In the Netherlands there are elderly dementia sufferers being put to death. They are being dripped and euthanised kicking and screaming, denying they want it. When they were younger, they signed for it, or their caregivers agree to it now, but how are we to determine this is in their best interest? Perhaps if they were compis mentis, or perhaps even on this issue through their dementia they are, they would now have denied it?
There is no way to check or run a quality control of how Euthanasia was practiced or if it was legitimate.
Yes, my wording was perhaps a bit misleading and emotive. I do however find it egregious and know from personal experience that for every reported case there are many that go unreported. I do think Euthanising dementia sufferers on these grounds unacceptable, as did 220 Dutch doctors as mentioned in one of the newspaper reports I attached.This does not sound at all as seeing this case as an incident. For one your are talking in plural (and I have not heard of similar cases to date). You talk about 'kicking and screaming'. I would advice to read the report: that did not happen. Furthermore you don't acknowledge the fact it is an excess for which the doctor was reprimanded. The doctor was cleared yes, by criminal law, as doctors are almost never punished via the justice system (like aviation controllers, as a suspect in that sense they would have right of silence, what would hinder the finding of the truth). A reprimand by the commission is in the Netherlands a very severe punishment for a doctor, it can destroy a career. So the fact that this case was an exception, that disciplinary action was taken and that this is not at all Dutch policy, doesn't really resonate in your original post I quote above.
No, I think doctors should treat their patients. We should extend life as far as possible with as good quality as possible. However, when prognosis becomes too poor or further intervention deleterious to quality of life - such as certain regimes of chemotherapy - then we should step back and let nature run its course, with agreement from the patient of course. I don't think we should extend life at all costs nor that doctors are supposed to treat patients with the sole goal of extending the organism's existence.For the last part I think you are correct. We will not gain anything with further discussion. Our viewpoints are too far apart. We will not agree on the role doctors play in helping their patients. You seem to believe that the sole purpose of the doctor is to extend life at all cost. In my opinion the doctors role is to extend life as far as possible up to the point where there isn't any quality in living that life. And if so, the doctor is the right (and only) person to interfere with life. He is the only one with sufficient medical expertise to act responsibly in this regard.
My pleasure. Perhaps I spoke too hasty, but yes, we shall have to agree to disagree.I have however enjoyed a fruitful discussion with substance and I thank you for that!
Another point worth considering, is that if we Euthanise the terminally ill, we lose incentive to research and actively combat those illnesses. If there aren't many terminally ill, why would limited research grants be used trying to stop the illnesses involved? Without institutions with such patients, they will be somewhat forgotten about or loom less large in our research efforts. There would also be a far smaller pool of people available for studies on the conditions.
To illustrate what I am saying, there is very little research being done on Malaria outside the third world, as it has been largely eradicated there. American Universities aren't studying TB as much, more diabetes and cardiovascular diseases. We study what morbidities we find in our populations, so if we artificially lower the disease burden in the population by Euthanasia, the incentive to address and treat that burden is also lowered.
"Unbearable suffering with no prospect of improvement" is a highly subjective term therefore.
I think though that doctors are biased by being exposed to too much suffering. Bias works both ways. This is why I espouse a neutral Euthanasist, neither doctor nor politician, to decide; although I would rather no Euthanasia takes place.Of course it is. That is why patients themselves and people near them do not have the authority or expertise to decide that. If anyone can make that judgement, it is a doctor, who is most qualified and informed about a certain disease or disorder. If anyone can make a accurate judgement if someone is suffering unbearably, it is the doctor. A politician cannot make that decision, nor can he for practical reasons decide that per case. But politicians have acknowledged that there can be situations where euthanasia is the humane thing to do. Therefore they have constructed the law in a wide fashion (instead of a restricted one) where the doctor is the one making the decision. It's a system of discretional politics and it is one of the best inventions in that scene. Lets make the ones with the real expertise able to make the decisions, not the politicians themselves.
Euthanasia should be legalized, not even be debatable to me.They are making it like we all on both sites like to debate these things for one person to shine. These are life and death issues. God set I set before you life and death therefore choose life
I thought the people still had a conscience and some good they did not pass it in Sydney recently we won. But I just heard it passed in another state of Australia: Victoria
This should never be up for a vote. I would not permit a nurse or doctor to kill someone I love even though he asks for it. Some may ask for it in their will but then refuse it later but because of his will you want to show no mercy and kill him ? Or even if he says no before and then says yes you are going to use that against him ? We believe in God who can change their mind in the last minute. When the man listened to Saul Who asked him to kill him instead of the philistines hurting him. David condemned the man who just listened to Saul. Religious people can lose their jobs if they refuse it. But God does not allow us to suffer more than we can bear there is always a way of escape if you did not ask for it.
Some of you will say that had nothing to do with euthanasia but Saul knew he would die from the prophecy of samuel when he raised him from the dead.
We can never know if someone can make someone suffer more than he can bear so if they can I leave that to God.. but you should be able to stop the work of those trying to kill you. But God would never let one suffer more than they can bear I know now
Euthanasia should be legalized, not even be debatable to me.
Not trying to be rude, but I don't understand what you're trying to say here.If it is legalised then it affects all not just those who want a quick death. Even they you should not help end their life.Euthanasia is assisted suicide.
A person normally against suicide may be suicidal and you want to have fake/false compassion and end his life ?
Not trying to be rude, but I don't understand what you're trying to say here.
I hunt, and I can't stand to see an animal suffering from a poorly placed shot. Not only does it break my heart, it's immoral to allow it to suffer. Anyone with an ounce of compassion would put it down. If human's are worth more than animals, how much more immoral would it be to allow them to suffer??
Her suffering led to her salvation if she accepted God the voice of Holy Spirit knocking at door of her heart
You got to love God more than parents even if that just means love His law and change it not for yourself. But you also got to trust His judgement and also if not you bring condemnation to yourself and your family for that is like suicide not to trust His judgement and if God judgement to many is severe as it may be why then do you resist it if it is true and bring judgement to yourselves
Revelations says whoever adds or takes away I will take His part from the holy city and from the things written in the book
He even told the martyrs they had to endure and not deny Him in tribulation. Be faithful unto death and I will give you the crown of life
He who overcomes I will confess His have before My Father
If they had to overcome so do all
They are making it like we all on both sites like to debate these things for one person to shine. These are life and death issues. God set I set before you life and death therefore choose life
I thought the people still had a conscience and some good they did not pass it in Sydney recently we won. But I just heard it passed in another state of Australia: Victoria
This should never be up for a vote. I would not permit a nurse or doctor to kill someone I love even though he asks for it. Some may ask for it in their will but then refuse it later but because of his will you want to show no mercy and kill him ? Or even if he says no before and then says yes you are going to use that against him ? We believe in God who can change their mind in the last minute. When the man listened to Saul Who asked him to kill him instead of the philistines hurting him. David condemned the man who just listened to Saul. Religious people can lose their jobs if they refuse it. But God does not allow us to suffer more than we can bear there is always a way of escape if you did not ask for it.
Some of you will say that had nothing to do with euthanasia but Saul knew he would die from the prophecy of samuel when he raised him from the dead.
We can never know if someone can make someone suffer more than he can bear so if they can I leave that to God.. but you should be able to stop the work of those trying to kill you. But God would never let one suffer more than they can bear I know now
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?