Medical Questions > Debate Forums > General Debate Forum

Euthanasia Debate Question (Page 1)

User Profile
Euthanasia is the act of intentionally causing the painless death of a sick person.


Do you think it is right for a physician to refuse to participate in active euthanasia?

Do you think it is right for a physician to participate in active euthanasia?

What is more humane?
Did you find this post helpful?

replied November 26th, 2007
Active User, very eHealthy
depends upon your deffination of "sick" and also the extremeties of the sickness.

For me Euthenasia is only permissibale if the person is being kept alive by machines without hope of recovery. I also believe it is a persons right to refuse drugs to keep them alive.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied December 14th, 2007
Experienced User
I think it's fine, so long as the patient is of sound mind when the decision is made. I'd rather be euthanised before it got to the being kept alive by machines stage.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied February 14th, 2008
Experienced User
Amen!
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied May 2nd, 2010
Pro-Euthanasia
I believe Euthanasia is ok if the person is in a lot of pain and they are choosing for themselves. "Right to Die"
people shouldnt be kept alive on machines for their families perposes.

I know I would rather die peacefully than in a lot of pain/being kept alive
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied May 3rd, 2010
Experienced User
I completely support the right of terminally ill people to choose to die. If I am a pet owner, I would be charged with animal neglect / cruelty if I did not take a very sick animal to the vets to have it put to sleep, yet in the case of a sick / dying relative, no one can do anything to put them out of their suffering and help them end it. We have to sit and watch them suffer and wither away, knowing there is nothing we can do to help.

I think it should be the case that terminally ill patients who are suffering greatly and are in a sound enough mind to make this decision, should be allowed to end it quickly and painlessly in dignity, if they so desire, and friends / relatives should not be penalised for helping them get this relief.
|
Did you find this post helpful?
Users who thank GreyWolf for this post: motherofhighspiritedones 

User Profile
replied May 30th, 2010
Euthanasia must be illegal because only God has the right to take our lives away.Euthanasia is against the word and will of God. and i think that allowing euthanasia will discourage the search for new cures and treatments for the terminally ill.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied July 5th, 2011
Extremely eHealthy
wow, so u have a god who says when mommy gets in an accident and taken to hospital put on life support and wakes up 2 weeks later looking at eternity in pain and u and this god demand she suffer. . wow best hope mommy is not 24 because she could stay that way for many decades and btw where does it say exactly this moral superior demand from this god?
did u actually contemplate this or just repeating what some morally superior religious fan says
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied June 4th, 2018
Hello, in american, the states that have legalized physician assisted suicide only allow a fully conscious and right minded person follow through with the practice. Also terminally ill people have about 6 months to live, otherwise they wouldn't be described as terminally ill. therefore they know that there is "deadline" on their life. They don't wish to spend the rest of their limited time in agony and pain. They want to go out peacefully. Also the right to liberty is described as the right to free will. As a citizen who is right minded they should have the ability to exercise their rights as long as it doesn't breach anybody else's rights.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied June 8th, 2010
Experienced User
Not everybody believes in God. And how would allowing euthanasia discourage searches for cures and treatments? Doctor's number one job is to save people's lives, and doctors will attempt all possible treatments to save that person's life, even new untried treatments. Whilst I support finding new medicines, I do also support the freedom of those who are beyond help to chose to die quickly, in dignity and as painlessly as possible if there is nothing else that can be done to save them, everything else having been tried and failing. Allowing euthanasia would in no way discourage the search for better treatment.
|
Did you find this post helpful?
Users who thank GreyWolf for this post: motherofhighspiritedones 

User Profile
replied June 8th, 2010
Community Volunteer
I would support euthanasia. Like you, GreyWolf, if a person is beyond all medical help and they are just wilting away, they should have the right to a little bit of dignity and be allowed to pass as painlessly as possible, if they choose. If I were to become terminally ill, then I would choose euthanasia for myself.
And no, not everyone believes in God, and religion, in my opinion, for the most part, should be left out of medical procedures (unless it is the PATIENT'S religion, not the doctor's). And euthanasia, since it requires controlled medicines that only certain certified health care professionals have access too, would be covered under "medical procedures".
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied June 9th, 2010
if it will not discourage them finding new treatments, for sure the injection will be very expensive and the price will keep increasing so euthanasia will be a source for getting more money Mr Wolf
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied June 13th, 2010
Experienced User
RymJemai wrote:
if it will not discourage them finding new treatments, for sure the injection will be very expensive and the price will keep increasing so euthanasia will be a source for getting more money Mr Wolf


Many medical procedures are also very expensive. Your point being?
And the costs of these procedures are also increasing. Euthanasia would be included as a medical procedure. Many medical procedures therefore cou;d be counted as a source of more money.
And since when has something being a source of money made it wrong?

Also I'm female. Miss Wolf if you please.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied July 26th, 2010
euthanasia
it will discourage people to search for new cures because if there is no one to test the cures on how will they know if they work or not.. plus legalizing euthanasia will promote doctors to use it more frequently to clear beds or save money, the moral behind human life will be washed away if we start taking peoples life in to our own hands
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied July 29th, 2010
Experienced User
Re: euthanasia
havoksgirl wrote:
it will discourage people to search for new cures because if there is no one to test the cures on how will they know if they work or not.. plus legalizing euthanasia will promote doctors to use it more frequently to clear beds or save money, the moral behind human life will be washed away if we start taking peoples life in to our own hands


"No-one to test cures on"? So terminally ill people are just there for doctors to test new cures on? No. Terminally ill people are still PEOPLE. Their rights, feelings and choices are still important, and should still be respected right to the end. They may not wish to be used as a human "guinea pig" for drugs testing before they die, even if there is nothing more that can be done to help them.

Once the pain gets too much, they should be allowed to chose to end it if they so desire, once everything that could possibly save them has been tried and failed.
And no, euthanasia would not be used by doctors to clear beds because as stated it would be entirely the patients choice. Doctors would not be able to sway people's decisions either way.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied August 30th, 2010
what if the sick person has said at an earlier stage of the sickness maybe when feeling low and in pain that they want to die but when it comes to it they don't want to say they had a accident and had become unable to tell anyone they wanted to live what then?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied September 5th, 2010
Experienced User
No-one would be euthanased if they did not want to be. It would be entirely their choice. The sick person would have to sign forms and declarations to make absolutely one hundred per-cent sure that they wished to proceed and as part of this, would be required to sign one just before the actual process itself, too declare that they are still wishing to proceed. If they are not of sane mind, the procedure will not go ahead.
Every patient will be given plenty of time and opportunities to change their mind, and make sure it is really what they want.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

This post has been removed because it did not meet our Community Guidelines.

replied May 2nd, 2012
Euthanasia should be a choice. The person in question, where possible, should be asked whether they would like to die painlessely or be kept alive. If they are unable to make a choice, a descision should be made prior to the persons illness or accident which makes them terminally ill; the person in question will write down who they wish to decide for them if they become terminally ill (much like a next in kin for example).
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied October 11th, 2012
Euthanasia practices are morally unjust. How can any one person make a choice for themselves in such conditions? You say that if they are of sound mind to make such decisions then their declaration shall be carried out but have you ever thought that the pain or depression has clouded their judgment? Diagnostic tests to determine whether someone is of sound mind do not exist because it is a matter of opinion. Nobody knows exactly what goes on in the brain of another nor do they know their experiences, trials and triumphs. A number of emotions can confuse the decisions of a person. They give off signs of being able to comprehense the consequences of their choices and actions when in all reality they are giving into an enemy in disguise. There will always be that hope for recovery. Every last moment should be cherished and lived as life was planned to be. Giving physicians the power over ones life is not only a pathetic move but a degrading one at that. There are alternative ways to alleviate pain. Asking for assisted suicide is a cry for help, a cry for positive solutions to very real problems. Allowing voluntary euthanasia opens many doors into allowing non-voluntary euthanasia such as in the Netherlands. Problems aren't solved by getting rid of the person with the problem. In any sane person's mind, assisted suicide, whether voluntary or not, is still a considerable amount like murder. Anyone can plant the idea and thoughts in another's mind. Life is a serious matter, not something you throw away. You make the best of your situation and live the best you can and to this day I still oppose assisted suicide. I will forever stand against the views for those who are pro-euthanasia until given convincing information and views as to how in the world assisted suicide can be morally. socially, and mentally acceptable.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied January 24th, 2017
I have a friend who was pronounced clinically dead for as long as 6 hours with doctors and nurses witnesses until this day. His parents refused to do any embalming procedures but prayed continually. You know what happened? He started to breathe again and now he plays drums and works at Lexmark. You don't have to believe there is someone who made you but don't discredit that it's much harder to believe that you are a result of chance in a big bang which no one ever saw. God loves you and 2000 years ago HIS SON died for you so that you don't have to suffer eternity in hell. Why is the core of the earth hotter than the surface of the sun? There might be a purpose. Don't go to that place. JESUS came that you might have life and that you might have it more abundantly (Jn. 10:10). So think again when considering euthanasia, because it is still a form of suicide.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied December 16th, 2017
The first time the term “euthanasia” was ever used, was by an English philosopher by the name of Francis Bacon in the 17th century. He referred to this term as “an easy, painless, happy death, during which it was a physician's responsibility to alleviate the 'physical sufferings' of the body”. The current and more modern term of euthanasia is defined as “the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy”.
Euthanasia can be classified into two different types, being either active or passive. An active euthanasia happens when a medical physicist or another person deliberately causes the patients death. Whereas passive euthanasia occurs when the patient’s life is not directly taken, the patient is simply allowed to die without the medical intervention of the professionals. In other words, the doctors either stop supplying the medical attention needed to keep the patient alive, such as switching life support machines off, disconnecting the feeding tube, not carrying out the life-extending operations, not giving life-extending drugs and such. Active euthanasia is separated into three different categories, being voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary euthanasia is done with the consent of the patient. The term "assisted-suicide" is often used instead since the physicist assists the patient when ending his or her life. Non-voluntary euthanasia is done without the permission of the patient since that patient is unable to consent due to mental or physical reasons. Involuntary euthanasia is done against the persons will, as in patients who want to live, but are euthanized regardless.
The word euthanasia is derived from the Greek word “Eu”, which means good, and “Thanatoisis”, which means death. If we were to connect these words, it would be “good death”, or in other words, “merciful killing”. The practice of Euthanasia dates back to Ancient Greece and Rome where subjects, who were being terminated, would be given things such as hemlock, which is a poisonous plant that speeds the process of death. They used this method more as a means of killing someone painlessly. As time passed, the practice of euthanasia caused many debates. That's when, in 1892, with the introduction of the criminal code in Canada, came the law where all forms of suicide were considered a criminal offense in accordance with section 241(b):
"Everyone is guilty of an indictable offense and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years who, whether suicide ensues or not, counsel a person to die by suicide or abets a person in dying by suicide; or aids a person to die by suicide."
However, in 1972, suicide was decriminalized, yet assisted-suicide remained as a criminal offense. On February 6th 2015, following the Carter v Canada case, the Supreme court of Canada judged that assisted suicide with the help of doctors was allowed as a legal procedure if and only if the patient clearly consents to the termination of his or her own life, and if the medical condition of the patient is very severe, incurable and if the patient is enduring intolerable suffering.
The most important aspect that led to the supreme court making its decision to the decriminalization of euthanasia was the Carter v Canada case. This case was put into place by several parties, namely, the family of Kay Carter, a woman who was suffering from a degenerative spinal stenosis, and Gloria Taylor, a woman suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), to abolish the criminalization of assisted-suicide. Their main argument was that that both section 14 and section 241(b) of the criminal code violated sections 7, which is the right to “life, liberty and security of that person, and violated section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of rights and freedom, which guarantees equal rights to all.
Because Euthanasia is a very debated subject, many countries worldwide share different views on the manner. For example, countries such as the Netherlands and Belgium, were the first countries to legalize euthanasia for their patients back in 2002, while their close neighbor France shares a different view, making euthanasia and physicist assisted-suicide illegal. In Germany, physicist euthanasia is legal only if the patient can take the medication without anyone’s help. Switzerland has legalized assisted-suicide under certain conditions, like the individual must have no “self-seeking motives”. Euthanasia is so controversial that even within a country, some areas have legalized it while others haven’t. For instance, in the United-States, only a few states such as Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Montana and New Mexico have legalized euthanasia.
The reason euthanasia is so controversial is due to the conflict of values between people. Everyone has a different view on this issue, some religious, some financial, some from experience. There are many religious views on euthanasia, but almost all religions are against its practice. For example, some believe that death is an important journey in one’s life and that sickness is an occasion for spiritual enlightenment. Most religions with a supreme God believe that all life is sacred and because it is given by God, only God can decide when to take it away; humans should not interfere with this decision. Turning towards a doctor’s view on the issue, almost all of them are against such practice because even before they become professionals, they must swear upon the Hippocratic oath. This oath states that a doctor must “not give a lethal drug to anyone if asked, nor advise such a plan”. This is just a small part of the Hippocratic oath which clearly goes against the practice of euthanasia. Other dilemmas against euthanasia are that some patients may feel pressured into giving consent. Such as pressure from their families and friends that are suffering just as much from watching the patient in such a state. Another factor that comes into play is that there’s a small possibility of the patient recovering from the terminal illness.
The reason some may be for euthanasia may be the financial aspect of maintaining a patient alive. For instance, it can cost between 2000 to 4000 dollars a day to maintain a terminally-ill patient on life support, and it may be even higher depending on the treatment, while it would only cost around 100 dollars to sort to euthanasia. On average, each province in Canada spends roughly 4.7 billion dollars on terminally-ill patients who are to pass in the coming year. It is also estimated that Canada could save up to 138.8 million dollars with the implementation of euthanasia. When I analyze the facts, and take into consideration all the values behind euthanasia and consider my morals, I set myself to believe that assisted-suicide should be a legalized process. When looking at this topic through the views of the Utilitarian perspective, we can realize that it is morally deplorable to criminalize euthanasia. Utilitarianism is an ethical doctrine which states “that the moral worth of an action is solely determined by its contribution to overall utility”. In this case, the term “utility” is defined as happiness, pleasure and a reduced amount of pain. Meaning that an action is deemed morally right if they promote happiness and is deemed bad if it encourages unwanted results. By giving into the patient’s desires, euthanasia would increase the overall happiness of patients, their families, and friends while decreasing the pain dealt by the issue; the means are justified and it is considered morally correct. It would increase the happiness of the patient because they will know that they have the right to a choice, and the right to die with dignity. It will increase the happiness of the family and friends because it shortens their grief and shortens the patient’s needlessly slow death. The criminalization of euthanasia is also morally degraded by the epicureanism standpoint, which states “that the greatest good is to seek modest pleasures in order to attain a state of tranquillity, freedom from fear and absence from bodily pain”. In this case, to attain a state of tranquility and freedom from fear, one must have the option to end their life via euthanasia and have a piece of mind knowing that they will not be causing any of their family and friends longer grief. Epicureanism is a system of philosophy that is based on the teaching of the Greek philosopher Epicurus. He suggested that death cannot hurt us and that we cannot suffer from death since it ends all ability of suffering. In addition, most of the time, being a terminally-ill patient causes pain, mentally and physically, so having the option to be euthanized could rid the patient of their discomforts. When a patient is terminally-ill, that patient is most of the time bed bound. They are ultimately stuck to the bed and can hardly perform any actions because of their state. This usually means that the individual is no longer able to continue drawing his portrait. According to Sartre, man is nothing else but what he desires to accomplish, and that man only exists to realize himself. That a man's life is viewed by the sum of his actions. Thus, when a patient is bedridden, they can no longer realize themselves, since there isn’t any more actions to be accomplished. The patient's life is viewed by their previous actions and as such, their portrait should not be viewed on when bedridden. If the individual can no longer draw anymore, he then no longer exists.
Using the values from utilitarianism and epicureanism ideology, we can see why this controversial issue is degrading to the individuals affected by the criminalization of euthanasia. Not having the liberty to resort to euthanasia should not be an additional worry patients and their families, who are already put under stress, should have to go through. Furthermore, the publics general opinion on euthanasia is slowly becoming more accepting. Hospitals should give the choice of life back to the patients.
|
Did you find this post helpful?
12