Originally posted by FallenI don't need to necessarily understand everything about the universe, or everything about something I believe in. Christianity, for example, who really understands it all? We aren't meant to understand it, some things aren't meant to be understood in this plane of existence. You, with your always questioning mindset (Not a shot at you, just saying you have an inquisitive nature) should surely appreciate that.i wasn't necessarily referring to your religious beliefs, though i think it has a lot to do with why you take certain stances on certain issues. regardless, i don't think you really understand why you take up positions that you tirelessly argue for, even from a secular point of view.
by flip flop i mean that you argue for one side and then say something that completely contradicts what you were arguing in the first place. there are instances in the past regarding debate topics where you've done this.
I am against abortion because despite some people saying the fetus at some stage is just a lump of cells and is not self aware, it is a potential human life.
I am against the death penalty because again, I don't think we have the right to say "Dude, you are gonna die now."
I am against euthanasia because I don't think it is up to is to decide when to end a human life. BUT....As I explained earlier, the amount of pain one is in has to be considered, I guess. And let me say pulling the plug on life support is acceptable before someone brings up me saying it is not up to us to decide when to end a human life. Why? Because we aren't applying something to the body that KILLS it.
These are my stances, and maybe they are flawed, but everyone has flaws in their beliefs. There are always holes in their theories.
Originally posted by Fallen
a) i don't either, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. many fear that by legalizing voluntary euthanasia, doctors will start practicing involuntary euthanasia as a means to relieve the suffering of a patient (out of benevolent motives such as compassion).Well, as I said, that is a slippery slope fallacy, and does not really need to be addressed at all. There's no reason why that should happen, and the argument is certainly not valid agains euthanasia.
b) you didn't think my assessment of the goal of medicine was accurate. i was explaining to you that it was, then further elaborated on what the goals were.
But even you say that "promoting well-being is a primary goal of medicine"...key word being "a", as in, there are more. My point is not that promoting well being is not a goal of medicine, it is that it is not the only one and easing suffering is already another. As such you don't actually have to redefine the goals, euthanasia is pretty much included.
okay, let me see if i can explain this better...
the goal of medicine is to promote well-being and respect patient autonomy (self-determination). respect for patient autonomy includes honoring patient consent and acknowledging the patient's idea of well-being. in acknowledging a patient's idea of well-being, doctors need to respect a patient's decision regarding treatment, which may include rejecting treatment.
now, under the idea of respect for patient autonomy, theoretically, patients should have a right to request euthanasia as a means to relieve suffering. however, many believe that killing goes against the goals of medicine. throughout history, doctors have prolonged life, reduced suffering, or accepted a patient's request to reject or stop treatment. taking measures to actually kill a patient to promote well-being has traditionally not been associated with the goals of medicine.
this is where the slippery slope argument comes into play...
1) if doctors can legally kill patients who are suffering from a terminal illness and have consented to die, some doctors might feel compelled to end a patient's suffering out of compassion and without consent. this goes completely against respect for patient autonomy and patient consent.
2) if terminally ill patients who are suffering are allowed to request euthanasia, this could open the door to patients who simply want to die and aren't afflicted will an illness. first off, patients who seek medical attention have some sort of medical affliction. it doesn't make sense to euthanize patients who aren't ill and have no medical reasons to be killed. doctors would be working outside the scope of medicine if they committed such acts.
let's bring this all together now...
if patient autonomy and patient consent is continually violated, and doctors are killing patients who don't have a medical reason to be killed, the public looses faith in the medical system. people already have a hard time grasping that killing to end suffering is permissible. if doctors are killing patients and the following events did occur, the institution of medicine could collapse. and to prevent all the negative outcomes i just mentioned, restrictions need to be placed. society benefits from the medical system and its only logical to protect it.
so there you have it. 😊 hopefully, i explained my case or at least made it more clear. i sometimes think sporadically and don't always fill in the needed gabs.
as for the restrictions, earlier i mentioned ones that i thought were pretty good.
Well, as I just stated, a) I think that in some cases doctors already try to ease suffering, even at the cost of shortening a terminally ill patients life, as such euthanasia is not really far off, and just a different form of what doctors are already doing and b) a slippery slope argument is not valid. It does not follow that doctors get desensitized and go on killing sprees, there's no reason to assume that it is more likely than it is now, and it would still be illegal. As for anyone that wants to die getting the help to do so, well...so?
A good argument against the slippery slope (besides that it makes no sense) is also Switzerland, where assisted suicide is legal, yet nothing of the sort happened, in fact, people that suffer from other countries come to Switzerland to be helped.
Originally posted by Fallen
i'm still not sure what that means.active euthanasia involves one person taking a direct action that results in another person's death. isn't assisted suicide the same thing? one person is still taking an action that will kill someone.
oregon's euthanasia law is considered active voluntary euthanasia. the doctor is prescribing deadly medication to a patient, who later takes the medication to end their life. the doctor prescribing the mediction is the action that defines euthanasia.
Well, let me explain. Euthanasia means that you mercy kill someone that is suffering from a terminal disease or a disease which severely, while assisted suicide means to provide the ability for the patient to kill themselves. So, some people see assisted suicide is a sub category of euthanasia. Obviously it gets all very confusing, due to the broad and different nature of definitions for either term. But, I used it to mark the difference between what you referred to in your slippery slope argument. Euthanasia referring to killing a terminally ill patient, while assisted suicide may be administered to a terminally ill person, just as much as, well, someone that just doesn't want to really live anymore.
I feel that it should be held to personal discretion, so no. I do not think Euthansia should be ilegal. If it were, indeed, legal there should be some major regulations implemented but my body is my own. The fact that such things as, suicide laws, death taxes and euthnasia laws exist, suggests that we don't even own our bodies but are renting them from the gomment. We are told we can die slowly and painfully because that malignant tumor at the center of our brain requires an exotic surgery. your insurance doesn't cover that surgery so you won't get the tumor removed you now have to die, slowly.
It's bullshit. Most Dr's agree and thats why they sometimes fly under the radar and appease the requests from families and send people on their way with a morphine drip. I know it's a morbid and moral subject but it is a clear answer for me. Our bodies and lives are the only true thing that we will ever really own. So, if buddy wants to end things short..,well, thats decision
an extremely late reply, i know, but a reply nevertheless. (some free time, yay!)
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, as I just stated, a) I think that in some cases doctors already try to ease suffering, even at the cost of shortening a terminally ill patients life, as such euthanasia is not really far off, and just a different form of what doctors are already doing and b) a slippery slope argument is not valid. It does not follow that doctors get desensitized and go on killing sprees, there's no reason to assume that it is more likely than it is now, and it would still be illegal. As for anyone that wants to die getting the help to do so, well...so?
a)that's exactly the point though. some doctors are already doing it. if some are already committing such actions, its possible that these accounts might increase if euthanasia became legal. if killing patients under certain conditions is permissible, it wouldn't be so far off to reason that some doctors might feel that killing outside these set conditions is permissible. sure, involuntary euthanasia would still be illegal, but the very idea of permitting doctors to kill their patients is reason to fear that doctors will abuse the privilege. with any new right, there will be those who abuse it. and by abusing it, i don't mean doctors becoming desensitized and going on killing springs for the sake of killing. i mean killing in the name of benevolent motives. regardless of the consent factor, the goal of voluntary and involuntary euthanasia are the same: to relieve suffering.
but that's only one aspect of the slippery slope argument. the second aspect, i believe, is arguably more important...
b) doctors can't go around killing any patient who wants to die. if they did, they would be working outside the scope of medicine, as well as beyond their professional boundaries. at least that's what i think you were referring to, right? that anyone should have the ability to be euthanized for whatever reason? what you're suggesting would be the equivalent of doctors prescribing medication or treatment to patients who want them but don't have a medical reason for them. that makes no sense. doctors are not going to give their patients drugs because their patients simply want them. their patients must first need a medical reason to obtain such drugs.
to further extend the argument, do i think the government should officially legalize euthanasia outside of the medical context, no. why? well, for obvious reasons. the system WILL be abused, especially by the not-so benevolent.
in private, behind closed doors? well, that's a personal matter that i don't object if its someone's genuine and sincere will. the only issue is the possible consequences the one performing/assisting the kill might have to face, within or outside the law.
A good argument against the slippery slope (besides that it makes no sense) is also Switzerland, where assisted suicide is legal, yet nothing of the sort happened, in fact, people that suffer from other countries come to Switzerland to be helped.
yes, well, in swtizerland the option of euthanasia is only available to patients who meet a certain criteria. the restrictions that are in place are there to protect the medical system and all that is stands for. not anyone can legally be euthanized.
Originally posted by ragesRemorse
I feel that it should be held to personal discretion, so no. I do not think Euthansia should be ilegal. If it were, indeed, legal there should be some major regulations implemented but my body is my own. The fact that such things as, suicide laws, death taxes and euthnasia laws exist, suggests that we don't even own our bodies but are renting them from the gomment. We are told we can die slowly and painfully because that malignant tumor at the center of our brain requires an exotic surgery. your insurance doesn't cover that surgery so you won't get the tumor removed you now have to die, slowly.It's bullshit. Most Dr's agree and thats why they sometimes fly under the radar and appease the requests from families and send people on their way with a morphine drip. I know it's a morbid and moral subject but it is a clear answer for me. Our bodies and lives are the only true thing that we will ever really own. So, if buddy wants to end things short..,well, thats decision
i too, find it a bit ridiculous that its illegal for a person to commit suicide. on the other hand, i understand the reasoning behind such laws. the suicide laws are there to prevent people from coercing others to take their own lives, especially if the death results in material gain for someone.
though, if you think about it, most people who've attempted to end their lives are usually institutionalized instead of being convicted of a crime.
Originally posted by Fallen
an extremely late reply, i know, but a reply nevertheless. (some free time, yay!)a)that's exactly the point though. some doctors are already doing it. if some are already committing such actions, its possible that these accounts might increase if euthanasia became legal. if killing patients under certain conditions is permissible, it wouldn't be so far off to reason that some doctors might feel that killing outside these set conditions is permissible. sure, involuntary euthanasia would still be illegal, but the very idea of permitting doctors to kill their patients is reason to fear that doctors will abuse the privilege. with any new right, there will be those who abuse it. and by abusing it, i don't mean doctors becoming desensitized and going on killing springs for the sake of killing. i mean killing in the name of benevolent motives. regardless of the consent factor, the goal of voluntary and involuntary euthanasia are the same: to relieve suffering.
but that's only one aspect of the slippery slope argument. the second aspect, i believe, is arguably more important...
b) doctors can't go around killing any patient who wants to die. if they did, they would be working outside the scope of medicine, as well as beyond their professional boundaries. at least that's what i think you were referring to, right? that anyone should have the ability to be euthanized for whatever reason? what you're suggesting would be the equivalent of doctors prescribing medication or treatment to patients who want them but don't have a medical reason for them. that makes no sense. doctors are not going to give their patients drugs because their patients simply want them. their patients must first need a medical reason to obtain such drugs.
I don't think there should be "prescribed" drugs, all should be legal, doctors should just suggest what drugs to use. And I believe that a big part of being a doctor is to fight suffering, and how a person perceives suffering is very subjective. Most people that want to actually die, do have a reason. Though you and I might disagree with the reason, or find it minor, I believe it should still be the decision of the person how to deal with it.
Though, I guess I should state that I am not only for doctor assisted suicide, but really for any assisted suicide. I would agree that certain regulations should be in place, but they should be solely there to protect from harmful outside influences, not protect the person from themselves.
Originally posted by Fallen
to further extend the argument, do i think the government should officially legalize euthanasia outside of the medical context, no. why? well, for obvious reasons. the system WILL be abused, especially by the not-so benevolent.
Well, many things can be abused. That can be limited, to deny a whole group of people a dignified exit from their life, basically, taking control over their bodies...seems unfair.
Originally posted by Fallen
in private, behind closed doors? well, that's a personal matter that i don't object if its someone's genuine and sincere will. the only issue is the possible consequences the one performing/assisting the kill might have to face, within or outside the law.
That's the point though. They shouldn't face legal action, as they did not actually do anything wrong or unjust.
Originally posted by Fallen
yes, well, in swtizerland the option of euthanasia is only available to patients who meet a certain criteria. the restrictions that are in place are there to protect the medical system and all that is stands for. not anyone can legally be euthanized.
I believe that is not correct, or at least oversimplified. I don't think you need a chronic illness to be assisted in ending your life in Switzerland. I don't have the actual information available, I base it only on a documentary I have seen a few years back, but i believe that stated that basically anyone, that sincerely wants it, can get it in Swtzerland.
Originally posted by Fallen
though, if you think about it, most people who've attempted to end their lives are usually institutionalized instead of being convicted of a crime.
That seems worse to me.
Originally posted by lord xyzBecause they don't have the guts to do it.
One issue with Euthenasia is that even though they request to be killed to stop the suffering, most of them aren't prepared to preform the action themself. They don't have the guts to overdose to kill themself, so why should they tell someone else do it?
That one was easy, hit me with some more questions, mate.
out of curiosity, i actually looked up switzerland’s laws regarding euthanasia, or rather assisted suicide. apparently there is a difference between the two.
“Clarificaion of terms: assisted suicide is not euthanasia. Assisted suicide means helping the patient find the lethal drugs, giving advice and moral support, but leaving the patient to decide... Euthanasia is a doctor giving a lethal injection by request.”
i had briefly looked up the swiss laws earlier, but i guess i can’t really say wikipedia is a reliable source, considering that anyone can submit an entry. so i stand corrected.
“Switzerland has not had a law forbidding assisted suicide since the criminal code was revised in l937. The relevant law para.155 -- is interpreted to mean that anybody - doctor, nurse, family or friend - can assist a suicide of a physically sick person provided it is done for altruistic reasons. If assistance is given out of evil motives, or financial gain, then it is a crime -- but there are no known cases of prosecution. The law says nothing about visitors.
Neither the Netherlands nor Oregon will accept non-residents for help in dying -- the Dutch require that the physician has known the patient for several years, while Oregon law has a ‘residents only’ provision.
The more flexible law in Switzerland, together with four proactive organizations, means that interest has mounted from persons with intolerable physical health problems in surrounding countries which will not change their prohibition. Austria, Germany, France and Spain are affected.
My inquiries into the situation indicate this position currently:
EXIT- German speaking. With 50,000 members, this powerful Zurich group is the most active in helping Swiss citizens to die in appropriate cases. It does not help foreigners. The pentobarbital is obtained from the patient’s doctor, but the EXIT helper usually makes all the arrangements, even to handing over the lethal cocktail, but leaving just before death. EXIT always informs the local police of what happened, they check it out, and the death is officially recorded as suicide.
This organization gets just over 300 calls a year from people wanting help to die, with 120 actually getting assistance in an average year. Swiss professional medical groups as a policy discourage doctors engaging in assisted suicide, but some do when circumstances justify it, particularly when an intravenous injection is required.
Persons with mental health problems are not helped. Any doctor who writes a lethal prescription – almost always ten grams of pentobarbital -- for no acceptable reason is unlikely to be prosecuted but will lose his or her medical license.
here’s the link if anyone is interested: http://www.finalexit.org/practice.html
this new information sheds some new light on my stance. there is something to be said about keeping medical practitioners out of the procedure. i suspect it has a great deal to do with what i mentioned earlier about preserving the doctor-patient relationship and protecting the medical system. doctors who are caught performing euthanasia “for no acceptable reason” loose their medical license. that statement is so vague. what constitutes as unacceptable? do people need to have medical reason to die or can anyone just request to die?
also, the article mentions assisting the physically sick. i wonder if that includes the severely handicapped.
i have so many unanswered questions!
but i agree with the mental health competency stipulation.
so i guess the real question i have to ask myself is do i modify my stance? i haven’t decided yet. i agreed with euthanasia, but reserved it only in the medical context and only concerning those who had a medical reason (terminal illness, a condition that will not improve, the physically incapable). i even agreed with private cases of euthanasia and assisted suicide. but should either of the practices be officially legalized outside of the medical context? i think i would need to know how the different organizations in switzerland are conducting the practice and what standards they are implementing in deciding who gets help.
there’s also the factor that switzerland is a relatively small country with a relatively small population. how will legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide be taken in larger countries with larger populations?
however, i definitely think the medical system should be protected, especially if doctors are administering or playing a role in euthanasia or assisted suicide, which is the latter case in the U.S. well, just oregon really. i also still believe that the slippery slope is not entirely unreasonable. i think the concerns are justifiable.
Originally posted by Bardock42Yeah, convinced he wanted it. They could just be requesting to die just to ease with the pain.
If I was convinced he wanted it, and I would not get into legal trouble. Yeah, probably.
A story I was told by my teacher goes like this:
There was a patient experiencing excrutiating pain requesting to be killed. Of course euthanasia was illegal. The doctor simply gave her pills on the side and said "take two to ease with the pain, but anymore will end your life". She left the pills there and left the room. The next morning, to her surprise, the patient had taken none of the pills.
I have a hard time coping with the fact that there are people wanting to die.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Yeah, convinced he wanted it. They could just be requesting to die just to ease with the pain.
So?
Originally posted by lord xyz
A story I was told by my teacher goes like this:There was a patient experiencing excrutiating pain requesting to be killed. Of course euthanasia was illegal. The doctor simply gave her pills on the side and said "take two to ease with the pain, but anymore will end your life". She left the pills there and left the room. The next morning, to her surprise, the patient had taken none of the pills.
I have a hard time coping with the fact that there are people wanting to die.
That's a sad story, but a story I was told by my teacher goes like this:
There was a patient who just didn't want to go on living anymore, requesting to be killed. Of course euthanasia was illegal. The doctor simply gave her nothing and said "Dude, euthanasia is illegal". She then left the room. The next morning, to her surprise, the patient lay on the floor dead, it turned out he had stabbed himself 50 times, trying to kill himself but unable to fulfill it, the stab wounds alone must habe been excrutiatin, but when he fell out of his bad from extreme loss of blood he hit the floor head on and opened his skull feeling every second of it. After trying to call for help and crouching and struggling for a good hour he lost the use of his arms and just felt the constant pain of the stabs and his head wound, finally, after two hours of slow, struggling with suffocation he finally drowned in his own blood in endless agony, probably welcoming death more than ever.
I just have a hard time "coping" with the fact that some people don't want to help the suffering of people that want to die.