can someone give some input on euthanasia? thanks?
79958
If euthanasia is allowed my concern is a doctor going to try hard to perserve life?  No, basic human nature.  It violates the Hypocratic Oath that they take.\n\nIt inessence makes doctors gods determining life and death.  Doctors are to perserve life.
8761
i agree!!\n\nEuthanasia (Greek: ευθανασία - ευ "good", θανατος "death") refers to assisted dying. The assistance ends the life of a person or an animal, in a painless or minimally painful way. Euthanasia is most often performed in a merciful way, in order to end suffering. This article discusses euthanasia in humans; a separate article covers animal euthanasia.\n\nThis topic is often highly-charged—emotionally, politically, and morally. Terminology and laws shift over time and geographically and globally, causing a great deal of confusion.\n\nFirstly there is some debate as to whether euthanasia refers to "letting die" or "allowing to die." (See terms: informed consent, decisional capacity, surrogate decision making, Living wills, Do Not Resuscitate) In the United States and the Netherlands, "letting die" or "allowing to die" refer to areas which the state consider ethically and legally acceptable and permissible. This includes the withholding and withdrawing of medical treatment such as dialysis or feeding tubes or hydration and nutrition. The last two being things which are associated with "love and caring" in most cultures. While the concept of holding off on those two things may be counterintuitive, as a body's major organ systems try to shut down, a dying person often feels most comfortable without any fluids or food. To do otherwise is like "force feeding" a body that does not "want" or need to be fed or hydrated, and doing so may actually cause physical discomfort and suffering.\n\nIn the UK this is usually only accepted when a newly born baby is born with certain physical or mental disorders.\n\nIn most other countries removing or denying treatment would usually be seen as murder. Usually, because in a growing number of law cases over the last 20 years, the jury has sided with the defendant.\n\nNext are several summary statements defining what euthanasia can include,. These are followed by expanded definitions of each. Euthanasia (assisted dying) may employ methods that are either indirect or direct. Indirect methods of euthanasia are defined by a individual him or herself taking the final step inducing death. Direct methods are defined by the involvement of others (clinicians) who take the final step inducing death. Direct euthanasia can either be voluntary, nonvoluntary or involuntary. (See Karl Binding and Alfred Hoche for one of the first uses of the three types of euthanasia.)\n\nIndirect euthanasia involves the indirect involvement of a clinician (e.g. physician, clinical nurse practitioner, pharmacist) as an agent who participates only by providing the means for a patient to induce his/her own death. This could mean writing or filling a prescription for medications in a quantity large enough to cause death when taken by the patient. This kind of assistance is currently legal in the American state of Oregon. It became legal in 1998 as a result of the "Death with Dignity Act" which was passed in the state in 1994. In politically and emotionally loaded terms, this is frequently referred to as physician-assisted suicide.\n\nDirect euthanasia involves the direct involvement of a clinician as agent in inducing a patient’s death. (e.g. administering a lethal drug by injection.) Direct euthanasia is not currently legal anywhere in the US, but both direct and indirect euthanasia are legal in Belgium and the Netherlands.\n\nVoluntary euthanasia occurs with the fully-informed request of a decisionally-competent adult patient or that of their surrogate (proxy). (Example: Thomas Youk, with ALS was assisted by Jack Kevorkian.)\n\nA large part of the controversy surrounding euthanasia focuses upon the slippery slope argument. The fear is that indirect euthanasia and/or voluntary direct euthanasia will lead to acceptance of the nonvoluntary and involuntary types of euthanasia.\n\nNonvoluntary euthanasia
296677
I'm a nurse and have taken care of the "living dead" also.  It is still an agonizing desicion to have to make.  It's different to care for these people and say pull the plug than it is to have known them, loved them, and say pull the plug.  There is no right answer.  Death is immenent.  The desicion is agonizing.
836121
No.  In this day and age NO ONE should die in pain.  That's what hospice is for.  The hospice team will be able to help the patient live their final days, weeks, months nearly pain free.  \n\nHospice DOES NOT euthanize patients....just helps to make them comfortable.  I would NEVER be in favor of euthanasia.....the hour of our death is in God's hands.
343399
The anguish is the big thing. The dying person knows there's no going back and then they continue to suffer. The family and friends also suffer. I know that if assisted suicide had been allowed for my cancer ridden grandfather I would have had better memories.\n\n\nWe do it to animals to be kind to them so why not do it to humans? If an animal has no quality of life then we are kind to it. If humans have no quality of life then why should they suffer.\n\nIt is already done in the medical profession. When my grandmother was dying from organ failure the doctor just kept uping her morphine so that she was in less pain but it would also end her suffering a lot earlier.\n\nDignity. My grandfather went through the war and everything and was a strong man. He was so embarrassed and undignified by his death that it cause him not to enjoy his remaining time.
594177
No. It is actually very selfish. I've been there. When you truly think about it, it would hurt so many people whether you think so or not. People can set up a "do not resuscitate" order so if anything should happen, doctors can not keep them alive, however, euthanasia is out of the question. There would be too many unhappy people euthanizing themselves just because. Life takes some work, but it will be worth it in the end.
1044548
I fully beleive that if someone wants to die, they should be able to do it. The governemnt's not going to stop me if I really want to commit suicide. Pain should be able to be stopped -- one way or another. Death is as good a way as others. \nBy the way...I really wish doctors actually did no harm.
30879
Wow, I posed that very question in relation to physician-assisted suicide on a paper I wrote a few weeks ago...\n\nit doesn't make any sense to me. i mean, physician -assisted suicide is when the patient is terminally ill with no chance of recovery, only has a few months or even weeks to live, is suffering intolerable pain, and really just wants to put an end to their own suffering... yet this is illegal in most of the world, and all of the US states except for Oregon(and Bush is trying to get it taken away from there too...) I don't understand why this is illegal, yet a women is allowed to kill her unborn child who has a full life ahead of them.  It seems that abortion is more "wrong" than suicide, because it's dealing with someone else's life, and with abortion you have other options like adoption. regardless of whether abortion is right or wrong, it seems more wrong than physician-assisted suicide(PAS), so why is PAS illegal and abortion legal? it makes no sense at all.  i can understand regular suicide, because the person could just be temporarily depressed and end up having a fine life later on, or be thankful that their suicide was prevented... however, there really is no legal deterant for people committing suicide since if they succeed, they won't have to worry about any legal ramifications anyway. even with drugs, i think people who use drugs are just stupid and if they are stupid enough to use drugs then we really don't need their genes in the gene pool anyway... it's their choice, and i agree that there shouldnt be a law against it, under our democracy, people should be able to make that decision for themselves.
64141
This issue has always been difficult for me.  Not the part about giving people a real say in what happens to them at the end of their life.  That to me is only natural.  It's always been my concern at how something like that could be abused, and also where the line is drawn that says, "Here you can choose to end your life and here you can't".  \n\nWe as a society have done such a marvelous job of finding ways to kill one another and yet we still can't adequately figure out how to best do it to ourselves.\n\nAs far as it being done legally, Oregon permits physician-assisted suicides.  Here is a link to the state's site on the subject.  I wish you peace and comfort as you struggle with how best to help your loved one.
142012
Euthanasia, could be seen in two different lights when it comes to Taoism.  If we are talking about euthanasia in the sense of forgoing any form of treatment when a terminal illness is found, this would be along the same line of thinking that Taoist would take.  The would see the terminal illness as being a part of the path or the way.  Yet, if we are talking about euthanasia in the sense of taking in a letal amount of some drug to end your life early, this would not be in accordance with Taoist beliefs.  They would say that you are ending your life earlier than the path intended.
301509
Quill said he supports helping a patient make decisions, comparing it to being a midwife through death. He said the term midwife captured what people were looking for in the last stage of life.\n\n"Assisted dying, in any form, is a last resort," Quill said.\n\nQuill said he advocates hospice care, in which a good doctor-patient relationship is key. He said numerous qualities make hospice care better than hospital care.\n\nThere is a greater emphasis on the relief of suffering, a higher priority placed on the individual, a patient is given choices, there is more aggressive treatment of symptoms and patients aren't abandoned, Quill said. He said hospice care should be standard for all dying patients.\n\nMost terminally ill patients do not receive the type of care they need. Doctors should be better educated in care of the dying, Quill said. He pointed out that most doctors are licensed with little or no background in pain management. \n\n"Helping people die is a legitimate part of medicine," Quill said.\n\nQuill was one of the first doctors to admit he had prescribed enough medication to help a patient die. During the speech, Quill presented a video interview with one such patient, named Cynthia.\n\nCynthia was a graduate student in her mid-30s when she was diagnosed with gastric cancer, a disease with no known successful treatment.\n\nShe became Quill's patient and elected to go through an unlikely experimental treatment to fight the disease, even though it meant spending the end of her life in a round of tests and surgeries. Cynthia also decided she didn't want to die in pain.\n\n"I don't want to die resisting. I want to be at peace," Cynthia said on the video.\n\nWhen the surgeries failed, Quill prescribed an increase in pain killers. Cynthia died quietly a few days later.\n\nQuill counseled Cynthia through her death.\n\nIn the video, Cynthia said she knew she was more than just a disease to Quill, and she knew he wouldn't abandon her, even if the surgeries failed.\n\nVacco vs. Quill was the first physician-assisted suicide case argued in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. Quill advocated a patient's right to die in extreme cases. The Court ruled terminally ill people do not have the right to die.\n\nThe Court also reaffirmed the right of a patient to refuse treatment and gave a green light for states to make their own laws about physician-assisted suicide, Quill said.
357551
i guess so euthanasia was a practise common at that time and aristotle being a philospher of that time wud have supportetd the fact bcoz there was no state of the art med facilitis over there and it wud be better for someone to die than to cringe on to life which is non existent \n\n\ni am  talkin of that time at this time 2006 he wud probably b against euthanasia
171346
Your friend was likely being treated by Hospice or was in a hospital or skilled nursing unit or nursing home.  The medical establishment has become increasingly prodeath, advocating euthanasia.  They kill by overdosing on morphine, sedatives and by withholding food and even water, as well as other medical care.  You don't have to do this.  You can take no more pain medication than is needed for any pain.  You can drink and eat or be fed through a stomach tube or intravenously.  You can get epidural medication to relieve pain, without the sedation of taking pain shots, if needed, oftentimes.  You can say to hell with you amateurs, I'm going to a special cancer center, such as MD Anderson Hospital in Houston, Texas. (I would advise this early on.)  Or you can go to Mexico and seek alternative treatments.  Don't ever let a doctor get you down, giving you a death sentence.  Who the hell does he think he is?  God?  No man has the right to say your time is up.  That is God's prerogative only.
889616
That's a lot of questions. Let's see...\n1) I will not donate my organs. There's no point. For medical reasons, they would be unusable except for training purposes, and I feel that is undignified.\n\n2) Ordinary means of resusitation can include paddles. But machines that breathe for you or take over organ function for more than a few minutes would be extraordinary.\n\n3) Euthanasia should be illegal because it's too easy to shift the decision from the person to the doctor, or worse, the inheritor. This has already happened in Holland.\n\n4) I could only offer encouragement, and see to it that appropriate pain relievers are made available.\n\n5) Passive is the only way. However, witholding of feeding is NOT acceptable.\n\n6) No. That is not a decision that can be morally made by any man.\n\n7) Life ends when brain function stops. At that point, the soul is no longer present, and there is no point in keeping the rest of the  body functioning.\n\nOh, I'm 52, and have a personal relationship with my Creator.
238388
Euthanasia is a procedure for patients that simply can't just stick a shotgun into their mouth and pull the trigger. There are Multiple Sclerosis patients who lost their muscle function and can't move. We don't know about the disease, we don't have a treatment and all we can do is to fill you up with pain meds. Or patients with stage four lung cancer that metastasized to brain. They are in so much pain, they can't breath, they can have a prolonged seizure and wake up even without knowing who they are or suffer from permanent brain damage. In a condition like that, we can't cure you, all we can do is to make you live for a couple of months max on  morphine constantly. I think it is their right to choose to die.\n\nBut the condition has to be extreme. Comatose patients can wake up. It doesn't mean that they are dead. I would rather have a patient to die in the O.R. instead of just letting them die because they have bad injuries.\n\nAlso, patient must be competent and personally request euthanasia. It should not be performed on a patient without only and only patient's consent. \n\nA personal note, I also think that if a patient requests euthanasia, they should be psychologically examined and should not be euthanized before the fifth stage of Kubler-Ross' stages of death.
730890
Euthanasia, as a way to eliminate "undesireable" ethnecities was what a man named Adolph Hitler attempted in the early 40's.Remember him? Sadaam H. also practiced this when attempting to eliminate other indiginous groups in his country.\n\nWhat kind of criteria would you use to establish just who should or could be euthanized? Those who have physical imparements, mental illness, the wrong eye color?  I have heard the arguements that a doctor should be able to administer a painless death when all other hope is lost, but what doctor wants to be the one who is willing to do this? None that I know.\n\nRemember, when you open that can of worms, you don't really know what all is going to crawl out.
405568
Euthanasia - it would make a great persuasive essay.