Thread: Human euthenasia?

A living will addresses several concerns like do you want to be kept alive on a respirator if you can't breathe (no). Or, do you want pain medication even if you can't ask for it? (yes.) Do you want to be tube fed if you can't eat? (yes, don't let me starve). Do you want CPR or to be defibrillated if your heart goes nuts? (no). All are only if you are suffering from an incurable disease and are unable to verbalize your wants.

This does not address the issue of if you just want to stop suffering and go to sleep. Christian values say it is wrong to kill. I can't recall suicide specifically being mentioned in the bible except when they were under siege and fell on their swords in Masada. That is the only instance of suicide I remember

Originally Posted by Ditch

This does not address the issue of if you just want to stop suffering and go to sleep. Christian values say it is wrong to kill. I can't recall suicide specifically being mentioned in the bible except when they were under siege and fell on their swords in Masada. That is the only instance of suicide I remember

Except that it isn't in the Bible. It is recorded by Josephus though, along with the information that the Sicarii at Masada were as much against other sections of the Jewish nation as they were the Romans.

Originally Posted by Ditch

A living will addresses several concerns like do you want to be kept alive on a respirator if you can't breathe (no). Or, do you want pain medication even if you can't ask for it? (yes.) Do you want to be tube fed if you can't eat? (yes, don't let me starve). Do you want CPR or to be defibrillated if your heart goes nuts? (no). All are only if you are suffering from an incurable disease and are unable to verbalize your wants.

This does not address the issue of if you just want to stop suffering and go to sleep. Christian values say it is wrong to kill. I can't recall suicide specifically being mentioned in the bible except when they were under siege and fell on their swords in Masada. That is the only instance of suicide I remember

Yeah, I know living will doesn't cover euthanasia. That really wasn't my point. It just takes some of the guesswork out of it. More so, I was making the point that everyone should have one.

Other than religious reasons, I can't see why anyone would object to this. Being as we all don't share the same religious beliefs, we can't project ours onto another. My comparison to abortion was that the main argument that women use is, "It's my body, nobody can tell me what to do with it." The same applies, in both cases, someone dies. In one case a person is killing themselves, in the other a person is killing someone else. If abortion is legal, so should euthanasia be.

Originally Posted by Ditch

Other than religious reasons, I can't see why anyone would object to this. Being as we all don't share the same religious beliefs, we can't project ours onto another. My comparison to abortion was that the main argument that women use is, "It's my body, nobody can tell me what to do with it." The same applies, in both cases, someone dies. In one case a person is killing themselves, in the other a person is killing someone else. If abortion is legal, so should euthanasia be.

If it was a case of one person killing themselves, then it would be suicide and not euthanasia. Euthanasia means 'assisted suicide', so there will always need to be another person involved. The legal difficulties come from trying to validate the true intentions of the deceased and whether they actually wanted to die. You said in an earlier post that weren't talking about manipulative relatives or the mentally ill, but it's pretty difficult to have a debate about euthanasia without referring to those possibilities.

I believe that anyone suffering from a painful illness, from which they will never recover, should have the choice to die. But they want to die in peace. They don't want to die wondering if the person who helped them will be convicted afterwards.

The issue of abortion is a lot more complicated as well and isn't simply a case of someone choosing what to do with their own body. Abortion is only legal for the first stage of pregnancy. (I believe it's within the first 20 weeks, but I can't be sure.) After that stage, it's considered that the foetus has developed enough to be a baby and as such has its own right to life.

euthanasia isn't humane or correct. it should only also occur in animals when they are dying.

What do you mean it isn't humane? example, your intestine has failed/ripped out ( imaginery condition ). Would you want to bleed to death over the next half an hour or would you prefer to die quickly without the pain.

Abortion is only legal for the first stage of pregnancy. (I believe it's within the first 20 weeks, but I can't be sure.) After that stage, it's considered that the foetus has developed enough to be a baby and as such has its own right to life.

Not true. Late term abortion means an abortion performed from 14 weeks through 24 weeks.

During the first year after the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was introduced in mid-1995, many opponents of the bill, such as NARAL's Kate Michelman and syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman, insisted that anesthesia given to the mother painlessly kills the babies before they are pulled feet-first from the womb and stabbed through the back of the skull. But in congressional testimony in 1996 -- virtually ignored by the news media -- this myth was emphatically refuted by the heads of the two major professional societies of anesthesiologists. Other experts testified that the babies are alive and fully capable of experiencing great pain during a partial-birth abortion.


The baby is pulled out up to the head, then a hole is bored into the back of the skull so the brains can be vacuumed out. This way the child is dead and can be removed. Or a saline solution is used to burn the child.

On a side note, some have actually survived this procedure (the saline solution, Obama survived the first)and are actively campaigning. Obama was the only senator who voted against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. He wanted if a child survived an abortion for it to be left unattended to die instead of all life saving measures to be taken as with any other child. Cold and alone in a dark room, an infant will not survive long, maybe a few hours. He felt it violated the mother's right to chose. All of this is easily verified. Just Google the Born Alive Infants Protection Act Obama.


We now return to our regularly scheduled broadcasting. I just wanted to correct the abortion term issue.

Originally Posted by Custard

What do you men it isn't humane? example, your intestine has failed/ripped out ( imaginery condition ). Would you want to bleed to death over the next half an hour or would you prefer to die quickly without the pain.

Custard - thats exactly what I said. I wrote that they should only be put down if they are dying. And if you're internally bleeding, it is probable that you will die

Originally Posted by Ditch

Not true. Late term abortion means an abortion performed from 14 weeks through 24 weeks.

Fair enough. I did say in my post that I wasn't sure about the timescale.

But the point still stands that in the later stages of pregnancy the rights of the child have to be considered and the mother cannot just choose to do what she likes with her body. The criminalising of abortion and euthanasia is to protect the vulnerable, who may not be aware of what's happening or what they have agreed to.

Oh, sorry I thought you were saying something else......

Originally Posted by BipBopRealGoodNop

Custard - thats exactly what I said. I wrote that they should only be put down if they are dying. And if you're internally bleeding, it is probable that you will die

We're all dying. Every second that passes we are getting older and closer to death. Sorry if that's pedantic...or depressing!

But actually, someone with a degenerative illness could be said to be dying slowly over anything between 3 and 6 months, so surely they would be included as one of those who should have the choice to die.

And how is euthanasia inhumane?! If we legalise euthanasia we are doing two things. One is to allow a person suffering for the last months of their life to die with dignity. Two is to allow a person to decide what they want to do with their own life. I can't think of anything more humane.

If it was a case of one person killing themselves, then it would be suicide and not euthanasia. Euthanasia means 'assisted suicide', so there will always need to be another person involved.

Not necessarily, in an execution by lethal injection a machine is loaded with the different syringes full of drugs. A button is pushed and the first one makes you doze off, the second stops the lungs and the third stops the heart. It is completely automated. The same machine could be offered to the terminally ill. Whoever pushes the button is the one making the decision, the one supplying the machine is merely complying with their wishes. If I lay a gun down and you you it to shoot yourself, you did the killing, not I.

But the point still stands that in the later stages of pregnancy the rights of the child have to be considered and the mother cannot just choose to do what she likes with her body. The criminalising of abortion and euthanasia is to protect the vulnerable, who may not be aware of what's happening or what they have agreed to.

You still seem to be missing it. Late term abortion takes place up to 6 months into the pregnancy, the child can live outside of the womb. The child has no rights and yes, the mother can still chose to terminate it within the law. The method is barbaric, there are many videos of people who have survived a botched abortion and are now adults. How can this be allowed yet euthanasia is not?

Originally Posted by Ditch

We will put down a beloved pet when death and suffering is inevitable, yet we let our own go on for agonizing months when there is no hope...
Does a person have the right to die without pain and with dignity if there is no hope? Any thoughts?

You are confusing chance of survival with hope. There is always hope, even when we're told the chance of survival or improvement in quality of life is so remote as to be impossible.

This is a difficult decision, mostly because it does involve actually giving up hope. By helping someone end their life you need to admit to yourself there is no hope, no chance for something better. It's too bitter a pill for many to swallow.

I saw my father hang on for a number of years in very visible pain. He didn't think our family, particularly my mother, were ready emotionally or physically to have him pass on. To survive he basically had to stop doing everything that defined being a man to him. It was difficult to watch him lose his health and his pride at the same time, but at the time I very selfishly thought it was worth whatever cost for him to stay with us. I loved him very much.

I still love him, enough to know that his decision to live his life the way he wanted regardless of the outcome was the right one for him. He died mowing the lawn, his heart finally having given up from the stress. He had decided that we were ready, and he became a man again until it killed him. It was his decision to make.

Many do not have the option my father had, to live the way they deem appropriate or end it by their own actions. In those situations I think someone needs to make the hard decision on their behalf, or enact the decision they've made but are physically incapable of seeing through. Everyone has a right to live in dignity, and to choose to end their life if that's no longer possible.

That being said, it's not a cavalier decision to be made, and perhaps one person is too few to make the decision. A family member, psychologist, and doctor maybe? There needs to be a check against anyone making a rash decision, or one not in the state of mind, when considering their life or that of another.

Living wills should be honoured, and everyone should have one. Map out how you want to be treated in extreme circumstances, or live at the discretion of another.