Right to Die?

[Adron]

Nutritional deprivation is the word they used, never starvation or dehydration.

Like I said, try google and see what words were used.

[Hazard]

If you think euthenasia is murder, then it's murder anyway: she died because they witheld treatment. I don't see any difference.

I think the argument is against euthenasia as something that is not a last resort. The idea is that it could not only open the door to legal suicides, but assisted suicide by people who are not trained professionals. There was a very interesting Law & Order on that subject that I actually found quite compelling and thought provoking. A woman who was dying of some rare disease that had also left her deaf (she was actually dying of kidney failure caused by the disease) began a program called "Catching the Train" or something to that effect. It was a support group for people who no longer wanted to live with the "pain" of living and who were, for all practical purposes, plotting to kill themselves. This woman served to assist them morally in their "quest" but also provided the means for them to kill themselves. This woman was not a doctor, not a psychologist/psychiatrist, and had no medical training whatsoever. Who was she to say when people had to live and when it was okay for them today? Thats the question that  ultimately convicted her. Not to mention that there is a certain amount of dignity in suffering.

[CrAz3D]

If someone wants to die, they will find a away whether or not there is a help group.  There a few cases, ie Schiavo, where she couldn't do it herself.  I honestly believe no one on earth would want to lay there like that, I believe she should've had an injection.  & I guess, technically, what DID happen to her was murder.

[Arta]

If you think euthenasia is murder, then it's murder anyway: she died because they witheld treatment. I don't see any difference.

I think the argument is against euthenasia as something that is not a last resort. The idea is that it could not only open the door to legal suicides, but assisted suicide by people who are not trained professionals. There was a very interesting Law & Order on that subject that I actually found quite compelling and thought provoking. A woman who was dying of some rare disease that had also left her deaf (she was actually dying of kidney failure caused by the disease) began a program called "Catching the Train" or something to that effect. It was a support group for people who no longer wanted to live with the "pain" of living and who were, for all practical purposes, plotting to kill themselves. This woman served to assist them morally in their "quest" but also provided the means for them to kill themselves. This woman was not a doctor, not a psychologist/psychiatrist, and had no medical training whatsoever. Who was she to say when people had to live and when it was okay for them today? Thats the question that  ultimately convicted her. Not to mention that there is a certain amount of dignity in suffering.

If euthenasia was legal, people wouldn't have to do that. I don't think we should be knocking off ill people left right & centre, but if the person's wishes can be reliably discovered - and that's a big if - then I don't see a problem with it.

[Hazard]

The question is when the person has the right to choose. For example, does a cancer patient going through a very painful process have the right to commit suicide and skip the pain, even though they have a chance to recover?

[Arta]

No, I think it should only be allowed when the doctors are reasonably certain that the condition is terminal. I also think that there should be 2 or 3 diagnoses from different doctors, preferably that don't know eachother.

[Hazard]

I find an amount of dignity in suffering, so I personally don't understand when it would be okay.

[Arta]

When the suffering is pointless. When someone is suffering, but will probably (or even just 'might') live though it, then I agree. When someone is unquestionably going to die, and their suffering will make that death slow and painful, and they have no chance of recovery, then it's pointless. They may as well just get it over with.

Of course, it has to be a personal choice. I don't advocate euthenasia as a matter of policy: but if I was faced with a long, slow and painful death, I think I would want euthenasia as an option.

[Hazard]

But when does the question end? Everybody was sure that JPII was going to die after being shot by that assassin in '81 but he pulled through. Lance Armstrong's cancer should have killed him but he pulled through. You're never sure until the end.

[Arta]

Well, I don't think that's really true. Sometimes you are sure. People who get cancer and leave it too late so that it metastasises and gives them secondary cancers all over their bodies... people with incurable degenerative diseases... these people die.

If several doctors tell someone there's no hope, that's enough for me.

[Joe[x86]]

If several doctors tell someone there's no hope, that's enough for me.

Same here.

Isn't she atleast partly aware of whats going on? They could do some kind of thing like a lie detector on her, to see what how she reacts to the question, couldn't they? Of course, what does a 14 year old really know about this..

[Hazard]

The question is when should they be "allowed" to die. Steven Hawking has Lou Gherig's Disease and is still incredibly productive. I know plenty of people with MS that will eventually kill them, but they are productive even with their bad days. When is it okay?

[Grok]

Well, I don't think that's really true. Sometimes you are sure. People who get cancer and leave it too late so that it metastasises and gives them secondary cancers all over their bodies... people with incurable degenerative diseases... these people die.

If several doctors tell someone there's no hope, that's enough for me.

Hi, I'm Grok.  I have completed my self-determined purpose in this life and existence for me is suffering.  I will check out now.  Thank you and goodbye.

What is to say that self-determination of existence (right to choose death) should be granted only to people with medical conditions by which doctors agree it should be allowed?  If we are to have equal protection under the law, we cannot have doctors opinions determining who gets certain rights while other people cannot get it.  Either make self-determination legal, and give it an implement of law, or keep it illegal.

[Adron]

I'd say society should do a profit-loss calculation. Do some numbers on how likely it is they'll produce usefulness in the future, vs the costs for keeping them alive. Anyone who's a liability should have the right to die at any time they like.

[Joe[x86]]

The question is when should they be "allowed" to die. Steven Hawking has Lou Gherig's Disease and is still incredibly productive. I know plenty of people with MS that will eventually kill them, but they are productive even with their bad days. When is it okay?

Well, hes not in a vegitative state, is he?