What do you all think about Euthanasia?

[cassie]

Quote:
Maybe. But that doesn't help the wrongly executed dead guys.

 

[oldrooster]

Maybe. But that doesn't help the wrongly executed dead guys.

Some might argue if your in jail for 20-30 years you've already lost your life, no friends, family most of them dead or alienated, not good.

 

[thaiturkey]

It hadn't occurred to me that there are two different forms of voluntary death, other than simply taking your own life.

Euthanasia is when someone ends you life for you with your permission.

Assisted suicide is when you end your own life with the help of someone else.

In either case, where such acts are legal, the methods and permitted circumstances are defined. According to the BBC World News this morning, assisted suicide is legal in Switzerland and some US States.

For anyone interested, here is a link to the website for Exit International:

http://www.exitinternational.net/

The topic is being discussed in Parliament in London just now because the Health Minister has said that the law on assisted suicide needs to be changed. Here's the BBC's report:

8 September 2012 Last updated at 16:52 GMT

Mark Pritchard MP warns of right-to-die law change 'row'

Assisting a suicide is illegal in England and Wales

There would be "an almighty parliamentary row" if laws on assisted suicide were re-examined, Conservative MP Mark Pritchard has said.
The former secretary of the 1922 committee of backbenchers said Tory MPs would "not accept reform lying down".
His comments come after new health ministers Anna Soubry and Norman Lamb suggested there was a case for reassessing legislation.
The British Medical Association (BMA) said it opposed any change to the law.
Earlier on Saturday, newly-promoted health minister Anna Soubry told the Times it was "ridiculous and appalling" that Britons had to "go abroad to end their life".
Ms Soubry, Conservative MP for Broxtowe, said those seeking help to die should be allowed to obtain assistance in the UK.
She rejected euthanasia, but said "you have a right to kill yourself".
Her Liberal Democrat colleague Mr Lamb added that he also believed there was a "strong case" for the law to be reconsidered.

'Slippery slope'
However, Mr Pritchard responded by saying that attempts to change the law would be met with fierce opposition and would cause "an almighty parliamentary row".
"Parliament writes the laws of the land not the CPS [Crown Prosecution Service] or individual ministers," he said.
"Any new right-to-die legislation will be rigorously fought by MPs from across the House.

Right-to-die cases

Diane Pretty was terminally ill with motor neurone disease. She wanted the courts to give her husband immunity from prosecution if he was to help her die. In November 2001 the House of Lords refused her application.
Ms B was left a tetraplegic by a brain condition. She went to court because doctors refused to stop her artificial ventilation. The High Court ruled in 2002 that her request was valid and treatment was stopped.
Mrs Z, who had an incurable degenerative disease, wanted to go to Switzerland to die and Mr Z arranged it. An injunction to prevent the travel was granted to the local authority. The order was overturned in 2004.
MS sufferer Debbie Purdy challenged the lack of clarity on the law on assisted suicide. She wanted to understand how prosecutors would make a decision on whether or not to prosecute her husband if he was to assist her to get to Switzerland to be helped to die. Ms Purdy won her case and guidance was issued.
"This is a slippery slope, which incrementally and over time, will reduce the 'right to life'."
BMA president Baroness Hollins also criticised moves to re-open the debate, and made it clear the medical profession did "not support a change in the law".
Speaking to Sky News, she said: "To change the law would be to change the boundary between life and death altogether. That's a journey I just don't want us to even start out on in this country."
The Department of Health said the views expressed by Ms Soubry were her own, and the Ministry of Justice said there were no plans for the government to change the law.
It was a matter for Parliament to decide, the justice ministry added.
Campaign group Dignity in Dying said it was currently consulting - along with the all-party parliamentary group on choice at the end of life - on a proposed draft bill.
In January, the Commission on Assisted Dying - led by Lord Falconer and set up and funded by campaigners who want to see a change in the law - said there was a "strong case" for allowing assisted suicide for people who are terminally ill in England and Wales.
But the report had a mixed response, with critics calling it biased.
Paul Tully, of campaign group SPUC Pro-Life, warned that if assisted dying was legalised people with disabilities would be faced with "the sickening prospect that if they struggle with suicidal feelings they will be given help to die instead of care and support".
"Such a move would allegedly save huge amounts of public funds in the costs of caring for disabled, elderly and supposedly unproductive people," he added.
"Disabled people must speak up now before the minister starts trying to legislate against their equal right to exist."
The debate over assisted suicide has resurfaced after Tony Nicklinson, a man with locked-in syndrome, died a week after losing a legal bid to end his life.

Tony Nicklinson died at home surrounded by his wife, Jane, and two daughters, Lauren and Beth
Assisted suicide currently carries a sentence of up to 14 years' imprisonment.
The law currently draws a crucial distinction between doctors deciding not to provide or continue treatment, which might prolong life, and acting to end a life, by for example administering lethal drugs.
Following the decision by High Court judges with regards to Mr Nicklinson, the BMA had said the court made "the right decision".
"The BMA is opposed to the legalisation of assisted dying and we are not lobbying for any change in the law in the UK," it said.
Mr Nicklinson's wife, Jane, meanwhile, has said she will appeal - as his widow and carer - against the High Court decision on his behalf because "nobody should have to suffer like Tony did".
Mrs Nicklinson, from Melksham, Wiltshire, said: "It is too late for Tony but I hope that we can now help those who find themselves in a similar position."

 

[oldrooster]

ThaiTurkey it seems to me it, the British system that prevents a person who is alert and can communicate and of sound mind to ask for treatment to be discontinued is wrong, few if any people would be able to make a logical objection to that. It is the euthanasia many people have problems with for various reasons. The most rational one is the person who is assisting really doing it because they are asked to by the individual is the one that to me holds the most water for the debate, as I said earlier in my posts I feel in most cases it is a moot point if we are allowed the discontinuance of treatment, IE turn off the IV except for pain meds and unhook the feeding tube (if there is one) and allow a person to die by their choice by dehydration/starvation. I am not saying it is pretty but if someone gets a disease and has the paperwork done up at that time and if there are checks and balances at certain points that a person hasn't changed their mind there should be few cases for debate. Car crash victims is one example of debate, but if we as an individual have medical directives made up ahead of time it should clear many of those cases up too.

 

[thaiturkey]

ThaiTurkey it seems to me it, the British system that prevents a person who is alert and can communicate and of sound mind to ask for treatment to be discontinued is wrong, few if any people would be able to make a logical objection to that. It is the euthanasia many people have problems with for various reasons. The most rational one is the person who is assisting really doing it because they are asked to by the individual is the one that to me holds the most water for the debate, as I said earlier in my posts I feel in most cases it is a moot point if we are allowed the discontinuance of treatment, IE turn off the IV except for pain meds and unhook the feeding tube (if there is one) and allow a person to die by their choice by dehydration/starvation. I am not saying it is pretty but if someone gets a disease and has the paperwork done up at that time and if there are checks and balances at certain points that a person hasn't changed their mind there should be few cases for debate. Car crash victims is one example of debate, but if we as an individual have medical directives made up ahead of time it should clear many of those cases up too.

I'm not sure that the British system does deny people the right to ask for treatment to be discontinued. You can leave hospital any tome you want and people do just that.

 

[oldrooster]

I may have misunderstood the article.

 

[mom'sfolly]

I find it somewhat ironic that Great Britain is still struggling with this issue almost 75 years after George V was euthanized. I guess in GB it is a right reserved for only the highest in the land.

 

[FlaRocky]

i had a very close friend of for over 25 years die from cancer. in the last month of his life he called me and asked me to take care of him in his end stages of life. this to me is what i call friendship. the last 2 weeks of his life, by the direction of hospice home nurses, i put him in drugged coma. basically overdosing of morphine . if were totally up to me i would have overdosed him fully. his family asked me not to. i would have no problem with it. be- leave me it would have been a mercy kill. judge if you will but until you have seen a persons skin fall off and leave open wounds showing muscle and smell the rotting flesh, do not judge. for the g-d fearing people. nothing wrong with that. however even g-d had angels.my biggest sorrow was letting him suffer that way. i watched a once vibrant human being with a zest for life.go from full of life to dwindling down to less than nothing. you tell me the correct answer.

Bruceh, You are a true friend in the best way possible for your dear friend. I have great RESPECT for you and your care of your friend.

BLESSED ARE YOU....

Maye


Got Gait....I Do..... Ride The Glide.....

 

[chickened]

I find it somewhat ironic that Great Britain is still struggling with this issue almost 75 years after George V was euthanized. I guess in GB it is a right reserved for only the highest in the land.

I think when it can be done effectively without big daddy gubberment then it must be a low item on the totem pole in GB... which is where it has been here except of lately until the "in your face" crowd got hold of it.

 

[thaiturkey]

I find it somewhat ironic that Great Britain is still struggling with this issue almost 75 years after George V was euthanized. I guess in GB it is a right reserved for only the highest in the land.

I know of no solid proof of this but the story may be true. It's said by some that he was in a coma, death was close, and the timing of his death was important for PR purposes. It could well be so; the British royal family is not known for its high moral standards or, some might claim, compliance with the law. British black humour has a joke about this:

Princess Diana: Ma'am, what is the secret to a long and happy married life?

Queen: Wear a seat belt and don't p**s me off!

I don't think that Britain is 'struggling with this issue' more than is any other country. There are, of course, private opinions but no sign of strong public demands for change. The debate seems to be mainly between the present government and the British Medical Association. Perhaps the latter is against change because it would be too easy for a doctor accidentally to cross the line of legality whereas now the line is clearly drawn.

It's very likely that euthanasia is practiced quietly and illegally in Britain. The extra dose of morphine, unplugging the life support machine, failing to resuscitate an ailing old person in hospital and so on.

When a government argues in favour of either assisted suicide or euthanasia, as the British Health Minister recently did, I am suspicious. I'm especially suspicious when there is no great public demand for it. Legalising either as a voluntary act is fraught with difficulty in the detail. If that's not enough, I have a suspicion that governments around the world will eventually allow it. They will first create a public demand and that's what I think the British Health Minister is up to. Given the probability that economies will struggle in the future to cope with the cost of a growing, aging and retired population, I would not be surprised if a voluntary legal arrangement did not gradually become compulsory.

That last is my main reservation about a change in the law to allow either voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide. My other reservation is that, even with clear rules, it could be misused by families and doctors. Britain has an example of a General Practitioner who killed many patients, against their will, for years without being detected. voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide, he may never have been caught:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Shipman