- Original Poster
- #1
A high court in the US state of Oregon just upheld an assisted suicide law that will allow doctors to end the lives of terminally ill patients. What do you think?
Another controversial issue: euthanasia
- Thread starter Cornish Steve
- Start date
C
confused
I think there should be another option on your poll - Relatives decide for a non-compos terminally ill patient. or even totally paralized, unable to comunicate or move due to an accident or whatever, if I were in that state I'd be glad to be put out of it.
The above is my opinion and not meant to offend anyone who may know of someone in any of the above conditions and doesnt agree.
CALV
The above is my opinion and not meant to offend anyone who may know of someone in any of the above conditions and doesnt agree.
CALV
Upvote
0
F
fastfences
Ah, USA, home of the honourable Dr Jack Kavorkian!
I believe in it, only if the patient agrees. Problem here though, is that the patient has to make such declaration whilst of 'sound mind.' (This may prevent Jayne from making such declaration :wink: )
Relatives may have ulterior motives (i.e. money, assets etc). Doctors should not have the sole right; how many mis-diagnosies have been made in medicine?
Cheers, Nigel
I believe in it, only if the patient agrees. Problem here though, is that the patient has to make such declaration whilst of 'sound mind.' (This may prevent Jayne from making such declaration :wink: )
Relatives may have ulterior motives (i.e. money, assets etc). Doctors should not have the sole right; how many mis-diagnosies have been made in medicine?
Cheers, Nigel
Upvote
0
U
uksbc
without wanting to make this too serious when it comes to euthenasia, i already have a deal with my brother that should i ever be in a terminal state where i am unable to do it myself then he will "take me out" so to speak
the thought of being vegetative is too much!!
(i am knowledgeable on the subject of being "no longer here" and not just thrown out a random comment
i have an uncle who contracted an illness at the age of 4 which left him unable to communicate, use the bathroom, dress himself, eat on his own, infact anything really. he was left with the mental age of a 1 year old and is now 65!! under those circumstances - bring on the euthanasia team!!)
:!:
the thought of being vegetative is too much!!
(i am knowledgeable on the subject of being "no longer here" and not just thrown out a random comment
i have an uncle who contracted an illness at the age of 4 which left him unable to communicate, use the bathroom, dress himself, eat on his own, infact anything really. he was left with the mental age of a 1 year old and is now 65!! under those circumstances - bring on the euthanasia team!!)
:!:
Upvote
0
H
Hayles
Yep, most definitely but under strict conditions. It can't be left up to any single person to decide when the patient is in a coma, it should be a joint decision between say three people including at least one doctor.
If I knew I was going to die in a slow, painful way, I would want to have assistance from a doctor when I got to a stage where it was too much to bear.
Oh happy days.... :lol:
If I knew I was going to die in a slow, painful way, I would want to have assistance from a doctor when I got to a stage where it was too much to bear.
Oh happy days.... :lol:
Upvote
0
W
WelshPixels
Personally I am for euthanasia but I dont think a mental illness is reason for it.
Its a very difficult line to draw someone who is in a constant coma and cant move for themselves then there is a case, however if someone has a very low mental age and simply does not have the mental skills to care for themselves, I think thats a different situation.
The main difference is the quality of life. If you are stuck in a coma you have no quality of life if however you cant look after yourself because of your mental age you may have a great quality of life (you may be as happy as pie without the worries of bills, working etc etc).
My first wife ended up in a permanent coma after heart surgery went wrong. Her whole system started to shut down one organ at a time (liver, kidneys, lungs etc) and along with her parents and the doctors we had to make the decision to stop any further medical assistance and let her pass away. This decision was made a lot easier because it was discussed in length before the operation because we knew it was a risk.
(UKSBC please don't see this as me being negative to your situation, I dont know your situation and having been a sole career for an elderly relative I feel for you. I am just trying to illustrate a point)
Somewhere between the two extremes there is a very thin line.
Its a very difficult line to draw someone who is in a constant coma and cant move for themselves then there is a case, however if someone has a very low mental age and simply does not have the mental skills to care for themselves, I think thats a different situation.
The main difference is the quality of life. If you are stuck in a coma you have no quality of life if however you cant look after yourself because of your mental age you may have a great quality of life (you may be as happy as pie without the worries of bills, working etc etc).
My first wife ended up in a permanent coma after heart surgery went wrong. Her whole system started to shut down one organ at a time (liver, kidneys, lungs etc) and along with her parents and the doctors we had to make the decision to stop any further medical assistance and let her pass away. This decision was made a lot easier because it was discussed in length before the operation because we knew it was a risk.
(UKSBC please don't see this as me being negative to your situation, I dont know your situation and having been a sole career for an elderly relative I feel for you. I am just trying to illustrate a point)
Somewhere between the two extremes there is a very thin line.
Upvote
0
U
uksbc
no not at all, i completely see your point and i feel for you and your wifes family for the position you found yourselves in
i dont think having mental illness is an automatic case for euthanasia. i definately would not consider taking the life of my uncle! in his predicament, in most ways he has a reasonable quality of life and has, in reality never known anything different
i think that i, for purely selfish reasons would not like to feel like i have "had then lost"
my own personal opinion is to live a full life and then revert to a childlike state (like alzheimers) is far worse than always being that way
i certainly agree that it is a very fine line but it should be a matter of personal choice
the idea of living wills is one that seems to make the most sense. that way things can be discussed when everyone is healthy and of a sane mind to make the choice
tough topic!!
Upvote
0
E
easyasit
Oh heck steve, now i was not going to post in here again. Now i feel i must.
I have argued this case with Anna, who not only has the misfortune of being my wife but also a Doctor. luckily we both agree likewise.
Are you ready for another Essay?
Life is not our property, it is on loan by God, Gods to give, and Gods to take away. It is therefore not our place to decide wen we die.
ok religeous argument over.
Scientific and moral one now.
The role of medicine is to assist the body with healing itself. There are drugs to help moderate some processes, and of course people to cut us up where phsyiological changes are necessary.
However if a person is beyond repair, and the quality of their life in question. The controversy then begins.
Patients can make a request of DNR, meaning do not rescitate. So if a patient goes into VF (heart stops beating) then the crash team will not be called to resuscitate.
As opposed to anything else it becomes tricky.
Take the lad at the Saints rugby match last year who was paralysesin the scrum. The man cannot move, a vegetable on all counts.
Do you force him to live another 30 years like that?
People who live life in constand agony, there is no way out, druds are useless. They are on heroine derivatives now to keep them high. Cancer patients esp. Wen is a good time to let them go?
There also ppl with such conditions, who want to live, do they not have the right also.
Fo the record i did not vote. above. you left out the part where all ppl agree.
Al
oh by the way, yes i am FOR euthanasia
I have argued this case with Anna, who not only has the misfortune of being my wife but also a Doctor. luckily we both agree likewise.
Are you ready for another Essay?
Life is not our property, it is on loan by God, Gods to give, and Gods to take away. It is therefore not our place to decide wen we die.
ok religeous argument over.
Scientific and moral one now.
The role of medicine is to assist the body with healing itself. There are drugs to help moderate some processes, and of course people to cut us up where phsyiological changes are necessary.
However if a person is beyond repair, and the quality of their life in question. The controversy then begins.
Patients can make a request of DNR, meaning do not rescitate. So if a patient goes into VF (heart stops beating) then the crash team will not be called to resuscitate.
As opposed to anything else it becomes tricky.
Take the lad at the Saints rugby match last year who was paralysesin the scrum. The man cannot move, a vegetable on all counts.
Do you force him to live another 30 years like that?
People who live life in constand agony, there is no way out, druds are useless. They are on heroine derivatives now to keep them high. Cancer patients esp. Wen is a good time to let them go?
There also ppl with such conditions, who want to live, do they not have the right also.
Fo the record i did not vote. above. you left out the part where all ppl agree.
Al
oh by the way, yes i am FOR euthanasia
Upvote
0
D
dagr
Relatively easy to decide on cases when the person concerned is compis mentis, able to communicate and for whom an unambiguous, dire medical prognosis has been established. Almost impossible when the person concerned is unable to express their condition and desire and there is doubt as to there physical condition.
Even pre-established wills are not clear cut. People will sometimes make fundamental life-changing decisions about their own life and beliefs in the space of a year or two (e.g. go from aetheist to devout, from "never, ever wanting kids" to "doing just about anything to have kids", etc), and so there view on their own life may change too. That would be a worry too, as the paperwork does not always follow.
A tough one, for which there will never be the "right" solution.
Even pre-established wills are not clear cut. People will sometimes make fundamental life-changing decisions about their own life and beliefs in the space of a year or two (e.g. go from aetheist to devout, from "never, ever wanting kids" to "doing just about anything to have kids", etc), and so there view on their own life may change too. That would be a worry too, as the paperwork does not always follow.
A tough one, for which there will never be the "right" solution.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
Latest Articles
-
90,000 jobs are heading your way. Your rates bill might get there firstIf you run a business in Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds or Bristol, you were probably told some...- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 8 min read
-
How to Price a New Product or Service: We Asked UKBFOn 5 August, @Data Swami posted in the General Business Forum with a question that ought to have...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 7 min read
-
70 years of director bans in six months: Companies House has stopped asking nicelyCompanies House published a release on August 6th 2026 that every company director should read...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 7 min read
-
MTD for Income Tax: your first quarterly update is due 7 August.If you are a sole trader or landlord and your gross income from self-employment and property was...- maka
- Updated:
- 4 min read
-
Andy Burnham's Manifesto for Small Business, and How It Stacks Up Against Count BinfaceIf all goes to plan (or rather, to Labour's timetable), Andy Burnham will be sworn in as Prime...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 5 min read