Euthanasia?

[Karried]

If you're loved one had a terminal disease, was in incredible undeniable, unrelenting pain (and nothing will alleviate the pain) .. asked you to assist them in suicide... would you?

[mranderson]

If you're loved one had a terminal disease, was in incredible undeniable, unrelenting pain (and nothing will alleviate the pain) .. asked you to assist them in suicide... would you?

No. It is illegal, immoral, and a mortal sin. As it should be.

[Easy180]

If it was how you describe it karried...I would likely assist

Easier to say it than to do it though I'm sure, but in theory I think it would be best...That is NO way to live

[BailJumper]

Yes, I would. I have zero problem with. I say throw a living funeral, say your goodbyes, then checkout on your own terms - Morphine drip, pills, 10 feet of flexible hose from the exhaust... whatever works for you and allows for an open casket.

[dirtrider73068]

If you're loved one had a terminal disease, was in incredible undeniable, unrelenting pain (and nothing will alleviate the pain) .. asked you to assist them in suicide... would you?

Yes I would and hope that if I get that way somebody would do the same to me under my own request. I do not want to be hooked up to stupid machines for the rest of life in constant pain and suffering. I would rather be let go and ease the sufffering than lay there in pain. I know if I get a will or living will drawn up that will be part of what it will include is if there is no way for me to return to normal state and have to depend on machines to keep me alive, I would rather be dead and gone than depend on a machine.

[Deni]

how is this different than pulling the plug

[JIMBO]

How about a slight twist on the question?
If your loved one had a terminal disease, was in incredible, undeniable, unrelenting pain ( and nothing will alleviate the pain ) .. informed you they were going to commit suicide... would you stop them?

[BailJumper]

Nope - as long as it nothing messy.

[Karried]

If your loved one had a terminal disease, was in incredible, undeniable, unrelenting pain ( and nothing will alleviate the pain ) .. informed you they were going to commit suicide... would you stop them?

It is easy to say this now but No, I would not stop them.. it would be incredibly selfish of me to not want them to go.. but if I knew there was no cure and that they were suffering.. well, I would hope I would have the courage to look the other way and let them go with dignity.

As far as helping a loved one.. Yes, I think I would.

Mr Anderson, when your dog had terminal cancer and you knew she was suffering, you did the humane thing and put her out of her misery.. which was a selfless act of love and compassion.

Of course, humans are different than a pet but tell me why you would let a loved one suffer unimaginable pain when you wouldn't want your pet to suffer?

[mranderson]

It is easy to say this now but No, I would not stop them.. it would be incredibly selfish of me to not want them to go.. but if I knew there was no cure and that they were suffering.. well, I would hope I would have the courage to look the other way and let them go with dignity.

As far as helping a loved one.. Yes, I think I would.

Mr Anderson, when your dog had terminal cancer and you knew she was suffering, you did the humane thing and put her out of her misery.. which was a selfless act of love and compassion.

Of course, humans are different than a pet but tell me why you would let a loved one suffer unimaginable pain when you wouldn't want your pet to suffer?

Euthanasia on a human is a crime. It is called homicide. It is not a crime to put down a dog. I really did not want to do it, but when she became comabtive with the other two dogs, we decided as a family to go ahead.

[PUGalicious]

Euthanasia on a human is a crime. It is called homicide. It is not a crime to put down a dog. I really did not want to do it, but when she became comabtive with the other two dogs, we decided as a family to go ahead.

I understand your point, but Karrie's point is well taken. Why do we, as a society, believe it is more humane to put down a pet (or any animal for that reason) when it's in considerable pain -- without knowing what the pet might or might not want, but also believe it is wrong to let a human decide to end their own suffering when the pain becomes unbearable? It's an interesting paradox.

This is something that I've spent a considerable amount of time thinking about and discussing with my own father, who works at a hospital assisting and counseling families with end-of-life issues. He sees this kind of suffering day-in-and-day-out. This is a conversation that's had much more in the medical community than I ever realized. It's a difficult one for physicians, patients and families alike. Watching someone suffer is difficult for anyone; being the patient who is suffering is unimaginable.

I know with me, and I've made this abundantly clear to all my loved ones, I don't want to live a prolonged life with that type of suffering. I have a living will that clearly spells out that should I become terminal, I only want medical treatment to manage the pain, not any medical treatment that will only prolong the suffering.

While I do not encourage the pro-active taking of a human life, I do strongly support the idea of aggressive pain management -- i.e. providing treatment for pain that is sufficient to alleviate suffering -- if that's what the patient and/or family has willfully chosen. And, if as a result of aggressive pain treatment that the increasing strong dosage of medication to alleviate that pain eventually becomes lethal, so be it. I don't want to suffer unnecessarily. I don't want my loved ones to suffer unnecessarily.

[Tim]

Euthanasia on a human is a crime. It is called homicide. It is not a crime to put down a dog. I really did not want to do it, but when she became comabtive with the other two dogs, we decided as a family to go ahead.

Labeling something "a crime" does not make it wrong. Spitting on the sidewalk is a "crime". Driving your car without a lantern bearer walking in front of you is a "crime". According to the old testament, having a bacon cheeseburger is a "crime". Lawmakers legislate according to the prevailing morality, and periodically these decisions must be reviewed according to the latest information. An act of kindness is an act of kindness, legal or not.

[mranderson]

Labeling something "a crime" does not make it wrong. Spitting on the sidewalk is a "crime". Driving your car without a lantern bearer walking in front of you is a "crime". According to the old testament, having a bacon cheeseburger is a "crime". Lawmakers legislate according to the prevailing morality, and periodically these decisions must be reviewed according to the latest information. An act of kindness is an act of kindness, legal or not.

If you think labeling something a crime does not make it wrong, then I challange you to go knock over a 7-11 and see where that gets you. A crime is labeled a crime for a reason. Plus, after you are gone from this earth, you have the judges on the other side to deal with, and they are a lot stricter than the liberal judges down here.

I just thought of one more thing. My dad had a DNR. That is different, so, when my mom watched him die, she immdediatly (probably within a minute or so) called paramedics. She told me her words to them were "my husband just died, I need paramedics." By law, the DNR had to be posted in a place paramedics could see it. The firefighter/paramedic took a brief look at him and pronounced him expired. If that is euthenasia to you, then so be it. However, that is not my idea of it. What I described was a very peaceful and fitting end to the life of the greatest hero I will ever know... My dad.

Euthenasia, to me, is over medicating, injecting a person with air to create a bubble which causes a hert attack, or something similar. THAT is a crime. If my dad had an order to turn off life support if he had chosen to die in a hospital, then that too would be fine.

[MadMonk]

If you think about it, suicide may be a crime to attempt, but the completed deed is unprocecutable.

[Karried]

By law, the DNR had to be posted in a place paramedics could see it. The firefighter/paramedic took a brief look at him and pronounced him expired. If that is euthenasia to you, then so be it. However, that is not my idea of it. What I described was a very peaceful and fitting end to the life of the greatest hero I will ever know... My dad

That is not what we are discussing. Do Not Resucitate is after the fact.. the person has already died. 'She watched him die' isn't the same as helping or assisting him with dying. Granted, she didn't call the paramedics in time to save him or intervene in that way but unless she gave him an overdose of morphine or something, I see little similarity to what we are talking about.

Wikipedia:

Euthanasia by means: There is passive, non-aggressive, and aggressive. Passive euthanasia is withholding common treatments (such as antibiotics, drugs, or surgery) or giving a medication (such as morphine) to relieve pain, knowing that it may also result in death
Passive euthanasia is currently the most accepted form as it is currently common practice in most hospitals. Non-aggressive Euthanasia is the practice of withdrawing life support and is more controversial. Aggressive Euthanasia is using lethal substances or force to kill and is the most controversial means.

Euthanasia by consent: There is involuntary, non-voluntary, and voluntary. Involuntary euthanasia is euthanasia against someone’s will and is often considered murder. This kind of euthanasia is usually considered wrong by both sides and is rarely debated. Non-voluntary euthanasia is when the person is not competent to or unable to make a decision and it is thus left to a proxy like in the Terri Schiavo case. This is highly controversial, especially because multiple proxies may claim the authority to decide for the patient. Voluntary euthanasia is euthanasia with the person’s direct consent, but is still controversial.

[mranderson]

"That is not what we are discussing. Do Not Resucitate is after the fact"

No. DNR is an order submitted by a terminally ill person that says not to use any "heroic" measures to revive. That does not mean they are already dead.

You have given YOUR definition of euthenasia. Not mine. Mine is murder. A crime punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for up to life and if first degree (which is a lot easier to proove in Oklahoma) death by lethal injection. It is also recoginzed by the Catholic Church as a mortal sin. That decision was upheld in Vactican II.

[bandnerd]

Okay, so you've made it clear that you don't like it. You think it's a crime. We get it--the others would like to share their opinions on the matter.

I'm not touching this issue. Not right now.

[PUGalicious]

"That is not what we are discussing. Do Not Resucitate is after the fact"

No. DNR is an order submitted by a terminally ill person that says not to use any "heroic" measures to revive. That does not mean they are already dead.

You have given YOUR definition of euthenasia. Not mine. Mine is murder. A crime punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for up to life and if first degree (which is a lot easier to proove in Oklahoma) death by lethal injection. It is also recoginzed by the Catholic Church as a mortal sin. That decision was upheld in Vactican II.

For the record, you do not have to be terminally ill to have a DNR order.

Since you are so concerned about the opinion of the Catholic Church, how would they feel about some of your other stances -- like legalizing prostitution, as one example?

Furthermore, not everyone submits to the authority of the Vatican/Catholic Church on defining what is or is not a "mortal sin." But we'll all keep in mind that you apparently do and will apply all Catholic Church standards to your postings and commentaries.

The issue may see very black-and-white until you see a loved one in agonizing suffering day after day after day. I would want to exist with such unimaginable suffering unnecessarily and I wouldn't want one of my dear loved ones to suffer either. And I'm prepared to answer to God and accept the consequences if I choose to show mercy to that loved one in their suffering, if they simply want relief from the never-ending, ever-growing torment.

As I said previously, I'm not advocating pro-active assisted suicide, but rather aggressive treatment to manage the pain and the suffering... and if the dosage eventually becomes lethal, so be it.

[Karried]

No. DNR is an order submitted by a terminally ill person that says not to use any "heroic" measures to revive. That does not mean they are already dead.

Revive from what then - a nap?

It is also recoginzed by the Catholic Church as a mortal sin. That decision was upheld in Vactican II.

There are a lot of things recognized by the Catholic church. It's pretty convenient to pick and choose isn't it?

[BailJumper]

I loved Pugs point, ANDERSON will shout loud and clear (paraphrasing)"it's the law and that's my final answer" and "Its a sin, sin, sin, sin." Yet, when it comes to paying to appease his perversions he's all for changing the law and sitting morality in the back seat. I love it I tell you!!!!!!!

[BaconCheeseburgerDeluxe]

And now... here is something we hope you will really like.

Click only if you have a sense of humor.... this link is not for those who are easily disturbed.

YouTube - EUTHANASIA

[writerranger]

One day as a society surely we'll come to grips with this issue. It is so horribly cruel to force a person in a terminal state with insufferable pain to "hang in there"....for what? As it is now, society and the medical community must two-step around the law and use the good old Morphine Drip (as bailjumper alluded to). Doctors do it everyday, especially in nursing homes with 90+ year-old people who are days/weeks from dying and are literally crying out for release from what is no longer a life, but a horrible existence. The physician will treat the "pain" with morphine and slowly increase the dose until the organs begin to shut down and they quietly and peacefully die in a deep sleep. It is euthanasia. But, it's done under the accepted ethical practice of the "rule of double-effect". An understanding that the doctor is 1. Treating the pain and 2. The treatment could have consequences that include death. It's humane and a gift to those who shouldn't have to spend their final hours of life in pain and agony. And doctors, in close consultation with patient (if possible), and family, shouldn't have to tip-toe around it.

-----------------

[Karried]

Very well said Writerranger.

That's the thing that haunted my best friend this year after her mom died of cancer.

My friend is still racked with guilt because she knew her mom suffered from so much pain and writhed and moaned in pain for weeks before her death.

I can't help but think 'what was the point or reason for that? ' she was a great person and didn't deserve to have to suffer that way.

[BailJumper]

Honestly, if I was in that situation and the loved one did not want to go on. I'd leave them alone with a bottle of pain medication and let them do what they felt was best.

[Karried]

I'd leave them alone with a bottle of pain medication and let them do what they felt was best.

Do you think you might be prosecuted for Murder as you were the one that left the meds there?

Say the patient couldn't walk or get out of bed to get the meds?