HAGANE NO RENKINJUTSUSHI
HAGANE NO RENKINJUTSUSHI
full metal alchemist
full metal alchemist
 



Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Assisted Suicide & Euthanasia, Terri Schivao, and other cases
Assisted Suicide
You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Total Votes: 37
Guests cannot vote 
Carnal Malefacto...
post Jan 22 2007, 07:37 PM
Post #31


Gallery Mod Emeritus
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 11,000
Joined: 24-August 04
From: In your daughter's bedroom, chanting lines from the Necrololicon
Member No.: 526
Gender: Male



QUOTE(GREEDisGOOD @ Jan 22 2007, 09:27 PM) [snapback]496604[/snapback]
I believe we were created by God. We have no right to decide when someone lives or dies. No matter how bad the situation is, it's God's decision when that person dies.

That's idiotic.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Chiyo
post Jan 23 2007, 04:37 AM
Post #32


Moderator Emeritus
******

Group: Members
Posts: 6,073
Joined: 27-January 05
From: a land called Honah Lee
Member No.: 6,466
Gender: Not Telling



QUOTE(GREEDisGOOD @ Jan 23 2007, 02:27 AM) [snapback]496604[/snapback]
I believe we were created by God. We have no right to decide when someone lives or dies. No matter how bad the situation is, it's God's decision when that person dies.


Then why did God bless people with the knowledge to perform acts that save peoples lives? Doctors should not be permitted to practise...medical science should be burned to the ground for they are trying to save peoples lives.


--------------------

Avatar & Sig by me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
quiddityofquid
post Jan 24 2007, 05:06 PM
Post #33


Apprentice
**

Group: Members
Posts: 128
Joined: 12-September 05
Member No.: 22,739
Gender: Female



@GREEDisGOOD - You may think we have no right to decide whether someone lives or dies, as that's God's choice. But what about people's free choice? Or what if we're being tested to see if we'll put someone out of thir pain? What if God wants us to take responsibility for our own people instead of saying 'it's God's problem' every time theres something uncomfortable going on?

As Chiyo said, doctors save people's lives all the time, and I don't see doctors as causing God's displeasure.

Basically, you can't know what God wants us to do. You have no right to decide what God thinks about the issue, and no right to force that decision of yours on others.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Colette
post May 6 2008, 05:37 PM
Post #34


Brigadier General
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,877
Joined: 5-December 05
From: Tartarus
Member No.: 27,366
Gender: Female



Don't shoot me for bumping this~ I figured bumping the old thread was better than making a new one. I'm doing a report on the topic in Forensics, so I wanted to see what people thought, and what people think now.

Personally, I think euthanasia should most definitely be legalized. Euthanasia is a choice, and it's one only the person in pain should be making. A priest, miles away, not feeling the pain of the victim, has absolutely no grounds to say that the patient shouldn't be allowed to die just because it "offends their religion". Quite bluntly, I don't care if it offends your religion. If a minister walked in and tried to tell me I couldn't kill myself because "God gave me this life", I'd probably throw something at him. (Admittedly, I don't think I'd have the strength) Not everybody is religious, so not everybody thinks that higher beings control their lives. I certainly think that I control my own. It doesn't hurt you to leave the option available; if you're ever in that situation, refuse it. Don't stop people whose beliefs might not even coincide with yours from having the option made available. It's their choice, not yours. It's their life, not yours. It's that simple.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ailuro
post May 6 2008, 10:06 PM
Post #35


Moderator Emeritus
******

Group: Members
Posts: 5,479
Joined: 10-September 04
From: Seattle
Member No.: 665
Gender: Not Telling



Wouldn't it be considered murder by current definitions and laws though? If it were made legal, the definition of murder would also have to be changed.

Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).

Even if malice was not present, it would still be premeditated. While I'm aware this would simply be a technicality to the issue, it is still something that cannot be overlooked.

If this were legalized, what would the new definition look like?


--------------------
- Ailuro "Deshi" Oz
- Moderator Emeritus -
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Toby-Chan
post May 6 2008, 10:30 PM
Post #36


Gallery Mod Emeritus
******

Group: Members
Posts: 5,610
Joined: 5-December 04
From: In your noun, present participle verb your noun
Member No.: 3,284
Gender: Not Telling



Perhaps it would be edited to include cases of consent in the party being killed. But that would be even more complicated to legislate. After all, how would you legally define consent to assisted suicide? Would you have to use paperwork? Have one or more reliable witnesses present?


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ailuro
post May 6 2008, 10:33 PM
Post #37


Moderator Emeritus
******

Group: Members
Posts: 5,479
Joined: 10-September 04
From: Seattle
Member No.: 665
Gender: Not Telling



I was thinking the same thing. It would be easy for murderers to perhaps forge whatever legal papers are needed. There is no one to argue it as the only person able to would be dead. It seems like it would just create more opportunities for unlawful acts to occur.


--------------------
- Ailuro "Deshi" Oz
- Moderator Emeritus -
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
asunder
post May 6 2008, 10:38 PM
Post #38


Special Ops (Intelligence Officer)
Group Icon

Group: Moderating Admin
Posts: 2,325
Joined: 9-February 06
From: Paradise
Member No.: 30,877
Gender: Male



currently here's the AMA's (american medical association) policy on euthanasia
(from http://www.ama-assn.org/apps/pf_new/pf_onl.../HnE/E-2.21.HTM )

QUOTE
Euthanasia is the administration of a lethal agent by another person to a patient for the purpose of relieving the patient’s intolerable and incurable suffering. It is understandable, though tragic, that some patients in extreme duress--such as those suffering from a terminal, painful, debilitating illness--may come to decide that death is preferable to life. However, permitting physicians to engage in euthanasia would ultimately cause more harm than good. Euthanasia is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks. The involvement of physicians in euthanasia heightens the significance of its ethical prohibition. The physician who performs euthanasia assumes unique responsibility for the act of ending the patient’s life. Euthanasia could also readily be extended to incompetent patients and other vulnerable populations. Instead of engaging in euthanasia, physicians must aggressively respond to the needs of patients at the end of life. Patients should not be abandoned once it is determined that cure is impossible. Patients near the end of life must continue to receive emotional support, comfort care, adequate pain control, respect for patient autonomy, and good communication.


Some of the above opposition from the medical community is that assisted suicide violates the principles of 'do no harm' as well as could create a potential slippery slope ....(i'll stop before i invoke godwin's law)

That being said, Euthanasia is happening all over the US (not just in Oregon where the Death with Dignity Act of 1994 is still going strong)

Nowadays in the US, it's ethically and morally acceptable for a doctor to aggressively provide pain relief (let's say in this case morphine) to patients up to (and including) the point of death. This is usually in terminally ill patients. The doctor may still be brought to trial, but no jury would realistically convict the physician for operating in that capacity. It's a nice little loophole to provide the service to those who actually need it (imo).

edit:
adding some replies

QUOTE(Toby-Chan @ May 7 2008, 01:30 AM) *
Perhaps it would be edited to include cases of consent in the party being killed. But that would be even more complicated to legislate. After all, how would you legally define consent to assisted suicide? Would you have to use paperwork? Have one or more reliable witnesses present?


already done:
http://oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/ors.shtml
edit 2:
after fully reading that legalese ...
patient doesn't have to deal with courts. 2 witnesses and a 15 day waiting period minimum between the initial and secondary requests before any prescription is written...requires medical evaluation AND a terminal illness. Also requires notification of next of kin (interesting?) and one must be a resident of oregon.


--------------------
Everytime you post something mind numbingly retarded, this forum crashes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Toby-Chan
post May 6 2008, 10:41 PM
Post #39


Gallery Mod Emeritus
******

Group: Members
Posts: 5,610
Joined: 5-December 04
From: In your noun, present participle verb your noun
Member No.: 3,284
Gender: Not Telling



Which is why you might have to make a case in court first, have the papers certified by a judge, and then have the approval to carry it out beforehand. Messy complications with notaries and third-party witnesses would also be involved.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nzm
post Jul 16 2009, 04:54 AM
Post #40


Citizen
*

Group: Members
Posts: 86
Joined: 15-July 09
From: Poland
Member No.: 70,107



Only orthothanasia ('pulling the plug').
Making doctors help in suicide is stupid, but forcing people to live (especially in pain) is cruel.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
Fast ReplyReply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 27th August 2016 - 06:37 AM



Copyright 2003-2004 PhoenixNetworks, LLC. All rights reserved.
Copyright Notice. Privacy policy. Acceptable Use Policy. Terms of Service.
Page Generation Time: 0.0655 seconds.
Currently Selected Stylesheet: css/default.css