I want to know the difference between “He’s too old and it’s too much trouble to take care of” and “he’s too young and it’s too much trouble to take care of.” Since the criteria for euthanasia seems to revolve around quality of life and amount of care, then it stands to reason the very old and very young can both be euthanized. When the elite start thinking of human beings as herds they are managing, soon they progress to treat human beings like a rancher cares for his catttle.
i dont believe it. what isv the issue here, specifically. can you give some examples of at which point we, as members, would euthanize?
Daughter Saves Mother, 80, Left By Doctors To Starve AN 80-year-old grandmother who doctors identified as terminally ill and left to starve to death has recovered after her outraged daughter intervened. Hazel Fenton, from East Sussex, is alive nine months after medics ruled she had only days to live, withdrew her antibiotics and denied her artificial feeding. The former school matron had been placed on a controversial care plan intended to ease the last days of dying patients. source UK Doctors who Allowed Suicidal Woman to Die Acted Lawfully: Coroner's Inquest LONDON, October 6, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Doctors who allowed a young British woman to die in hospital after she swallowed poison and declared her intention to commit suicide acted lawfully, according to the findings of an inquest this week. Under the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the coroner's inquest ruled that doctors had no choice but to allow the woman to die after she had written a letter saying she did not want to be saved. The Mental Capacity Act, passed by Tony Blair's Labour government, created "advance directives," or "living wills," which were ostensibly meant to... source
Ah, the one trick pony is back with his issue. People can choose to die, the law should reflect that. If you don't want the procanniblism people setting up a shop then the law should regulate the circumstances of how euthanasia works. There is no reason to make the dying suffer to placate people like you.
Yes, that's correct. Brian, I believe that most people in favor of euthanasia are following the golden rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This isn't about the "elite" euthanizing "cattle", it's about granting human beings the right to make their own decisions about their own life and death. If you personally would never want to be allowed to die, or if you never want to be euthanized, then make sure your doctor knows and your family knows. Have it tattooed onto your chest, or engraved onto a bracelet if you're really that concerned. You also have the right to make that decision for those in your care. But stop making life and death decisions for the rest of us. You are not welcome.
Nah, when people like you get placated we all end up heading for Soylent Green. yeah 'most people'. Unfortunately we are getting Doctors and Family members making that decision for us. I can say the same for you.
Brian, So you agree that euthanasia is mostly about the right to make decisions, not "the elite managing herds." Good. So, rather than lobbying against all euthanasia, suicide rights, and withdrawal of care, you should be lobbying for clear decision-making ability for individuals. See the difference? One way denies individual human the right to make their own life and death decisions, the second affirms that right. I will back you 100% in your right to choose to not be euthanized or allowed to die, and I believe that the law does the same.,
I do not support the legalisation of euthanasia because I think it will open too many doors of abuse . we all know that the medical staff are after money and not our health . Medicare is a business like buying and selling meat and vegetables based on money and profit .
Well this is Quebec we are talking about, here is a simple solution if they are French euthanize them. Spoken like a true Anglophone.
So you prefer the current abuse over the possibility of reducing this abuse but maybe introducing new abuse??? Way to hold back the progress of humanity.
Unfortunately that option in Holland can be over ridden by Doctors and Family members making that decision. It is only a matter of time in nations which adopt any Euthanasia program that the program will end up becoming determined on economic principals.
If that is the case, then yes, it is unfortunate. But you need to be clear about exactly what is unfortunate. Is it unfortunate that an individual's decision about their own life and death is over ridden? Or is it always unfortunate when someone is permitted or assisted to die, even if that is what they themselves decided? Not necessarily. If we are clear on the moral principle that people have the right to make their own life and death decisions, then we should not be afraid to fight for the realisation of that principle. If the battle is won on the grounds of that principle now, then future which threaten that principle will be easier and more likely to succeed.
A quick web search suggests that this cannot legally be done. Wikipedia suggests that prior to the official legalization in 1992, euthanasia without explicit consent was not uncommon. It would be interesting to know how this has changed since the law was made. Doctors can now legally euthanize if the patient has voluntarily and persistently expressed that wish, in separate consultation with more than one doctor. It would be more interesting, in the context of this discussion, to know if there are any cases (pre or post legislation) of a doctor administering euthanasia when a patient has explicitly requested for that to not happen. Are there?
I am not against a human being who is terminally ill wanting to die without discomfort opting for suicide. I am against any euthanasia programme based on The fact that it will be expanded as it has been by those nations which implement it. Have a good read from Google books: The future of assisted suicide and euthanasia By Neil McGill Gorsuch: 7.1 The Dutch Experience "Virtually Abuse Free"
You are confusing your opinion with fact. You are against any euthanasia program because you are afraid that it will be abused. I think that your efforts would be better expended in defining explicit limits and safeguards. [/quote] It won't let me see it. Yes, the Dutch system has been prone to misuse, as I understand it. It serves as an example that we can learn from - it illustrates pathologies that can develop in an unregulated acceptance of euthanasia. When was the book published, and from what period does it draw it's research? I'd be interested in how the culture has been affected by the 2002 legislation. See, that's what they call "non-voluntary euthanasia", euthanasia that has been neither requested nor denied by the patient. I would hesitate to support it, but I was specifically asking about "involuntary euthanasia", in which a patient who has explicitly made known their wish to not be euthanised (or care withheld) has had their wishes ignored or overridden.
