<img src = "http://users.esc.net.au/~nitro/BBoard_member_gifs/bowser_anim.gif">Uh-oh, why do I feel like I'm being suckered into yet another topic which is dear to my heart. Fortunately, I have to go to work soon, and I've already stated my position in a prior post. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon6.gif"> ------------------ It's all very large. [This message has been edited by Bowser (edited May 24, 2000).]
Euthanasia? I need to split hairs 'twixt euthanasia and "assisted suicide". The last time A.S. was on the ballot in my locale, people had a hard time keeping the terms separate. ------------------ We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)
ISDAman, the standard I would use would be one of compassion and respect for the sufferers wishes. Assisted suicide is surely the best way to go, it's already been happening on a large scale for years anyway, in a subtle way. Just look at the way methadone is given in larger and more frequent doses to terminally ill cancer patients for example. I have personal experience of this, confirmed by the nurse who administered the drug, 'eventually it's the methadone that kills them, they all go the same way', were her virtual words according to my memory. If I had a terminal, disturbingly painful condition or severe brain damage causing all kinds of complications, I would not choose to suffer and prolong my and my loved ones anguish. If I had a deep faith and belief in Jesus or some other religion that found this practise taboo, unspiritual, eternally sinful etc, then I expect I wouldn't necessarily think the same way about it, in fact I know I wouldn't. But the test would be in the unfortunate opportunity of finding yourself in that position. ------------------ Oh my God it's the funky shit!!!
I though "euthanasia" was something to do with young kids in Taiwan..... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
eu·tha·na·sia n. The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment. I would say that if a person't life is being continued through extraordinary means AND they wish to terminate those means they have the autonomy to do so under our present law. Assisted suicide, like suicide itself is illegal.
<img src = "http://users.esc.net.au/~nitro/BBoard_member_gifs/bowser_anim.gif"> <font color = "blue"> Adlerian- "Assisted suicide, like suicide itself is illegal."</font> Assisted suicide is legal in Oregon, made so by popular demand. ------------------ It's all very large.
Alderian-- The hairs I'm splitting are important ones. By blending terms, those who opposed entrusting people with the right to choose to end their own life in Oregon attempted to create a vision that what people were voting for were dark-clad, sinister patrols going around and collecting everyone 60 and over. When I first learned the word "euthanasia", I think it was a Danish policy that was out in the news; an elderly man in Denmark had shot his dying wife as a "mercy killing". The concept was immediately clear to me then, though the intervening years have seen many people's regard for euthanasia become a fear of "forced" or "prescribed" euthanasia. By the way ... you do seem to have a thing for "because it's the law", or other set definitions. Therefore I ask you this: the Constitution is the Law of the Land in the United States? If so, please demonstrate the foundation for the laws that make suicide illegal. I'm not asking for the laws themselves, but when we get down to the Law of the Land, where is the prohibition? I might remind you what "because it's the law" does. I recall reading old advertisements from San Francisco in which the Police Department would pay someone an hourly rate to sit in a rowboat below the bridge and haul any suicidal jumpers out of the water. If they were alive, they were arrested first; medical attention was secondary, which demonstrates (imho) that the operation's concern was not the wellbeing of individuals, but compliance with arbitrary law. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)
ISDAMan-- I realize that in two posts, I haven't addressed your question directly. However, I must confess my response is fairly short. I will be happy to expand, but to be honest, I'm unsure of what issues it presents to other people. Applying the dictionary definition, which overlaps with the contemporary "assisted suicide", there is one simple standard which demonstrates the case for euthanasia: Self-determination. Some truths are indeed held as self-evident; such basic executive control over the dominion of one's own body is a critical right to recognize. I actually apply that to any idea of self-inflicted death. It's not that I think suicide is a brilliant idea, but regardless of the circumstances, I cannot allow myself to exercise such authority over another human being. And when we look to the www.m-w.com (Merriam-Webster Online) definition ... well, we see the words hopelessly sick or injured, and that's a huge aspect right there. I might address an emotionally-inspired suicide with intent to interfere, but that's my own emotional counterpoint. Where one is "hopelessly" ill, I can only advise if the terminal patient were to ask me. Otherwise, it's none of my business. But that's about the depth of the standard: Self-determination. thanx much, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)
I’ll get back to everyone when I have a bit more time. I just wanted to mention that things like pet rocks, herpes, and murder also owe their existence to popular demand. Does might make right? Can the number of voices for or against be the standard by which you choose what is correct? If so, how might you know that your own decisions and actions are your truly own and not the will of the group mind? A small quandary, ISDAMan
On the topic of euthanasia versus assisted suicide, I believe that people should be allowed to die with dignity if they so choose. It's their final act, let them have it. However, I wouldn't vote for any legalization of assisted suicide unless I was satisfied that it's extremely well-regulated to prevent, as much as humanly possibly, abuse of the process. Euthanasia, however, means to me that someone other than the patient is making the decision to terminate life. Perhaps the person is in a coma from which they will never recover. Perhaps they have been reduced to a vegetable state with absol,utely no hope of recovery. Perhaps it is a child born with multiple deformities and no chance of living as anything other than a dependent for even the most basic needs. Who, then has the right to say "This person should die"? A doctor would be most able to diagnosis an irreversible condition, but the family is the one who will be losing a loved one. The potential for abuse here is even moreso than for assisted suicide. Before I can settle my thoughts on euthanasia, I would ask this: Is it a doctor's job to prolong life or to ease suffering? What do you guys think? ------------------ I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight, kill, and die for your right to say it.
