Ethics of Euthanasia

[Kaldayen]

Greetings everyone,

I don't want to make this thread an applied ethics of Shiavo's case, but it's obvious it was inspired by this other thread :
Terri Schiavo (Terri Shiavo)

I did a quick research on the board and there was no debate on the subject except a couple of posts there :
Euthanasia (Euthanasia)

I believe euthanasia has always been a part of life. In history, Inuits abandonned on the ice-fields their siblings who were a weight for the tribe.

Another example : The ballad of Narayama, 1983 movie by famous director Shohei Imamura. In early Meiji era Japan (late 19th century), it depicts the story of Orin, a 69 y.o. lady who will soon, have to join the god of the mountain as everyone in the village do when they hit 70. It is said at that age, they are a bigger weight than help to the village... food is limited and newborns have to be fed. Cycle of life...

-/-

In a society of abondance, situations of food shortage don't (shouldn't?) apply.
I guess we're left with two problems :

1) Burden for society : are we willing to do everything to save one's life? Where do we draw the line?

2) Burden to self : should we allow someone to end its own life, or have someone do it when he can't do it by himself? Again, what would the criterias be?

Starter for discussion...
___
Kal

[Geist]

Originally Posted by Kaldayen

2) Burden to self : should we allow someone to end its own life, or have someone do it when he can't do it by himself? Again, what would the criterias be?

Ok I'll start,

Your post talks more about sucide than Euthinasia.

The definition of Euthinesia is:http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...euthanasia&r=f

basically it's assisted suicide for those that can't do it themselves. Usually because they are suffering from a terminal illness.

so you have to have someone to help you die for it to be euthanesia.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Geist

Ok I'll start,

Your post talks more about sucide than Euthinasia.

The definition of Euthinesia is:http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...euthanasia&r=f

basically it's assisted suicide for those that can't do it themselves. Usually because they are suffering from a terminal illness.

so you have to have someone to help you die for it to be euthanesia.

It is said, that a society that no longer cares for its aged and incapacitated, will soon turn on itself...

I find it ironic that those with the greatest wealth (the elders with the wisdom of time and experience), are disregarded by the younger part of society, as a burden, and a waste of time. And those who are incapacitated often have the most Love to give us, because they are grateful for our attention, and our efforts to help them.

Those are two of the greatest gifts people could receive, yet we consider tossing them away, like refuse.

v/r

Q

[Kaldayen]

Geist, I understand your point... that's not what I meant. I should have written : "should we allow someone to decently decide to end its life.." I was thinking of the people who choose to go in Holland (I think?) to be able to die decently. Those people are living with uncureable and painful illness that will (or has) take(n) away all their decency... So they have to pay incredible amounts of money for the one way trip because their own country doesn't allow assisted suicide.

Quahom, you're pointing toward tossing away those who want to live (elders and incapacitated), killing them would be murder, not euthanasia... What about those who want to die? Those who have expressed their will to die should they end up in a particular condition where they can't speak their mind.
___
Kal

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Kaldayen

Quahom, you're pointing toward tossing away those who want to live (elders and incapacitated), killing them would be murder, not euthanasia... What about those who want to die? Those who have expressed their will to die should they end up in a particular condition where they can't speak their mind.
___
Kal

I guess I would have to say, case by case basis. And I would say there needs to be a stipulation, that when in doubt, err on the side of life. Even so, it would be an extemely difficult decision (for me) to make for someone else.

v/r

Q

[alexa]

Originally Posted by Kaldayen

1) Burden for society : are we willing to do everything to save one's life? Where do we draw the line?

I personally prefer to die than to live useless and be a burden for my family.

2) Burden to self : should we allow someone to end its own life, or have someone do it when he can't do it by himself? Again, what would the criterias be?[/quote]
If some day i'll be (by accident) in vegetative state or coma, without any chance of recovery, I prefer to have the option of the euthanasie. We all die one day. Why prolonge it and be in the same time responsible for my family's unhappiness ? They have the right to continue their life and take advantage of it as long as they can.

[Cerealkiller]

Personally, I couldn't care less if someone chooses to end their own life. While I view it as cowardly to back down from the struggle, I would never ask someone to fight a battle they didn't want. So, as far as suicide, or a person choosing to be "assisted" into death, whatever, not my problem.


However, euthenasia very often involves the killing of those who have not chosen to die. For example the old woman in the movie you spoke of. She has not said that at 70 she wishes to die, that decision has been imposed on her. The same could be said for the Schiavo's of the world, for whom there is no clear statement of wishes.

In these cases we have to consider what makes a person a person. What gives you the right to continue to live? Is it the mere fact of being human, or is there something more?

For simplicities sake, my own position has always been that being a person is the same as being human, and being human consists of merely having human DNA in functioning cells. Its a standard that can make for difficult ethics, but it is an objective standard that is not really open to interpretation.

So then, euthenasia to a non-willing subject is in my book wrong, because I believe that killing a human who has not wronged you is immoral, or unethical, whichever term you prefer.

[Quahom1]

Let's get the facts straight. "Euthanasia" is the deleberate taking of a life due to the fact that the life takers have decided that the one's life is no longer viable...no longer worth any value, and that the life takers deem the life to be better off terminated (for what ever reason offered).

"Mercy killing" is the taking of a life at the specific request of the individual who's life is about to be terminated, normally due to extreme pain and anguish, or can be at the decision of the life taker...in which case it becomes Euthanasia.

"Assisted suicide" is the helping of one take their own life, by providing means, assistance or other in insuring that the one can end their own life.

Taking a life, or assisting another to take their own life is no philisophical debate (if you have been part of it).

If you have ever seen the light of life fade from the eyes of another, you know what I am talking about.

Letting someone go, who has spiritually left, is a different story. Light's on but nobody is home.

One is murder, and the other is mercy.

Deciding which is which...is tough.

v/r

Q

[Cerealkiller]

Not to quibble pointlessly, but in current english usage euthanasia refers to the whole set of circumstances in which a person is killed to end "suffering". It is not restricted specifically to cases in which the subject is unwilling. One can be voluntarily euthanised.

[Geist]

Personally I think there isn't anything wrong with Euthinasia. You put your pet down if its in pain it shows you feel pity for that animal why not with humans??

Instead you pump them full of drugs and wait for them to starve to death. Personally I see this more cruel than a lethal injection that only takes moments to work rather than watching the ones you love starve for 10 days or so and then slip into a coma and then die.

You can't murder unless its against that persons will. And no one can blame you for ending someones suffering. Its like giving an Ethiopian some water you are helping them and you shouldn't feel guilty of that.

[Cerealkiller]

What if the person doesn't want their suffering ended? How much suffering is enough that the person should be terminated?

[Geist]

Originally Posted by Cerealkiller

What if the person doesn't want their suffering ended? How much suffering is enough that the person should be terminated?

If they choose to have it ended or if there is nothing the doctors can do and that person has gone into a coma.

[Cerealkiller]

People wake up from coma's quite often. The truth is we know far less about the boundary between life and death than we think we do. I think it is incredibly presumptuos to kill a person simply because they have, for the moment, lost the ability to fend for themselves.

[Geist]

Humans have always been presumtious. We always assume our way is right even when its wrong so these situations are no differant.

[Clauser]

Hello! I want to know, where you have a section for advertising at a forum? Or it is not present? I have not found it.
P.S. Are you see storm in Europe? It's a horror...