A controversial and difficult subject - discussed more and more these days.
Euthanasia Definitions.Euthanasia: the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit. The key word here is Intentional. If death is not intended, it is not an act of euthanasia.
Voluntary euthanasia: When the person who is killed has requested to be killed. Non-voluntary: When the person who is killed made no request and gave no consent. Involuntary euthanasia: When the person who is killed made an expressed wish to the contrary.
Assisted suicide: Someone provides an individual with the information, guidance, and means to take his or her own life with the intention that they will be used for this purpose. When it is a doctor who helps another person to kill themselves it is called suicide assisted by physician.
Euthanasia By Action: Intentionally causing a person's death by performing an action such as by giving a lethal injection.
Euthanasia By Omission: Intentionally causing death by not providing necessary and ordinary (usual and customary) care or food and water.
What Euthanasia is NOT: There is no euthanasia unless the death is intentionally caused by what was done or not done. Thus, some medical actions that are often labelled "passive euthanasia" are no form of euthanasia, since the intention to take life is lacking. These acts include not commencing treatment that would not provide a benefit to the patient, withdrawing treatment that has been shown to be ineffective, too burdensome or is unwanted, and the giving of high doses of pain-killers that may endanger life, when they have been shown to be necessary. All those are part of good medical practice, endorsed by law, when they are properly carried out.
Killing Of The Innocent
Euthanasia is a direct killing of an innocent person and reduces the value of human life from being absolute to only a conditional status. From the pro-euthanasia point of view, human life is only valuable if it is "productive", "painless", or some other condition that is wrongly valued higher than life itself.
Babs C.
End their agony.
The Right to Die What does life hold for a person living only by the technology of a life support machine? When the potential for desirable, meaningful life has been exhausted and every effort made to prevent the inevitable, it should be legally possible to show mercy to those requesting euthanasia. There are many reasons for this. Someone lying on a hospital bed, waiting for the end, may desperately want to commit suicide but physically cannot. Some people suffering intolerable pain push aside their want for euthanasia because they know the legal complications to family and intervening doctors. Also, it is compassionate to fulfill the requests of loved ones wanting to end their agony. Euthanasia, under the right circumstances, must simply be made legal.
A.V.
It's morally wrong.
Is there a difference between killing a terminally ill patient and allowing that person to die? Those who support assisted suicide and euthanasia say there is none. If one's intention in disconnecting a respirator is to cause the patient's death, that's killing and it's morally wrong.
T.G.R.
To kill is to say that a human life no longer has value. To allow someone to die is simply an acknowledgement that the value of human life is not infinite.
Dr Jennifer L.
Euthanasia is Not Murder
Dr. K. says Euthanasia does take place and is selected voluntarily by patients who are in great pain due to an incurable illness like cancer. Usually, the decision is made to pull the plugs of machines which prolong life or to end treatment. Because patients select to die, their deaths end suffering, and there is no intention to cause harm, physician assisted euthanasia cannot be considered murder.
Bill H.
It cannot be justified.
Supporters attempt to justify euthanasia on the grounds that it is done with good intentions. However, there is a fallacy in this argument; to kill oneself or someone else is wrong, regardless of the motivation or circumstances. Rather than being motivated by good intentions, attempts to defend euthanasia are founded on corrupt values. Society must strive to understand why it's morally wrong. and why it cannot be justified by good intentions.
J. B.
Why prolong the agony.
If someone is dieing of cancer and other such diseases why prolong the agony. What is the point of making someone's life painful. If people think euthanasia is bad what do they think of torture. Do they think it is good or bad that euthanasia is an end to the torture?
I bet most people in that kind of situation would soon change their mind.
FWR
Euthanasia is unnecessary.
It is often said that it is not necessary nowadays for anyone to die while suffering from intolerable or overwhelming pain. We are getting better at providing effective palliative care and hospice care is available. Given these considerations it is urged that voluntary euthanasia is unnecessary.
Charles C.
Unlike murder, euthanasia is not an act of violence.
In an editorial in Cleveland, A Dr C. argues that patients, who are worn down by pain, extensive testing, and depression, will be easily persuaded to seek assisted suicide.
Furthermore, Dr C. mentions that the courts have decided that the right to die should be made available to everyone. Modern medical technology has allowed doctors to prolong life past the point of a patient's natural death.
In the case of euthanasia, the doctor needs to end suffering from cancer or AIDS and assist the patient to die comfortably. Patients are beginning to assert their right to die rather than being kept alive forcibly. For example, an American who suffered burns in a gas explosion, Dan C. wanted to die even though he survived the accident. He believes that his rights were violated by the doctors who prevented his death through life- sustaining treatment. When a patient like Dan C. is in constant pain, death becomes a peaceful reward.
Brad B.A.
Develop Treatment.
Instead of Physician-Assisted Suicide, doctors should develop treatments for the physical and psychological problems of dying patients rather than helping them commit suicide.
Wallace E.
About 400 B.C. - The Hippocratic Oath (By the "Father of Medicine' Greek physician Hippocrates)
"I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel"
Neil L.
It's illogical.
Why does euthanasia require "physician-assisted?" Can't a family member or friend end that person's life? There is absolutely no reason whatsoever as to why physicians have to be the ones to end life. Suffering may be terrible, true, but let's be reasonable, why is it that we feel physicians HAVE to be the ones to do so? They don't and it is not only unethical that they should, it's illogical.
L.C.
Guidelines.
Suicide and Life-Threatening Behaviour, described assisted suicide guidelines for those with a hopeless condition. "Hopeless condition" was defined to include terminal illness, severe physical or psychological pain, physical or mental debilitation or deterioration, or a quality of life that is no longer acceptable to the individual. That means just about anybody who has a suicidal impulse .
Mercedes L.
If a person is.....
a) suffering from a terminal illness;
b) unlikely to benefit from the discovery of a cure for that illness during what remains of her life expectancy;
c) as a direct result of the illness, either suffering intolerable pain, or only has available a life that is unacceptably burdensome (because the illness has to be treated in ways which lead to her being unacceptably dependent on others or on technological means of life support);
d) has an enduring, voluntary and rational wish to die (or has, prior to losing the competence to do so, expressed a wish to die in the event that conditions a - c are satisfied); and e) unable without assistance to commit suicide, then there should be legal and medical provision to enable her to be allowed to die or assisted to die.
Eddy L.
Mercy Killing
Euthanasia is called the “mercy killing” prescription and it is called that for a reason. They are pills that you take when you are going to die soon and you do not want to go through the pain any more. It has only been legalized in one state in USA, but in that state it has worked great for those people who have been suffering and could not bare the pain anymore.
I think that every person should have the choice whether to live or to die, that is your right as a human being. Why should a doctor decide your fate when it is your body and your choice whether if you want to end it or not.
It is your choice to end your life when you want too, it is safe to use because there are a lot of guide lines that you have to follow to get the pills and there is already one state in the USA that has already legalized it and it will not be long until all of the other
states legalize it.
Imagine living your whole life the way you want to live it, then you get cancer, and it just happens that this kind of cancer cannot be cured!!!!
DC.
I'm against Euthanasia because...
1 Euthanasia would not only be for people who are "terminally ill"
2 Euthanasia can become a means of health care cost containment
3 Euthanasia will become non-voluntary
4 Euthanasia is a rejection of the importance and value of human life
RC.
The criterion of personal dignity.
Ironically, contrary to the pro-euthanasia slogan of "death with dignity", euthanasia reduces human dignity. In euthanasia, human value is not seen as an absolute in itself but only when it is accompanied by other extrinsic factors such as mental health, the absence of pain, etc.
It is because euthanasia places conditions of the value of human life that it inevitably reduces the value of human life. P.J.P. spoke of this lowering of human dignity when he said, "The criterion of personal dignity--which demands respect, generosity and service--is replaced by the criterion of efficiency, functionality and usefulness: others are considered not for what they "are", but for what they "have, do and produce"
Alexander M.
This is what legalised euthanasia would lead to.....
"In October of 1939 amid the turmoil of the outbreak of war Hitler ordered widespread "mercy killing" of the sick and disabled. Code named "Aktion T 4," the Nazi euthanasia program to eliminate "life unworthy of life" at first focused on newborns and very young children. Midwives and doctors were required to register children up to age three who showed symptoms of mental retardation, physical deformity, or other symptoms included on a questionnaire from the Reich Health Ministry."
"The Nazi euthanasia program quickly expanded to include older disabled children and adults. Hitler's decree of October, 1939, typed on his personal stationery and back dated to Sept. 1, enlarged 'the authority of certain physicians to be designated by name in such manner that persons who, according to human judgment, are incurable can, upon a most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness, be accorded a mercy death.'"
Hilary S. D.
Guidelines would be created.
When most people think of euthanasia, they think merely of death. Death usually has a negative connotation to it although often times it may be beneficial. This understanding is fundamental to euthanasia. The roots words for euthanasia, eu and thantos, mean good and death respectively (Humphrey “Dying With Dignity” 80). This “good death” is often attacked by people whose ideas are shaped by religion, media, and misinformation. In reality, euthanasia provides a way for humans in unbearable and incurable situations to be relieved of their afflictions. Because of its current illegality, many people suffer, rendering them corpses of humiliation that are unable to receive the treatment that the average household pet receives. The legalization and acceptance of euthanasia would benefit humanity. Legalizing euthanasia would be a turn for the better. Once it was legalized, euthanasia would come out into the open and be an official medical procedure. As is the case with most medical procedures, a set of standards and guidelines would be created.
A.W.C.
Evidence of a well thought out conviction.
It might be said, what if a person is racked with pain, or befuddled because of the measures taken to relieve her pain, and so not able to think clearly and rationally about the alternatives? It has to be agreed that a person in those circumstances who wants to die cannot be assumed to have a rational, enduring and genuinely voluntary desire to die. However, there are at least two important points to make about those in such circumstances. First, they do not account for all of the terminally ill, so even if it is acknowledged that such people are incapable of agreeing to voluntary euthanasia that does not show that no one can ever voluntarily request help to die. Second, it is possible for a person to indicate in advance of losing the capacity to give rational, enduring and voluntary consent, how she would wish to be treated should she become terminally ill and be suffering intolerably from pain or from loss of control over her life. `Living wills' or `advance declarations' are legally useful instruments for giving voice to people's wishes while they are capable of giving rational, enduring and voluntary consent, including to their wanting help to die. As long as they are easily revocable in the event of a change of mind (just as ordinary wills are), they should be respected as evidence of a well thought out conviction.
Robert D.
Should not be prohibited by law.
Suppose that the moral case for legalising voluntary euthanasia does come to be judged as stronger than the case against and voluntary euthanasia is made legally permissible. Should doctors take part in the practice? Should only doctors perform voluntary euthanasia? The proper administration of medical
care is not at odds with an understanding of medical care that both promotes patients' welfare interests and respects their self-determination. It is these twin values which should guide medical care, not a commitment to preserving life at all costs, or preserving life without regard to whether patients want their lives prolonged when they judge that life is no longer of benefit or value to themselves. Many doctors in The Netherlands and, to judge from available survey evidence, in other Western countries as well, see the practice of (voluntary) euthanasia as not only compatible with their professional commitments but also with their conception of the best medical care for the dying. That being so, they should not be prohibited by law from lending their professional assistance to those competent, terminally ill persons for whom no cure is possible and who wish for an easy death.
Adam K.
The good effect does not result from the evil effect.
It is often impossible to do good to patients without also causing them some harm, because treatments have side effects. It may also be necessary to do something to a patient which would be harmful and wrong outside a medical context. It is done because it will benefit the patient. The double effect rule forbids the achievement of good ends by wrong means but it permits actions with a double effect, both good and bad, under certain conditions. The act performed is not itself morally evil. The good effect does not result from the evil effect. Only the good effect is intended. There is a proportionate reason for causing the harm. Killing innocent humans is inherently wrong but there is a clinical situation in which doctors sometimes do kill innocent humans; euthanasia. However, the Rule forbids doctors both to relieve the distress of a dying patient by killing him or her. On the other hand, it permits the use of drugs which relieve the distress of the dying, even when they hasten death. Death is then a side effect of the good action, not the means of achieving it.
Rosemary Jean K.
Proponents of Euthanasia say there is no difference between assisted suicide and euthanasia. But if somebody is on a ventilator and I make an active move to cut it off, I have committed an action.
Sometimes that's the right thing to do, sometimes that's the wrong thing to do.
Bill A.
Euthanasia Progression.
Legalized euthanasia would most likely progress to the stage where people, at a certain point, would be expected to volunteer to be killed. Think about this: What if your veterinarian said that your ill dog would be better of "put out of her misery" by being "put to sleep" and you refused to consent. What would the vet and his assistants think? What would your friends think? Ten years from now, if a doctor told you your mother's "quality of life" was not worth living for and asked you, as the closest family member, to approve a "quick, painless ending of her life" and you refused how would doctors, nurses and others, conditioned to accept euthanasia as normal and right, treat you and your mother. Or, what if the approval was sought from your mother, who was depressed by her illness? Would she have the strength to refuse what everyone in the nursing home "expected" from seriously ill elderly people?
James P.
Job’s wife, the first Euthanasia advocate!
There is a time in every life, comments Stephen Lawson, when all hell breaks loose. Suddenly. Unexpectedly. Cataclysmically. All hell breaks loose. One day, life is sunny. Calm. Clear. Predictable. Your job is secure. Your children behave. Your health is good. Then out of the blue, like a violent, angry thunderstorm blowing across your landscape, tragedy strikes. You’re hit hard. All hell breaks loose.
Why do bad things happen to good people? Why does tragedy strike those who love God the most? Why do the good die young? One of the most famous sufferers on Planet Earth asked all these questions. He suffered so deeply that his wife couldn’t stand it anymore. She said to her husband Job: "Curse God and die". In other words, get it over with. It’s no use. There is no future. You could almost see Job’s wife as the first Euthanasia advocate. Yet rather than choosing suicide, Job clung tenaciously to life. Often human tragedies like the loss of career, family, or home leads to an even greater tragedy - the denial of any meaning to life. This was the great temptation that faced Job, and that faces each of us at least once every 18 months on average.
Cecilia G.
Society has gone wrong when being human means being a burden
1:
Nancy Crick, a grandmother, paid the highest price for a publicity stunt: she paid with her life. Old and unwell, on announcing her decision to kill herself she suddenly developed a large group of friends all interested in watching her die. Now it is suspected that Nancy did not even have cancer.
2: Norma H, made public her wish to take her life with the assistance of Dr P. and others. A few months later she died in suspicious circumstances. Police referred the matter to the coroner.
3: June B. admitted she was going to take her life and that N. was going to assist. Thankfully she changed her mind before N. was able to arrive with the vial. She is now very well.
4: N. states that a volunteer named Georgia says she wants to be next in line. The evidence seems to indicate that the biggest losers from legalised euthanasia will be women.
5: Psychologist Silvia C. surveyed more than three decades of mercy killing in the records of a voluntary euthanasia group in the United States. She found that, most of the time, women ended up as victims.
JD
Unlike murder, euthanasia is not an act of violence.
In an editorial in the states a Dr C. argues that patients, who are worn down by pain, extensive testing, and depression, will be easily persuaded to seek assisted suicide.
Furthermore, Dr C. mentions that the courts have decided that the right to die should be made available to everyone. Modern medical technology has allowed doctors to prolong life past the point of a patient's natural death.
In the case of euthanasia, the doctor needs to end suffering from cancer or AIDS and assist the patient to die comfortably. Patients are beginning to assert their right to die rather than being kept alive forcibly. For example, an American who suffered burns in a gas explosion, Dan C. wanted to die even though he survived the accident. He believes that his rights were violated by the doctors who prevented his death through life- sustaining treatment. When a patient like Dan C. is in constant pain, death becomes a peaceful reward.
Jane W.
Don't Legalize Euthanasia.
Euthanasia, a term that can be described as "mercy killing" or the ending of a person's life because they no longer have the desire to live. Euthanasia has been a worldwide controversial debate for many years.
Two types of euthanasia may be discussed, active and passive. Active described as "killing" and passive as "allowing to die." Is it the physical pain or is it depression that leads a person to desire death?
If foreign countries allow, and cannot control their own "mercy killings," why wouldn't countries follow in their footsteps? These questions and life are too often taken for granted. Euthanasia goes against our morals and duties as human beings. It should not be legalized, and where it is legal it should be stopped.
Larry P.
End of Life Care Research Sheds Light on Issues of Dying.
Because of advances in technology and improved techniques of diagnosis, more and more of us will know that we're going to die before we do - - and we can anticipate more decision-making at the end of life rather than less, says Brian Clarridge, senior research fellow of the Centre for Survey Research (CSR), who has investigated four studies on end of life issues since 1994.
Several issues - - including the role of managed care, the legal and ethical issues around euthanasia and physician assisted suicide*, and how doctors manage transitions to palliative care for patients who are terminally ill are factors in how we die. In addition, says Clarridge, philosophical questions, such as "What is a good death, and how is that achieved?" are also critical to explore.
In one study of terminal care Clarridge conducted with Jack Fowler Ph.D. and Ezekiel Emanuel, M.D., Ph.D., questions such as what characterizes a good or bad death, what obstacles prevent a good death, and what factors make the process go well, were asked of 80 participants in 10 focus groups. Four overlapping "domains" - - psychological, physical, social and spiritual - - in which certain needs must be met in order to have a good death, were identified. "The domains embrace the issues confronting people before they die, and finding ways to address those issues," says Clarridge. Terminally ill persons, caregivers, significant others, well elders, pastoral caregivers, and health care professionals participated.
A different study sponsored by the American Cancer Society, "Assessing Attitudes of Patients, Physicians, and the Public Towards Euthanasia," consisted of interviews with 700 cancer patients, physicians, and members of the public. Participants responded to vignettes describing end of life scenarios, focusing mainly on physician-assisted suicide and patient-requested euthanasia. Among the findings: two thirds of cancer patients and the public found euthanasia and physician assisted suicide to be acceptable if the patient experiences unremitting pain, while in no vignette presented, did more than half the physicians find it to be acceptable. Patients with depression, rather than pain, were more likely to discuss ending their lives. Physicians were asked if they had helped any patients end their lives - - the first U.S. data on the frequency with which physicians actively help their patients die - - resulting in the finding that one in seven had done so.
A study sponsored by the American Society of Clinical Oncology looked at how member physicians work with patients who have six months or less to live. A fourth study followed 300 terminal cancer patients, interviewing them on issues such as plans for care at the end of life, the care they receive, and the degree to which their wishes have been communicated.
After four years of work on the topic, Clarridge says that end of life issues continue to hold great research promise. "With appropriate attention, I believe we can have fewer horror stories about a bad end compounded by bad care management. There is hope of making societal changes. It's a topic with a lot of work going on, and it will continue because there is a real need to explore it, especially in health care management."
Clarridge and Fowler, also a senior research fellow at CSR, collaborated with researchers from the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Brown University, and the Picker Institute of Boston on these studies.
*Physician-assisted suicide is defined as a patient's choice of suicide, for which a physician may provide instructions or pharmacological means to end the patient's life. Euthanasia is the active delivery, upon the patient's request, of medication or other means to end life.
Pauline A.
Circumstances that Justify the Use of Euthanasia.
...the elderly patients...are comatose.
They weigh practically nothing.
Their skin hangs in heavy folds on their skeletons.
These patients must be fed through gastric tubes pushed down their throats.
Dr. Peter H. explains, and that can make even comatose patients retch and vomit.
Thus, according to Barbara C, many severely ill patients must endure much pain. Not a very pretty scene, is it? Is it right to keep them living in this pain? Wouldn't it be more humane to give them a painless release from their agony? For this irreversibly comatose patient euthanasia would be justified.
Consider the patient suffering from malignant cancer or some other terminal disease. How "right" is it to keep injecting drugs and performing small operations to keep the patient alive, only to lengthen his suffering? As in the case of the irreversibly comatose patient, euthanasia is not only morally justified, it is the only alternative for those truly concerned with the patient's welfare.
Euthanasia is clinically defined as an act or practice of painlessly putting to death persons suffering from incurable conditions or diseases.
The word "euthanasia" is generally also applied to cases in which the doctor withdraws the machines or drugs which are keeping the patient alive and thus allows the patient to die naturally.
Euthanasia ends pain mercifully and easily. It is used when the pain of degradation of life or the pain of a terminal disease is greater than the pain of death. In these cases death is not the nightmare experienced in war, but rather an alternative to endless pain. At times we must look at death as a welcome release from an untenable life. Death need not be a source of horror. It can be freedom, a release from agony. This observation by Dr. Milton H. encompasses the purpose of euthanasia: to provide a welcome release from an untenable life.
One such untenable life would be that of the irreversibly comatose patient. The most widely accepted definition of an irreversible coma states that the patient displays total "unreceptivity and unresponsivity...even the most painful stimuli evoke no...response," according to the Committee of the Harvard Medical School. This includes "No movements of breathing...No reflexes...Flat electroencephalogram.
These are characteristics of a permanently nonfunctioning brain. There is no brain activity; thus, there is no thought, and without thought there can be no mind, no "being," no life. And yet, through the use of respirators, the heart and lungs can be kept pumping indefinitely. There was a case in which a patient was maintained in a state of no mental response for eight years.
Maurice F.
Copyright © 2003 - 2005 K2Lministry.com All Rights reserved
