Killed Like a Dog?

[Irreligious]

ubs wrote

I am mistrustful of people's claims of ultimate suffering. Neither of us can jump into the skin of another we don't really know if the person is a suburbanite who's grit has never been tested or if what they are experiencing is beyond human capacity, but I do think it's fair to question.

Unless the person is living in the woods in a house they built themselves without tools and hunt their own food, they are participating in society and thus society has some claim and some responsibility regarding their existence.

Sorry, but I do not give you or anyone permission to assume that kind of control over me. This is, after all, my skin in which I dwell. Not yours. No matter how much you may want to, you cannot share its joys nor its burdens, so what happens in it, ain't your business.

Forgive me for saying this, ubs, but you're sounding a bit absolutist on a topic that is full of gray. I am not advocating euthanasia for all tired, old bodies, just those that want the option.

ubs wrote

The real question comes down to how much claim does the group have over the individual? If severely mentally disabled person wants to stick a fork in a electrical socket, do we have an obligation to stop them? I think we do.

That's a reasonable question, which I think I addressed to some extent above. A person who is exhausted for having to endure unremitting pain is not necessarily mentally ill and should not be treated as if they automatically are.

It is not unreasonable to want to be relieved of unbearable suffering. Fortunately, modern science has developed a wide range of methods to make such suffering more endurable, but we are not yet at the stage where the virtual torture of every illness and disease can be addressed.

ubs wrote

Believing yourself to be at the mercy of random events rather than the victim of injustice is, I think, significant. Perhaps I see it as worse because it can be alleviated.

Depending on how much pain I'm in, I may not have the stamina to even contemplate this philosophical question.

I watched a cousin endure painful medical complications from the effects of Sickle Cell Anemia for a full decade. The last time I saw him before he died, he was in his bedroom in complete darkness, curled into the fetal position because the pain was so severe. He was a beautiful man who took great pride in his formerly muscular appearance and was now reduced to not only having to endure constant physical pain, but the cruel effects that the disease wreaked on his body.

I honestly don't know how he did it. I guess it was a testament to the human will to survive however we must, though he did periodically expressed a desire to be done with the existence to which he was consigned. I wouldn't have blamed him if he had availed himself to that option.

It's interesting that his mom, my aunt, expressed relief when he finally died, even though I'm sure she was racked with sadness. She said it was harder watching him suffer than deal with the reality that he was dead.

ubs wrote

Conceded.

Yeah, it's nice when we can find a little corner of agreement.

[Kate]

ubs wrote

I am mistrustful of people's claims of ultimate suffering. Neither of us can jump into the skin of another we don't really know if the person is a suburbanite who's grit has never been tested or if what they are experiencing is beyond human capacity, but I do think it's fair to question.

Unless the person is living in the woods in a house they built themselves without tools and hunt their own food, they are participating in society and thus society has some claim and some responsibility regarding their existence.

The real question comes down to how much claim does the group have over the individual? If severely mentally disabled person wants to stick a fork in a electrical socket, do we have an obligation to stop them? I think we do.



Believing yourself to be at the mercy of random events rather than the victim of injustice is, I think, significant. Perhaps I see it as worse because it can be alleviated.
.

This sounds like an anti-abortion argument. Just my interpretation.

[Kate]

Philboid Studge wrote

One of the problems with Merkin health care is that humans are living longer, and the end is often painful, drawn out, and expensive. I don't have an objection to the Oregon Health Plan policy.

The very old should be put in paddocks and utilized for any remaining healthy organs; their nutrients should be extracted; and they should ultimately provide fertilizer or other composting material for the young.

[Kate]

[Irreligious]

I was a teenager when that movie was released, yet I've never seen it. Though I did see the Twilight Zone episode "To Serve Man," which was along the same lines.

They didn't eat people in Logan's Run, but they had to check in their mortal existence at the ripe old age of 30!

[clambake]

Irreligious wrote

I was a teenager when that movie was released, yet I've never seen it. Though I did see the Twilight Zone episode "To Serve Man," which was along the same lines.

They didn't eat people in Logan's Run, but they had to check in their mortal existence at the ripe old age of 30!

I have yet to see that flick too amazingly enough. In the original Logan's Run novel they killed you off at 21!

[ubs]

Kate wrote

This sounds like an anti-abortion argument. Just my interpretation.

Hmmm. I hadn't thought of that....and if you claim that the consciousness of the life makes a difference that might also exclude anyone with Alzheimers, or coma patients.

Well, maybe Phil is right then. Hell, grind em up.

[just questions]

Smellyoldgit wrote

Most of the major points are outlined here

About The International Task Force

The International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide is an international leader in the ever-increasing debate over assisted suicide and euthanasia.

The goal of the International Task Force is to make certain that a patient's right to receive care and compassion is not replaced by a doctor's right to prescribe poison or administer a lethal injection.

To achieve this goal, the International Task Force concentrates on the following areas:

Networking
The International Task Force builds and maintains strong networks with individuals and groups to influence policy and news coverage.

As part of this networking, the International Task Force provides assistance and training in the most effective ways to address particular audiences regarding assisted suicide, euthanasia, and end-of-life issues.

Individuals and organizations that network with the International Task Force share a common concern about the dangers of assisted suicide and euthanasia, but often hold widely differing views on other public policy issues.


I have a little doubt if this organization is neutral. It looks like it is against euthanasia.

[just questions]

I think there two group cases here.
Group one is the kind that when the doctors think any further treatment is meaningless, and decide to let the patients die, mostly with the patients not in state to consent. It is a very difficult problem. We mostly depend on the medical experts to exam the conducts reasonable or not. But this group are not actually what the main discussion is about.
The second group are that when the euthanasia are initiated/requested, and planned by the patients themselves. The reasons to support euthanasia can be seen from the view of the person who wants to die. He is tired of life (not necessarily because physical pain, in Dutch laws, mental suffering weighs not less), and wants to end his life. He could commit suicide himself, just like hundred thousands people do every year. He could just jump from a high building or infront of a trein, or take some rat-poison. He does not want to do that, because he knows his messed-up body will traumatize his loved ones. He wants some dignity for his last moment. Refuse euthanasia is just to send him to the rat-poison. For people that are immobilized, it is even worse. They do not even have the option to take the rat-poison. They are forced to stay in the for them meaningless state, against thier will.
Yes, there will always be some extreme cases or abuses, or even criminal activities, like in any other areas. But the main stream looks quite healthy. Euthanasia has been tolerated for more than a decade, and has been legal for 7 years in the Netherlands. I have not heard any (sensational, for the media) abuse case.

The carefulness requirements for the doctor in Dutch laws about euthanasia:
The doctor
1. is convinced that it is a voluntary and deliberate request by the patient;
2. is convinced there is hopeless and unbearable suffering by the patient;
3. has informed the patient his current situation and future expectation;
4. come to the conclusion, together with the patient, that there is no reasonable alternative solution;
5. has consulted at least one independent doctor, who has seen the patient and given a written evaluation about the carefulness requirements meant in 1 to 5 above;
6. performs the help for life-ending and suicide with medical carefulness.
(sorry if the translation is bad)

[Irreligious]

ubs wrote

Hmmm. I hadn't thought of that....and if you claim that the consciousness of the life makes a difference that might also exclude anyone with Alzheimers, or coma patients.

Well, maybe Phil is right then. Hell, grind em up.

What have comatose and Alzheimers patients got to do with this discussion? I thought we were talking about sentient folks with their mental faculties intact. Shouldn't they be the one's deciding for themselves how they want to exist, whether it be in unceasingly excrutiating pain or not?

Alzheimers is a bitch, but I don't know that it's a necessarily painful condition, and there are methods to mitigate whatever other kind of discomfort they may experience. I'm told my ex's grandmother, who's 92 and has Alzheimers, has never appeared happier in her life.

As for the comatose, I imagine it's unlikely they're in any tangible discomfort. I know that I don't like the idea of myself having to exist in an unconscious state and on life-support for years on end. Isn't that why we have living wills?

[Irreligious]

just questions wrote

I have a little doubt if this organization is neutral. It looks like it is against euthanasia.

Well, of course they're against euthanasia. As they said, assisted suicide and euthanasia are dangerous, because people die when they're subjected to either.

Duh.

[just questions]

ubs wrote

I think our moral objections to suffering are misplaced. Your every developmental is a product of discomfort. You learn to walk out of frustration, you eat and reproduce to relieve stress, you work to avoid the pain of the elements. Suffering is good. Long live suffering.

That is quite a statement.
I would like to think we choose to endure certain suffering with the expectation of certain reward. I do not see the sense of rewardless suffering.
In daily life we choose NOT to do a lot of things because we think the reward is too little for the trouble. A person who chooese to end his life obviously has concluded that he is not going to be rewarded (enough) for the endless suffering.

[just questions]

Very often, people try to hide their real reason to oppose euthanasia, by arguing the technical flaws in the laws.
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/do...anasialaw.html
He sounds like to have real concerns about the flaw in the law, but he obviously could not shut up his big mouth.

To turn to technicality when you know you can not win enough people to support you has become a much used strategy. It is interesting when the progressive part of the US have found out they can not win enough votes/politicians to pass a law to ban capital punishment, they start to argue that the lethal injection is not painless enough to be humane.

[just questions]

ubs wrote

I am mistrustful of people's claims of ultimate suffering. Neither of us can jump into the skin of another we don't really know if the person is a suburbanite who's grit has never been tested or if what they are experiencing is beyond human capacity, but I do think it's fair to question.

Unless the person is living in the woods in a house they built themselves without tools and hunt their own food, they are participating in society and thus society has some claim and some responsibility regarding their existence.

The real question comes down to how much claim does the group have over the individual? If severely mentally disabled person wants to stick a fork in a electrical socket, do we have an obligation to stop them? I think we do.

You really need a damn good reason to override a human being's sovereignty.
You have the right to think someone is a spineless sissy, but ultimately the decision about his life should be in his own hands. He has the right to be the sissy.

[Sternwallow]

Smellyoldgit wrote

I didn't get to see the recent screening of an assisted suicide at the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland - but it's showing has got the morality tongues wagging big-time.

If we let an animal suffer as we do some humans near the end of their lives, a custodial sentence is an option. Euthanasia is featuring more and more on the UK agenda and as expected, the main torrent of opposition is from the religidiot brigade.

The 'problem' of dealing with those who wish to die ain't going away - but what safeguards can be put in place to ensure we minimise the risk of systematic abuse of what could be a very difficult process?

I have not yet figured out why the religithugs have any say in whether someone else ends his/her life when and as they please.

Assisting a suicide is no more a murder than is selling a potential overdose of sleeping pills to an ordinary person because they may become suicidal at some later time.

It seems that modern doctors are adjusting their ethics away from preserving life, no matter how horrendous, and toward preservation of quality of life as defined by the patient. When that becomes firmly established, there will be no viable legal issue over "taking a life" in this context and there will be no issue of abuse as long as the process remains strictly at the request of the patient.

"Won't people just convince the sick person that he is a burden on society and his family and that everyone would be better off if he were dead?", I have heard some people wonder as a kind of abuse that would be applied. I would say that, if the individual was convinced by such arguments, then he does have the right to "drop his agenda and adjourn".

As far as debts and duties a suicide leaves behind, there are procedures for extracting whatever the subject is responsible for from his estate, an option that is not available if, for example, the subject grabs his available cash and skips the country. So, on the debt issue, suicide would be preferable for society. I note that it is not illegal to be a selfish bastard, a fact that gives me great personal comfort.

Suicide is not necessarily caused by depression or any extreme emotion. It is not intrinsically a mental aberration. Since the non-religious cannot sin, suicide isn't even a sin for everyone.