"Youth in Asia"
 

I was wondering what you all thought about Euthanasia. Both toward animals and people.

Please try to give reasoned views. Also try to give your [U]own[/U] reasons.

[SIZE=1]Ghost of Gerbil1: It sucks!
Ghost of Gerbil2: Yeah![/SIZE]

Toward people: IMO, if a patient is in very critical, artificially supported condition, and has stated [b]beyond all shadow of doubt[/b] that they don't want to be kept alive artificially, then the plug can be pulled. However, extreme caution should be exercised, to avoid "pulling the plug" on someone who really did want to stay alive but just never got around to telling people that before entering a communication-impairing condition. Essentially, if in any doubt at all, keep the person alive at least until they are in a condition fit to consciously make a decision and communicate that decision to others. (As for physician-assisted suicide, i.e. no "artificial life support" involved: that should be treated as any other suicide, i.e. illegal.)

Toward animals: If the animal is definitely in constant pain, and the owner believes that this is too much for the animal to have to bear, then I'm fine with that, assuming it's done in a humane way. Since animals have no means to communicate--and probably don't even have the intelligence to make a decision--regarding their choice, this should be left up to the owner.

[QUOTE=Anonymous;136802](As for physician-assisted suicide, i.e. no "artificial life support" involved: that should be treated as any other suicide, i.e. illegal.)[/QUOTE]Note that in many jurisdictions, suicide [i]per se[/i] is not illegal. The UK is one such jurisdiction.

In the UK, however, assisting someone to commit suicide is illegal. Depending on circumstances, a person found guilty of assisting a suicide may be treated very leniently. The UK makes no attempt to impose any extraterritoriality on this particular offense, so if someone travels to a country where assisted suicide is legal, no offence is committed under UK law --- AFAIK.


Paul

Fortunately more people have thought about end of life issues have living wills to handle most matters.

I personally take a rather extreme position on the subject. I think that families and doctors should have more options when dealing with end of life issues, especially when a living will does not exist. Having worked in a nursing home as a teen I was saddened at how many elderly are living vegetables. They have no quality to life. They are barely conscious and fed through a tube and many live like this for weeks or months or even years. The extreme cost and burden to keep them alive doesn't seem to be worth it. Many have no family and are kept alive through state funding. Keeping someone alive in that state is more of a "we need to keep them alive to feel good about ourselves" or "I fear the retribution of a god who doesn't support euthanasia or suicide" than anything else.

BTW, I fully support legalized physician-assisted suicide. If someone wants to die, let them. This is the ultimate way to let that person die on their own terms.

I've often believed that the advances in medicine have out-stripped our ability to deal with the social consequences of those advances. In other words, because we have the ability to keep people alive indefinitely that our only choice is to do so. Society hasn't addressed the main question of whether or not that makes sense in the first case.

The grandmother of a friend of mine died a few weeks ago. While my friend and his family are very sad to lose their elderly family member whom they loved and respected very much, they all fully understand and accept her expressed wish which was to be released from the pain of her terminal illness. She was - thankfully - fully conscious and in complete command of her senses and what she wanted right up to the end - which of course is not always the case. In her case she was able to state her wishes, give her farewells to her family, and receive the morphine from the doctor at the moment she wanted it which would let her sleep and not wake up again. Of course sometimes the issues are far more complicated than in this case and you need to look at the cases individually to judge whether it is ethical to avoid prolonging life, but I think every society needs to accept that sometimes keeping someone alive is not in that person's best interests. I am in full agreement with Rogue's posting.

I know someone that had an ill, elderly family member. They were in the 70-90 range. The prognosis was very bad, less than 2 months. They were out of it (non-responsive). In an area where no form of euthanasia / suicide is legal. They also had vaguely expressed the desire to live and die naturally to the person that I know.
Since they were in a hospital and expected to die, most any death would not be investigated. The person that I know expressed how, if the old one didn't die with in about a week, they would hassen the death in a way that would not be detected (with out an extensive exam).

It didn't come to pass, the old one died within the week.

[url]http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29209459[/url]

please take the following with all the seriousness required : almost none
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_Coaster[/url]

Thanks Mike for finding this old thread and reviving it. By chance I was looking for a thread about Euthanasia because I was sure we had had one, but I failed to find it because my sense of humour was not fine-tuned enough to spot what this thread's mod-violated title was all about.

I guess it's hard to switch humour in anyway when thinking about this subject. But firejuggler has managed:
[QUOTE=firejuggler;383147]please take the following with all the seriousness required : almost none
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_Coaster[/URL][/QUOTE]
Well, that's a novel idea, isn't it?

The article you link states that the designer has in mind the taking of lives "with elegance and euphoria". When I read that my immediate incredulous reaction was: elegance and euphoria for whom? But the article referenced at that point - [URL]http://io9.com/5793305/the-euthanasia-coaster-the-last-roller-coaster-youll-ever-ride[/URL] - quotes the designer more fully and does make clear that this artistic elegance and emotional euphoria are genuinely intended for the people being euthanised.

Perhaps this is credible. Obviously the people will hardly be feeling euphoric while they are taking their place in the train ready for the ride. But perhaps the subsequent g-force which they experience could indeed induce euphoria before death.

But how can we know that for sure?

The feelings experienced by someone who is being killed were being debated a few months ago in the context of capital punishment, if I remember rightly, after a few high-profile botched attempts at execution in the USA. The feelings of someone being killed according to their genuine wishes perhaps has relevance to the euthanasia debate.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;383148]The feelings experienced by someone who is being killed were being debated a few months ago in the context of capital punishment, if I remember rightly, after a few high-profile botched attempts at execution in the USA. The feelings of someone being killed according to their genuine wishes perhaps has relevance to the euthanasia debate.[/QUOTE]
I think it's just ridiculous that we interpret the "Do No Harm" part of the Hippocratic oath to such an extreme. If the convicted felon suffers as they die, that is MOST DEFINITELY harmful.

Maybe we should have it where once you decide to be a euthanasia or death penalty doctor, you can't be any other sort of doctor after that, assuming that's what it takes for it to be legal for doctors to give advice and study this stuff.