Euthanasia

[Cerberus~]

I also believe that better medical care and support for those in serious suffering is far more appropriate than murder.

Our medical abilities have grown great in the past few hundred years. But we can't do everything. Medicine has it's limits. And I think even morphine has it's limits.

Human beings have an intrinsic and undeniable dignity and value-each and every one, throughout their lives.

So, lying in a hospital bed, weak, pathetic, decrepit, dying and in large ammount of pain, is that somehow more dignifying that...dying.

Therefore I believe it is wrong to kill human beings other than in just war, necessary self-defense or the death penalty in places and situations where it is impossible to keep society safe from a dangerous criminal.

Do you have any idea how many innocent men have been murdered because of the death penalty? We released thousands from prision because of new DNA evidence that cleared them.

 

[Spherical Time]

I see a lot of people saying that all people deserve care and nutrition until God decides to end their lives.

Until there is an end to poverty and homeless, I find that these arguements are meaningless. Obviously you believe that only certain people deserve care and nutrition (and shelter, presumably).

I'm for the right to die, personally. If my choice was taken away from me only because someone that doesn't know me decides that I should live when I don't want to, I feel that is akin to simply enslaving a person.

 

[Cerberus~]

Besides, you do realize that by medicating ppl in these conditions, you're only artificially extending their life. In nature, these ppl would have died long ago. The only reason these ppl do end up dying is because we are not God, and we can not stave off the inevitable forever. Perhaps Euthanasia is God's way of bring these ppl home. Do you claim to know in all the ways God works?

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Until there is an end to poverty and homeless, I find that these arguements are meaningless. Obviously you believe that only certain people deserve care and nutrition (and shelter, presumably).

You assume that I don't believe that the poor deserve care nutrition and shelter...is there any reason for this? You say that I'm the one who thinks only certain people have the right to care...

I am talking about sustaining a life that will never be lived again. What purpose is there in a life that does nothing? What does God possibly have to give us from a body that can live with out life? Give a defense for your stance.

I do not rate the value of human life by what someone is able to do but by who and what they are-a human being, created in the Image of God and with an intrinsic dignity because of that Creation; an individual especially created by God.

So, lying in a hospital bed, weak, pathetic, decrepit, dying and in large ammount of pain, is that somehow more dignifying that...dying.

Because of the dignity of being a human being that they have anyway...thsir life must be respected and not taken away.

Do you have any idea how many innocent men have been murdered because of the death penalty? We released thousands from prision because of new DNA evidence that cleared them.

I didn't say I think we should use the death penalty...I said that in situations and countries and times where it has been impossible to keep society safe the death penalty may be justified. Our time and nations are not those places. I do not think any country in the "developed world" has a reason to use the death penalty at this time because they are able to punish the criminal and protect society as they have good prisons. Obviously, I think it needs to be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are guilty before this punishment may be inflicted...and then only when they are dangerous and really cannot be kept secure.
----------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not advocating going to extraordinary lengths to prevent the death of someone who will imminently die. I do think, however, that nutrition (except for the rare cases where this hastens death possibly) and ordinary medicine are the right of every human being--no matter what.

Peace
Rob

 

[Cerberus~]

Because of the dignity of being a human being that they have anyway...thsir life must be respected and not taken away.

What good is respecting their life if you do not respect their wishes.

I'm not advocating going to extraordinary lengths to prevent the death of someone who will imminently die. I do think, however, that nutrition (except for the rare cases where this hastens death possibly) and ordinary medicine are the right of every human being--no matter what.

Even if they refuse it? Are you going to physically force them to eat, and take their meds?

 

[Spherical Time]

You assume that I don't believe that the poor deserve care nutrition and shelter...is there any reason for this? You say that I'm the one who thinks only certain people have the right to care...

My point is that you just advocated universal health care of a certain level, and until that is mandated, to speak of forcing someone to pay for healthcare of a dying person against both the patient and the person with the financial burden's wishes is hypocricy.

In other words, you say you care, but your actions speak to a louder silence. That's why I say the arguments here are meaningless.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

My point is that you just advocated universal health care of a certain level, and until that is mandated, to speak of forcing someone to pay for healthcare of a dying person against both the patient and the person with the financial burden's wishes is hypocricy.

In other words, you say you care, but your actions speak to a louder silence. That's why I say the arguments here are meaningless.

I have not mentioned people in poverty, no. That is not because I don't care about them or think they deserve to be ignored. It's because that's not what the thread is about. Your argument seems to be that those who desire euthanasia should be given it rather than wasing money and resourses on someone who doesn't want them and instead giving them to the poor...taking that way of thinking a little further I could say that forced sterilisation or infanticide would free up resources to be given to the needy.

Just because someone doesn't want food it doesn't mean they shouldn't be given it...saying that it does defeats the logic of trying to even stop mental patients and prisoners from commiting suicide because we might as well just let them do what they want...is that what you're saying?

Pax

 

[BarbB]

I am sorry to hear of your loss. My first impression of reading this is that your husband held a different view on this to what you now do.

I do actually understand what it is to have close family in hospital in pain and near to death. Although I think it's kind of pretentious and more private that I wish to discuss. Particularly as part of a one upmanship game.

Pancreatitis, hmmm, certainly a lot of pain. Unconscious, were they treating his pain or yours. Some of the pain medications are suitable for aiding a slow death, they are not always recovery options. I don't think these issues are really honestly discussed. I have seen some of the most absurd reactions, particularly from children of dying parents. They seem to take it personally and attempt to deny death in themselves through denying it in their parents, harming them in the process.

And God gave him the pain on the way out.

I don't care for your pity, your prayer, or your condescension. You wish to impose your arbitrary moral system in a way that imposes pain on others.

Compassion is precisely what you are attempting to deny others.

My suspicion that you haven't a clue what you are talking about has been confirmed. My husband and I had both decided previously that we did not want to be kept alive artificially. Little did I know that I would have to decide when that was for him. I was not Christian at the time so don't blame my faith. Just because he was unconscious for 30 days doesn't mean that he did not feel pain. How much more incredibly insensitive can you possibly be? With your cruel wish that I die a painful death, I suspect that you are not one of the compassionate atheists whom I've gotten to know on these boards. With that, I now put you and your venom on "ignore". Congrats - you're only the 2nd in 2 years.

 

[Spherical Time]

I have not mentioned people in poverty, no. That is not because I don't care about them or think they deserve to be ignored. It's because that's not what the thread is about. Your argument seems to be that those who desire euthanasia should be given it rather than wasing money and resourses on someone who doesn't want them and instead giving them to the poor...taking that way of thinking a little further I could say that forced sterilisation or infanticide would free up resources to be given to the needy.

That's an awfully slippery slope, but it doesn't matter.

I suppose your characterization of my position is somewhat acurate, but I don't think of it as taking resources away from the euthanasiated and giving it to poor. You should be able to do both at the same time. I'm saying that as loudly as you protest euthanasia, you should be promoting the communistic ideals of universal healthcare, and I see no evidence of that.

After all, why not fight the people of sound mind who want to commit suicide after you've followed Christ's directions to help the poor?

Just because someone doesn't want food it doesn't mean they shouldn't be given it...saying that it does defeats the logic of trying to even stop mental patients and prisoners from commiting suicide because we might as well just let them do what they want...is that what you're saying?

Well, humourously, no, I'm not advocating that. The loss of mental competancy removes the ability of someone to consent to the taking of their own life. Funny how these things work out, eh?

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

You should be able to do both at the same time. I'm saying that as loudly as you protest euthanasia, you should be promoting the communistic ideals of universal healthcare, and I see no evidence of that.

I agree fully. I haven't spoken of that here as it's not the issue at hand...and I don't think I've spoken much of it elsewhere--only when it's come up.

After all, why not fight the people of sound mind who want to commit suicide after you've followed Christ's directions to help the poor?

Indeed. I think they deserve compassion and help rather than "fighting" but I get your point.

The loss of mental competancy removes the ability of someone to consent to the taking of their own life. Funny how these things work out, eh?

So what about sane prisoners who desire to kill themselves? Or sane anyone, for that matter?

Pax

 

[NothingButTheBlood]

It's funny that the people who would never "flip the switch" to kill convicted murderer can so easily kill a loved one.

 

[BarbB]

It's funny that the people who would never "flip the switch" to kill convicted murderer can so easily kill a loved one.

Sadder yet, they would flip a switch to kill someone they don't even know!

 

[Spherical Time]

So what about sane prisoners who desire to kill themselves? Or sane anyone, for that matter?

Well, that's where you and I differ.

Sadder yet, they would flip a switch to kill someone they don't even know!

Truly.

 

[James T]

With that, I now put you and your venom on "ignore". Congrats - you're only the 2nd in 2 years.

Obviously not a response to newlamb, since if I can trust in her honesty will be ignored .

Do you wish someone to die a slow suffering death? The logical result of your views on euthanasia, assuming you oppose it. This what your belief is for people who are lingering in pain.

My position is that this is precisely what you must be wishing because this the the logical result of your wish. My response to newlamb was more honest because I cut directly to the point, not wishing by proxy but directly.

I think there are very real problems with allowing euthanasia, with some people eventually accepting this choice because they feel obliged to. But still, I wonder, why the harm we will not do to animals is a harm we will do to humans.

 

[Danhalen]

I do not rate the value of human life by what someone is able to do but by who and what they are-a human being, created in the Image of God and with an intrinsic dignity because of that Creation; an individual especially created by God.

Why do you hold more value in the living matter that is human form? What is so special about a body? Do you not believe that the soul is what makes us human? If there is no way for that soul to reach out to us through the human form, why should we keep the soul trapped within the body? Where is the dignity in holding back the one thing within us that is most God-like from returning to its creator?

 

[BarbB]

Why do you hold more value in the living matter that is human form? What is so special about a body? Do you not believe that the soul is what makes us human? If there is no way for that soul to reach out to us through the human form, why should we keep the soul trapped within the body? Where is the dignity in holding back the one thing within us that is most God-like from returning to its creator?

Because it's not up to us to determine when a body should die and the spirit go to God. That's the only reason. It doesn't matter how we judge the quality of life - It's up to God to determine when a person's life is done.

 

[Danhalen]

Because it's not up to us to determine when a body should die and the spirit go to God. That's the only reason. It doesn't matter how we judge the quality of life - It's up to God to determine when a person's life is done.

Do you think that God may be telling you something when He allows the bodily processes to shut down? Just because we can keep a body alive does not mean that the person exists anymore.

 

[BarbB]

Well, I don't think that euthanasia is just turning off the machinery which is keeping a person alive. It's much more pro-active than that. Not to bring up a sore argument, but I believe that what was done to Terry Schiavo was euthanasia - she was killed for the comfort of her husband, not for her comfort. Whatever quality of her life, she had a life. What about an elderly person like my dad who had a massive stroke, but lived for another 7 years? He never thought clearly again and was bedridden for the last 6 months. Would you have poisoned him just to clear the bed for someone else? Would you have killed him because his quality of life was uncomfortable to you? It was to me also, because I remembered a brilliant chemist, but I didn't care. I could talk to him, even if he couldn't talk back.

What about an elderly person who had no loved ones to visit, the way my dad had? There are just too many variables involved for us to be making those decisions for people.

If a person wants euthanasia for themselves, I disagree, but you are right, we cannot stop them from committing suicide, but we can stop them from turning another person into a murderer.

 

[wagsbags]

Really eventually it will get to a point where we can keep a human body alive once the brain has completely stopped functioning. Would you still claim that there is some "inherent dignity" in this "person" just because they have a human body? By this argument if we had sufficient technology (which we may somebody) it would never be alright to let anybody die.

 

[NothingButTheBlood]

And when society starts to feel that those with down's and mental retardation have a poor quality of life will it be ok to kill them too.