Euthanasia - would you do it?

[Guest]

There are few state what cannot be even called a life, regardless the bilogial state is the said person is officially alive.

 

If the person can't be saved at all, why keep the person in a slow, painful torturing death, regardless if it how fast is, time is slowed for him/her, for us a few days for him/her an eternity.

 

I don't think anyone deserves a "hell" for our selfish reasons.

 

 

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Resdayn said:

There are few state what cannot be even called a life, regardless the bilogial state is the said person is officially alive.

 

If the person can't be saved at all, why keep the person in a slow, painful torturing death, regardless if it how fast is, time is slowed for him/her, for us a few days for him/her an eternity.

 

I don't think anyone deserves a "hell" for our selfish reasons.

 

 

 

AMEN to that! Thanks resydan

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Elf Prince said:

 

AMEN to that! Thanks resydan

It meant to be last resort thing, only reserved the ones who just suffer for their last days.

 

Ending it gives them the deserved peace for their last minutes, instead few millenia in the hell.

 

You really need to close to the grave with no hope, to even applied for euthanasia.

[shencereys]

I'm going to come out differently I think than most here, and say that I adamantly believe it is someone's right to end their own existence if they choose and are of sound mind,  and of consistent intent.  Everyone possesses sole ownership of their own life.

 

I do think no one should be compelled to help someone commit suicide - if they do not wish to assist it is wrong to force anybody to help  but if a person has the ability to block such an action and they do so (such as  a caretaker preventing someone from seeking help with this wish, by action or by inaction.  i.e. "well if you want it so bad the phone's over there, but you can't walk to it" is just as bad as actively stopping them ), I personally think that is an unspeakably horrible thing to do.   While it is wrong to force someone to assist with suicide, I think it is also just as wrong to prevent someone from seeking it if that is their true wish.

 

I think no one should have the ability to force someone to live except in extreme and unusual circumstances.

[Jazzman]

The hope to avoid the pain and thus any euthanasia question as such is a direct function of the medical care one has access to.

Or should I say, the medical care one can afford, hmm? So for the poor such hope is irrelevant, for the wealthier it is relevant,

and for the billionaires that rule us all like a flock of sheep, a herd of pigs, it's irrelevant again 'cause the costs to buy time play

no role whatsoever. One might conclude that the poorer a 1st and 2nd world society gets, the more prominent the euthanasia

question becomes and that in 3rd world countries the illiquid relatives of a patient merely get the information that the beloved

one has died peacefully.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Jazzman said:

The hope to avoid the pain and thus any euthanasia question as such is a direct function of the medical care one has access to.

Or should I say, the medical care one can afford, hmm? So for the poor such hope is irrelevant, for the wealthier it is relevant,

and for the billionaires that rule us all like a flock of sheep, a herd of pigs, it's irrelevant again 'cause the costs to buy time play

no role whatsoever. One might conclude that the poorer a 1st and 2nd world society gets, the more prominent the euthanasia

question becomes and that in 3rd world countries the illiquid relatives of a patient merely get the information that the beloved

one has died peacefully, unfortunately.

Actually I was thinking of large institutions like hospitals and convalescent care facilities,

where you might be the night-shift nurse,

responsible (generally) for seeing to it that

all the depressed, definitely ill and possibly suicidal, patients

all are still there and relatively normal by the time you leave.

  It's like those forum questions, "Should we nuke (yada) because they're so evil" and have half the respondents say "Nuke em all".

Does a mentally ill person or one severely hampered with down's syndrome, have the right to bang themselves against a wall til they're bloody?

But everytime I write one of these, someone cleverer than myself comes along.

OK nevermind.

You could be a motivational speaker, I couldn't.

"absolute power corrupts...." I think that's what I meant.

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, Jazzman said:

The hope to avoid the pain and thus any euthanasia question as such is a direct function of the medical care one has access to.

Or should I say, the medical care one can afford, hmm? So for the poor such hope is irrelevant, for the wealthier it is relevant,

and for the billionaires that rule us all like a flock of sheep, a herd of pigs, it's irrelevant again 'cause the costs to buy time play

no role whatsoever. One might conclude that the poorer a 1st and 2nd world society gets, the more prominent the euthanasia

question becomes and that in 3rd world countries the illiquid relatives of a patient merely get the information that the beloved

one has died peacefully.

 

Exactly. It's not that we can't afford for my "vegetating", but it's a only for short period of time, few months. I stated to Eva and Ivy: "I don't want you to waste the money on me being in pain, immobile, vegetating. That money can be spent on much useful things and people: our future children."

[Di3sIrae]

14 hours ago, EvalovesEP said:

> Yes, we are married and we are living in love triangle. If anyone is interesting about us, they always can visit my profile and read my "Diaries of love triangle" blog.

That's nice, glad you all can live happily together

5 hours ago, Resdayn said:

If the person can't be saved at all, why keep the person in a slow, painful torturing death, regardless if it how fast is, time is slowed for him/her, for us a few days for him/her an eternity.

This remembered me of the song "One" from Metallica, that is about a movie that i don't remember the name. Never saw it. But the lyrics and situation...

 

4 hours ago, Jazzman said:

So for the poor such hope is irrelevant, for the wealthier it is relevant

Yes, it is irrelevant. I live in a place where people die in hospitals because of infections and improper medical care (not exactly because of bad professionals, but because government doesn't care about health at all). We just accept that it had to happen. What else could you do? We rely on public hospitals and particular ones are too expensive. In the world we live, the poor will be always a step down. They choose who they think deserves something, and the others may stay there surviving as general mass. Sad, very sad.
Money that would be used to buy food for schools for kids, or for public hospitals, is spent and split among who receives them, for nothing but their personal lives.

 

And yet, we're here, living. Everyone does so. Doesn't matter how bad is the situation, people still go on. Sorry about my ramblings.

 

But, anyway, i'm here discussing euthanasia. If, like i stated, stem cells becomes something and them medicine becomes able to "resurrect" falling organs and recover lost tissue, it will still be expensive enough to not be something for the poor, which will still rely on the "hey, sorry pal, he/she couldn't resist anymore". Maybe then Euthanasia will still be something as illegal as it is today. Maybe more, because you have a way around it...

[Jazzman]

11 hours ago, 2dk2c said:

You could be a motivational speaker, I couldn't.

Lucky you!

 

That role I've played a long time ago and there's no voice within that could ever resurrect me for a sequel, another virtual Passion Play under a

pale moon. Quoth the raven: Nevermore!

So at best one takes my posts as cryptic monologues of a witch in the dark forest. Don't get bewitched tho, wanderer, I've run out of med packs.

 

[/OT]

[Guest]

17 hours ago, Di3sIrae said:

That's nice, glad you all can live happily together

This remembered me of the song "One" from Metallica, that is about a movie that i don't remember the name. Never saw it. But the lyrics and situation...

 

Yes, it is irrelevant. I live in a place where people die in hospitals because of infections and improper medical care (not exactly because of bad professionals, but because government doesn't care about health at all). We just accept that it had to happen. What else could you do? We rely on public hospitals and particular ones are too expensive. In the world we live, the poor will be always a step down. They choose who they think deserves something, and the others may stay there surviving as general mass. Sad, very sad.
Money that would be used to buy food for schools for kids, or for public hospitals, is spent and split among who receives them, for nothing but their personal lives.

 

And yet, we're here, living. Everyone does so. Doesn't matter how bad is the situation, people still go on. Sorry about my ramblings.

 

But, anyway, i'm here discussing euthanasia. If, like i stated, stem cells becomes something and them medicine becomes able to "resurrect" falling organs and recover lost tissue, it will still be expensive enough to not be something for the poor, which will still rely on the "hey, sorry pal, he/she couldn't resist anymore". Maybe then Euthanasia will still be something as illegal as it is today. Maybe more, because you have a way around it...

> You said couple very good things. I also think that regardless anything he/we should go on, but we are all different and our definition of life value varies. Some people lose will for living even for lesser reasons. I do not judge my Prince for wishing to be euthanized if he ever ends up they way he described. I understand him although I do not approve it.

[Guest]

17 hours ago, Jazzman said:

Lucky you!

 

That role I've played a long time ago and there's no voice within that could ever resurrect me for a sequel, another virtual Passion Play under a

pale moon. Quoth the raven: Nevermore!

So at best one takes my posts as cryptic monologues of a witch in the dark forest. Don't get bewitched tho, wanderer, I've run out of med packs.

 

[/OT]

@/OT:

We seriously need an off-topic off-topic, one where the most histrionically written, polemically charged post would win the day.

"Pink vs Fuchsia" comes to mind.

"You can take our pink...

But you'll never take...

OUR FUCHSIA!!!!!

(*ahem*)

and Pink-lovers are twisted and sadistic and they can go to HELL before I apologize to them.

/OT

I'm against it, but I understand it, as "EvalovesEP" said.

My wife could have refused treatment, knowing she'd die anyway

(They kept telling her she was going to die anyway)

way to cheer her up.

"You're gonna die anyway (but no, you can't have an oxygen tank, a wheelchair,

*Or travel orders for your treatments (they called me long distance to ask WTF they were supposed to do)

  Sorry we missed the biggie bad spot on your heart, here's some pills to take while you recover

 (O wait!! we cancelled your insurance!! O, no we didn't)

And these people would be the ones in charge of euthanasia as a medical procedure.

No. (But I understand)

 

PPSS

I can't be absolutely (for really-really) sure but towards the last, dying of a hospital-borne infection and finding it hard to breathe every last breath,

they might have given her so much morphine that her frail body eventually gave up trying to breathe,

Whether that's factually true I'll never know but I will always suspect.

[Jazzman]

1 hour ago, 2dk2c said:

@/OT:

We seriously need an off-topic off-topic, one where the most histrionically written, polemically charged post would win the day.

No we absolutely don't need that anymore. Reading the op-eds of the Washington Post and the New York Times and alike does nicely to dive into your histrionic "off-topic-off-topic" thread and the Orwellian upside-down world of things it stands for, things you can't challenge with logic and only describe in metaphors [/OT]

 

Whose pain is more serious? The one that has the pain and dies or the one that is left behind in pain, sometimes for the rest of the life?

[FauxFurry]

In most likelihood, I would not. A life filled with misery is still better than no life at all. As long as there is still life, there is still chance for improvement and, just as important, more chances to experience life itself and to touch the lives of others.

I would likely only consider it if the person/pet was brain-dead already and the so-called euthanasia really only consists of pulling life support from them.

[Guest]

I'm gonna live forever even if it kills me. 

 

Snark aside, yeah, even if it comes down to "preserve my brain until technology advances to the point of transplant or assistive technology that doesn't rely on any physical components whatsoever", keep me running. The things I want are 1) the ability to perceive novel stimuli in some form, preferably things like 'reading', 2) the ability to formulate and record my own thoughts/opinions/reactions to these stimuli and 3) [optional] the ability to communicate with people about these things. I don't really see what more one could really need in order for existence to be tolerable. If I were a preserved digital intelligence in a box with Wikipedia & IRC access I'd be happy for eternity. Take out the communication component and I get grumpier but still tolerable. Existing is my favorite thing. 

 

I have, deo gratias, not been in a position to think about whether pain would change that equation. I have been suicidally depressed before, but built myself up out of it eventually. I don't deal well with physical pain, but I would find any way possible to cope, up until my natural end.