PDA

View Full Version : Way to go?


DMB
08 Mar 2009, 10:58 AM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5864857.ece

Tuson was terminally ill with a rare malignancy in the stomach. A firm believer in euthanasia, she had wanted a quick death by a lethal dose of barbiturates, but her doctors were forced to refuse.

Her decision to refuse food and drink initially horrified her family but they came round to the idea when they saw how distraught she became after being told she would have to wait a month for an appointment to die at a Swiss clinic...

...“Her body mass reduced, her face became drawn, her skin very dry and, of course, the mouth very dry. She was dying of thirst; it was like being in the desert.

“I feel my mother was tortured until she died. She had been asking since June for doctors to end her life, every time one came into the room.”

I am really pissed off that people should be driven to die in this way when we would put a dog out of its misery with a lethal injection.

Here is a news item on a couple who managed to get to Switzerland and have a peaceful death together.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/03/07/prince.charles.assisted.suicide/index.html

Note, however, this bit:

Phyllis Bowman, executive director of Right to Life, which opposes euthanasia, also said the Duffs' case was sad.

"I think it's very sad, particularly as they could have gone together into a hospice. A hospice with cancer -- there is not uncontrollable pain," Bowman told CNN. "I think that with the euthanasia lobby, they feed on despair and they encourage despair rather than hope."

How does this cow know that pain is not uncontrollable in a hospice? From what I have read, pain control fails with something like 10% of people. In any case, there is more to distress people about long-drawn-out dying than just pain. I think the name of this woman's organisation, Right to Life, is deeply ironic. It really means No Right to Die When You Want.

I think the hospice movement is great, but it should not be used to deny choice to people who want euthanasia.

Mung Dynasty
08 Mar 2009, 11:26 AM
I am really pissed off that people should be driven to die in this way when we would put a dog out of its misery with a lethal injection.
That's because torturing a dog in a such a situation would be inhumane, but torturing humans in such situations is virtuous. At least I think that's the basic argument. I'm not entirely sure how it works.

Danhalen
08 Mar 2009, 12:46 PM
I think those people feel human autonomy is sacrosanct. So much so it is immoral for an individual to override his or her own.

I think that's bullshit. I think the epitome of autonomy is the ability to end your own. I also think the people who fight so hard to save the life of someone who wants to die are fucking morons.

Jobar
08 Mar 2009, 10:10 PM
Years ago, in an underground comic, I read a supposedly true tale about an attempted suicide in 18th century England, where attempted suicide was treated as- get this- a hanging offense.

So this poor sufferer had cut his own throat, but not deeply enough to get the carotid; he was found, his neck was bound up, and he survived.

Then he was taken to court and condemned to hang.

Doctors told the court that hanging wouldn't work; the wound to his neck would re-open and he would be able to breathe through his sliced trachea. But their advice was ignored, the poor bastard was strung up- and sure enough, he was left hanging, alive, breathing through his slit throat.

Finally they bound cloths around his throat so he smothered.

Even after centuries, the multiple layers of stupid burns us...

Garnet
08 Mar 2009, 10:18 PM
There is not uncontrollable pain?

Really?

Where was that stupid piece of shit when my father was writhing in his bed while cancer ate away his insides? There was nothing available that would stop his pain near the end. He was receiving massive doses of morphine and still the pain broke through.

diana
08 Mar 2009, 10:21 PM
How does this cow know that pain is not uncontrollable in a hospice? From what I have read, pain control fails with something like 10% of people. In any case, there is more to distress people about long-drawn-out dying than just pain. I think the name of this woman's organisation, Right to Life, is deeply ironic. It really means No Right to Die When You Want.

I think the hospice movement is great, but it should not be used to deny choice to people who want euthanasia.I don't accept simple "pain control" as an excuse to prolong the life of a person who's clearly tired of living, either. Said "pain control" often involves drugs under whose influence one cannot truly be said to live. The person taking them is often nauseated. She sleeps a lot. She can't think clearly, and as soon as she can, she needs to take another dose.

(I just had knee surgery on Wednesday, so the effect of pain meds is much on my mind. I can't imagine taking them indefinitely, and for pain that far eclipses mine.)

d

Mediancat
08 Mar 2009, 10:24 PM
The only thing I can think, when I hear people arguing against euthanasia, is that they somehow want the sufferers to be in pain as they die.

Rob

Christina
09 Mar 2009, 12:35 AM
I don't think that there is any rationale other than religious. God gave a soul and we have no right to destroy it or something like that. Animals don't have souls so we're free to do the obvious and end their suffering. I think that it makes most religions feel that they are on a slippery slope they don't like because once they admit that not all stages of life are precious they've opened a can of worms.

diana
09 Mar 2009, 01:40 AM
The only thing I can think, when I hear people arguing against euthanasia, is that they somehow want the sufferers to be in pain as they die.

RobOr insensible.

Is either a dignified way to go?

I think Christina hit the nail on the head.

d

Garnet
09 Mar 2009, 01:47 AM
Or worse.

Insensible and in pain.

:(

Moriah Conquering Wind
09 Mar 2009, 05:58 AM
That's because torturing a dog in a such a situation would be inhumane, but torturing humans in such situations is virtuous. At least I think that's the basic argument. I'm not entirely sure how it works.
That sounds about right for the twisted asshattery which passes for "logic" in matters such as these. :bang:

Barbarian
09 Mar 2009, 09:45 AM
The only thing I can think, when I hear people arguing against euthanasia, is that they somehow want the sufferers to be in pain as they die.

RobMany people whom I have seen IRL argue against euthanasia reek of fear. Do not bring up the topic, they say, for we don't want to think about it. Do not legislate the possibility of suicide rather than suffering because that makes the possibility of wishing to be rather dead than suffering a more tangible reality than we could possibly be comfortable with. We prefer to pretend such things don't happen, or lock away the sufferers somewhere where we can't see them. And if we can convince ourselves that such suffering does not happen, then we are right to argue that euthanasia is murder.

DMB
09 Mar 2009, 09:59 AM
But in the UK, for example, in opinion polls over many years about 80 % of the population are in favour of legalised euthanasia. Every time it comes up in Parliament, it gets chucked out by the christians, led by the bishops in the House of Lords.

DMB
09 Mar 2009, 10:48 AM
See Terry Pratchett's letter on this issue:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article5870145.ece

hecaterin
09 Mar 2009, 11:23 AM
If any supreme beings have an alternate point of view, I am sure that they can make this clear by thunderbolt, in the usual way. LOL! Pterry rocks, as always.

Ray Moscow
09 Mar 2009, 12:04 PM
The only thing I can think, when I hear people arguing against euthanasia, is that they somehow want the sufferers to be in pain as they die.

Rob

Basically this is the main point. They also hope to convert the person in their distress, if they are not already among the faithful.