What is your stance on euthenasia?

[knight_of_the_star]

Very simply, currently it is illegal to put a suffering human out of their misery and end their life when it is obvious that they will be stuck living in pain or even worse only existing because of life support systems. At the same time, people go to veterenarians all the time to put their old, sick, and dying pets to sleep to "end the suffering".

Now, I am curious as to everyone's opinion on this. Do you see human and animal euthenasia as different or the same?

[HysteryDiagnosis]

1. I think they should grow up have kids just like anyone else... eom.

[Lars39]

2. That was bad. lol

:spank:

[kevsand]

22. Back in the early seventies,

when I was still in college, one of my classmates was asked what he thought about euthanasia, and he said "I think we should bring them all home." Unfortunately, he was completely serious, but I'm still laughing about it thirty years later...

[Orangepeel]

3. i am against "euthenasia"

and i hate that people call suicide and assisted suicide "euthenasia" because it makes it sound like something one does to a sick dog (whether or not it is technically a correct term)

i do, however, firmly believe that people have a right to make decisions about their own lives, including when and under what circumstances their lives should end.

[uppityperson]

4. History lesson here, advice and opinions of course

Pain meds can be used to euthanize someone and it happens all the time, quietly, among family members. I know from both sides, being a nurse and being a family member. It is very difficult, but can be the humane thing to do. All the talk about making it easier to kill people that society doesn't care for is bs because race, religion, income all matter as to whether anyone cares about if you live or die.

Wayyyyyy back in 1976 pain medicine was withheld from people dying of things like cancer because of the fear that they would "get addicted" to it. Thanks to people like Elisabeth Kubler-Ross, health care's vision of death (and publics vision) began to change to realize that death is a normal part of life, and death with dignity and without undue pain is a good thing.

I knew nurses in 1980 who would not give ordered pain meds because it might addict someone who was going to die soon, and besides "they" would not wish to die addicted, so no one else should either.

Forward to the current time. Hospice exists to help people who are dying. Different hospices have different qualifying factors, but you do have to be dying to be helped. Pain medicine is much more available, but still is addictive. Some doctors are more likely to order pain meds than others.

Death is becoming more acceptable, I mean to accept that it happens, but is still difficult and we as a society are not there yet in accepting the inevitable. As I wrote before, who you are changes how people look at your death but we all die.

If you know you are dying and will be, might be, or are in pain, make sure you get a doctor who will order enough pain meds, even if you do not need it. Shop around. Talk with your family about what you want to have happen and get a living will if you can because everything will help.

[Jokinomx]

20. Thank you for your post...

I also know this happens...for it happened in my Family. A loved one was dying of emphysema and was in great pain. The Doctor stated that more morphine would cause this person to have even more difficulty breathing and may cause death. NO ONE wanted this person to suffer anymore. Of course the decision was to alleviate the pain... thus the consequence of that was death.

For those of you who can't accept that it is better to die than to suffer in pain... God be with you when you don't have any other choices left and you are in agony.

Why are people so afraid to die? We all will do it someday... just let me die with dignity!!

[uppityperson]

24. Same here.

A parent was dying, a doctor told both my parents all that could be done was give mrphine for the pain, question asked "won't that interefere with respirations?", answered simply "yes". Looks all around, decision was ok. All us kids knew the outcome would be death, whether we helped or not. Morphine was ordered every hour if the patient needed it. Even after being unconsious, the patient needed it, according to we family. It took a few hours rather than days. The end result would be the same, dead parent. It was very difficult, but it was the humane loving thing to do.


I really don't care about Ms.Schiavo, but do care that the government is trying to control this.

[laylah]

5. My stance on euthenasia

is like my stance on every other thing that SHOULD be a personal decision...I may not agree with it but who died and made ME God? However, in this case, I do agree with the premise. We treat our dogs/cats/horses/etc better in this area than we do our fellow humans. I know, for me, I sure as hell wouldn't want to be kept alive artificially...I want to go onto the NEXT party :hippie:

Jenn

[alarimer]

7. I agree with you

I think it is up to the people involved. Everyone shoud make it clear to their loved ones (preferably in a legally binding document) what their wishes are. That does not absolutely guarantee they will be carried out but at least it will hopefully prevent another situation like Terry Schiavo's. I am absolutely horrified, however, that a hospital in Texas was allowed to euthanize a baby against his parents wishes. And here I thought Texas was supposed to be pro-life. That is the slippery slope I worry about, when the government or an institution decides people get to live or get treatment based on the ability to pay. That is eugenics, nothing more. And it outrages me. Not that the little kid had much chance at life; he was probably doomed. But the parents get to make that decision, not anyone else.

[BootinUp]

6. I believe it should be between the patient...

the family and the doctor. Thats all I have to say.

[Mr.Green93]

9. Shouldn't society have a say?

Who is paying for a this?

[BootinUp]

11. Paying for what? I don't understand that question.

I'll take a stab at the first question next.

[demokatgurrl]

26. No, "society" has no say in my life choces, my reproductive

choices, my death choices, my sexual choices. NONE. Period.

[burrowowl]

19. One should have a living will

You would be surprised at the various reactions in a family and most of them for personal greed reasons and not the well-being and relief from suffering of the dying person.

[IDemo]

8. With today's news on Terri Schiavo, this is a timely topic.

An incredible stretch of logic equates removing her feeding tube, resulting in her starvation over a ~two week period, to be deemed somehow 'humane', legal, and righteous. But the willful decisions of terminal cancer patients to purposely end their lives with or without Dr. Kervorkian's methods are somehow unethical, immoral, and illegal.

I'm not so sure, after viewing video of Terri Schiavo smiling, and of her smile brightening after hearing the voice of her mother, that the term 'braindead' is entirely appropriate. While she obviously doesn't enjoy anything close to 'normal' brain function, something is apparently still alive within her. But if the quality of life issue has made it apparent that her life should or must be ended, there is no ethical or moral reason to make starvation the cause of death ('natural causes'?), versus a relatively quick medical solution.

This is a terribly sad story, and one which my own family underwent similar circumstances a decade ago. I don't believe that death by starvation is pleasant, regardless of the mental state of the patient.

[BootinUp]

10. I don't get how anyone

can view the starvation method as humane. Total ignorance is all I can come up with.

[MissWaverly]

12. I don't believe in starvation either but

I don't want the government to make these decisions, I know that when my mother was terminal, she was given nothing for the pain because if she was (then she could slip away.) I still don't understand that, why not, if you are dying, why prolong suffering. I wonder, it the same is true, here. We don't know all the facts so we cannot decide, and I don't think that the Congress should decide either, look at what a mess the country is in now.

[BootinUp]

13. The Schiavo case and others like it

should be decided based on humane standards, I think, and the government should pick up the tab if the family is out of money. I am not saying it is a perfect solution. Are you saying Terry Schiavo may be suffering pain? I guess I hadn't considered that. I know there is some debate about her wishes. On that question I say let the legal guardian make a humane choice. I am just saying that starvation does not meet that criteria IMHO.

[MissWaverly]

14. all I know is what happened to my mother

look it's hard to realize what's it's like at that stage, but my mother's body was not functioning at 100%, it was more like 60%, so if she had pain medication, it would come crashing down like a house of cards, she was breathing very shallow breaths and with pain medication then she would relax and slip away, the court doctors said Terry had severe brain damage, so maybe her body is not functioning at 100% either, especially if she has to be fed thru a tube, I know that my mother hated when any tubes were inserted in her for any reason, and begged not to have them and they wanted us to overrule her and we didn't at the end. All we are seeing is a posed photo, we don't know what is going on there. At the end, when she couldn't talk, my mother wrote with her finger Hel n her. (Hell in here).

[BootinUp]

15. I agree that we do not know near enough

to make these decisions in another families case. I have not been through anything like this, saddened to hear that about your mother's illness.

[MissWaverly]

16. thanks

that's why no wants their relatives to become political footballs, for god's sakes, but I think that Schiavo entire family needed heavy counseling at the beginning.

[IDemo]

21. I'm not a Catholic. In fact, I'm an atheist, but

this article points out that removal of a feeding tube may in fact be the exact opposite of a 'painless' death.

[nonconformist]

17. I watched my grandmother die a slow, agonizing death

She died of cancer. For a long time, there was absolutely no hope. She was terminal. Still, she suffered in great pain for a long time before her poor body finally succumbed.

After witnessing something like that and what it can do to your entire family, I knew wholeheartedly that in a compassionate society, euthanasia is an option. If that is what a terminally ill patient choses, who am I to tell them to suffer?

[KT2000]

18. Before deciding this

people should spend some time in a nursing home where there is real suffering going on. Doctors are afraid to prescribe very much pain medication, thanks to the RW meddling - doctors can be brought up to the medical boards for "over prescribing" pain meds.

What passes for acceptable medical treatment includes leaving patients in great pain. That is a reality. Those who assume a moral high ground that includes allowing people to suffer in pain, short change them on pain meds and think themselves holy for prolonging their lives make me sick.

[Guaranteed]

23. Euthanasia is actually killing someone.

The term means "good death," but it is not applied in cases where life support is being removed. The term applies to those cases where some action is taken to kill a person, as opposed to removing life support or otherwise in order to allow them to die.

Ethically, I don't see much difference between the two concepts, because ultimately the decision to allow someone to die or to euthanize them must be determined by the circumstances that the dying person is in. The action's ethical value is not affected when the death itself is justified by those circumstances which also determine whether the action is allowing someone to die or euthanasia.

On edit: www.dictionary.com doesn't make this distinction, but this is the way I learned to use the term.

[demokatgurrl]

25. I need an "option 3" on this poll

While I believe every person has the right to decide when and under what conditions they wish to call it quits, NO ONE has the right to make that decision for someone else. This is why all of us should have a living will, and should tell our wishes to at least one person we can trust. So that would be option 3: No one has the right to force anyone's decision or to make it for them, whether that decision is to live or die.

In this case, I don't know what Schiavo ever told her family but I would assume her family is much more likely to know her wishes than her husband (or is it ex-husband? see how out of touch I am) and CERTAINLY better than that asshat Tom DeLay knows. He has his own issues to deal with.

[serryjw]

27. If I have the right to poison

myself with food, drugs,smoking, alcohol why should I not have the right to die when I want?
It is the ultimate freedom. Now if your problem can be alleviated and you REALLY don't WANT to dies, it's the responsibility of friends and family to do something