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 wrote: It's okay, Frazzled. I'm sure you didn't sign anything important. idea until the next day

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.

I will play nice this time. I swear.

Cancer can diminish ones appetite. This results in some people loosing lots of weight in a very short time.
My father-in-law was 275 in Jan. 2006. When he died in March 2006, he was under 150. He went through cycles of feeling hungry but not being able to stomach food, then not feeling hungry while his stomach wrenches in pain. The only thing that would ease the pain and get him hungry was marijuana. And that was only a band-aid.

In the end, he wanted to die. The same hospital that was late finding the cancer in the first place (and quite possibly cost him his life because of it, but that is another rant) refuse to help, saying the "treatment" was the best they could do.

He had to take matters into his own hands. The last time I saw him alive was right after he took the pills (I had no idea until the next day), and that was the first time I saw him smile in months.

IMHO, I think euthanasia should be a case by case decision with laws in place to support it, but not a government regulated bureaucracy where the a person's choice is no longer theirs, and they are at the whims of death panels, etc.

That is all. I think. YMMV...

I wouldn't really want to go like that anyway.
I wouldn't want to be put down like an animal. If it came down to it, I'd prefer to take my own life.

I'm not saying that patients should fall upon thier own swords becuase they're frail, I'm just saying I'd rather take my life into my own hands.

The argument about euthanasia revolves around people like tblock1984's father except they are even more ill, so they can't take the pills for themselves, and they are dying even more slowly.

Government is currently involved in this issue, because right now if someone helps a person in that situation to die, they are committing murder.

These cases are rare, but that does not mean they should not be considered.

The other kinds of cases, such as vegetative state patients, are covered by existing law.

tblock1984 wrote:

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

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.

I will play nice this time. I swear.

Cancer can diminish ones appetite. This results in some people loosing lots of weight in a very short time.
My father-in-law was 275 in Jan. 2006. When he died in March 2006, he was under 150. He went through cycles of feeling hungry but not being able to stomach food, then not feeling hungry while his stomach wrenches in pain. The only thing that would ease the pain and get him hungry was marijuana. And that was only a band-aid.

In the end, he wanted to die. The same hospital that was late finding the cancer in the first place (and quite possibly cost him his life because of it, but that is another rant) refuse to help, saying the "treatment" was the best they could do.

He had to take matters into his own hands. The last time I saw him alive was right after he took the pills (I had no idea until the next day), and that was the first time I saw him smile in months.

IMHO, I think euthanasia should be a case by case decision with laws in place to support it, but not a government regulated bureaucracy where the a person's choice is no longer theirs, and they are at the whims of death panels, etc.

That is all. I think. YMMV...

That's a rough piece of work to deal with. My parents had signed living wills, which meant they wanted no "heroic actions" taken by medical staff to keep them alive if they were in bad shape in the hospital. My mother didn't even go into the hospital when her time was near but did hospice care at home, which pretty much meant she wasn't going to go on life support.
When my father died, one of my sisters wanted to know if he wanted to lay down.

His reply was, "Sit me up, it looks more dashing that way!"

When he heard I was flying back to see him he asked, "Does that mean I have to live another day!?"

Kilkrazy wrote:The argument about euthanasia revolves around people like tblock1984's father except they are even more ill, so they can't take the pills for themselves, and they are dying even more slowly.

Government is currently involved in this issue, because right now if someone helps a person in that situation to die, they are committing murder.

These cases are rare, but that does not mean they should not be considered.

The other kinds of cases, such as vegetative state patients, are covered by existing law.

Interesting, I can't bring to mind anyone who has actually been covicted of murder becuase of this. Do you know of such a case?

There are prosecutions for assisting suicide and physicians also are investigated/struck-off for this as the law is very clear in this issue. However there is scope within the law to take circumstance into account and as such someone who is desperate to help a loved on will not be handed a sentance for murder/manslaughter. A Judge will see no benefit in jailing a husband whom assists his ill wife for example, the problem is proving that she wanted to go that way and was not coerced/forced into it. Thus a court case must ensue to prove motive/cause etc. The papers will inevitabe scandalise the case making it very emotive and giving it much less importance when the non-headline "man helps ill wife die painlessly" verdict is delivered.

Sorry to go back to earlier threads but if the Government decided to start killing people for cost saving reasons over treatment, then that would be murder [genocide?] and not euthanasia. My understanding of euthanasia is that it requires the euthanised [?] to be in pain and willing to die before the inevitatble [whether that is weeks or years doesn't matter] and that caperbility is not a consideration.

The reason that I mention caperbility is that suicide is not an option for certain/most people. Whether that is for religous reasons [sin?], stigma, squemishness or for more practical reasons i.e. how or who would want to let their relatives find the body?

Plus finally to paraphase a quote on a sig I have seen on Dakka - there some things you just need to get a professional to do.

Well, I'm not saying that Gov officials would bash down old peoples doors and order them to be Euthanised. I'm saying that a hospital may see fit to advise their patients to agree, which may or may not be called coercion.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The argument about euthanasia revolves around people like tblock1984's father except they are even more ill, so they can't take the pills for themselves, and they are dying even more slowly.

Government is currently involved in this issue, because right now if someone helps a person in that situation to die, they are committing murder.

These cases are rare, but that does not mean they should not be considered.

The other kinds of cases, such as vegetative state patients, are covered by existing law.

Interesting, I can't bring to mind anyone who has actually been covicted of murder becuase of this. Do you know of such a case?

I have not researched it.

There was a case in Britain earlier this year where a woman in that kind of situation appealed all the way to the House Of Lords to see if her husband would be free from prosecution for murder if he aided her to commit suicide. They refused to assure her about that because as the law stands it is murder.

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

Uh, yeah, how about no?

Or can you not imagine why the terminally ill who want to die might prefer it to be a doctor with a needle rather than having one of their children hand them a shotgun to gnaw on?

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that's the only way to go in Aus. Euthanasia is a big over here.

Personally, as I've said before, I wouldn't want to be put down like an animal. I'd like my life to be in my own hand. YMMV.

That doesn't mean you have to deny the opportunity to other people.

Yeh Emp, id rather have a needle than jam a bayonet in my jugular. It just seems.. cleaner.

Shoving a bayonet in your jugular is OTT. You can kill yourself in other ways, less messy ways. Besides that's not my point. As I've said before, personally I wouldn't WANT to be put down like some animal, but I can see the attraction it would have to others.

In Australia, Euthanasia is a big nono.
If a sick person wants to die, they either remove the feeding tube and starve them, or pull the plug via some other means and let them die. Niether of those options are what you'd call Euthanasia.

You haven't read the salient points.

Euthanasia is for people who are in sound mind but paralysed and wish to end their lives but are not capable of doing so by themselves.

Yes. I'm saying that in Australia that's not legal.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
If a sick person wants to die, they either remove the feeding tube and starve them, or pull the plug via some other means and let them die. Niether of those options are what you'd call Euthanasia.

If the decision is made with consent, then it is euthanasia. If it isn't, the it's murder. Well, it's murder if the decision is made without consent, or legitimate cause. But there isn't really a word for killing without consent, but with legitimate cause; though perhaps 'killing' itself denotes that idea.

What I mean to say is, that is letting someone die. It's not killing them. It's not legal in Australia to give lethal injection to the sick who consent.

Well, the difference between killing someone, and permitting their death lies in agency. Unless you reject the distinction between action and inaction.

For example, the rest state of the person in question involves a feeding tube, so removing the feeding tube is the result of agency.

People like to play lots of games to make it seem as though they are not involved in the deaths of others. It alleviates the conscience you see (and occasionally forces consideration). Sadly it does not alter the reality of the situation.

True. But which (if not both) is classified as 'Euthanasia'.

If Euthanasia covers both action and inaction, then it happens all the time.

Generally action, but since the removal of a feeding tube is an action, it can be considered euthanasia.

This is one of those arguments that depends entirely on one's aesthetic commitment to a set of premises. There is no data to settle the matter, so its simply a matter of feeling.

Personally, it seems to me that the whole thing turns on consent. If you remove a feeding tube with consent, then you're committing euthanasia. It doesn't matter that you originally consented to aid, that decision makes you a party of merit.

A rose by any other name then, no difference there.

dogma wrote:There is no data to settle the matter, so its simply a matter of feeling.

This.

I think that EMP may be eluding directly to what is seen as suicide, regardless of how it is done. Again though, it is all a matter of labeling something.