Suicide and Voluntary Euthanasia

It's been a while since we had a debate on a difficult topic so I thought I'd bring up what is probably an emotional question about suicide and euthanasia.

Some of you may think it odd to group these two together, but I think they are definitely two aspects of the same question, i.e. should we as individuals have the right to determine our time and method of dying?

Of course, suicide is no longer illegal. However, aiding and abetting a suicide is. So if your elderly grandmother, dying anyway and in great pain, asks you to in any way assist her in suicide, you can be charged with murder.
Although from grandmother's point of view, this seems unreasonable, it's hard to see that it could be any other way, as to do otherwise would open the doors for murder in the true sense.

Voluntary euthanasia: when the Northern Territory passed a law to make this possible it seemed to work very well, requiring, I think, the opinions of three doctors including a psychiatrist to attest to the fact that the person was entirely aware of what they were doing and that their life presently was of unbearable quality. (or qualifications to that effect). Then the Canberra right to lifers stepped in and overturned the laws.

So what do you think? There are the obvious arguments against voluntary euthanasia (thin edge of the wedge, a step away from legalised murder etc and similar cliches), but, having watched people die in much pain and with complete loss of dignity, I just don't see why they could not have had an assisted death if such a wish had been made clear by them.

I'm sure we can have this discussion without getting into personal vilification where we disagree.

Julia

Re: Suicide and Vonuntary Euthanasia

Prolonging life at all cost to me is absurd.

With overpopulation looming, greenhouse problems, possible food shortages in the rest of the World, as some parts of the World never had enough food, especially that party involved wants to end suffering, it almost looks that we are sentenced to live.

Re: Suicide and Vonuntary Euthanasia

Having had the experience of my grandmother undergoing prolonged suffering and eventual death, I must say that it was both mentally and physically the most stressful situation I have ever been in. There is no way that a human would have allowed a dog, cat or other animal to undergo such prolonged and ultimately pointless suffering.

In the politest possible way I would like to say that those who have not lived with a suffering person with no hope of survival can not possibly understand the issues involved. This is in much the same way as men can not truly understand what giving birth is like. It's something you have to go through yourself.

As far as I am concerned there is no way that any person approaching death should be looked after in their own home completely or predominantly by family members. Been there, done that from the family side and there is no way I would willingly accept being looked after that way myself.

A few thoughts to stir up debate though, all based on consequences from my own family situation. My mother was the predominant carer in this case since I was still in high school at the time.

Direct effects on myself, apart from not being able to have any friends around (or go and see them since there was too much work to do at home) were basically limited to becoming an adult by the age of 13. My friends were worried about pimples and girls. I was more concerned with budgeting to pay the rates, insure the house and keep the power connected. My mother was simply to exhausted from working practically all the time to even think about such things.

1. Physical exhaustion. When you wake up literally driving on the wrong side of the road on the 3km trip home from the shops you do come to the realisation just how physically demanding caring for someone really is. You get a LOT more sleep with young children.

2. Physical safety. When you have to repeatedly lift someone of approx. your own body weight there are serious safety issues. Doing this in a workplace would be illegal under most circumstances and yet it is taken for granted where in-home care is concerned.

3. Economic loss. Given the age bias which exists in Australian workplaces, taking, say, 2 years off to care for someone is effectively early retirement for many. There is no corresponding increase in the dole and then pension to offset this.

4. Children. I contend that it is physically impossible for anyone to simultaneously care for those approaching death and also look after children at the same time. I also contend that doing so is immoral in terms of the psychological impact on the children and the reality that they will have their childhood cut very short.

5. Psychological stress is enormous to say the least. One of the bigger problems is that you don't see friends any more. Not because they don't want to see you, but because you have a 24/7 job and in the event that you do get an hour off then you need that to buy food or sleep.

So I have a very strongly held view that should I need constant care in the year or two before my death (hopefully that's a long time away... ) it should be in a nursing home, not my own home. Or not all. If it MUST be in the person's own home then, since it's a 24/7 job, there needs to be a paid nurse on duty at least 12 hours a day every day.

Regarding euthanasia, as I said we wouldn't let a dog suffer. So why let a human and their family suffer far worse and far longer? In purely practical terms, where are we going to find enough people to be carers (given the ageing population) if we keep prolonging life beyond the point where someone can look after themselves?

My own view of euthanasia is that we must get to a legal position that safeguards the person who is suffering, from the thieves and vagabonds, at all levels, who would seek that you and I go to an early grave for their financial gain.

http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/ve.htm

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/euthanasia/eu0021.html

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/euthanasia-voluntary/


There is discussion about the point of decision and death a person can choose. Do they have to wait - in the Netheralnds - until they have already suffered a great deal or can they choose to die when still in quite good health, as their fate is definitely sealed.

Amazing creatuers arn't we !

brutally kill and injure thoundands and boast about it

but one suffering person -- we as a society pretend we care about them !

making euthanasia illegal in a hostpital is nothing more than the STATE showing us that in the end they own YOU (slavery)

the do-gooders are not at least concerned about their victims -- simply their own power play and if you and i have got suffer to satify their ego ,so be it

I feel that we really should be able to make the decision to die if that is what we want.

I think the NT had it about right, you would need more than one opinion on your chances, as so many doctors get it wrong.

I find it a bit odd that you are not allowed to "end it all" but you are allowed to say if I have my another "attack/ bout / crisis" don't revive me.

When you are terminally ill and in great pain, why do you have to experience more pain before you are "allowed" to die.

Surely a few extra sleeping pills is a far more peaceful way than dying in agony to satisfy the beliefs of someone else.

I feel that we really should be able to make the decision to die if that is what we want.

Click to expand...

Ever seen a dementia or altzhimers sufferer.

Celias mum and my gran both died from these diseases.

It took 6 and 12 yrs.
Cruelest thing I have ever seen.
Absolutely no quality of life.
Cant even express pain or emotion the brain is just on semi off mode.

No chance to make that decision.

my view of euthanasia is I agree,you should have the right to lessen your suffering if you can do that in a safe way.

However I would never vote for it because I could never trust the people administering it.For example in America where they have the death penalty statistics show that its mainly black,poor,hispanics and jews who mainly get the death penalty if you are white and well off you are more likely to get a time in prison,so ye its not something I`d ever vote for.

This will end up like the abortion law,all you have to show that the birth of your baby will create a psychological problem and the abortion is given,the law from what i understand was never meant to work like that.
Euthanasia will end up being used in the same way,old people made to feel like they are no longer needed and voila,handicapped people who can no longer be looked after,will feel like taking the easy way out for the people who are looking after them,what about old people who will become too expensive to be looked after in the public system ,what will be the motivation to look after them when the money could go to a better cause such as a younger person or a more productive member of society.So thats the reason I would never agree to euthanasia being passed as law.

And lets not forget the killer doctor in the UK,the only reason he got caught was when he falsified one of his victims will,prior to that even thought he was know as doctor death ,he had risen no suspicion but as soon as money became involved he caught the attention of the right people.
People and money dont mix sorry,so if a few people have to suffer thats horrible but a better choice.
Yes I have seen someone die of cancer ,but even though he suffered he absolutely didnt want to die.Imagine if the option was there,he would`ve been given the information about ending his pain,for the sake of his daughter his wife ect ,then he would` ve felt like he had to do it for their sake.No thanks.

I am completely with Noiru on this. Under Smurf's example the correct course of action is to have proper care supplied by the state. The state should provide all necessary support to the dying.

It is not for the state to encourage (or help)the person to commit suicide to reduce costs and therefore pressure the participant and their family. If there are large medical bills involved then the "help" may not be wanted.

When the time comes, I would like to go with full medical care and not feel that I should die early to "do the right thing and save money" by my family.
Good care near death removes most of the pain with the use of morphine etc.

I am sure that someone will think up a particular set of circumstances that mean that death may need assistance. In these cases, their should be the ability of the law to grant leniancy in court.

If voluntary euthanasia is allowed, then there will be little protection to edrl widows from the deprecations of greedy distant relatives. Threats may be made to their person if they don't release moneys. Wills will have to be very carefully made. And if you did get murdered, then not only does the jury have to work out whether your death was hastened but whether you gave permission.

So, as have many others who have studied the issue closely and are well informed, I am generally against Voluntary Euthanasia under most situations.
It is up to the state to ensure that the correct resources are supplied so that we may each in turn when our time comes, die peacefully.

The alternative is to allow it so the government can slacken up on looking after the dying, putting stress on the dying and their loved ones and maybe spend the money saved on a tax cut.

Hi Julia

My reasons, logic and arguments supporting pro-life are more that adequately covered in the RU486 thread.

For me, nothing changes in this thread.......sure there will be people who disagree with my views just as there will be people that agree with me....and I don't have a problem with that.....I'm not trying to change anybodys' views but just giving food for thought to those who might be undecided one way or the other.

But a sobering background thought I pose to those who might be considering supporting suicide and/or euthenasia is that I bet they hope they are right and that I and those who support my views are wrong because eternity is a very, very, very long time to be suffering in hell or whatever for getting it wrong for the relatively miniscule 80 odd years on average we spend in this life

Anyway, just my food for thought and if anyone would like to discuss my views any further then all I can do is refer them to the RU486 thread because I cannot add anymore here than what I posted there.

cheers

bullmarket

Hi Julia,

Difficult question. I agree with voluntary euthanasia, but at the same time I would hate to be the one to make the decision on who lives and who dies and where to draw the line.

cheers
Mouse

We have to start it, iron out some unforeseen issues, and get used to it.


Alternatively we can wait until we, as community cannot afford to support growing army of people who require 24/7 care.


Similar to saving newborn at all cost.
Belgium drew a line at 26 week or 25 ½ (not sure if I remember it right).

For argument sake, let’s imagine that it would cost $500,000 to save every second child, despite all good intentions, sooner or later we would run out of money.

Also, if we believe that add with claim of 1 child dying of hunger every so many seconds and they could be saved for $1 a day, the same $500,000 could save 500,000 beings for 1 day, or 685 kids for 2 years.

Bit off the track, but same issue – who can live and who could/should die?


Death is part of living, off track again, some cells commit suicide so we can have 5 fingers, after infection white fighter cells commit suicide, as they are not longer needed.

Point one,thats why I would never vote to legalise euthanasia

Happy said:

Alternatively we can wait until we, as community cannot afford to support growing army of people who require 24/7 care.


Similar to saving newborn at all cost.
Belgium drew a line at 26 week or 25 ½ (not sure if I remember it right).

Point 2 Althought as you said ,off track,what would save these lives ,is not having corrupted political leaders who are quite willing to let their people die,one dollars one million will never be enough as long as their leaders and our leaders are willing for this to happen.

For argument sake, let’s imagine that it would cost $500,000 to save every second child, despite all good intentions, sooner or later we would run out of money.

Also, if we believe that add with claim of 1 child dying of hunger every so many seconds and they could be saved for $1 a day, the same $500,000 could save 500,000 beings for 1 day, or 685 kids for 2 years.

Click to expand...

bullmarket said:

But a sobering background thought I pose to those who might be considering supporting suicide and/or euthenasia is that I bet they hope they are right and that I and those who support my views are wrong because eternity is a very, very, very long time to be suffering in hell or whatever for getting it wrong for the relatively miniscule 80 odd years on average we spend in this life

Click to expand...

Interesting view
So Christ is in HELL

yep sorry Happy I really stuffed that up,commenting on your post through point form.

If abuse of system is the only worry, stopping us to create and implement system to shorten suffering and stop unnecessarily prolonging of quality-less life?

We should try to fix the PROBLEM; not stay fixated that abuse prevents us from fixing suffering problem.

This just an excuse – well, different point of view.

Hi Happy

no offence but imo it is very easy to say:

We should try to fix the PROBLEM; not stay fixated that abuse prevents us from fixing suffering problem.

This just an excuse – well, different point of view.

Click to expand...

Instead, why not post some some of your suggestions on how to guarantee the problem will be fixed and if they pass scrutiny here then maybe you can submit them to your member of parliament and see what happens

Good luck

bullmarket

Happy,
unfortunately you cant fix human nature,
how does the saying go ,
something about power corrupts and something corrupts absolutely.
sorry maybe someone else can fill the gaps of this saying.

No offence, but I wouldn’t want my bright idea being pinched and implemented without reward for me, but jokes aside, as I am not that bright, my ideas were mentioned before.

But if we want something to change, we have to change it, simple as that.

I’ll give an innocent example with plants and maybe not as innocent with animals.

If we want to achieve certain characteristics, we breed it in, or breed it out, and unfortunately this is another can of worms if anybody suggest any interference with trying to eradicate enhance certain traits of human race.

So far human race is the only domesticated animal to breed willy nilly.

Hope my post will be taken for its novel idea and poster will be spared abuse, thank you.

Hi Happy

I am pro-life and so for me personally, trying to come up with solutions to guarantee friends, relatives etc would not abuse the system for their own personal and/or financial gains dosen't come into it.

I haven't seen any proposed solutions anywhere at all that would guarantee, what I accept would be a minority of cases, some people not getting away with essentially 'legalised' murder for their own personal gains.......and I doubt very much that anyone will ever come up any solutions if euthanasia was ever legalised here.

cheers

bullmarket