    Messages:
    5,192
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I think the real issue at hand in Euthanasia is how modern medicine and technology has far surpassed theological/ religious dogma and belief. For the first time in history, people can be kept alive without any brain power for years-- without any consciousness. Thus it calls into question the whole idea of the soul.

    We tend to think one must be conscious, or able to think to be alive. If not, one is no better than a vegetable in the garden. Now the religious leaders and religions have harbored this pernicious unproven fantasy about a soul for some 2,500 years. Would the soul stay in a vegetable? Do vegetables have souls? This is a huge question I think religious leaders must address in their ideas of the soul etc. Clearly, more and more people can be kept alive as nothing more than vegetables for years and years to come.
     
  19. strigoi9

    strigoi9 cynical pessimist

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA USA
    There's nothing 'wrong' with euthanasia. In the case of Schiavo, I think it was ridiculous that her parents got involved. Sure, they didn't want their daughter to die, but really...she wasn't much of a daughter anymore. When you marry, it is your spouse's decision(s) what goes on in your life at that point, not your parents'.

    A living will is a good idea for everyone. In case something happens to you, there is a document stating your wishes. You can't get more straight forward than that.

    Doing everything possible to keep someone alive is not always what's best for the family, either. To drag out the inevitable is taxing on everyone. Would you want to put your loved ones through that? I wouldn't. From personal experience, it's best that death happens quickly and hopefully peacefully. Not that the pain loved ones suffer is any less, but the healing process will start sooner.
     

Share This Page