Donate SIGN UP

Euthanasia

Avatar Image
david51058 | 11:06 Tue 15th Feb 2011 | Society & Culture
30 Answers
If a much loved pet gets an incurable illness and is obviously suffering it is considered the kindest thing to do is to put it to sleep. However if a much loved relative is suffering and in pain with an incurable illness and wishes to leave this world, we ignore their wishes and we must keep them alive at all costs, however much they are suffering.
It's illogical and cruel and please don't anyone bring religion into it as that is irrelevent.
Gravatar

Answers

21 to 30 of 30rss feed

First Previous 1 2

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by david51058. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
We make that decision for animals (as they can't tell us what they want), who makes it for humans?
My husband made his wishes clear. The hospital moved him to the palliative ward where he was given drugs to keep him asleep and free from pain and was not actively kept alive. He died peacelfully 16 days later free from the appalling pain he was in.
I'm not sure which hospitals are good, and which are bad...
maybe if people can write which hospitals these are, the area and country...

maybe people who know of someone suffering can get their hospital to transfer the sufferer to that hospital?

Naz, I think it's the nurses who make the decision... and sounds like in a lot of cases, they could be wrong...
It shouldn't be the nurses...The "rules" require that a doctor should be involved, should document the decision and circs (who agreed, who discussed with) and prescribe the drugs.
I think I used the wrong word here... I don't know much about the hierarchy of hospitals, but I meant fundamentally the people who look after the patient with the health knowledge.
"we ignore their wishes and we must keep them alive at all costs, however much they are suffering.
It's illogical and cruel and please don't anyone bring religion into it as that is irrelevent. " actually not correct, they have the right to refuse treatment and they have the right not to be resuscitated, to go against these rights could lead to abuse charges being brought.
Get a "living will" put in place while you are sane!!!
Firstly, I completely agree euthanasia should be legalised and I find it as illogical as the next person.

I would not agree with someone suffering depression being euthanised. Depression is a disorder ultimately caused by chemical imbalances in the brain, and sometimes symptoms include suicidal tendencies. I would not agree that someone suffering clinical depression is on a par with someone suffering from, for example, MS or terminal cancer. If it were legalised there would have to be documented proof that the disease is untreatable, coupled with a psychological analysis of the person being euthanised to confirm they are mentally capable of making an informed decision. The exception would of course be with someone who is unable to communicate their wishes (i.e. someone in a coma), in which case that person cannot be euthanised unless they have made a legally viable will stating their wishes clearly.

There will ALWAYS be arguments against euthanasia - a lot of "what ifs" and "buts". What if a person in a coma changed their mind in their coma? What if someone uses it to their advantage in order to speed up the death of someone? What if God is real and we're sending our loved ones to hell? (For the record I believe the latter is a ridiculous argument, but you have to take all arguments into account).

In the end you have to weigh up the pros and cons of what is effectively legalised killing. Yes, if it were legalised, at some point in the future a horror story is going to crop up. Does that possibility mean hundreds upon hundreds of people of sound mind, with loving families, need to go through daily humiliation, indignity, pain and suffering for no purpose than to appease the sanctimonious minority? I don't think so.

By the way, you cannot say religion is irrelevant. As much as I despise religion, there's no escaping the fact it plays a massive part in the reason behind euthanasia being illegal. Th
Now that is a well structured detailed argument, one that should be send to National Health Authorities, tell them to put it in their pipe and SMOKE IT!

I think the main fear nurses/doctors have, is that they might be tried for murder?
A story I have is:
People are weird, and will sometimes go to any lengths to make things up to make other people look bad... and nurses/doctors will not be allowed to go into that line of work again.

I know of a girl that was bullied by other nurses, they spiked her drink so she would have to stay in a psychotic ward. I heard that she was under risk of loosing her nursing job, and not being allowed in that line of work ever again... she was a lovely girl as well.
Ratter, that only helps if someone is in the final stages of their illness and will die without intervention. Many people who want euthanasia legalised are suffering from degenerative diseases where they will ultimately die, but it will be a long drawn out death. Diseases such as MS and motor neurone disease will completely rob them of any kind of quality of life but they will be unable to even commit suicide because the disease robs them of the physical ability. In cases like that it's not just a matter of preventing intervention, but of actually enabling them to die at a point of their choosing.

21 to 30 of 30rss feed

First Previous 1 2

Do you know the answer?

Euthanasia

Answer Question >>