Euthanasia

[yiran]

euthanasia |ˌyo͞oTHəˈnāZHə|
noun
the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. The practice is illegal in most countries.
ORIGIN early 17th cent. (in the sense ‘easy death’): from Greek, from eu ‘well’ + thanatos ‘death.’

Source: New Oxford American Dictionary

I've been assigned a debate (more like open discussion) task of euthanasia in English class, and I though it'd make some good discussion here. I did quite some research on it (as it is assessed), and here's some knowledge I've gathered. You may or may not find original research to be more helpful.

Some Arguments for Euthanasia:

• To relieve pain
• Quality of life
• Freedom of choice to die
• Better allocation of human resources

Some Arguments against Euthanasia:

• The Hippocratic Oath
• Religious objections
• The sanctity of life
• How to determine valid consent

I am both assigned to be for euthanasia in class and am morally for euthanasia. So that helps. The above "for euthanasia" arguments sums things up pretty nicely as to why I support euthanasia. My main problem against the opposing team is involuntary euthanasia, but I'm going to use my loud and emotional voice to overcome that by saying it's not euthanasia as euthanasia must be a "good death" according to its origins :/

Discuss.

 

[Ether's Bane]

You're new here, so I'll tell you that virtually everyone here is in favour of it, myself included.

 

[Superbird]

The real problem with it, I think, is when the subject is in such a state (as I believe is usually the case) such that they aren't fit to think for themselves. At that point it becomes questionable, I think, because the people who gain power over them may have malicious intent.

 

[1. Luftballon]

the firt one, for reference.

 

[yiran]

Hmm, since it isn't legal in most countries, I was hoping I'd face some opposition here.

Oh well.

Any help with arguments supporting involuntary euthanasia?

 

[Cerberus87]

Some Arguments against Euthanasia:

• The Hippocratic Oath
• Religious objections
• The sanctity of life
• How to determine valid consent

1) We don't live in Ancient Greece anymore. The Hippocratic Oath didn't consider the situation of dying patients with incurable conditions.

2) I've coined a saying that goes like this: you can only respect everyone's point of view if you don't take religious prohibitions into consideration.

3) Life is saintly. A horribly impaired life might be more of an abomination.

4) This is only applicable when the patient suffers from a condition which doesn't allow him to express himself. And, if he needs representation for most other actions in their life, why not for euthanasia?

I'm fully, morally, rationally in support of it.

 

[Tarvos]

Hmm, since it isn't legal in most countries, I was hoping I'd face some opposition here.

Oh well.

Any help with arguments supporting involuntary euthanasia?

It's legal where I live and we're still, you know, functioning?

Then again I guess in the eyes of the American religious right we are SODOM AND GOMORRAH.

 

[surskitty]

I am actually not in favour of the 'terminally ill' stipulation; if someone's in incurable pain that they cannot tolerate (and people can function-for-certain-definitions-of-function with rather a lot of pain) but it's not going to kill them and they want to die, ... I don't really see why not. It would be better if enough could/would be done to mitigate it, and there's occasionally developments like this (includes a picture of a man who is pretty much entirely burn scar), but even though that man's quality of life is now much better than it was, if he'd wanted to die before they knew of that treatment option, that ... that would be understandable.

 

[Dannichu]

If I were terminally ill and in a ton of pain, I'm sure I'd want to be euthanised, and on an individual basis I couldn't bring myself to oppose it, but I am so very, very wary of actual legalisation.

My mother's said that she hopes that when she's old and useless she can kill herself rather than dementing away in an old people's home in order to give my sister and I more inheritance, and that's not cool.

 

[Chief Zackrai]

You know, it's hard for me to say where I stand on this subject. I can't say that I would have the confidence to tell a doctor to stop caring for my family member, or to even give them something that will make them die, while at the same time most medical practices frighten me. I'm not a particularly religious person, but there's definitely a part of me that thinks that playing God the way we tend to in medicinal practices is wrong, especially when it comes to the issue of "If we take x patient off the machine they will die". That's frightening power, in my opinion. Power we really shouldn't have.

 

[Music Dragon]

playing God the way we tend to in medicinal practices

What do you mean?

 

[Chief Zackrai]

like, there's this person who's going to die, but then we hook them up to a machine and bam! they'll live. I have no idea why, because I think it can be extremely wonderful, but it also frightens me a bit.

Also organ transplants. Messing around with cells and genetics. Cloning. Stuff that falls into the "manipulating fate" category.

 

[Music Dragon]

like, there's this person who's going to die, but then we hook them up to a machine and bam! they'll live. I have no idea why, because I think it can be extremely wonderful, but it also frightens me a bit.

Also organ transplants. Messing around with cells and genetics. Cloning. Stuff that falls into the "manipulating fate" category.

If fate can be manipulated, it isn't fate in the first place, is it? The idea of fate in itself isn't necessarily ridiculous, but why would organ transplants count as "manipulating fate" while skipping breakfast tomorrow wouldn't?

 

[1. Luftballon]

If fate can be manipulated, it isn't fate in the first place, is it? The idea of fate in itself isn't necessarily ridiculous, but why would organ transplants count as "manipulating fate" while skipping breakfast tomorrow wouldn't?

doesn't the idea of skipping breakfast tomorrow frighten you? I mean, think! no breakfast! how could that not frighten a person?

 

[opaltiger]

like, there's this person who's going to die, but then we hook them up to a machine and bam! they'll live. I have no idea why, because I think it can be extremely wonderful, but it also frightens me a bit.

Also organ transplants. Messing around with cells and genetics. Cloning. Stuff that falls into the "manipulating fate" category.

So where's the line? Do vaccines frighten you? Do antibiotics? Do disinfectants, or bandages? Any of those things are capable of saving the life of someone who would otherwise die. What makes "machines" (and I think you greatly overestimate the extent to which machines are directly involved in patient care) so different? What makes something count as "manipulating fate"?

 

[Chief Zackrai]

opaltiger- I'm fine with prevention, and even certain surgeries. What gets me though, is the stuff that is "There is 100% chance of this person dieing if we do not perform x medical procedure." At that point, I think it's pushing it. A paper cut probably won't kill you in the long scheme of things, but like, kidney failure more likely than not will if left untreated. Some medical advances even astound and intrigue me, like this discovery they made where you can use a certain kind of RNA to cure a certain kind of blindness. I think that is one of the coolest things. However at the same time it scares me a little. I think you may be right about the machines, though.

Music Dragon- I don't agree with you on your view of manipulating fate. I have no problem with your opinion, I think your logic is stable, but the way I see it, if someone has heart failure, or their liver gives out, there's probably a reason. Whether this is a spontaneous thing or something that has cultivated from years of poor body maintenance, I think the person should accept what life has handed them. My point is that if someone has a diseased liver, or a cancerous lung, we shouldn't swap them out with a different one and say "all better" (which is hyperbole, but). I'm fine with certain drug treatments, and other means of curing ailments, but it's when we start to manipulate the human form is when it bothers me. I just don't think it's ethically right.

I guess what's frightening me about medical procedures is the fact that I'm really desensitized to the idea of death? Death doesn't bother me so much, but for some reason taking drastic measures to prevent it does.

 

[1. Luftballon]

a person has a 100% chance of dying if we do not not kill it. thus not killing persons saves lives which, if we did not not kill them, would have been sure to die.

not killing people is frightening.

ed: is probably better to read this as noting absurdity in the expression of the idea than necessarily the thinking involved.

 

[Music Dragon]

Music Dragon- I don't agree with you on your view of manipulating fate.

Then you're going to have to explain your own view. When does an action count as manipulating fate, and when doesn't it? Where do you draw that line? How do you define manipulation of fate? And if fate can be manipulated, then what is fate? "The things that would happen if we were all completely passive and took no actions whatsoever"? But isn't complete inaction also a conscious choice in many cases?

opaltiger- I'm fine with prevention, and even certain surgeries. What gets me though, is the stuff that is "There is 100% chance of this person dieing if we do not perform x medical procedure." At that point, I think it's pushing it. A paper cut probably won't kill you in the long scheme of things, but like, kidney failure more likely than not will if left untreated. Some medical advances even astound and intrigue me, like this discovery they made where you can use a certain kind of RNA to cure a certain kind of blindness. I think that is one of the coolest things. However at the same time it scares me a little. I think you may be right about the machines, though.

Music Dragon- I don't agree with you on your view of manipulating fate. I have no problem with your opinion, I think your logic is stable, but the way I see it, if someone has heart failure, or their liver gives out, there's probably a reason. Whether this is a spontaneous thing or something that has cultivated from years of poor body maintenance, I think the person should accept what life has handed them. My point is that if someone has a diseased liver, or a cancerous lung, we shouldn't swap them out with a different one and say "all better" (which is hyperbole, but). I'm fine with certain drug treatments, and other means of curing ailments, but it's when we start to manipulate the human form is when it bothers me. I just don't think it's ethically right.

Say I'm standing on a railway track and a train is heading towards me at a high speed. If I step out of the way, I'll live; if I don't, I'll almost certainly die. Is it wrong of me to save myself from certain death through that one action? There's nothing wrong about that, right? Surely there's a reason I ended up on that railway track (probably drugs again), but that doesn't mean I should just accept "what life has handed to me" and stand still and wait to get killed, when it is within my power to change things for the benefit of everyone involved. I'm sure you agree with me on that. So what is the qualitative difference between avoiding a moving train and accepting a new kidney?

As for the idea of making modifications to the human body - are you also against glasses, pacemakers, prosthetic legs, blood donations? What about sex reassignment surgery? Piercings? Hair dye? Coloured contact lenses? At what point does it stop being unethical to try to change things about our bodies that we're not pleased with, like, say, their imminent complete failure?

You're entitled to your opinion, and it's only natural for us humans to feel things that are completely irrational every once in a while, but when those feelings tell you that it's not okay to save people's lives, I really think you should have something to back that up beyond "it don't sit right with me, man, it don't sit right with me". The right to have an opinion can only take you so far. At some point you're going to have to try to make sense, or other people will call you on it, at least when it comes to moral judgements, and especially when it comes to life and death.

I guess what's frightening me about medical procedures is the fact that I'm really desensitized to the idea of death? Death doesn't bother me so much, but for some reason taking drastic measures to prevent it does.

Not being bothered by death is one thing, but it's another to say that it's unethical for everybody else to try to avoid slow, painful death because slow, painful death is their "fate". Besides, fearless though you are, I'm sure you do a lot of things every day for the sole purpose of not dying from what would otherwise kill you horribly with absolute certainty - like, I don't know, eating and drinking.

If the result of complete inaction is "excruciating pain followed by death", can you really blame a person for acting?

 

[surskitty]

I don't agree with you on your view of manipulating fate. I have no problem with your opinion, I think your logic is stable, but the way I see it, if someone has heart failure, or their liver gives out, there's probably a reason. Whether this is a spontaneous thing or something that has cultivated from years of poor body maintenance, I think the person should accept what life has handed them. My point is that if someone has a diseased liver, or a cancerous lung, we shouldn't swap them out with a different one and say "all better" (which is hyperbole, but). I'm fine with certain drug treatments, and other means of curing ailments, but it's when we start to manipulate the human form is when it bothers me. I just don't think it's ethically right.

Wow, what. Please stop spouting victim-blaming and ableist bullshit; I'm contemplating submitting this to Chronic Illness Cat.

So by this logic, if my piece of shit heart goes any more piece of shit, and given that I don't eat well and I don't exercise, you think I should die. This is what you are saying, right now. Do you not see anything fucked up about that?

 

[Blastoise Fortooate]

like, there's this person who's going to die, but then we hook them up to a machine and bam! they'll live. I have no idea why, because I think it can be extremely wonderful, but it also frightens me a bit.

Also organ transplants.

So if a person has a liver failure after accidentally ingesting a chemical contaminant in a friend's pot roast, and their doctors are able to find a liver that can be readily transplanted into them and completely solve this problem, you argue that it is the morally correct choice to let both the person's life and the liver go to waste? What if lightning happens to strike me and all that they need to do to prevent permanent disfigurement is, say, give me a skin graft? Is it okay to let me have a huge Zuko scar if it's an easy fix? Should we just do away with the entire practice of surgery altogether?

Attributing a person's medical problems to 'fate' and then acting as if that justifies not helping them is simply cruel. Is it a homeless person's fate to starve on the streets, and should we just not give them food and beds at all? What is the fate of an AIDS-infected infant? If we develop a cure and a vaccine for HIV, should we just toss the cure out the window and let AIDS patients slowly waste away and die?

I really don't mean to gang up on you or be aggressive, but not saving a person's life when they don't have to/want to die isn't really a justifiable choice, morally.

On the subject of euthanasia, I think that perhaps the only person qualified to make the choice is the person who has experienced the situation at hand. So either we can hire doctors who have all had a wide array medical miracles happen to them, or we can allow euthanasia! The legal implications are super scary though.