Euthanasia.Right or wrong?

[roomy]

i

 

[Abbey Normal]

I noticed in the article that even this term has gone PC- it is now called "assisted dying"?

 

[dmp]

I noticed in the article that even this term has gone PC- it is now called "assisted dying"?

did you know that Yams and sweet potatoes aren't even distantly related?

 

[Abbey Normal]

did you know that Yams and sweet potatoes aren't even distantly related?

Do tell! :kiss2:

Oh Lord! PLEASE bring back your last avatar.

 

[Bonnie]

I noticed in the article that even this term has gone PC- it is now called "assisted dying"?

My favorite is " Murder oooops I mean "Death With Dignity"

 

[deaddude]

did you know that Yams and sweet potatoes aren't even distantly related?

Of course they are distantly related, the are both forms of plant life and are therefore both in the kingdom of plants, and there is your distant relation.

 

[jillian]

My favorite is " Murder oooops I mean "Death With Dignity"

I think we're kinder to our pets than we are to people.

 

[Abbey Normal]

did you know that Yams and sweet potatoes aren't even distantly related?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

More fat, ugly chick jokes

 

[Abbey Normal]

More fat, ugly chick jokes

You mean like this?

 

[jillian]

The right to life - euthanasia and assisted suicide

Next month's debate in the House of Lords could begin the process of changing the law on euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. To help doctors decide where they stand, this week's BMJ publishes a range of opinions.

People who want assisted suicide should have the same rights as patients who can end their lives by refusing life sustaining treatment, argues retired barrister Margaret Branthwaite.

She points out that public support for legislation to permit assisted dying has grown from 69% in 1976 to 82% in 2004, and that most professional bodies have now adopted a neutral stance.

Data from countries where assisted dying has been legalised also answer some of the concerns expressed by opponents of the proposed legislation, she adds. For example, in the US state of Oregon, the number of assisted suicides has changed little under Oregon's Death with Dignity Act.

These views are echoed in an ethical analysis by Professor Torbjorn Tannsjo, who argues that a system for euthanasia would mean that people could approach the terminal phase of their lives without fear. "They would know that, if, when their turn comes, and things turn out to be terrible, they have a way out," he writes.

But in another article, senior palliative care doctors warn that legalised euthanasia would leave vulnerable groups open to therapeutic killing without consent.

Rob George and colleagues argue that assisted suicide cannot be separated from euthanasia, and reject the arguments that legalised euthanasia promotes autonomy of the dying in general or that any safeguards are ethically sustainable.

Before another bill is laid before parliament, doctors must consider all the moral and practical implications of legalisation, they write.

The adequacy of safeguards in any proposed legislation will also be a priority for the British Medical Association, which has recently adopted a neutral policy on assisted dying. From the BMA's perspective, a neutral position entails a campaign for better palliative care, robust safeguards for patients, training and support for health professionals, and clear conscientious objection clauses.

Finally, research among doctors in the Netherlands shows that, although with the introduction of review procedures for euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide the public oversight and legal control has increased, almost half of all euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are still not reported.

Personally I agree with assisted suicide.Obviously all cases should be dealt with on merit.

Rob George isn't a scientist. He's an evangelist associated with these groups

http://www.ichthus.org.uk/Group/Group.aspx?ID=25643

http://www.evangelicals.org/news.asp?id=362

And while I respect his and his fellow believers' rights to their pov, it doesn't belong affecting others who don't share their beliefs. While it's certainly appropriate to raise his issues in an ethical sense, it does seem that interference with people's rights to make these choices would be enacting religious dogma.

 

[dmp]

Rob George isn't a scientist. He's an evangelist associated with this group

Would his opinion carry more weight in your eyes if he WERE a scientist?

 

[jillian]

Would his opinion carry more weight in your eyes if he WERE a scientist?

I just think it's clear he has an agenda. Again, I think the issues he raises are fair game for ethical discussion. I just don't want his agenda enacted into law or preventing people who don't believe as he does from making their own personal choices.

 

[dmp]

I just think it's clear he has an agenda. Again, I think the issues he raises are fair game for ethical discussion. I just don't want his agenda enacted into law or preventing people who don't believe as he does from making their own personal choices.

Scientists can have agendas too Depends who is funding them.

 

[jillian]

Scientists can have agendas too Depends who is funding them.

Absotively....

I just think these things should be up to individuals and the State shouldn't have anything to do with them at all.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Scientists can have agendas too Depends who is funding them.

As it turns out, I'm funding most of them. I'm rich, bitch.

 

[Bonnie]

I think we're kinder to our pets than we are to people.

Very true!!

 

[Bonnie]

Rob George isn't a scientist. He's an evangelist associated with these groups

http://www.ichthus.org.uk/Group/Group.aspx?ID=25643

http://www.evangelicals.org/news.asp?id=362

And while I respect his and his fellow believers' rights to their pov, it doesn't belong affecting others who don't share their beliefs. While it's certainly appropriate to raise his issues in an ethical sense, it does seem that interference with people's rights to make these choices would be enacting religious dogma.

Or possibly saving human life?

 

[jillian]

Or possibly saving human life?

Depends on how you define "saving".

I just think in listening to what someone says, it's important to know where they're coming from.

 

[Bonnie]

Absotively....

I just think these things should be up to individuals and the State shouldn't have anything to do with them at all.

My Grandmother had a stroke which left her in a coma like state, but she could respond with her eyes and even cry when one of us came in the room. My grandfather was willing to do whatever it took for her to get well or not, but Florida likes to kill em quickly to make room for the next one, so he and all of us had no say in whether she lived or died. Her prognosis was not hopeless, but the doctors had to pull the plug, state rules... I can't imagine how my grandfather felt watching them kill her.