Historically, euthanasia literally means "good death," but in current world culture, euthanasia is being promoted as a means to quickly end the life of someone who is deemed to be "suffering."
Active euthanasia is an action that directly kills a person, usually carried out by a physician who injects a lethal drug into a patient. The patient dies from the foreign substance rather than the underlying disease. Active euthanasia is considered a homicide and is currently illegal in all of the American states. Active euthanasia is legal only in the Netherlands.
Withholding or withdrawing of nutrition and hydration (food and fluids) is most closely aligned with active euthanasia because without these basic essentials, death is certain and the patient dies of starvation and dehydration rather than the underlying disease. However, in certain circumstances when the provision of food and fluids will actually harm the patient, or when death is imminent within a matter of a few days, there is no moral duty to provide food and water.
More complicated are the situations when decisions are made regarding when to provide life-support treatments. While active euthanasia is black and white, in that death is intended and actions are taken or not taken to be certain that death occurs, the area of providing life-support treatment is grey and circumstantial. What is good or tolerated by one patient may not be beneficial for another. The wishes of the patient and/or family in these situations are generally respected. Most importantly, because the patient dies a natural death from the underlying disease, withholding or withdrawing of life-support systems should not automatically be considered as acts of euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide.
Assisted suicide and physician-assisted suicide are two forms of euthanasia, related but different. Assisted suicide is intentionally providing the means for someone to kill him/herself. Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) occurs when a licensed physician provides the means for someone to kill him/herself through the use of legally prescribed drugs, instructing the person how to use them.
PAS is now legal in the state of Oregon and the Netherlands. It is specifically illegal in most of the American states. In the past ten years, referenda ballot questions to legalize physician-assisted suicide have been defeated in the states of California, Washington, Michigan, and Maine.
Assisted suicide and physician-assisted suicide are two forms of euthanasia, related but different. Assisted suicide is intentionally providing the means for someone to kill him/herself. Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) occurs when a licensed physician provides the means for someone to kill him/herself through the use of legally prescribed drugs, instructing the person how to use them.
PAS is now legal in the state of Oregon and the Netherlands. It is specifically illegal in most of the American states. In the past ten years, referenda ballot questions to legalize physician-assisted suicide have been defeated in the states of California, Washington, Michigan, and Maine.
It's not murder. It's releasing someone from suffering. Of course, it's not always the right thing to do, but when someone gets to a stage where they no longer enjoy living and will never enjoy living again, then maybe it's the right thing to do.
"It's just something Gandalf said, "Don't you lose him Samwise Gamgee", and I don't mean to."
I just don't think it's that black and white. I'm still not quite sure of my opinion, but have you ever really really suffered? I'm talking about something that you know will never end, when a person gets to the point where they know that it will only get worse, and they don't want to live anymore because it's not really living, it's just the necessities of life. Then surely it has to be considered? But they should never be encouraged to take their life, only if they are absolutely adamant that they feel they are no longer living should it be considered by others. Does that make sense?
"It's just something Gandalf said, "Don't you lose him Samwise Gamgee", and I don't mean to."
It shouldn't be encouraged. People who have terminally ill diseases should strive to live as long as they can, because there are breakthroughs in medicine that might save their life, or improve their quality of living with the disease immensely.
I understand what you mean about considering euthanasia as a kind of "last resort", to end the pain and suffering. While I currently don't subscribe to that line of thinking, I HAVE seen a 5-yr-old in the final stages of cancer, and not only did it freak me out, it made me cry like a baby, seeing the pain he was in. He'd been dealing with it so long, that he almost thought it was NORMAL (remember, he was only 5. My daughter is FOUR...). Everyone there knew that he only had a few weeks to live, EVEN HIM. The mother had a look of defeat and numbness in her face, and the boy, while trying to be a regular 5-yr-old, could barely move, so while he naturally held a steady spirit (not much fuss out of him), he couldn't play because he was at home bed-ridden and his head was swollen to almost twice it's normal size.
If it was me, I can't be certain that I wouldn't at least CONSIDER euthanasia, and if it was my daughter, I'd probably get so dead inside seeing her in such pain, that I might insist upon it. I couldn't even take seeing her scrapes from when she fell down on the pavement last week, let alone have to deal with her having a painful, terminal illness.
Oliphaunt said this in post #5 : I just don't think it's that black and white. I'm still not quite sure of my opinion, but have you ever really really suffered? I'm talking about something that you know will never end, when a person gets to the point where they know that it will only get worse, and they don't want to live anymore because it's not really living, it's just the necessities of life. Then surely it has to be considered? But they should never be encouraged to take their life, only if they are absolutely adamant that they feel they are no longer living should it be considered by others. Does that make sense?
It makes perfect sense to me!
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
Oliphaunt said this in post #3 : It's not murder. It's releasing someone from suffering. Of course, it's not always the right thing to do, but when someone gets to a stage where they no longer enjoy living and will never enjoy living again, then maybe it's the right thing to do.
Its not murder....not in the sense that SWTT is claiming. There is a big difference between a serial killer or any other murderer taking someone's life versus a person asking to die because they are in so much pain and suffering so badly. There is no comparison between the two...they are totally different. The analogy of the two alone are ridiculous!
If a person is dying and nothing can be done to save their life and they want so badly to die...who are we to say that they have to suffer so badly just because we feel that a beating heart is more important than their horrible pain?
And your right...its not so black and white...some people want it to be...but it isnt.
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
physician assisted suicide is a euphemism and your explanations and rationale are merely rationale.
I am not talking about "Withholding or withdrawing of nutrition and hydration (food and fluids) is most closely aligned with active euthanasia because without these basic essentials, death is certain and the patient dies of starvation and dehydration rather than the underlying disease. However, in certain circumstances when the provision of food and fluids will actually harm the patient, or when death is imminent within a matter of a few days, there is no moral duty to provide food and water.
More complicated are the situations when decisions are made regarding when to provide life-support treatments. "
Again "While active euthanasia is black and white, in that death is intended and actions are taken or not taken to be certain that death occurs, the area of providing life-support treatment is grey and circumstantial."
I lived in the same high rise as the woman who started the Hemlock society...a group promoting physician assisted suicide. During a potluck one summer she attempted to explain to me her purpose. She was diagnosed with cancer like 12 years before and wanted to end her life. Well, she didn't die and things got better so she didn't go through with it. But she swore to me that if she ever came out of remission, she would go through with it.
I didn't say much back then, but I thought quite frankly that she was a coward.
She got through it once, and she wants the legal option to end her life assisted by a physician "just in case." So, what if in another ten years she goes through the same thing and ends her life....ahhh commits self murder....when she could very well go through a similar healing she had experienced before.
Sorry to disappoint....but people who are in the late stages of cancer are in horrible pain and are not likely to go into remission all of a sudden.
The majority of people who consider euthanasia are already dying.
If this woman was able to go into remission then she wasnt in the late stages of cancer.
Im not talking about someone who gets cancer and then goes into remission and is able to be saved...Im talking about people who are actually in the late stages of a sickness and who are actually dying (at death's door so to speak)...and my goodness, of they dont want to go through any more pain and they know they are going to die...this is their right to end their life, and no one has any business telling them that they dont deserve to make that choice. The sickness has controlled them long enough and if they want to take control instead...then no one else is in a position to tell them otherwise!
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
If that's the case (that it's not my business) why even discuss it at all?
Perhaps we should train children from kindergarten that a little pill can be used when times get really really really really rough...just take it (strychnine) and everything will be all right.
Carry this pill with you at all times...cuz you never know when you'll be laying up in a bed sometime and the laws won't allow you to kill yourself.
Shoot you could empty out the psych wards, remove alot of burden on insurance companies with that mentality.
sowhatsthetruth said this in post #14 : Perhaps we should train children from kindergarten that a little pill can be used when times get really really really really rough...just take it (strychnine) and everything will be all right.
Carry this pill with you at all times...cuz you never know when you'll be laying up in a bed sometime and the laws won't allow you to kill yourself.
You know..there is something to be said about people who take things over the egde just a tad bit.
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
09-15-2004 09:37 AM
