What's the thinking on Voluntary Euthanasia?

Diwundrin

Diwundrin

Well-known Member
Location
Nth Coast NSW Australia
No, I'm not contemplating it.
Seeing that rights are the topic of the moment what about the right to die at the time and manner of our choosing?
Is it contentious in the States?
It's taboo in politics here, they all turn pale and change the subject.

We have a 'Dr Death', Phillip Nitschke who does his best despite being hounded by the law to enable the terminally ill to access the best option, Nembutal, online from China and Mexico through seminars.
Nembutal is totally banned here. Jail and up to 825,000 bucks fine just for having it in the medicine cabinet.
A terminal cancer patient is technically legally deemed to be a worse threat to society than an importer of a barrel of heroin.

Why? How is drinking Drano okay but accessing a substance to ensure a perfectly peaceful death isn't??
Why do they consider it a favour to society to make people suffer unnecessarily?
Even those politicians in favour of legalizing it won't push the issue.

[Please don't link this to the 'right to life' abortion argument, that involves those without a say and has different connotations and no relevance to this, and I'm not getting into that.]

Voluntary Euthanasia is a subject that involves adults competent to make their own decision and of all the 'rights' we demand that one seems to me to be one most worth standing up for. It is probably THE most personal and individual 'right' we should have and it is the very one that we are deprived of.

Why does the religious bias of the few take precedence over the majority in a Democracy? No one's suggesting that it be mandatory. If they don't approve they can go as hard as they like but they have no 'right' to force others to do likewise.

Just wondering if it's something that gets much airing over there, or even if it's legal. Our better doctors do their best to ease the passing of those in pain but can only use morphine etc which isn't as efficient and only used in extremis. Not everyone wants to get to that stage.

What's the thinking?
 

Sounds like Canada is much like Australia in many ways. Our politicians shy away from the subject too and we have had many documentary/news shows discussing this very topic. One woman this year took her case to the Supreme Court and the ruling was confusing at best. Seems like the Courts don't want to be the deciding factor on this issue. She did win her case but died before they issued the decision to send it back to Parliment for further discussion.

When someone goes to the hospital here with any type of life threatening illness, they automatically ask if they want life support measures taken. If you say no, then they pump you full of pain meds until you pass away.

For me, I want to make that choice to end my life under controlled circumstances rather than suffer and die in a stuper. That would also depends on the nature of the condition that I had, but if I had no chance of recovery and knew the condition would be painful, I'd end my life with the support of my loved ones.

I'm healthy so not contemplating that now, but holy moly, it is my life and my choice.
 
We have no present Federal laws concerning euthanasia. 4 States (Vermont, Montana, Washington and Oregon) have legal physician-assisted suicide. (Coincidentally, the latter two are also the only present legal marijuana states ...)

The other 46 states consider it illegal.

That should tell you the prevailing attitude here.
 

For years, a fellow named Dr. Kevorkian traveled the USA providing assisted suicides using a machine similar to that used to execute death row inmates. The government finally found a way to convict him and threw him in prison for several years. Once he left prison he pretty much disappeared.

The perverse need to keep suffering humans alive baffles me, at times, just as antiabortionists baffle me. Should an adult not approve of assisted suicide, they are free to avoid having one.

One objection to assisted suicide rests in fears of families pressuring elderly members to commit suicide to avoid huge hospital bills or to gain access to small fortunes. Another objection focuses on racial issues, with minorities fearing legalized suicide being used to speed up the creeping genocide currently executed by both governmental and private prison systems.

Of all the fears, the fear of death itself drives many to demand we not talk about it, and that we do nothing to embrace it.

I believe it should be legal, as long as the decision is left squarely on the person ready to die to end their suffering.
 
timthumb.php


It's too easy to make jokes about Youth In Asia. For me, this is such a complicated subject. It is illegal to commit suicide and we try to save those despondent folks who are literally at the end of their rope. Yet, death with dignity is something else altogether. I pretty much agree with MercyL in that the decision must be left squarely on the people suffering, but I'm concerned about their mental state at that time and those around them encouraging the end for whatever reasons. I say now, no matter how cavalierly, that I choose to go naturally when my time comes. Of course, I reserve the right to bite the bitter pill and not the bullet if things get too rough . . .
 
"What's the thinking?"
We went throught that sometime ago in The US, it seems to have blown over for now.
As far as I know we have no laws against it.
Maybe that is the way it should be?
 
Last edited:
Of course, I reserve the right to bite the bitter pill and not the bullet if things get too rough . . .
Click to expand...


That's all it comes down to TG. It's not meant to apply to any but those with no hope of any improvement or quality of life and good reason to need to be 'out' of it.

It needn't be complicated by the spectre of mercy killing etc. Terminal illness is pretty plainly obvious and depression or martydom wouldn't qualify.

The problem is that at present you don't have that 'right' to reserve.
 
MercyL, as I recall many of the autopsies gave evidence some of his "patients" did not suffer from incurreable disease and some were shown to be people with a history of problems with depression.
 
"It's not meant to apply to any but those with no hope of any improvement or quality of life and good reason to need to be 'out' of it." What is good reason to be 'out' of it,who makes that descion?

Here we have the right to "pull the plug" and life support is removed. Something I am looking into is a living will that spells out while I am of sound mind and body (if that is possible for me) I chose what level to pull the plug or to not hook it up in the first place. That keeps it simpler for my loved ones they do not have to make that descion. I think it is referred to as "dying with dignity."
Do you have this opportunity?
 
Sid said:
MercyL, as I recall many of the autopsies gave evidence some of his "patients" did not suffer from incurreable disease and some were shown to be people with a history of problems with depression.
Click to expand...

I never heard how Kevorkian was finally imprisoned, only that he was, but.....

IF someone's suffering is so difficult, for them, that they cannot continue, the presence or absence of an incurable disease should not limit their choices. After all, the common cold is incurable, but it normally running its course in about 2 weeks. People with deep seated depression are suffering just as much, if not more, than the terminal cancer patient, as depression can be almost invisible.

This is why I believe the choice must be left to the patient, without others pushing them in either direction. Of course, my opinion does not cover all situations because I cannot possibly think of all situations.
 
My son aged 43, took his own life in May this year. Most would say it was a selfish thing to do and whilst I don't agree with his decision to do so, I respect his decision and in some ways, I believe that it was an extremely brave thing to do.

Sorry to digress a tad from the subject of Euthanasia but it's kinda in the same ballpark.... the choice to end ones life at a time of their choosing.
 
MercyL said:
I never heard how Kevorkian was finally imprisoned, only that he was, but.....

IF someone's suffering is so difficult, for them, that they cannot continue, the presence or absence of an incurable disease should not limit their choices. After all, the common cold is incurable, but it normally running its course in about 2 weeks. People with deep seated depression are suffering just as much, if not more, than the terminal cancer patient, as depression can be almost invisible.

This is why I believe the choice must be left to the patient, without others pushing them in either direction. Of course, my opinion does not cover all situations because I cannot possibly think of all situations.
Click to expand...

All of the above. I agree that those who want out through depression will find a way, and from experience I'd prefer that they have the option to do it cleanly and quietly than jump under a train and traumatise everyone in the vicinity.

But that aspect is beside the point, and derails the discussion, as always, of the logic of making Nembutal available to the terminally ill.


It's the exercise of power over other people's options that bugs me about this most.
The hypocrisy of it is breathtaking!

Some of the same people in politics and the general population who demand the right to own a gun they can blow their own and other's brains out with, fight to stop someone else having the right to buy a bottle of Nembutal because "it might be used illegally".... WHAAAAT ??

To put it bluntly, to ban Nembutal but not guns, or trains, simply doesn't make sense to me.

Suicide can't be banned! All the law does is make people bent on it do it in more messy and crueller fashion.

A healthy depressive can stroll easily to the train station and jump.
A physically wrecked, terminally ill person in extreme pain CAN'T!

Their rights are totally ignored in order that the few depressed enough to want to end it have to go to the effort of walking to the station. That's just not fair or logical.

Sure it gets complicated if we want to pursue every 'what if'.
But why does discussion by those in power always pursue those endless hypotheticals?

To avoid making a simple decision to trust that 'they' are not the only ones with a brain capable of making it's own decisions and living or dying with that decision?
Do they think everyone else is a moron?
That they are the only ones who have a 'right' to decide on who lives and who dies? .... and HOW? Really?

Do they, and by extension we, as we elected them, really have the audacity to believe that what we consider right for ourselves must necessarily be right for everybody else? That our view of life's value must apply to others who don't see theirs as anything but a burden?

There will always be collateral damage accompanying any legislation for just about anything. Someone may burn to death or drown in a car because they couldn't get out of the seat belt. Do we then ban seat belts??

This whole euthanasia thing bogs down every time in the what ifs. We need to cut the Gordian Knot and make it legal for Nembutal to be issued to those with terminal illness at their own request regardless of the possible what ifs. There are already laws that cover those.

If it falls into the wrong hands, so be it. If it's used by someone not eligible then that's on them, not on the law or the pharmacist.
We don't prosecute train drivers for hitting suicides either.

If it's used on a person by someone other than who was intended to use it on themselves than that's murder. Pure and simple. We already have laws against that.

If someone is manipulated to take it 'for the good of the family' then perhaps we should consider that the person may view their early demise as being the one last best thing they can do for that family, deserving or not.
To them it may seem a gift to give, a burden to lift from their loved ones. If they want to bestow that last gift then they should be able to do so. It shouldn't be for us to judge the ethics of it, the 'family' have to live with that guilt, if there is any, not us.
We need to get over the illusion that we personally are the World's Nanny.

Sh*t happens, no law will ever be perfect, no 'right' will ever be perfect, no human will either.
All we need hope for, and expect, from legalizing VOLUNTARY euthanasia is that we, personally, will have the right to make a decision on how and when we die. Not when and how others do. That's not our problem.

Think about this, the favourite reply to gun arguments is "it's not guns that kill people, people kill people."

How is Nembutal any different to a gun? It doesn't choose who it kills, people choose to use it.

Shouldn't that right be one worth fighting for too? Or is only old ones on Constitutional, or Biblical scraps of paper that count?

Who banned voluntary euthanasia? .... and why? If it was on religious grounds then doesn't that fly in the face of Separation of Church and State ? In that case we don't need to pass laws approving euthanasia, we need to rescind the laws banning it.

/end rant.

I'm bouyed to note that most here think along those lines already. I just felt like having a rant anyway 'cos I'm like that. Sorry.
 
GDAD said:
Thanks PHIL: when I'm about to go, I'll migrate to Washington. Can't think of anything better than a couple of legal Joints then pull the plug!!!!:eek:kay:
Click to expand...

Right?

If it wasn't so bloody nasty weather-wise up there I'd move in a flash. I guess that same weather might be a large part of the decision for both laws ... :rolleyes:
 
I feel I should have the right to choose when I die if I am suffering with a terminal illness that I can no longer tolerate.
 
???? another argument for euthanasia...or...not.

Babies don’t need to die like this’: The argument for child euthanasia

Mementos of Ella-Louise’s short life fill a cosy corner of the Van Roy household. There are tiny footprints in messy paint; framed photographs of the baby girl with a proud older brother; paper butterflies representing the beauty and fragility of Ella-Louise’s 10 months with her family.
But this mantelpiece display of warmth and love is not all Ella-Louise’s mother wants people to see. As Belgian politicians debate a proposal to amend the country’s euthanasia laws to include children, Linda Van Roy also wants to share her child’s final days. “I’ll show you how my daughter was and what she became – you will see why I want to speak up,” she says, opening a book of photographs.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...he-argument-for-child-euthanasia-8815627.html


At the moment I have no personal views on euthanasia, just thought this article might be interesting to some members.
 
Such vague parameters concern some doctors, who point to cases in which Belgium’s existing euthanasia laws have arguably been applied incorrectly. While Belgians overwhelmingly support the current euthanasia laws, some cases have provoked debate. Last year, Marc and Eddy Verbessem – twin brothers in their early 40s – requested euthanasia because they were both deaf and were slowly going blind. Although neither had a terminal illness, their request was granted.
“Euthanasia has been applied to patients with chronic depression or with the first signs of blindness or Alzheimer’s disease – these patients are not treated any more, they just receive a lethal injection, says Dr Beuselinck.
Click to expand...
If it's gotten out of hand in Belgium then it's up to them to prosecute, hard. It isn't the legislation that went wrong, it was people's interpretation of it. Although, to me, those cases stated seemed only to be exercising the individual's rights to not conform to the values of whoever is complaining about it. If the life they were faced with wasn't worth living to them then who has the right to force them to live it?


It's unutterably sad that a child should endure a death so horrific. That her parents were forced to watch helplessly is cruel beyond comprehension.

Voluntary Euthanasia is a decision that should come down to the individual conscience. All we need to have is the legal right to decide according to our individual values.

But 2nd party euthanasia can be a whole different can of worms, as in the case of it involving children.
Personally, in that case I would offer that child, in those circumstances, the same consideration, for the same reason, that I can legally offer it to a dying dog or wingless fly. I'd feel it a duty to spare it misery.

That will be seen to some as a cowardly view to spare myself the anguish of other's travails, or as a fascist heartless attitude depending on their own particular stance.
I see it as sparing someone or thing anguish, nothing more nor less. Again, it's an individual viewpoint.

That the occasional case doesn't 'qualify' is a small price to pay. For every one that 'may' survive with treatment, whether they want to or not, 1000's wouldn't. The many shouldn't be expected to suffer on the off-chance of a bad outcome for the very few. Good people are killed by random accidents every day, no law required for that, that's life.

A qualified board to approve application for euthanasia on a case by case basis seems a reasonable answer to me. If it gets overwhelmed to the extent of unnecessary delay then authorize more panels.
No one should have to suffer needlessly long, and families shouldn't have to argue among themselves according to their individual views or to watch a love one die in suffering.


Religious groups, meanwhile, argue that doctors should not have the power over life and death. “To say no to euthanasia is to recognise and take care of this inner sanctuary that makes a human being a human being,” a former hospital chaplain wrote on the Belgian website, euthanasiestop.be.
Click to expand...

I refuse to accept the argument that humans are 'divine' and should come under different rules. I see all lifeforms as just lifeforms, deserving of the same respectful treatment in life and death where ever possible.

I find it beyond logic to presume that the child was actually choosing to live like that or that she had some inkling of the higher ethical values of a divinely ordained reason for her suffering. What on earth could she have done to deserve that?



How can it be legal to starve someone like that poor child to death, but not to offer them a peaceful painless descent into sleep and oblivion? How can that make sense to anyone? Beats me.
 
SifuPhil said:
Right?

If it wasn't so bloody nasty weather-wise up there I'd move in a flash. I guess that same weather might be a large part of the decision for both laws ... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Washington state here. I'll tell a secret, the weather is great here, we just keep telling everybody how much it rains to keep people away.
But now since we can smoke weed legally and have the right to die with dignity, well everybody wants a piece of the action.

We treat our pets with more compassion and dignity than we are allowed to do for our fellow man. Hospice is a joke, you just lay there doped up on Morphine slowly starving to death. Not a way I want to go. I have personally witnessed this with 3 close relatives and it is horrific. I never knew exactly what Hospice was until I saw it in action. It is just a doped up death watch.
I know the patient and the family needs help in this trying devastating time. But a peaceful assisted suicide seems like the way to go.
 
"What's the thinking on Voluntary Euthanasia?"
I question there is such a thing.
Euthanasia as I understand it is selective killing (Murder?) How can that be voluntary?

I will agree that many times too much effort is put into prolonging life. But that is not my life in question I have no say.
I think the question is to choose is to make efforts to prolong life or not.
I support the patients choice to accept or refuse efforts to prolong life.
I have a problem with "assisting" death.
 
Sid said:
... I have a problem with "assisting" death.
Click to expand...

Do you have the same problem with assisting life - drugs, operations, etc.? Keeping people biologically alive while they are mentally dead?

Life and death are equal, are they not? Why not show the same respect to one as to the other?
 
I would hope that if i was in a lot of pain from a terminal illness or i am brain damaged from an accident that my family will choose to let me pass, and i have told them so, it should be up to the individual if they wish to die or the parents.
 
SifuPhil said:
Do you have the same problem with assisting life - drugs, operations, etc.? Keeping people biologically alive while they are mentally dead?

Life and death are equal, are they not? Why not show the same respect to one as to the other?
Click to expand...

Bingo!

If we take the ethical stance of non interference or assistance with the dying process to it's extremities then we would never put a band-aid on a cut and could totally dispense with the entire medical profession.

The religiously or just ethically righteous who are so appalled by the thought of easing dying have no compunction in going against 'nature' or 'god's will' in prolonging life beyond reasonable expectation. They want their cake and eat it too. My decisions aren't going to affect their entry qualifications to heaven so what business is it of theirs how and when I want to end it?

Sid you can't be serious in confusing 'voluntary euthanasia' with 'selective killing'... murder?? C'mon! Really??

Those who have no wish to be associated in any way with 'assistance' are not expected to be involved at all so I find that a rather selfish stance to take.
No one's personal principles should be forcibly imposed on those of different opinion where it doesn't affect anyone except the individual person. It's not meant as a blanket rule for society in general, just a right to be accessed by individuals with need to exercise it.
Why is the state of mind of anyone not sharing a belief in sanctity of life at all costs brought into question and over-ridden as being inferior to and therefore not worth the same rights of easy death as the pet dog?


Voluntary means exactly that. A personal decision affecting no one but the individual involved.
There would be no need for 'assistance' in the vast majority of cases because it doesn't take a lot of effort to swig a dose of Nembutal.

No one even need 'assist' by picking it up at the pharmacy, it can be ordered online and delivered to the door. If some people would just let us get it past the cops.
:aargh:
 
Jillaroo said:
I would hope that if i was in a lot of pain from a terminal illness or i am brain damaged from an accident that my family will choose to let me pass, and i have told them so, it should be up to the individual if they wish to die or the parents.
Click to expand...

I've had a DNR, health guardianship document written up with the solicitor and left accessible to those I've granted the powers to implement it. No decisions but mine were necessary. Just telling the family still leaves them with the hard decisions.

I had to come to terms with Mum's decisions at her end. Euthanasia never entered the question in her case, it was simply her body breaking down due sheer old age and pneumonia. It was the question of easing her exit with too much morphine that was the decision I had to take. But I ruled that out as she was determined to live every second of life for as long as she could hang on to it and made that quite plain. Her decision ultimately.

I never understood why, as she was in great pain from arthritis and crushed bones in her spine and every cough was agony. She had no chance of recovery, her organs were shutting down, but I would never for an instant have considered taking steps to over-ride her wishes and hasten her end. To me that really would have been 'murder' and unthinkable.

It was only after two weeks of hell, when she lapsed into incoherence, was no longer strong enough to cough and was literally choking on phlegm that medication was increased to ease her passing in unspoken agreement with an understanding doctor.

There was great sadness, but no regrets associated with her dying. Her decision was given priority for as long as she had comprehension of her circumstances. Her life was 'hers' as long as she wanted. As much as I wished she had asked for an end to it she didn't and that was respected.

People are different and that needs to be acknlowledged and respected. I'm nowhere near as brave as her, and didn't share her beliefs. Life isn't as precious to me, so it's the easy way out if the situation arises for me thanks. Quality over quantity.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top