patches70 wrote:Some have said we shouldn't let people suffer in pain so we should have legal euthanasia. We have many wonderful drugs that will completely remove pain.
This is definitely not true. Wish it were, but go to any hospital and you will see and hear people suffering in agony.
patches70 wrote: A lot of the end of life care is just that, a drug induced stupor. Poor bastard dies on their own but with a nice morphine drip or other. Since there are plenty of options to relieve pain short of just killing the person, then that's not such a good argument for euthanasia.
HUH?
To some people what you describe as "life" is worse than a death. The loved ones are denied any real benefit from the person, since they are no longer able to interact. Some may hold out hope, but its medically a false idea.
What you describe is agony for the family, not to mention virtual garantee of indebtedness if the person is in the US. (keeping someone on machines is incredibly expensive!). It is even quite wearing on medical personnel, which, in turn, impacts how they treat other patients. Burn out is a very, very serious problem among nurses as it is.
patches70 wrote:Some say we should have euthanasia for the poor veggies drooling in their beds. They aren't in pain, however, just mindless and unaware. Why kill them? They aren't hurting anyone, they aren't in pain. I guess people get sick looking at them, but that's no reason to terminate them.
See above. Also, these people generally are not "just lying there". They often do have involuntary movements, may make sounds, may even seem to "rouse" at times. This is part of why some people think there is "hope".
Then you have what the actual care involves. The person still needs to be fed, albiet either through a tube in the throat or a vien (intravenous solution). They also deficate (pee, poop). They need to be bathed, changed. If they are not moving enough on their own (generally they do not, definitely not consistently), they need to be turned frequently. And.. there are other more advanced medical procedures they may require. (not going to get into all those details, but you can google them if you are interested).
None of the above is simple or easy on anyone involved. When it is, it is because the family has essentially come to terms with the fact that the person is dying and more or less "abaondons" them. Ironically, the person then is more likely to be subject to a long languishment. Its not that nurses and such will intentionally ignore the patient or give them poor care, but just think about how difficult it is to maintain day after day, month after month, even for years, when you know there is only the very slightest ('win the lottery type odds) chance of anything other than death resulting. Even when the outcome is "good", that does not mean a full return to life, it often means a still highly limited existance.
That last is the debate point, because many people want to say that any chance is enough to provide for these people's care, to require that we maintain them all and do not consider euthanasia. I want to again clarify that this is something people should think about and decide for themselves long before they are in that situation whenever possible. (and then revisit that decision when things change, whenever possible).
However, lets also put it into context. I spoke of lottery winning with intent. Most people know that lotteries are a fool's game. We may buy tickets, but pretty much know its lost money. Its just that we can afford to lose a buck or two here and there. Those who invest real money ... they have a problem. A serious problem!
But, strangely, when it comes to medical advances, people don't seem to want to think about odds. They don't want to think about anything but hope, the possibility of a good outcome.
Ironically enough, I believe this is a gross distortion of faith in most cases. Most faiths, not just Christianity, refer to "something" positive after death. In Christianity, we are taught not to seek death, but we are taught to accept it. It is very much a part of life. I find it extremely hypocritical to claim that God somehow is only condoning machines that will promote life and not giving us also the power and ability, is not demanding that we use the power and ability he has given us for thought to think equally about when "enough is enough".
patches70 wrote:Would you go citing costs then? The costs of keeping people alive is too much? Boil life down to dollar signs? So be it. Those of you who would wish to end your own lives, go for it. There are a million ways to off yourself with no need legalizing euthanasia.
I don't think you have a real idea of the kinds of money involved here or what is really involved in long term care for those who are terminal. Your above statement that "we have medicines for pain" is just one example of what I mean. I don't say this to be disrespectful. I know you are an intelligent, thoughtful person. Most people avoid these issues until it hits their family.
And that, well, is part of the problem. To declare such absolutes at a time when our society is just not even able to fully discuss these things is problematic in and of itself. I don't ahve the answer in this, but I do know that avoiding the issue and making flat statements (not that you have made this particular statement) like "God supports life" is not truth, is not a solution.
patches70 wrote:Forget letting The State decide who gets to be euthanized, I wouldn't feel very comfortable at all letting some stupid politician signing the death orders and then under threat of law force doctors to off patients. That's some Brave New World/Logan's Run stuff there.
Agreed. However, there are situations where family/friends are not around or able to make these decisions. In those cases, there have to be clear guidelines for doctors and hospitals to follow. They should involve specific consultations, though. The state's/societies' role is, as always to provide the safey bounds, the guidelines, to ensure that as little abuse as possible happens. It is not to actually make these decisions.
patches70 wrote:Europe has a few nations with legalized euthanasia, and as blombier stated it's not all that quick. "It's not a matter of days, but weeks" he says. That kind of tosses the whole "but they are in pain" argument doesn't it? Someone wants to off themselves, calls the euthanasia teams out and they give him mental support while the bastard languishes in pain for weeks while they decide if it's all right to administer the euthanasia.
No, its much more complicated than that. Also, ironically, the fact that someone is in pain can actually make people more cautious. The reason is as you said, becuase even if the pain is not entirely controlled, it can be reduced/people acclimate to even high levels of pain at a point, and there is much, much more hope of a new pain killer than of a cure for many diseases.
For many people, the idea of laying, absolutely useless on a bed, just waiting for the time when the machines quite or someone makes a mistake or the body finally wears out past the point even machines can correct is just plain repugnant and even a blasphemous distortion of God's plan and idea of life. (note. not referring specifically to Christianity in that, though you do see threads of that within some Christian thinking).
patches70 wrote:For Europe, Euthanasia kind of makes sense, from the dollar and cents point of view. Europe is dead broke, the EU is about to split up because the Europeans have spent all their money and are deeply in debt. Their socialized healthcare can't afford to keep the terminally ill alive. Better for the healthy if the sick are just killed off quicker.
I don't think I get your point here.
Truth is that in the US, most of these patients either bankrupt their families, drive up insurance costs for other policy holders horrendously or do both and then wind up being supported by taxpayers. How is that OK?
patches70 wrote:For the veggies, instead of just euthanasia, why not take all the samples needed and start harvesting their bodies for organ donation? A kidney here, a pair of eyes there, piece by piece sell them off. Surely that would be lest wasteful than just murdering them. Keep alive and their organs healthy.
I can understand your point, but I think this is a line most people are not willing to cross. The reason may not be sensical. However, there is a difference between simply letting a person die (and note, the line between what is euthansia and just natural death can often be just the line between whether someone hooked up a respirator or not.. and that can depend simply on whether there exists a living will already or not).
In the cases where I think a true suicide might be allowable, it is mostly the type of case where the organs just won't be fit anyway. The body is no longer healthy, it is degenerated. There might be some exceptions ,but it would have to be very, very carefully examined.
I am actually more comfortable with the idea of allowing those subject to death as a punishment that option, though I am not comfortable with the whoel idea of punishment by death. If allowed, I think it should be a voluntary option.. some might actually see it as a way to somewhat rectify their ills. Maybe they did take a life, but by allowing others to be saved... But that, too gets very complicated.
