So whats a good argument against allowing euthanasia?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Emperors Faithful**

O...k...

**BrookM**

So much for that then.

**Emperors Faithful**

What?

**tblock1984**

What I am saying, EF, is that this is a touchy subject. I am pro-eutinasia, but last time I mentioned what happened to my father-in-law and the events that lead to his death, I was told:

Someone in this very thread wrote:It is almost as if you have been hurt and are blaming all of humanity, choosing only to look at the negatives while forgetting the positives while also creating fabrications.

So, I am very pissy when it comes to this topic on Dakka. Personally, I think this thread needs to be closed, but that is mah nerdrage talking.
Sorry for exploding like this, but seriously... I am inclined to say if I couldn't talk about this three months ago, we should not bring it back up again... But that is just plain childish...

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry Dakka... I am on week three without internet at home, and AT&T has decided that the only way to revert my suspended account is to terminate it... /twitch

**Emperors Faithful**

Honestly, tblock1984?

So far you're the only person on this thread who's gotten angry. Some (I'm looking at you Golden Scout and Orkeosuarus) have said slowed stuff, but mostly as a joke. You are the only one who is waving a banner at the moment.

**Orkeosaurus**

I must have missed the other thread, I don't remember it.

**notprop**

That was a very interesting thread for a little while there, shame it seems to have gone off the rails a little bit?

tblock1984 sorry to hear that others have offended you on a previous thread but I really don't see why a different set of people discussing the general issues around the topic should cause you concern?

I am interested to hear if you have something to add to the discussion particularly if you have some experience of it but not if you feel it will cause you any distress.

**Kilkrazy**

I would suggest that people who find the topic distressing might prefer to ignore threads about it.

No-one wishes to cause personal distress, of course.

Various potentially upsetting topics, such as suicide, car crashes and mental illness are valid subjects for discussion providing it is done in a sensible way.

**Bookwrack**

mattyrm wrote:So my question is, is there a good argument against allowing it?

No, there isn't. If someone can prove that they are of a sound mind, and that they have well-grounded reasons for wanting to end their life (I'm more tumor than man, and probably have another two or three months of constant hospitalization until my body kills me), they should be allowed to do so. Cases like Shiavo are harder, especially if the person hasn't left instructions.

Some opponents like to use the slippery slope argument that if we allow euthanasia for the ill and dying, then we're only a step away from, 'I'm feeling a little blue today. Oh well, off to the suicide booth!' but they can't really connect the dots to show just how we get from one to the other.

**Emperors Faithful**

It's pretty darn easy to see that if we legalise Euthanasia there WILL be some foul play. Regardless of the amount of legal wrangling.

For example, a family may be more concerned with getting the house in the will than keeping Grandad alive and treating him. How's he going to say no?

And then there's the chance that mental illnesses may be looked at in a new light...

**Orkeosaurus**

Emperors Faithful wrote:It's pretty darn easy to see that if we legalise Euthanasia there WILL be some foul play. Regardless of the amount of legal wrangling.

For example, a family may be more concerned with getting the house in the will than keeping Grandad alive and treating him. How's he going to say no?

You could require prewritten permission (by the patient) for euthanasia to be performed. Along with proof that recovery isn't possible.

No one's saying that any time you're not conscious your family can murder you.

And then there's the chance that mental illnesses may be looked at in a new light...

Maybe if we legalize gay marriage pedophiles will be able to legally marry kidnapped children!

**Cannerus_The_Unbearable**

I can safely say that if the suicide booth was readily available I nor several of my friends would be here. It's hard for me to be against it.

**mattyrm**

Its all that Lady Gaga mate, if i had to listen to her for more than twenty minutes i dont know how i would react.

**squilverine**

Asides from the religeous veiwpoints I think the main problem I can see is unscrupulous children trying to talk their parents (or thier doctors) into assisted suicide so that they don't have to pay for thier care and loose out on inheritance.

A few years back my Gran died from cancer, in a matter of a few weeks she went from a healthy and fully functioning human being to a dribbling wreck, it broke my heart to see and in the last few days I would have given anything to have given her a simple injection and said goodbye, instead she was kept alive by the hospital for several days, in pain, with no quality of life and at a massive cost to the NHS.

I don't believe in god, but can respect the wishes of those who do, so understand that this is a touchy subject. Personaly I agree with euthanasia, but I have no idea how it could be regulated so that it wasn't open to abuse.

**Emperors Faithful**

Orkeosaurus wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:It's pretty darn easy to see that if we legalise Euthanasia there WILL be some foul play. Regardless of the amount of legal wrangling.

For example, a family may be more concerned with getting the house in the will than keeping Grandad alive and treating him. How's he going to say no?
You could require prewritten permission (by the patient) for euthanasia to be performed. Along with proof that recovery isn't possible.

No one's saying that any time you're not conscious your family can murder you.

True, but how many people are going to write in a Will or something, "If I'm in a coma, kill me."
I certainly haven't written my will yet.

And then there's the issue of doctors subtly advising their patients to be euthanised sheerly to save on medical costs.

And then there's the chance that mental illnesses may be looked at in a new light...
Maybe if we legalize gay marriage pedophiles will be able to legally marry kidnapped children!

LOL wut?

My point is, not too long ago it was perectly legal for people to get lobotomised for a mental illness, or even (if you look up the Kennedy's. Yes the president Kennedy's) promiscuity.

**Kilkrazy**

You have to admit there is social and medical progress, though.

What was true in the 20s or the 60s is not a law for the rest of time.

Euthanisia happens now, a lot more than many people recognise. It is simply kept hidden.

I fail to see how a legal framework for controlling euthanasia would inevitably result in more cases of murder.

**Emperors Faithful**

I guess so.

But that doesn't change the fact that Euthanasia could very quickly become seen as a method of cost-control.

All I'm saying is that I see the governments point when it says 'Hands Off'. They don't want to get thier hands dirty, and that's fair enough. Legalising Euthanasia, even with tough restrictions, would open up a whole can of worms for them.

EDIT: Ninja'd. I didn't say 'more', I said that despite all the legal restrictions, there would still be cases of foul play. I can't think of a system entirely bullet-proof that also allows euthanasia to those who need it.

**Orkeosaurus**

Most people who would be a candidate for euthanasia are the old and sick, who need to have a working will in order. "Do not resuscitate" is a common instruction, I imagine stipulations for euthanasia would be added in a similar method.

And I'm not sure I see the relevance of lobotomizing the mentally ill. No one's saying we should do that.

**Kilkrazy**

There is no legal system of anything at all which prevents foul play.

Is car insurance a method of cost control? Is marriage? Lots of human activities are regulated without them quickly degenerating into 'kill your neighbour/spouse'.

I don't see why people who are willing to break a law for monetary advantage would be willing to break the same law (murder) for the same monetary advantage, when the means of doing it (euthanisia) would be more tightly examined and controlled than before. I don't see why this is opening a can of worms unless you think more people would do it.

Several governments already do allow euthanasia.

**Emperors Faithful**

But you can see why the government would prefer a "Do not Resusitate/Feed" ect way of this than actually Euthanising people.

The (Aus) Gov would prefer to not to get into that mess.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
BTW, never mind the lobotomy argument. Failure of Logic.

**Kilkrazy**

Yes, that is true.

It does not cover someone who is compos mentis, and wishes to die, and is unable to kill himself due to physical disability.

**Frazzled**

I'm against euthanasia as my kids and wife seem inordinantly interested in it. When I queried them on this they just kept saying "just shut up and sign this old man."

**Emperors Faithful**

It's okay, Frazzled. I'm sure you didn't sign anything important.

Kilkrazy wrote:
It does not cover someone who is compos mentis, and wishes to die, and is unable to kill himself due to physical disability.

What? Euthanasia? If you can feed yourself I'm sure you can kill youself. If I you can't feed yourself than all that is required is that you are no longer fed.

We had a case exactly like this not too long ago here in Aus.

**Orkeosaurus**

Wouldn't starving to death probably be far more painful than being drugged to death? I mean, it takes weeks to starve to death. (Or days to die of thirst.)

**chromedog**

I consider the existence of chavs and bogans reason enough.

**Frazzled**

Orkeosaurus wrote:Wouldn't starving to death probably be far more painful than being drugged to death? I mean, it takes weeks to starve to death. (Or days to die of thirst.)

Usually you're on meds at the time or unconscious, but yea thats a glitch isn't it.

**Kilkrazy**

Emperors Faithful wrote: It's okay, Frazzled. I'm sure you didn't sign anything important.

Kilkrazy wrote:
It does not cover someone who is compos mentis, and wishes to die, and is unable to kill himself due to physical disability.

What? Euthanasia? If you can feed yourself I'm sure you can kill youself. If I you can't feed yourself than all that is required is that you are no longer fed.

We had a case exactly like this not too long ago here in Aus.

Do you think it is nice for people who are unable to feed themselves, but compos mentis, to be starved to death?

What is wrong with them being administered a strong dose of morphine, at their request?

**Emperors Faithful**

Yes, they would hopefully dope you up. But honestly, I don't know what to think...

All I'm saying is that I see the governemts reason why they don't want to get stuck into it.

**mattyrm**

Yeah thats just too easy to answer, STARVE to death?!

Are you kidding me? That would be an awful way to die. If i got stuck in a tiny cage and left to starve to death whilst licking the rain off the bars i think id try and break my own neck!

If its a choice between a painless shot of a powerful sedative or starvation, its a no brainer.

I took my dog to get put to sleep a few years back. That gak was fast, and he didnt even whimper. 5 seconds or 5 weeks of pain. Its not even a debate.

**Emperors Faithful**

They are supposed to be doped up on meds while they starve. Short of that, Do it yourself, mate.