• Belgium minor first to be granted euthanasia
    47 replies, posted
[QUOTE=rndgenerator;51070687]Arguably the death these people will get won't be painless since they're doing it due to pain reasons.[/QUOTE] Wanna try that again and form a coherent argument this time?
[QUOTE=CroGamer002;51070733]According to moral foundations of both Christian and Western societies? [editline]18th September 2016[/editline] I don't think you even know what word selfish means.[/QUOTE] Christian, maybe. They're moral absolutists. Western societies? No. The most progressive and advanced western countries allow euthanasia by law. Killing someone is wrong, yes. Helping them take their own life, when it's their own choice and they can't do it alone, is not.
[QUOTE=CroGamer002;51070733]According to moral foundations of both Christian and Western societies? [/QUOTE] So why do we kill animals, others in self defense, etc? It's because killing was never deemed wrong, murder was.
[QUOTE=CroGamer002;51070733]According to moral foundations of both Christian and Western societies? [editline]18th September 2016[/editline] I don't think you even know what word selfish means.[/QUOTE] A selfish person puts their own needs and wants above others'. If Bob wants to die to end his intense and interminable suffering, then yes, he is being selfish. But if his family and friends refuse to let him do so because they want to keep him around to fulfil their own emotional needs, then they're being selfish as well.
[QUOTE=CroGamer002;51070733]According to moral foundations of both Christian and Western societies? [editline]18th September 2016[/editline] I don't think you even know what word selfish means.[/QUOTE] On the flip side, what one person considers selfish, another person might consider selfless. There are two big problems with the introduction of euthanasia as such into common practice; the medical community themselves are split between agreeing to include it as a right of the patient, or refusing it because they interpret the Hippocratic Oath/Geneva articles as saying that euthanasia conflicts with the duty of the doctor to place absolute sanctity on human life. The other issue is that many countries believe the law could be misused in various ways when it comes to euthanasia, that is to say, euthanasia and the slippery slope. They claim that accepting the practice could lead to undesirable outcomes in the future (such as infanticide of deformed children or children with incurable defects.) However, those proponents of euthanasia say that these arguments can well be dismissed as they rely too heavily on a paradox of events that may or may not occur, and that there can be clear demarcations when it comes to the various acceptable forms and reasons for euthanasia. A strong case is its implementation in those countries which have legalized it - so far no legal issues relating to its use have cropped up. And as for any arguments that it has not been appropriately researched over a reasonable time frame: [url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2733179/[/url], where it was proven that frequency of euthanasia did not increase or spike because: [quote]The frequency of ending of life without explicit patient request did not increase over the studied years; There is no evidence for a higher frequency of euthanasia, compared with background populations, among the elderly, people with low educational status, the poor, the physically disabled or chronically ill, minors, people with psychiatric illnesses including depression, and racial or ethnic minorities.[/quote]
[QUOTE=CroGamer002;51070733]According to moral foundations of both Christian and Western societies? [editline]18th September 2016[/editline] I don't think you even know what word selfish means.[/QUOTE] Do not assume that your religious ideology is applicable to a vast swath of the world. As for the reason shit like this exists. Its so people don't have to spend their lives in an absolute hell. Go and google some images of late-stage cancer, or ALS, or Alzheimers. Dying fucking sucks, and these people obviously don't want to die for normal reasons. To support the continued suffering of an individual in order to satisfy your religious beliefs is both fucked up and selfish beyond words.
[QUOTE=butre;51069519]imagine the impact this would have on the doctors. not being able to save someone is one thing, but killing them on purpose is something else entirely. and having the first person to go through with it be a kid really sets an awful tone[/QUOTE] Take a stroll through your local hospice, and just take a look at the people in there. Then imagine being in that state for years with literally no hope of ever returning to health, and knowing that you're just going to lay there suffering until you die. If they want to die, keeping these people alive because sanctity of life or whatever, despite their suffering, is genuinely a cruel thing. No matter how well intentioned it is. And to say "but he was a kid" only makes it worse. According to the article he was going to die, and every day was "unbearable physical suffering". The alternative is willingly letting this guy sit there in agony, begging for death. Somehow that doesn't seem like the kinder thing to do. and frankly i know a few doctors, my mom was in healthcare for years. Every one i've met feels [I]awful[/I] when they can't help someone terminally ill die. That patient is their responsibility, and there's only one way for it to end. But they have to sit there with their hands tied because the armchair morality brigade says nobody should ever kill anyone ever, no matter what the circumstance. Imagine the guilt doctors suffer, knowing their patient is laying there weeping in pain and depression, but they can't turn the morphine dial up because that'd be cruel. I can't speak for actual doctors, but from my experience i can say i can't imagine them being anything but relieved in cases like this
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51070903]How is bob wanting to kill himself selfish? He can do what he damn well pleases, he is bob. His body, his life, his mind.[/QUOTE] It [i]is[/i] selfish to some extent because his decision [i]does[/i] affect those around him. You can be pro-euthanasia and still acknowledge that fact.
[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;51070851]Take a stroll through your local hospice, and just take a look at the people in there. Then imagine being in that state for years with literally no hope of ever returning to health, and knowing that you're just going to lay there suffering until you die. If they want to die, keeping these people alive because sanctity of life or whatever, despite their suffering, is genuinely a cruel thing. No matter how well intentioned it is. And to say "but he was a kid" only makes it worse. According to the article he was going to die, and every day was "unbearable physical suffering". The alternative is willingly letting this guy sit there in agony, begging for death. Somehow that doesn't seem like the kinder thing to do. and frankly i know a few doctors, my mom was in healthcare for years. Every one i've met feels [I]awful[/I] when they can't help someone terminally ill die. That patient is their responsibility, and there's only one way for it to end. But they have to sit there with their hands tied because the armchair morality brigade says nobody should ever kill anyone ever, no matter what the circumstance. Imagine the guilt doctors suffer, knowing their patient is laying there weeping in pain and depression, but they can't turn the morphine dial up because that'd be cruel. I can't speak for actual doctors, but from my experience i can say i can't imagine them being anything but relieved in cases like this[/QUOTE] Frankly speaking? yeah I agree with every word of this. Nobody except us doctors, and those with relatives suffering from terminal illnesses (or have experienced watching them waste away and die), and paramedical staff such as nurses, really understand what it's like to be able to do nothing for patients in suffering who plead with us to end it all. One instance of this that's gnawed at me for the last two years was a little old man who was admitted for medical management in our hospital one afternoon. He was partially paralyzed on one side from an old stroke, diabetic, hypertensive, suffering from severe diabetic retinopathy, liver failure, renal compromise, asthma, thrombosis of most of the veins in both legs, all on top of which was the cancer of the stomach which had spread to his liver, lungs, several of his bones, and most recently his brain. The terrifying part was this poor man was still extremely lucid and aware of all the pain and suffering he was going through. When I spoke to him during my initial assessment, after I had finished asking my questions, he grasped my hand, and he requested me in a broken voice that he just wanted to die, and damn any treatment or further care, and begged me to find a way to make it possible. I couldn't say one word, but just released myself and walked out of his room after offering an apology. Euthanasia is pretty much illegal in India besides assisting death at a terminal stage, after obtaining a Do Not Resuscitate order, and only in the event of unsurvivable systemic collapse and/or brain death. Every day I met him on my rounds, he kept begging me he wanted to die. Do you know what that kind of situation does to people? I consider myself to be a very strong willed individual, but I ended up with disturbing nightmares and poor sleep for an entire week while the patient was still with us. He was later discharged at request and taken to a hospice at the behest of the man's relatives, but I'll never forget that man's face, nor will I ever forget his suffering.
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;51070942] One instance of this that's gnawed at me for the last two years was a little old man who was admitted for medical management in our hospital one afternoon. He was partially paralyzed on one side from an old stroke, diabetic, hypertensive, suffering from severe diabetic retinopathy, liver failure, renal compromise, asthma, thrombosis of most of the veins in both legs, all on top of which was the cancer of the stomach which had spread to his liver, lungs, several of his bones, and most recently his brain. [/QUOTE] Jesus christ. A friend of the family died of one small tumor in his brain a few years ago, and that was pretty hard to watch. I can't imagine what that guy must've suffered
[QUOTE=nerdster409;51068862]I don't like it, but if it weren't in place, you'd have parents believing that the government has the right to kill their kids.[/QUOTE] And you know, kids don't always act rationally. Just because this one did doesn't mean that they all do
[QUOTE=Saxon;51071158]And you know, kids don't always act rationally. Just because this one did doesn't mean that they all do[/QUOTE] I don't think it's about maturity If you're terminal and you want to die you should be able to even if you're fucking 4
[QUOTE=SebiWarrior;51071172]I don't think it's about maturity If you're terminal and you want to die you should be able to even if you're fucking 4[/QUOTE] You don't have to be terminally ill to qualify for euthanasia though in Belgium But yes I can agree that a child should be able to make a choice if they're in a severe amount of pain with no hope of recovery
[QUOTE=Saxon;51071220]You don't have to be terminally ill to qualify for euthanasia though in Belgium But yes I can agree that a child should be able to make a choice if they're in a severe amount of pain with no hope of recovery[/QUOTE] It needs to be judged on a case by case basis, aye.
It still amazes me how many people are blatantly against this kind of thing
[QUOTE=SebiWarrior;51071172]I don't think it's about maturity If you're terminal and you want to die you should be able to even if you're fucking 4[/QUOTE] a 4 year old does not have the mental faculties to render that type of decision, come on now.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.