More On Euthanasia

Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by Annie, Apr 10, 2005.

  1. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-995117_1,00.html





    Seems the blogsphere is starting to go hunting for articles related post Shaivo. For those with a viewpoint, this is the kind of information that should be brought to the attention of state legislators, so that hearings and guidelines can be formulated.
     
  2. Mr. P
    Offline

    Mr. P Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    11,329
    Thanks Received:
    618
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South of the Mason Dixon
    Ratings:
    +620
    Or, do we prosecute these folks for murder and allow these decisions to remain a private matter?
     
  3. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    The article was from the UK, the issues pertain to all the 'advanced nations' where technology in utero is making it possible to detect; sometimes fix, sometimes not birth defects. Technology is also allowing people to live longer than expected. I think it's not much of a leap to realize that some will come to the 'belief' that poor old people are a nuisance or that their quality of life is not worth living. That is a slippery slope.

    Personally I think people need to take some ownership of the technological changes that are happening so quickly now. First though, there really needs to be discussions in the media and other venues such as state legislatures. I don't think that it is reasonable to have a 22 year old deciding that if they need 'extraordinary means' to stay alive, they want to refuse. That would include electro-shock of the heart that could be brought on by trauma. They aren't getting that, instead they are seeing themselves as their 'grandparents' and not wanting it. Of course, they aren't their grandparents age either, so really are not in a position to put themselves in their shoes either.
     
  4. Mr. P
    Offline

    Mr. P Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    11,329
    Thanks Received:
    618
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South of the Mason Dixon
    Ratings:
    +620
    I'm reminded of Eskimos..It think it was Eskimos...anyway, when the old realize they are a burden they walk away in the middle of the night and die of exposure. Different cultures, different practices, I guess. Do I want to see that in our culture? No, but I think there comes a point, especially with the technological advances, we must ask, why are we keeping someone alive, is it for us, or them just so they can die alittle later?
     
  5. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Mr. P., I think that each community, state, country what have you will have to wrestle with these questions. For each individual family, they will have to make their choices. To my way of thinking, if I had a chronic illness or the doctors told my family that they 'could keep me alive' on machines to keep an organ functioning, well that would be a bit much. On the other hand, to withhold nourishment and hydration? No, to do so is barbaric, IMO. On the level of abortion to me, I would not physically get involved to stop those, but I will speak out and try to get the laws changed.
     
  6. Mr. P
    Offline

    Mr. P Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    11,329
    Thanks Received:
    618
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South of the Mason Dixon
    Ratings:
    +620
    I may not be following you here...Not sure..
    On "withhold nourishment and hydration" it happens ALL the time, every day. I do look at it as life support..simple test..if ya don't have it you will die.
     
  7. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Well I don't think it should be witheld, if death is not imminent. Now many very sick people stop eating. If we are speaking of hours/days, that is different. But to withold when someone is alright, with only needed food and water, no.
     
  8. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Technology is not perfect so when a person is unable to communicate we have absolutely no PERFECT way to determine that persons level of awareness. I don't think we are quite ready as a society to have people just smothering grandma in the back yard if we find her physical condition disgusting.
     
  9. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    So are you saying that doctors should decide who's too sick to recieve life support?
     
  10. freeandfun1
    Offline

    freeandfun1 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Messages:
    6,201
    Thanks Received:
    295
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +296
    Key point is THEY, the sick ones, make that choice. Not somebody else.
     

Share This Page