UK_Widowmaker 571 Posted June 19, 2012 http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5gJPGn5oMEhCMwgeQTv_3iIv7OCpg?docId=N0371731340099285214A Tough one Gents...but, I'd be most interested in your input Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+hgbn 91 Posted June 19, 2012 I can't see what is wrong with people who wants to decide their own fate. And wants to die with dignity. As long its their own decision and they are by their full minds when they say it. We treat pets nicer than other people, putting them out of their misery if its needed. I know laws are in place to keep people protected getting killed against their wishes. But there should be a time limit for allowing trying to get people back to life after heart failures. What's the point surviving being a vegetable the next 20 years. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fallenphoenix1986 603 Posted June 19, 2012 The way I see it if someone is living in circumstances they feel are intollerable, is suffering constant debilitating illness and chronic pain then NOONE has the right to force them to continue. What is the point in keeping someone who is brain dead "alive" via artificial means indeffinatly, as said above we treat pets with grreater dignity than people. Craig Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FastCargo 412 Posted June 19, 2012 There are 2 issues with suicide that drive most laws that are on the books: 1} It is irreversible...ain't no coming back. 2) It goes directly against one of the most primal instincts a human has...the instinct for self preservation. Assisted suicide can also be argued against, first because of the doctors Hippocratic Oath "First, do no harm" , and second the idea of abuse of a law authorizing such things:"But my pain in the ass wife asked me to beat her with a baseball bat...". Having said all that, I ultimately think if someone wants to end their own life, and they are in full possession of their facilities, and can make their intentions and reasoning clearly understood to the appropriate agencies, that they should be allowed to do so. But it is not something that should ever be rushed into. Lost a few friends who made that rash decision...still haunts me to this day. FC Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Gepard 10,891 Posted June 19, 2012 Its a very difficult topic, especially after all what the Nazis have done in their Eutanasie program. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MigBuster 2,877 Posted June 19, 2012 If his eye movement is being interpreted correctly then I don't see a problem if the correct procedures are followed. Shame we still cant repair the damaged parts Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+hgbn 91 Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) I can give your a prime example of misunderstood humanism. My wife work in the health care business and she is nursing a young man 30 years old from a car accident which were dead in 8 mins before the doctors brought him back to life. Now he is completely paralyzed with no mind at all, and being fed by tubes. He can live for maybe 50 years more. But is that a life?? My wife and me have already promised each other should we one day, God forbid find the other one collapsed without breathing and not knowing exactly how long its had been when the collapse happen. Then we rush very slowly to call a ambulance. Edited June 19, 2012 by hgbn Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Brain32 265 Posted June 19, 2012 There should be exceptions for situations like this. It can all be quantified in detail by legislation under what circumstances such actions can become legal. I don't care if that article would contain 100 pages solely on detailed descriptions of circumstances that allow such actions I still think it should be done. This man is actually being tortured by humanistic intentions and regulations that were made to benefit individuals and mankind as a whole, doesn't that defeat the purpose? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
B52STRATO 215 Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) It's a hard debate, many have already killing each other on it and many will continue. Making the subject with a consciousness the center/home of the relation of the Man to the world doesn't prohibit the placing of consciousness, and more generally human subjectivity, in the building of "larger" formations that determine them. That's a really tough question, but there is something to discuss and philosophize ! As long as we do not mimics these crazy politicians who shred between them. Edited June 19, 2012 by B52STRATO Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Gepard 10,891 Posted June 19, 2012 I can give your a prime example of misunderstood humanism. My wife work in the health care business and she is nursing a young man 30 years old from a car accident which were dead in 8 mins before the doctors brought him back to life. Now he is completely paralyzed with no mind at all, and being fed by tubes. He can live for maybe 50 years more. But is that a life?? My wife and me have already promised each other should we one day, God forbid find the other one collapsed without breathing and not knowing exactly how long its had been when the collapse happen. Then we rush very slowly to call a ambulance. absolutly agree with you Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FastCargo 412 Posted June 19, 2012 This is why my wife and I have made living wills and advance health care directives. We wanted legal documentation to avoid any issues should we not be able to speak for ourselves... I would highly recommend, depending on your country, to get one for yourselves. You shouldn't worry about the decision...but what happens if you can't make or communicate your decision. Get it in official, legally recognized documentation. It is better for you...and your family. Hopefully, you'll never have to deal with it... FC 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+hgbn 91 Posted June 19, 2012 This is why my wife and I have made living wills and advance health care directives. We wanted legal documentation to avoid any issues should we not be able to speak for ourselves... I would highly recommend, depending on your country, to get one for yourselves. You shouldn't worry about the decision...but what happens if you can't make or communicate your decision. Get it in official, legally recognized documentation. It is better for you...and your family. Hopefully, you'll never have to deal with it... FC Totally agrees FC Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KiwiBiggles 114 Posted June 19, 2012 I would be afraid of 'legal' euthanisa or assisted suicide being abused. One would need the wisdom of Solomon to wield the power of life and death over another person. Who has that kind of wisdom? It's like the death penalty - it's been abolished almost everywhere because although there are some people most of us would agree have forfieted their right to live in society due to their agregious crimes against it - it is ultimately people who have to adjudicate the death penalty and we are all fallible, unfortunately. With death - it's like Fast Cargo says - there's no going back when you get it wrong, and the human right to life must be sacred. We can show mercy to the animals in our lives only because - as loved as they are - the stakes are not as high. I've lost family to depression and suicide - it isn't great. I hate for people (or animals) to suffer - and I'm pretty sure medical professionals to a good job most of the time in not unnecesarily prolonging life when there is no hope. It must happen in battle too, and it must be very difficult. The main thing is we should not be afraid to talk about it when the issue arises, so that the best decisions can be made. In the end though, if we have to err, it has to be on the side of life. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+streakeagle 866 Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) Logan's Run got it right: Live a glorious 30 years with good health and all the fun you can stand, then go to "carousel" to be "re-incarnated" if instantaneous incineration by a laser can be considered re-incarnated. Within a few generations, no one will know any other way and unwittingly accept such a harsh means of population control, health regulation, and resource distribution. An absolute Utopia if you don't realize you can live way past 30 ;) Edited June 19, 2012 by streakeagle Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted June 19, 2012 The only reason to prolong one's life in that case is if there's some distant hope of science finding a way to "fix" you before you'd die otherwise. For example, Christopher Reeve didn't give up until he died because he did have the hope that someday they'd be able to reverse the damage. However, in some cases it's obvious there's no chance you'll be ok ever again... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stick 773 Posted June 20, 2012 The Right to Life neccesarily connotes the Right to end that Life. If you didn't get to choose to exist in the first place, it's only fair that you get to choose whether to continue that existence; especially when you have the means to act on that choice. We make the mistake of perceiving suicide as a debility-in certain situation it is perhaps the most graceful way out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
UK_Widowmaker 571 Posted June 20, 2012 The reason I use this forum for discussions like this...is because I KNOW I will get fascinating replies!!! thank you Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
