Euthanasia

JayDubya said:

That is what a right to life explicitly means; someone killing you in aggression has violated it.

Click to expand...

How is "killing" somone who has consented and is suffering, by painless injection "agressive"?

I think it's a travesty that they are viewed that way legally, but they DO have rights. Again, your animals can be taken from you, and you can be banned from acquiring more if you violate those rights.

If you want to beat up your car, you can do that. But you cannot do that to an animal.

Explain to me how it is different. Explain to me how there are not the same ethical considerations. Animals can suffer, and they do have feelings. This is provable.

Click to expand...

I don't know if there's a forum for "animal rights," perhaps this forum would be appropriate even, but this thread on euthanasia of humans is probably not the place... if you really want to have that discussion, even.

Suffice to say that I disagree, though I have the same desire to bash my car as I do my dog: none-whatsoever, as I value them both highly. Despite their relative monetary value, I'd say I value the dog more than the car, but I need the car to make a living to, among other things, feed the dog.

Knowledge=power said:

How is "killing" somone who has consented and is suffering, by painless injection "agressive"?

Click to expand...

Any violation of a human right like that would be, by definition, aggressive.

You cannot abdicate an unalienable right. As you cannot abdicate it, it is always "in play."

Ergo, giving your permission to kill you does not justify the homicide.

JayDubya said:

Any violation of a human right is aggressive.

Click to expand...

Do you know what aggressive means?

Knowledge=power said:

Do you know what aggressive means?

Click to expand...

Aggression is the initiation of force.

Ergo, violating someone's right to life in such a manner would be aggressive.


Edit: The typical justification for homicide is self-defense. I do not see any means by which you can claim such a thing, or even anything remotely like it, is happening in this scenario. The lethal force would be initiating from one human against another, and the recipient of that force is purportedly incapable of taking action to even harm himself let alone anyone else.

I strongly believe in self-determination. An assisted suicide case is making it's way through the Canadian courts at this time, brought by a woman suffering from Lou Gehrig's disease, who unfortunately/fortunately passed away from natural causes prior to final determination of the courts. A lower court had granted her application, but the federal government decided to appeal the decision and it will end up in our Supreme Court. I hope the lower court decision is upheld and I hope the federal government takes that ruling and models legislation that makes it clear how a person and his/her healthcare providers and family can proceed.

Sure. I understand. Presumably you would have to pre-arrange this with someone trusted, or even paid, with highly defined circumstances and substantial documentation.

lizzie said:

That is something that I have no problem with, as it is essentially a suicide, just like a depressive taking an entire bottle of pills. It's the placement of responsibility on another person to kill you that I have problems with.

Click to expand...

JayDubya said:

Aggression is the initiation of force.

Ergo, violating someone's right to life in such a manner would be aggressive.


Edit: The typical justification for homicide is self-defense. I do not see any means by which you can claim such a thing, or even anything remotely like it, is happening in this scenario. The lethal force would be initiating from one human against another, and the recipient of that force is purportedly incapable of taking action to even harm himself let alone anyone else.

Click to expand...

You would not be initiating force on someone who was asking you to give them a large barbituate injection. They would be initiaing consent. There would be nothing aggressive about this type of death. Both parties would be very calm in fact, and both at peace. The person receiving the injection would simply fall asleep.

And could you quit saying ergo....? It's sheepish and corny.

JayDubya said:

The point being that you cannot sign a contract that would make you the property of someone else, even if you wanted to.

And while yes, such a contract would be illegal under the 13th Amendment, the legal philosophy I subscribe to, that of natural rights, the philosophy of many of the Founding Fathers, even something like the 13th Amendment, a bit of legal text directly enshrined into the law of the land, is ultimately just the government's way of reinforcing a right you already had... which is why we make governments in the first place.

Click to expand...

Well, you can. That's what volunteer contracts are: you're agreeing to be free labor for a given amount of time.

But you can also break that contract, which is reclaiming your right to freedom.

What you've just said here is that you can't sign a contract nullifying your rights even if you wish to have them back in the future. Well, duh. That's a basic logical impossibility.

But a person no longer exists after death, so what they might want after is neither here nor there. As long as they consent to die at the time of the euthanasia, there is no further need to protect their right to life since they will no longer have one.

But it is. You're describing initiating force against someone else, in violation of their rights. That is aggression.

Click to expand...

What?

Do you consider it "initiation of force" to get a tattoo? That is far more aggressive than a lethal injection, let me tell you. Since I have a right to be free from injurious harm, is it "aggressive" and "initiation of force" for someone to repeatedly puncture my skin at my express request?

I also wonder if you know what "aggressive" means, or what "force" means. We ask people to hurt us all the time, for all kinds of reasons. For shots, for surgery, for cosmetics, etc. It is only aggressive when it is non-consensual.

But it can't work that way. You can't have an allowance to violate the rights of others, or they don't actually have that right... or at least, the state wouldn't really be protecting that right.

Click to expand...

No one is violating the rights of others. Others are agreeing to help carry out the patient's wishes at their express request.

If it were able that hand should be allowed to do what the owner of that hand wanted it to do to the body it was a part of... but since it is not, no, I do not think we should relegate professionals with oaths to avoid harm to being mere prosthetics.

Click to expand...

It is only your personal belief that it is harmful. You are completely unable to defend that position in any objective way that makes even the slightest amount of logical sense.

With palliation you do keep giving medicine to control uncomfortable symptoms... and sometimes this can hasten death... but the point is always to manage that symptom.

I don't know, perhaps that seems too fine a point to you, but to me, it makes a very large difference.

Click to expand...

Patients under palliative care are usually refused further medication if it is likely to induce death (mostly to protect the doctor from stupid lawsuits). That is part of the reason why some people are known to beg to die. They have extreme pain that cannot be managed with palliative care.

I disagree. Doing all you can to alleviate uncomfortable symptoms of disease could never constitute "harm."

Click to expand...

It certainly can if the person living it deems it to be so. You can't tell someone else what is best for them in their own medical treatment.

EDIT: See below for a sad example of my point. Palliative care only goes so far.

I believe people should be able to make these decisions and doctors should be allowed to assist.

I remember my father-in-law, a devout Catholic, was suffering from terminal cancer. The drugs did not ease his suffering. As a Catholic, he felt prohibited from ending his own.

He would beg for someone to go get his gun and shoot him.

So what part of laws against voluntary euthansia are humane?

Knowledge=power said:

You would not be initiating force on someone who was asking you to give them a large barbituate injection. They would be initiaing consent. There would be nothing aggressive about this type of death. Both parties would be very calm in fact, and both at peace. The person receiving the injection would simply fall asleep.

Click to expand...

That is still aggressive homicide.

If I were your nurse or your physician and I injected you with a lethal dose of a medication, knowingly, and you die, I would be brought up on murder charges (see Kevorkian), and they would be appropriate. That is premeditated and aggressive, a violation of your rights.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Well, you can. That's what volunteer contracts are: you're agreeing to be free labor for a given amount of time.

But you can also break that contract, which is reclaiming your right to freedom.

What you've just said here is that you can't sign a contract nullifying your rights even if you wish to have them back in the future. Well, duh. That's a basic logical impossibility.

Click to expand...

So is abdicating your right to life - you can't do it, it's a logical impossibility. The right is unalienable.

But a person no longer exists after death, so what they might want after is neither here nor there. As long as they consent to die at the time of the euthanasia, there is no further need to protect their right to life since they will no longer have one.

Click to expand...

But they still have one to violate while they are alive... and that is what you would be violating if you committed homicide, and thus that is why you would deserve to go to prison.

Do you consider it "initiation of force" to get a tattoo? That is far more aggressive than a lethal injection, let me tell you. Since I have a right to be free from injurious harm, is it "aggressive" and "initiation of force" for someone to repeatedly puncture my skin at my express request?

I also wonder if you know what "aggressive" means, or what "force" means. We ask people to hurt us all the time, for all kinds of reasons. For shots, for surgery, for cosmetics, etc. It is only aggressive when it is non-consensual.

Click to expand...

Last I checked, a tattoo does not kill you. Hell, if you're into BDSM sometimes you want people to hurt you for pleasure, which is a bit odd to me, but hey, no skin off my back, none of my business.

But your right to life remains unalienable, and killing you in aggression always violates that right.

No one is violating the rights of others. Others are agreeing to help carry out the patient's wishes at their express request.

Click to expand...

As explained, yes they are. The right to life is unalienable.

In general, when you commit homicide against someone who is not attacking you, you are aggressively violating their rights and your action probably is / should be criminal.

It is only your personal belief that it is harmful. You are completely unable to defend that position in any objective way that makes even the slightest amount of logical sense.

Click to expand...

Not at all. Making a living thing dead would constitute harming them. Sometimes it can be justified to harm others... but never to kill them in aggression.

It certainly can if the person living it deems it to be so. You can't tell someone else what is best for them in their own medical treatment.

Click to expand...

No, helping alleviate uncomfortable symptoms is never and will never be harm, whatever anyone deems.

As far as telling anyone what is best for them, you can advise, but basic patient autonomy dictates that you do not do those things that the patient does not ask you to do. However, patient autonomy does not somehow dictate that HCP MUST do whatever the patient asks, as the patient may ask them to do things outside of their professional scope of practice, or to violate their professional ethics.

JayDubya said:

That is still aggressive homicide.

If I were your nurse or your physician and I injected you with a lethal dose of a medication, knowingly, and you die, I would be brought up on murder charges (see Kevorkian), and they would be appropriate. That is premeditated and aggressive, a violation of your rights.

Click to expand...

It is not homicide, it is assisted suicide at worst.

It is not premeditated by the physician, it is premeditated by the person suffering or the person in the situation which he / she deemed worthy in their living will before the situation arose.

How can you call anything a "right" if you do not have the freedom to choose what to do with it?

JayDubya said:

So is abdicating your right to life - you can't do it, it's a logical impossibility. The right is unalienable.

Click to expand...

Yes, you can. You can abdicate any right you want. We abdicate rights all the time -- daily. You abdicate the right speech in certain buildings. You abdicate the right to all kinds of things in certain professions. The thing is, we can claim them back when we wish to.

A person who opts for euthanasia can opt out so long as they are still living. But once they are dead... well, dead people don't care.

But they still have one to violate while they are alive... and that is what you would be violating if you committed homicide, and thus that is why you would deserve to go to prison.

Click to expand...

And it is not being violated if the patient is consenting to it willingly.

Last I checked, a tattoo does not kill you. Hell, if you're into BDSM sometimes you want people to hurt you for pleasure, which is a bit odd to me, but hey, no skin off my back, none of my business.

But your right to life remains unalienable, and killing you in aggression always violates that right.

Click to expand...

So? I still have the right not to be harmed. Is that right any lesser?

As explained, yes they are. The right to life is unalienable.

Click to expand...

Yes. It cannot be taken from you under normal circumstances. You can, however, give it away. It is yours. You can do whatever you like with it. That is why the concept of rights exist -- so that you can freely choose what to do with them.

What you advocate is anti-rights. You advocate that people don't get to choose what they do with their rights.

In general, when you commit homicide against someone who is not attacking you, you are aggressively violating their rights and your action probably is / should be criminal.

Click to expand...

Yes, in general. But this is not a general situation. This is a very specific situation.

Not at all. Making a living thing dead would constitute harming them. Sometimes it can be justified to harm others... but never to kill them in aggression.

Click to expand...

No, it wouldn't, if that is what they wish. Again, do you know what aggression means?

No, helping alleviate uncomfortable symptoms is never and will never be harm, whatever anyone deems.

Click to expand...

Explain to me how it is not harmful, when you have done all the alleviation you can, and they are moaning in agony and begging to die.

As far as telling anyone what is best for them, you can advise, but basic patient autonomy dictates that you do not do those things that the patient does not ask you to do. However, patient autonomy does not somehow dictate that HCP MUST do whatever the patient asks, as the patient may ask them to do things outside of their professional scope of practice, or to violate their professional ethics.

Click to expand...

And in many areas of medicine, a physician may defer to another doctor if they are unwilling or unable to perform it themselves. The patient is entitled to receive what they ask, but the physician is permitted to find someone else to do it.

Many doctors don't believe it is a violation of their ethics. They see the pain their end-stage patients are in. And they do not cling obsessively to the notion that simply maintaining a pulse is always best.

You have not been able to give me a reason why it is wrong. You have simply repeated the same mis-used phrase over and over, in various configurations.

JayDubya said:

So is abdicating your right to life - you can't do it, it's a logical impossibility. The right is unalienable.



But they still have one to violate while they are alive... and that is what you would be violating if you committed homicide, and thus that is why you would deserve to go to prison.




Last I checked, a tattoo does not kill you. Hell, if you're into BDSM sometimes you want people to hurt you for pleasure, which is a bit odd to me, but hey, no skin off my back, none of my business.

But your right to life remains unalienable, and killing you in aggression always violates that right.



As explained, yes they are. The right to life is unalienable.

In general, when you commit homicide against someone who is not attacking you, you are aggressively violating their rights and your action probably is / should be criminal.



Not at all. Making a living thing dead would constitute harming them. Sometimes it can be justified to harm others... but never to kill them in aggression.



No, helping alleviate uncomfortable symptoms is never and will never be harm, whatever anyone deems.

As far as telling anyone what is best for them, you can advise, but basic patient autonomy dictates that you do not do those things that the patient does not ask you to do. However, patient autonomy does not somehow dictate that HCP MUST do whatever the patient asks, as the patient may ask them to do things outside of their professional scope of practice, or to violate their professional ethics.

Click to expand...

I'm going to give you an extreme example, but it might help you see this in a different light.

Imagine someone being mauled savagely by a bear. They are screaming for you to shoot them to end the unimaginable pain and terror. This would be called a 'mercy' kill. Would you do as they asked? Or watch them suffer a horrible death.

What if someone was on fire and begged to be shot, and you had the means to do so?

I could go on with these examples, obviously these are rare and extreme cases, but you get the idea. Mercy killing is very common in war. People are often so badly wounded that it is obvious they will die, but they are suffering and in agony. Comrades kill them if they wish to be killed, out of mercy, to end the suffering.

I don't think that government should have power of life and death over people. That includes denying government the right to kill us, and to keep us alive against our will.

Paschendale said:

I don't think that government should have power of life and death over people. That includes denying government the right to kill us, and to keep us alive against our will.

Click to expand...

So do you think an individual should have the right to choose whether he/she lives or dies in a predetermined situation defined in a living will? Of course the death I am speaking of would most likely be physician assisted, and painless, to end suffering or to honor the wishes of the author of the will.

Knowledge=power said:

So do you think an individual should have the right to choose whether he/she lives or dies in a predetermined situation defined in a living will? Of course the death I am speaking of would most likely be physician assisted, and painless, to end suffering or to honor the wishes of the author of the will.

Click to expand...

Yes, I think that is included in what I already said.

Knowledge=power said:

Euthanasia (from the Greek: εὐθανασία meaning "good death": εὖ, eu (well or good) + θάνατος, thanatos (death)) refers to the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering.

There are different euthanasia laws in each country. The British House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics defines euthanasia as "a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering".[1] In the Netherlands, euthanasia is understood as "termination of life by a doctor at the request of a patient".[2]

Euthanasia is categorized in different ways, which include voluntary, non-voluntary, or involuntary. Voluntary euthanasia is legal in some countries and U.S. states. Non-voluntary euthanasia is illegal in all countries. Involuntary euthanasia is usually considered murder.[3]

As of 2006, euthanasia is the most active area of research in contemporary bioethics


The idea here is that if you have a living will, should you be allowed to elect for euthanasia in certain circumstances which you deem appropriate? An example would be: If you are severely injured and suffer brain damage and can no longer function without max assistance from caregivers. Also, if you are diagnosed with Alzheimers or any other disease which would have a significant impact on your life. If you become paralized, have a severe stroke, etc are also examples.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

I had a similiar thread a while back. I would agree that one ought to let someone kill themselves when death is imminent and euthanasia would provide for a much less painful than not committing suicide, assised or not.

Indeed said:

I had a similiar thread a while back. I would agree that one ought to let someone kill themselves when death is imminent and euthanasia would provide for a much less painful than not committing suicide, assised or not.

Click to expand...

Agreed.