Social Sciences: Euthanasia?

Print Page | Close Window

Euthanasia?

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: Social Sciences
Forum Discription: Discuss Sociology, Law, Economics, Psychology and other soft sciences.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=20785
Printed Date: 25-Apr-2024 at 15:37
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: Euthanasia?

Posted By: Kevin
Subject: Euthanasia?
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2007 at 00:12

Let's have a discussion about the highly controversial issue of euthanasia and how it's viewed in our societies and culture. I remember when I was alot younger way,way back when Dr. Jack Kevorkian was going around and assisting in the suicides of some terminally ill patients as will as some where the presence of a illness could be called into question. Then here again in the United States we had the State of Oregon legalizing a form of assisted suicide,This also became the third place anywhere in the World besides the Netherlands and the Northern Territory of Australia to legalize and allow a phyiscan to take part in patient's death. Also in Australia they had Dr. Philip Nitschke who tried to take it a step further then Kevorkian to allow anyone not matter their age to end their life whenever they wanted to.

Also again please forgive me if I have created too much of a hot topic.

Replies:

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-May-2009 at 17:15

As the democrats are pro choice, I think in our personal little society here in North America is split in half. The when you figure in the near catatonic party members who believe many years are left for them, that leaves a fourth left.

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

Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 01-May-2009 at 19:13

Its really an issue the state should stay out of. Its up to the individuals concerned whether they want to end their life in a humane manner rather than die slowly and painfully with a wasting and fatal illness. There seems to be far too much interference in individuals lives on this issue by religious busybodies. I remember the American case a couple of years ago when the religious right were mobilised to effectively keep a vegetable alive. Such madness and hypocrisy. These were the same people, who would with an ignorant brush of the shoulder brush off the mass murder of Iraqi civilians by the American invasion and who would have lapped up absolutely anything if one of their demagogues had spewed forth some of their usual vomit. They really are a pack of human drones, manipulated by ignorant, bigoted asshole's who never bother to think about issues for themselves.

Now that I think about, South Park did a very good episode on Euthanasia.

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

Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 01-May-2009 at 20:30

I thought Parnell put it well.

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

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-May-2009 at 00:50

Originally posted by Parnell

Its really an issue the state should stay out of. Its up to the individuals concerned whether they want to end their life in a humane manner rather than die slowly and painfully with a wasting and fatal illness. There seems to be far too much interference in individuals lives on this issue by religious busybodies. I remember the American case a couple of years ago when the religious right were mobilised to effectively keep a vegetable alive. Such madness and hypocrisy. These were the same people, who would with an ignorant brush of the shoulder brush off the mass murder of Iraqi civilians by the American invasion and who would have lapped up absolutely anything if one of their demagogues had spewed forth some of their usual vomit. They really are a pack of human drones, manipulated by ignorant, bigoted asshole's who never bother to think about issues for themselves.

Now that I think about, South Park did a very good episode on Euthanasia.

Well put Parnell.

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

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2009 at 10:36

Inspired by the other thread, 'Abortion A Human Right'. Not sure whether this had been discussed before.

It is related to suicide and more specifically I would like to focus on physician-assisted suicide. Euthanasia for an example. What are the differences between just a suicide and assisted suicide in term of ethical, religious point of view and in legal issues. Can it be a legitimate solution to help someone to end their pain? Based on an http://www.assistedsuicide.org/suicide_laws.html - article , some of the countries do have laws in this matter and some still indistinct. The criminal code definition might not be done particularly but the 'assisters' who involved would not get away freely.
So.. what do you think?

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

Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2009 at 10:53

It's far too easy to say that the state needs to stay out of it. The practice of euthanasia has to be either legalised or criminalised, it can't be left up to whoever feels the want to need to perform it. Who performs the act? Who gives permission to do so? How should it be done? To what degree should the individual be compus mentus when making the decision? How do we decide whether or not the person was coerced/bullied into it? Should the act be performed by a doctor or by a loved one? Why is it not murder? What of the will? And so on and so on.

Parnell, what you said oabout the religious right is all well and good, and I agree with it, but it does not address the actual issue of euthanasia. If things were so simple then why has it went to the European Supreme Court on at least four occasions? I don't have all the answers, but I do know that it is purely and simply impossible for the state to stay out of this. Think how many people would die, and we would never know whether or not that action was the wish of the individual. Barristers all over the country would be defending murderers on the back of it.

I think that in Ireland, I would be ok with euthanasia becoming legal, but it would have to be heavily regulated to prevent abuses. The State is the only force that can do that.

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

Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2009 at 15:46

Dolphin,

I believe this is an issue in which the state works best if it doesn't interfere. Obviously euthanasia needs to be regulated like anything else by a government body, but when I say the state shouldn't interfere I'm saying that the family must have the final say on the matter - not the state, which is essentially an unfamilial institution.

I should probably add that I am no anarchist by any stretch of the imagination. But there are certain area's where the state should be relegated to the arena of impartial adjudicator and not take a stand in an intensely personal matter like this.

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

Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2009 at 16:20

To take a less emotional issue, if someone dies (generally speaking) his possessions are disposed of in accordance with his will. Mostly the state does not dictate how he can leave those possessions. However it does provide a mechanism for deciding what those wishes are, rules about how wills should be proven by witnessing, enforcement mechanisms and mechanisms for registering change of title and so on.

In that case, is the state 'staying out of it' or is the state 'interferiing'?

It seems to me essential that the state 'interferes' with euthanasia in the sense of laying down rules for how, when and where it may be carried out, in order to ensure the death is humane, and, where possible, in line with the person's expressed wishes. I don't therefore see the family having the final say on the matter any more than the family should have the final say on what happens to a dead person's estate.

(Quite apart from the probability of intra-family dissension.)

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

Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2009 at 16:21

I would consider that part of the government framework for regulating euthanasia. Perhaps I'm not expressing myself too well. I think I better stop.

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