The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > We should respect the dying wishes of the terminally ill > Comments

We should respect the dying wishes of the terminally ill : Comments

By Leslie Cannold, published 14/2/2007

We should have the freedom to decide about euthanasia, according to our needs and values.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
yvonne,
I can understand your desire to make euthanasia 'moral', after you have admitted to unlawfully killing people with little to no remorse for this illegal act.

I may not be able to read dutch, but I certainly have close friends who do. So lets look at how it has gone ....

For instance, in 30 years, Holland has moved through assisted suicide to euthanasia (according to their definition). From euthanasia of the terminally ill, through to chronically ill. From physical illness to mental illness. From mental illness to mental suffering. From voluntary euthanasia to involuntary euthanasia (or the dutch euphamism of "termination of the patient without explicit request"

Government commisions have found that over a 1/3 of deaths in the Netherlands involved a medical decision at the end of life.. Around 1/6 of all deaths involved physicians hastening death with medical treatment. Official Euthanasia according to the strict Dutch definition was 2% (around 2300 in 1990, of which 400 were for mental illness or discomfort). Thousands (roughly 15%) of these medical decisions were without the request of the patient.

Perhaps you live in a fairyland where the legalisation of euthanasia in the netherlands has lessened it's occurance, but a quick perusal of history shows that legalisation of criminal offenses only increases the occurance of things.
Posted by Grey, Wednesday, 21 February 2007 1:00:00 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grey don't stress. While you are fit and healthy no one is going to euthanase you, and when you are terminally ill you might not feel the same way about the sanctity of human life. And if you are euthanased you won't be able to complain and perhaps your family will be relieved not to have to watch your suffering or nurse you for 24 hours a day with no respite.
Posted by billie, Wednesday, 21 February 2007 5:17:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grey
If you feel like answering someone's post, please answer the question and do not try to second guess what that person wants. How can you understand what I or anyone else wants?

The question is: Why is it wrong? Why can euthanasia not be legalised? Why should the wishes of the terminally ill not be respected? As for tantrums, in 30years in the health profession I have yet to see a dying person "throw a tantrum like a 5 year old".

If you can't or won't answer a straight question, have you thought of going into politics?

Incidentally, in the Netherlands there is no "right" to euthanasia. No one can go to his doctor and ask to be helped to end his life. Certainly not a mentally ill person or an aged person. Euthanasia is only legal when it has fulfilled very strict guidelines. Otherwise it is a criminal offence.

Something to think about, unlike in Australia where no Doctor has been convicted of killing a patient, in the Netherlands there have been. Interesting isn't it?
Posted by yvonne, Wednesday, 21 February 2007 6:15:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grey

Come in spinner :)

I assumed your response would be about ethics, as advised by the born again movement. Hence my recent post about original thought.

My use of the words, choice and right were also very intentional. I have never said I have a right to anything, all I have is a choice.

Can you please have the intellectual honesty to say that your religious views make euthanasia abhorent to you? Fair enough in my view.

No you can't, you obfuscate about ethics and morals. My morals are mine, yours are yours, both valid.

Your refusal to give your real reasons for your objection to euthanasia speaks volumes. If you just say my religious views make it clear that it is wrong I can accept that.

But no, you parrot the how to oppose euthanasia from the loopy religious bloggers and organisations. Who advise first and foremost not to mention religion.

I call that intellectual bankruptcy, fair dinkum mate, be honest with us and yourself. :)
Posted by Steve Madden, Wednesday, 21 February 2007 8:29:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grey

As we know, it is not against Australian law to withhold or withdraw life sustaining treatment.

Why are you in favour of having people slowly and painfully die of suffocation (withdrawing oxygen) or starvation and dehydration (withdrawing nutrients and water) in our hospitals?

How cruel!

The alternative is to offer patients a quicker and more humane death.

Like Yvonne, I am also interested in the question: WHY is it wrong?
Posted by Celivia, Wednesday, 21 February 2007 8:57:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grey... what you don't seem to be registering, is that your argument is being attacked upon grounds of obfuscation - you haven't clearly stated your case, while Steve Madden has.

(Correct me if I'm wrong) but your argument is that most philosophers won't defend euthanasia because you can't have varying morals for an issue such as this. One individual cannot be subject to one moral judgement, while others are free to live (or die) differently.
Your other argument was that there is inconsistency between opposing the death penalty and defending euthanasia.

This wasn't easy to dissect, and I apologise if I misrepresented your argument - as I said, correct it if I am wrong.

The reason why I restate it, is because I believe there is a certain level of obfuscation in your argument - you aren't being direct. If you can restate your case in clearer terms, perhaps it will find purchase.
I can't help but feel you have strong beliefs, but have difficulty justifying them.

In response to the arguments above I say, that Steve Madden's argument really points out the moral aspect pretty well. In my view Freedom of choice should extent to pretty much everywhere it does not harm others, and this is among the most important of all choices - so it should be made by the individual.

This argument holds true for the second argument as well - to have death foisted upon you is quite different to choosing it yourself.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 22 February 2007 1:39:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy