And Euthanasia for All!

[EuroTroll]

This is a topic I feel very strongly about. I think we should all have the freedom and means to end our lives with minimum fuss at the time of our choosing. I think any adult should basically be able to go to the chemist and buy a pill that puts him/her to sleep for good.

I think there is no point in forcibly keeping alive people who do not wish to be so, be it because of a terrible illness or just being fed up with it all.

Now, I think I know what you're thinking... We all already have the freedom to off ourselves, right? Well, the trouble with the available methods of suicide is that they tend to involve suffering and/or be a bit messy. :erm: Why must it be so? Why must we suffer when we die? When it could all be made to be clean and pleasent.

In the end, it's a question of freedom. In the modern world and in Western democracies, why should we not be given this choice?

A good death for all...

[steveaki13]

I agree that you should be able to end your life when you deem it correct. However the pill idea would never be allowed. Too easy to buy a pill and slip it to someone else.

However what I could see is maybe that pill avaliable, but you have to use it under supervision at a clinic maybe, so there is not doubt on who and where that pill is used.

There are obviously some issues of law and organisation to sort out, but fundamentally I think it is something that needs to be thought about.

[donKey jote]

Whehey Studitroll is on a roll :D

[EuroTroll]

Whehey Studitroll is on a roll :D

:roll: ;) :D

[Rollo]

In the end, it's a question of freedom. In the modern world and in Western democracies, why should we not be given this choice?

A good death for all...

Just for argument's sake, would you propose an instrument similar to something like an enduring power of attorney which would give someone the power to appoint a trusted person to act on their behalf?
Currently an enduring power of attorney continues to operate even if the donor loses full legal capacity, through illness or dementia or similar.

[Starter]

Euthanasia - Isn't that where we send all the kids to China?

[EuroTroll]

Just for argument's sake, would you propose an instrument similar to something like an enduring power of attorney which would give someone the power to appoint a trusted person to act on their behalf?
Currently an enduring power of attorney continues to operate even if the donor loses full legal capacity, through illness or dementia or similar.

No. No power of attorney. The decision should not be someone else's. It should be ours IMO, regardless of whether we are of sound mind or not.

Obviously, there should be a "cooling off period", like when purchasing a firearm. We wouldn't want people offing themselves just because they've got the blues today... something that could be remedied by a brisk walk in the park. :) However, for people who consistently cannot function properly for whatever reason, there should be this choice IMO.

[Rollo]

How or what would you propose that such a decision wasn't made under duress? There might be reasons why someone else might want someone dead. Conceivably in the future when medical costs start escalating, push might come to shove and someone who is prepared to pay more, might have a greater sway in commanding the resources of a hospital.
Moreover, would what happen in the family of someone could be convinced through financial reward, that someone's organs could be harvested for profit?

[EuroTroll]

How or what would you propose that such a decision wasn't made under duress? There might be reasons why someone else might want someone dead.

Certainly, but I think steveaki's idea of doing it under supervision in a clinic is a good one. A place where there is opportunity, among other things, to notify the authorities if you're being severely influenced to make this decision.


Conceivably in the future when medical costs start escalating, push might come to shove and someone who is prepared to pay more, might have a greater sway in commanding the resources of a hospital.
Moreover, would what happen in the family of someone could be convinced through financial reward, that someone's organs could be harvested for profit?

Sorry but I don't quite understand what you're getting at here... Financial reward for whom?

[Rudy Tamasz]

doing it under supervision in a clinic is a good one

I would venture to amend this idea. A clinic is a place where they try to save human lives, not to take them, even if they occasionally do so at times. I'd go with special euthanasia centers fully equipped for such things. That includes lounges for the last meal with the family, confession room, a CD library to create a proper mood for the last stand etc.

Also, as terminating one's own life is expected to be a matter of free choice, the choice has to be educated. It would probably be very unwise and unfair to those thinking about the final solution to postpone the education till their last days. Why not teach a responsible choice at schools? After all, how different is it from choosing between weed and tobacco, or choosing between majoring in arts or engineering? Things like this determine the course of life (or death, indeed).

Finally, if it's legal, it has to be performed on a commericial basis with adverstising allowed. Of course, there should be limitations, like in case of tobacco and alcohol ads, but then again, customers need to know what they are offered, don't they?

Just me five cents.

[gadjo_dilo]

Little and playful troll, if that magic pill will ever be legal I’d probably be on top of the list to get it. I’m already fed up with life, for me everything sems pointless and I can’t see any reason to go on like this.

However your plan still has a few bugs:

To my knowledge euthanasia means a method to provoke an unpainful death to an incurable sick person in order to cease his long and hard suffering. Otherwise taking the pill is a common suicide. There are many „clean” ways to commit it from taking a fistful of pills (instead of the ONE), a drug overdose or an intoxication with carbon monoxide.
Two months ago I was about „to take the forbidden step” to the „world beyond” and the „messy” aspect was the last thing on my mind. I mean if you really want to do it you just do it.

In the end, it's a question of freedom. In the modern world and in Western democracies, why should we not be given this choice?
Freedom has its limits. Since in the modern world and even in the western democracies I still haven’t the freedom to choose if I want to be born, my gender, my potential parents. my nationality, the place where I’m born then why should I be so arrogant to pretend I have the right to choose when I die? I haven’t decided to come on this world then why should I have the right to decide when I leave it?
I think that euthanasia or the “assisted death” is associated with the idea of dignified death, a death that avoids the human misery generally associated to the death. A dignified death is dissociated of sadness, fear and despair as we tend to fear the physical degradation and soul and mental decrepitude
I’m afraid that it’s not OK to see death as a cheerful party, a flirtatious pirouette or a solemn gesture. I think we should learn that death would be like our lives: full of anxieties and delusions, care, hope and uncertainty. At the end of the day the right we have is the right to fear death, to endure suffering, to feel lost, without losing our dignity….

[henners88]

I watched my step father die last March of Leukaemia in a very drawn out way and have since become a very strong supporter of voluntary Euthanasia. Fifty Two is no age to die and if its an appalling hand you've been dealt then I think anybody should be allowed to choose how and when they die with dignity. If an animal is suffering we have the ability to put them out of their misery in a controlled way yet a human being must suffer to the very end. My step father had way too long at the end to fear his end and died in awful pain despite Macmillan nurse's trying to make it as painless as possible. Those nurses are amazing people by the way and do an inspirational job. If there was a system brought in like in Switzerland where you could die at a time of your choosing in a more peaceful way surrounded by your loved ones, I would fully support it. When you've actually witnessed something so awful it gives you a rather different outlook on life and how cruel it can be.

[EuroTroll]

Little and playful troll, if that magic pill will ever be legal I’d probably be on top of the list to get it. I’m already fed up with life, for me everything sems pointless and I can’t see any reason to go on like this.

I'm sorry to hear that. :( I can only recommend you consult a psychiatrist because you certainly suffer with depression. There's a wide variety of anti-depressants you could try, one of which is bound to make you feel better about things.



To my knowledge euthanasia means a method to provoke an unpainful death to an incurable sick person in order to cease his long and hard suffering. Otherwise taking the pill is a common suicide.

"Euthanasia" simply means "good death" in Greek. But it doesn't really matter (to me) what word/phrase we use. "Assisted suicide" is fine as well.


There are many „clean” ways to commit it from taking a fistful of pills (instead of the ONE), a drug overdose or an intoxication with carbon monoxide.

A fistful of pills is unreliable. You're likely to be revived with possible permanent liver damage. Not good... A drug overdose requires illegal drugs. Where are you going to get them? Carbon monoxide poisoning requires an enclosed space and a very old car. Difficult and drawn out.

None of them are good methods for suicide. I'm still of the opinion that there are no clean and quick methods available to the average person.



Freedom has its limits. Since in the modern world and even in the western democracies I still haven’t the freedom to choose if I want to be born, my gender, my potential parents. my nationality, the place where I’m born then why should I be so arrogant to pretend I have the right to choose when I die? I haven’t decided to come on this world then why should I have the right to decide when I leave it?

Freedom does have limits. For instance, we don't nor should we have the freedom to harm other people.

You can't choose your birth but you can choose your death. Why shouldn't you? Why is it arrogant? Arrogant towards whom?



I’m afraid that it’s not OK to see death as a cheerful party, a flirtatious pirouette or a solemn gesture. I think we should learn that death would be like our lives: full of anxieties and delusions, care, hope and uncertainty. At the end of the day the right we have is the right to fear death, to endure suffering, to feel lost, without losing our dignity….

So what you're saying is, we have a right to be miserable? :) That makes no sense to me.

[gadjo_dilo]

I'm sorry to hear that. :( I can only recommend you consult a psychiatrist because you certainly suffer with depression. There's a wide variety of anti-depressants you could try, one of which is bound to make you feel better about things..
Give me a break. First you say I have the right to choose the moment I want to die then you send me to a shrink.....
Can’t imagine myself lying on a couch and disclose my secrets to someone who’s probably scratching his nose and say the same cliches like you’re healthy, you have a succesful job, you have a family that loves you, you should have more self confidence.
What I really need is a long holiday far away of this place. Which is imposible.


A fistful of pills is unreliable. You're likely to be revived with possible permanent liver damage. Not good...

Revived if someone finds you in time and takes you to a hospital.


A drug overdose requires illegal drugs. Where are you going to get them?
You must be kidding..... :devil:


C arbon monoxide poisoning requires an enclosed space and a very old car. Difficult and drawn out.
Nah. It requires an old house heated with a gas stove. Plenty of them in the neighbourhood. And plenty of cases of innocent victims almost every day.


You can't choose your birth but you can choose your death. Why shouldn't you? Why is it arrogant? Arrogant towards whom?
Because you destroy a life that you haven&#8217]So what you're saying is, we have a right to be miserable? :) That makes no sense to me.[/QUOTE]
Why not? It’s probably the only right that nobody will ever deny you.

[henners88]

Because you destroy a life that you haven’t created and you don’t know why it was created for.
We're not talking about someone else deciding its time a person dies, we are talking about dying people who choose to die on their terms and in a far less painful way to the way that has been decided out of their control.

[EuroTroll]

Give me a break. First you say I have the right to choose the moment I want to die then you send me to a shrink.....
Can’t imagine myself lying on a couch and disclose my secrets to someone who’s probably scratching his nose and say the same cliches like you’re healthy, you have a succesful job, you have a family that loves you, you should have more self confidence.
What I really need is a long holiday far away of this place. Which is imposible.

What you're describing is the work of a psychologist. I said you should consult a psychiatrist. ;) The difference is, while one simply talks to you, the other prescribes medication. Depression is often a case simply of biochemistry: your body not producing enough serotonin and other substances necessary for well-being. This is often easily fixed with medications.


Because you destroy a life that you haven’t created and you don’t know why it was created for.

Now it's my turn to say, "give me a break". ;) It was created most probably because Dad doesn't believe in condoms and Mum forgot to take her birth control pill.

[gadjo_dilo]

What you're describing is the work of a psychologist. I said you should consult a psychiatrist. ;) The difference is, while one simply talks to you, the other prescribes medication. Depression is often a case simply of biochemistry: your body not producing enough serotonin and other substances necessary for well-being. This is often easily fixed with medications..
Nah...No medications for me.
I'm successfully assuming the status of a "dilo" for quite a long time. :laugh:


Now it's my turn to say, "give me a break". ;) It was created most probably because Dad doesn't believe in condoms and Mum forgot to take her birth control pill.
Right. I confess I also wanted to say something like this. :laugh:
But I feared that some smart guy would say that abortion was a solution.

[gadjo_dilo]

We're not talking about someone else deciding its time a person dies, we are talking about dying people who choose to die on their terms and in a far less painful way to the way that has been decided out of their control.
1. It was an impersonal saying. It's more like " I don't have the right to kill myself because I have no personal contribution in my appearance".
( Now you'll say that this means I have the right to kill my children because I "contributed", etc. :laugh: Matter of fact we have this saying " I made you, I'm the one to kill you"- said by angry parents to naughty children )

2. We're not talking only about "dying people ". The first post of the thread said something about people who are fed up with life.

[henners88]

....We're not talking only about "dying people ". The first post of the thread said something about people who are fed up with life.
The first post spoke of both actually, so I addressed that side of the topic.

I think there is no point in forcibly keeping alive people who do not wish to be so, be it because of a terrible illness or just being fed up with it all.

[Malbec]

No. No power of attorney. The decision should not be someone else's. It should be ours IMO, regardless of whether we are of sound mind or not.

Obviously, there should be a "cooling off period", like when purchasing a firearm. We wouldn't want people offing themselves just because they've got the blues today... something that could be remedied by a brisk walk in the park. :) However, for people who consistently cannot function properly for whatever reason, there should be this choice IMO.

Legislation for things like euthanasia needs to be drawn up thinking not of when it all goes right but how it can all go wrong.

You are combining two factors here, one is the decision to end one's life and the other is the ability to determine whether that decision was made with full consent. The latter has to be made with full understanding of the facts by the person deciding to end their life ensuring that there is no external influence on that decision.

Its because of the difficulties concerning the latter that euthanasia fails to gain traction in most countries.

Its easy to claim that people should be free to choose when and how to die. The problem is that in reality the decisions are often clouded and that patients who are in a state where they need to make that decision are often in a condition where they are unable to process information lucidly, make decisions or make those decisions known to a third party in a clear fashion (or a combination of the above). What happens if a patient changes their mind and wants to live longer but is unable to make that change in status clear?

How do you ensure that decisions are not made under duress? What happens in patients who have given powers of attorney to someone else? What about the interests of the medical team looking after them regardless of how well intentioned they are?

Just take a look at the problems surrounding similar decisions that exist in everyday medical practice with Do Not Resuscitate orders and transference to end of life pathways such as the Liverpool Care Pathway.

Both are plagued with problems that result in final decisions made not in the patients' best interest but because the relatives often have different views or beliefs on how the patient should be managed and have a say. Often such decisions result in patients not being given optimal management that prolongs suffering. How do you think some relatives will respond to a decision by a patient not simply to manage their natural death but to terminate it completely? What kind of legal problems do you think clinical teams will face if a relative challenges the decision retrospectively? A non-justified action that results in intentional death is commonly known as murder.

Then there is the parallel with abortion where the intention on its introduction in Britain was for it to only be possible in extreme circumstances. A few decades later social attitudes have moved on and the exact same legal wording has been massively reinterpreted to allow abortion for just about any circumstance. How would you ensure that the legalisation of euthanisa in strictly limited circumstances doesn't get exploited for convenience in the future?

[airshifter]

Give me a break. First you say I have the right to choose the moment I want to die then you send me to a shrink.....
Can’t imagine myself lying on a couch and disclose my secrets to someone who’s probably scratching his nose and say the same cliches like you’re healthy, you have a succesful job, you have a family that loves you, you should have more self confidence.
What I really need is a long holiday far away of this place. Which is imposible.

He didn't say he wished that anyone made the choice to end their life, simply that he thought it should be a right.

As for speaking to someone.... please do it. Depression is much more common than you might think, and you might find ways to put yourself in a better place and enjoy your life much more again. I'm not saying this as an internet know it all, I'm saying it as a fellow human being who doesn't want to see anyone else unhappy.

If I spent the time to write down everyone I know that has dealt with depression (including myself and a number of family members) I'd probably hit the size limit on the reply. Having also dealt with someone in my family taking their own life, I can tell you that your life probably affect many people that you do not even realize. In the vast majority of cases (including my example in my family) taking your own life is a very selfish act IMO.

[gadjo_dilo]

....and you might find ways to put yourself in a better place ....
"In brighten place, in green place......" -

I'm really sorry, you were really nice but I couldn't resist to this saying from the orthodox funeral service. It's also used in many humoristic sketches.

And please guys, stop talking about my problems.

[henners88]

Legislation for things like euthanasia needs to be drawn up thinking not of when it all goes right but how it can all go wrong.

You are combining two factors here, one is the decision to end one's life and the other is the ability to determine whether that decision was made with full consent. The latter has to be made with full understanding of the facts by the person deciding to end their life ensuring that there is no external influence on that decision.

Its because of the difficulties concerning the latter that euthanasia fails to gain traction in most countries.

Its easy to claim that people should be free to choose when and how to die. The problem is that in reality the decisions are often clouded and that patients who are in a state where they need to make that decision are often in a condition where they are unable to process information lucidly, make decisions or make those decisions known to a third party in a clear fashion (or a combination of the above). What happens if a patient changes their mind and wants to live longer but is unable to make that change in status clear?

How do you ensure that decisions are not made under duress? What happens in patients who have given powers of attorney to someone else? What about the interests of the medical team looking after them regardless of how well intentioned they are?

Just take a look at the problems surrounding similar decisions that exist in everyday medical practice with Do Not Resuscitate orders and transference to end of life pathways such as the Liverpool Care Pathway.

Both are plagued with problems that result in final decisions made not in the patients' best interest but because the relatives often have different views or beliefs on how the patient should be managed and have a say. Often such decisions result in patients not being given optimal management that prolongs suffering. How do you think some relatives will respond to a decision by a patient not simply to manage their natural death but to terminate it completely? What kind of legal problems do you think clinical teams will face if a relative challenges the decision retrospectively? A non-justified action that results in intentional death is commonly known as murder.

Then there is the parallel with abortion where the intention on its introduction in Britain was for it to only be possible in extreme circumstances. A few decades later social attitudes have moved on and the exact same legal wording has been massively reinterpreted to allow abortion for just about any circumstance. How would you ensure that the legalisation of euthanisa in strictly limited circumstances doesn't get exploited for convenience in the future?
I think its a process that shouldn't be rushed through and every case should be judged correctly, but its something that needs to be addressed. I wouldn't wish what I witnessed on my worst enemy. Losing a loved one to cancer is tough enough for all involved on its own, I just think if the patient could be helped in a much more peaceful way then it gives the patient more dignity. A friend of mine watched a loved one die back in 2009 and had days of them begging to be helped to death. Obviously it is illegal and they didn't do it, but its been on their conscience ever since because they felt they were too weak minded to help. That's not the case of course because for your average person its a huge thing to ask. I know my Mum and step father discussed suicide but when it came down to it he didn't want my Mum to face prosecution or be financially worse off. I think I'll make this my last post on this, struggling to write this.

[EuroTroll]

I think I'll make this my last post on this, struggling to write this.

Thanks for your contribution, henners! :up:

[gadjo_dilo]

Henners I think you should watch ( in case you didn't yet ) the excellent movie Amour by Michael Haneke, probably one of the best director of our times. I for once was devasted when I left the cinema.

[Malbec]

I think its a process that shouldn't be rushed through and every case should be judged correctly, but its something that needs to be addressed. I wouldn't wish what I witnessed on my worst enemy. Losing a loved one to cancer is tough enough for all involved on its own, I just think if the patient could be helped in a much more peaceful way then it gives the patient more dignity. A friend of mine watched a loved one die back in 2009 and had days of them begging to be helped to death. Obviously it is illegal and they didn't do it, but its been on their conscience ever since because they felt they were too weak minded to help. That's not the case of course because for your average person its a huge thing to ask. I know my Mum and step father discussed suicide but when it came down to it he didn't want my Mum to face prosecution or be financially worse off. I think I'll make this my last post on this, struggling to write this.

I appreciate it must be very difficult for you to talk about very personal experiences.

I do think there is a need to improve the end-of-life process and that is what things like the Liverpool Care Pathway are there for which includes things like very strong analgesia to take the edge off pain. Unfortunately things like the LCR haven't been well implemented across the UK so there is considerable scope for improvement.

I'm also not talking about cases like the ones you describe where the relatives are purely supportive but more complicated situations where they try to manipulate the patient and the team looking after them for their own needs. This can be simply because they have not come to terms with the fact that the patient is going to die, or it can be more malignant because they have some kind of financial interest in the survival or death of the patient. These people can end up bullying the patient into making decisions they would not have taken otherwise, and can be done in many ways not obvious to the people caring for the patient.

[EuroTroll]

Legislation for things like euthanasia needs to be drawn up thinking not of when it all goes right but how it can all go wrong.

You are combining two factors here, one is the decision to end one's life and the other is the ability to determine whether that decision was made with full consent. The latter has to be made with full understanding of the facts by the person deciding to end their life ensuring that there is no external influence on that decision.

Its because of the difficulties concerning the latter that euthanasia fails to gain traction in most countries.

Its easy to claim that people should be free to choose when and how to die. The problem is that in reality the decisions are often clouded and that patients who are in a state where they need to make that decision are often in a condition where they are unable to process information lucidly, make decisions or make those decisions known to a third party in a clear fashion (or a combination of the above). What happens if a patient changes their mind and wants to live longer but is unable to make that change in status clear?

How do you ensure that decisions are not made under duress? What happens in patients who have given powers of attorney to someone else? What about the interests of the medical team looking after them regardless of how well intentioned they are?

Just take a look at the problems surrounding similar decisions that exist in everyday medical practice with Do Not Resuscitate orders and transference to end of life pathways such as the Liverpool Care Pathway.

Both are plagued with problems that result in final decisions made not in the patients' best interest but because the relatives often have different views or beliefs on how the patient should be managed and have a say. Often such decisions result in patients not being given optimal management that prolongs suffering. How do you think some relatives will respond to a decision by a patient not simply to manage their natural death but to terminate it completely? What kind of legal problems do you think clinical teams will face if a relative challenges the decision retrospectively? A non-justified action that results in intentional death is commonly known as murder.

Then there is the parallel with abortion where the intention on its introduction in Britain was for it to only be possible in extreme circumstances. A few decades later social attitudes have moved on and the exact same legal wording has been massively reinterpreted to allow abortion for just about any circumstance. How would you ensure that the legalisation of euthanisa in strictly limited circumstances doesn't get exploited for convenience in the future?

You raise many valid and important questions, Malbec. I haven't got all the answers, that's for sure. I'm simply not smart enough.

What I'm thinking, though, is that in a democracy, this would get done if enough people wanted it. How exactly it would be done is, then, something for lawyers and members of Parliament to work out.

No matter how it would be done, though, I'm sure there would be cases of abuse. But then, there are cases of abuse for every bit of legislation. In the case of euthanasia, this would be far more serious, because we are talking about life and death, but still I think the good of it would outweigh the bad. The good being a reduction in human suffering.

While legal nuances are interesting, what really interest me are the ethics of it. And the question of whether "euthanasia for all" would make a society function better or worse.

I've made my views quite clear, I think, and am now eagerly awaiting yours. (Meaning all y'all, not only Malbec. :) )

[Malbec]

No matter how it would be done, though, I'm sure there would be cases of abuse. But then, there are cases of abuse for every bit of legislation. In the case of euthanasia, this would be far more serious, because we are talking about life and death, but still I think the good of it would outweigh the bad. The good being a reduction in human suffering.

Yet in the EU we ban capital punishment not because of the implications for the majority where people are correctly convicted for a crime but to protect the few who would be abused by a miscarriage of justice... I think you answered your own question there ;)

[gadjo_dilo]

Now call me selfish but no matter how much suffering a dear one might endure I don't know if I'll have the strength to accept an "artificial " end of the pain.

[EuroTroll]

Yet in the EU we ban capital punishment not because of the implications for the majority where people are correctly convicted for a crime but to protect the few who would be abused by a miscarriage of justice... I think you answered your own question there ;)

I'm not so sure... I personally would still be in favour of euthanasia even if I knew in advance that, say, a million people who wished it got a good death while, say, five who actually didn't got one also.

You mentioning capital punishment brings up an interesting question. Why is it that in America, for instance, euthanasia is only available to the worst criminal offenders? Basically, if you're an Alaskan and want it all to be over in a pleasent and peaceful way, your best bet is to go to Texas and commit some horrible crime... Now, that would obviously be a terrible, selfish, cowardly etc. thing to do, but I'm sure it has crossed the mind of at least a few depressed people. Why is it that atrocious criminal behaviour gets rewarded with euthanasia, while good law-abiding citizens often have to go the very hard, painful way?

[Starter]

Now call me selfish but no matter how much suffering a dear one might endure I don't know if I'll have the strength to accept an "artificial " end of the pain.
My wife and I have already made the connection to people who can provide what we need to take care of things. Neither of us is ill, but both believe in planning for the possibility. It would hurt me more to have to watch her suffer through her last days or weeks than to ease her pain. She feels the same about me. Not to say it would be a happy thing to have to do, but so much better than the other alternative.

[Tazio]

@ Gadji
I appreciate your opinion in this matter, and I hardly call it selfish. Having watched both of my parents pass away while assisted by a morphine drip, I have to say I'm glad they were given that artificial relief of their pain, otherwise I would be very perplexed as my mother was very Catholic and would not stand for euthanasia for anyone else in the family including my father who passed away five months before her.

[donKey jote]

good ol' morphine...
it also helped a few of my family members.

[Rollo]

No matter how it would be done, though, I'm sure there would be cases of abuse. But then, there are cases of abuse for every bit of legislation. In the case of euthanasia, this would be far more serious, because we are talking about life and death, but still I think the
good of it would outweigh the bad. The good being a reduction in human suffering.

Someone who is dead never undergoes any human suffering ever again.



While legal nuances are interesting, what really interest me are the ethics of it. And the question of whether "euthanasia for all" would make a society function better or worse.

I've made my views quite clear, I think, and am now eagerly awaiting yours. (Meaning all y'all, not only Malbec. :) )

In a country with a universal health care system and where because the government is the primary payer, the main motive of hospitals is healing the sick. The main motive of a business though is profits. What's the point of keeping someone alive, if they're creating expenses?
Moreover, if there is someone willing to pay good money for someone else's kidney, liver, heart etc. what's to stop a hospital convincing a family that their economic expense creating unit (loved one), is sicker than they are so that the other person who is prepared to pay for those organs gets them?

Certainly in more other forms of human endeavour, where there is profit to be made, someone somewhere will be looking at how to do so. In a not too distant future world where there's going to be more old farts and dwindling resources, what sort of effects would the laws of unintended consequences make on your suggestion?

[EuroTroll]

Someone who is dead never undergoes any human suffering ever again.

Exactly! That is the point, isn't it?


In a country with a universal health care system and where because the government is the primary payer, the main motive of hospitals is healing the sick. The main motive of a business though is profits. What's the point of keeping someone alive, if they're creating expenses?

Perhaps Rudy is right and the way to go is to have separate euthanasia clinics, i.e. institutions that serve only this purpose. They may well serve this purpose with the sole intention of making a profit, but if the healing and the terminating are separated, there shouldn't be this problem, right?


Moreover, if there is someone willing to pay good money for someone else's kidney, liver, heart etc. what's to stop a hospital convincing a family that their economic expense creating unit (loved one), is sicker than they are so that the other person who is prepared to pay for those organs gets them?

Ethical code?


Certainly in more other forms of human endeavour, where there is profit to be made, someone somewhere will be looking at how to do so. In a not too distant future world where there's going to be more old farts and dwindling resources, what sort of effects would the laws of unintended consequences make on your suggestion?

As I mentioned before, I do feel that euthanasia is a good idea, possible abuses and all. The good for the many-many suffering needlessly outweighs the bad from the possible cases of abuse. But, of course, this is merely a personal opinion...

[gadjo_dilo]

@ Gadji
I appreciate your opinion in this matter, and I hardly call it selfish. Having watched both of my parents pass away while assisted by a morphine drip, I have to say I'm glad they were given that artificial relief of their pain, otherwise I would be very perplexed as my mother was very Catholic and would not stand for euthanasia for anyone else in the family including my father who passed away five months before her.
Maybe because being a christian she understood the things a bit different. I think I’ve already said on another thread that Jesus’s death was of a heart-breaking undignity and he assumed it.

[henners88]

Maybe because being a christian she understood the things a bit different. I think I’ve already said on another thread that Jesus’s death was of a heart-breaking undignity and he assumed it.
I think this is why we need the choice. I don't see why my loved ones should die a slow painful undignified death because religious people don't believe they should have the right to voluntary euthanasia based on something I don't believe in. If clinics were made available then there would be choice without offending anybody. The danger is when certain peoples beliefs decide the fate of others and I don't think that is right. I don't agree with all types of suicide and don't believe someone should just be allowed to take their life because they have let it all go out of control. Certain circumstances can be perceived as cowardly, but anyone with a terminal illness who knows they are dying anyway and chooses a more peaceful exit is nothing but brave IMO. I say give people the choice and the dignity. Other peoples religion doesn't have to come in to it if they don't wish.

[EuroTroll]

I don't agree with all types of suicide and don't believe someone should just be allowed to take their life because they have let it all go out of control.

Henners, I agree with most of your post, except this part. My personal opinion is that one should have the option of euthanasia even if "things have got out of control". After all, why not? Why not give people a choice?

There are many possible reasons for wanting death. If you're stuck in poverty with no way out, why not end it all? If you've got a mental illness that prevents you from functioning properly, why not end it all? Why must there be this stigma regarding suicide, and why must suicide be so difficult?

Again, I think people who don't wish to be alive, should be given an easy way out. It's humane. It's right. I don't see any real ethical problems with it. With giving a person what he/she wants...

And again, I hope all those who read this realize that there are often options to ease the pain, and I hope they explore them, so it doesn't have to come to suicide, assisted or otherwise.

[gadjo_dilo]

Well Henners, I admit I'm a bit on the dark side of life. Religious or not I continue to believe that life is still a mistery. Theoretically I admit and even aprove the posibility of euthanasia. In practice I still have doubts. Like anybody I had my experiences with family members who suffered on their death bed. I’m also scared for what will happen to myself. But who says that death should be aseptic? I think that religious people have an advantage on the rest of us. Hoping for their saving they learnt that it may be associated with suffering and indignity.

[gadjo_dilo]

There are many possible reasons for wanting death. If you're stuck in poverty with no way out, why not end it all?
Because tomorrow you may win at lottery….


If you've got a mental illness that prevents you from functioning properly, why not end it all?

Because you don’t have the discenment capacity to decide it…?


Why must there be this stigma regarding suicide, and why must suicide be so difficult?
Because it’s not a usual trip but a one way only. The decision is hard to take, believe me.


Again, I think people who don't wish to be alive, should be given an easy way out. It's humane. It's right. I don't see any real ethical problems with it. With giving a person what he/she wants...
So I understand you don’t want me on this forum anymore…. :mad:

P.S. Now seriously, playful troll you just found a solution for our overpopulated planet...

[Rudy Tamasz]

There are many possible reasons for wanting death. If you're stuck in poverty with no way out, why not end it all? If you've got a mental illness that prevents you from functioning properly, why not end it all? Why must there be this stigma regarding suicide, and why must suicide be so difficult?

Well, because tribulation brings about perseverance; and perseverance brings about proven character; and proven character brings about hope; and hope does not disappoint.

[EuroTroll]

So I understand you don’t want me on this forum anymore…. :mad:

I do! The forum would be a much duller place without you. :)

At the same time, I stick by what I said.


P.S. Now seriously, playful troll you just found a solution for our overpopulated planet...

True. :laugh:

[Tazio]

ET it sounds like you would have been a proponent of "Operation T-4"

[EuroTroll]

ET it sounds like you would have been a proponent of "Operation T-4"

Oh well, I guess Godwin's Law really does hold true... :rolleyes: If you can't argue with a person, call him Hitler. :rolleyes:

I've stated on numerous occasions that I think it should be a person's own choice and noone else's.

[Tazio]

I didn't call you Hitler. I said it sounds like you would have been a proponent of T-4. I appreciate your differentiation, but as Rollo pointed out these things tend to get institutionalized in the real world

[EuroTroll]

I didn't call you Hitler. I said it sounds like you would have been a proponent of T-4.

Well, I wouldn't. And I haven't written anything that should suggest that I would. If what I've posted "sounds" like that in your head, then... well, that has far more to do with how you think than how I do.


I appreciate your differentiation, but as Rollo pointed out these things tend to get institutionalized in the real world

Meaning what, exactly?

[Tazio]

I was referring to post #8 which does not implicate your position as "the institutionalization of of euthanasia" but I think he brought up a valid point, that's all! :bulb:

[Malbec]

Well, I wouldn't. And I haven't written anything that should suggest that I would. If what I've posted "sounds" like that in your head, then... well, that has far more to do with how you think than how I do.

Meaning what, exactly?

I'm not trying to put words in GR's mouth but this is how you come across to me.

You seem to have a remarkable lack of respect for the value of life.

You started this thread talking about euthanasia for those nearing their end of life or for whom medical problems make life intolerable which is fair. Now you introduce the idea of euthanasia for transient phases of life like poverty or for those who are mentally ill, a patient group that specifically does not have the ability to make informed decisions. What next?

There is scant regard for safeguards, you seem to think it fine for the system to be abused (BTW having worked with those who are facing death I put the figure for patients with relatives who intervene in their care as closer to one in five or one in ten rather than five in a million) and have little insight into how what you are pushing for could easily be abused by the state, let alone malignant relatives.

If the government shows such little respect for the value of life why should its citizens? One of the reasons I believe the societies in the Middle East and countries like Afghanistan/Pakistan/India show such little respect for life is because the governments in that area have long acted as if that is exactly the case.

Perhaps you do not mean to emulate the Nazis but you should look very carefully at what you are proposing and how it could easily be abused.

[gadjo_dilo]

Please guys don't fight. Otherwise I'll jump from the window.

[Tazio]

:s tareup: :uhoh: :laugh: ... :bulb: .... never mind! ;)

[EuroTroll]

You seem to have a remarkable lack of respect for the value of life.

That's probably fair. I don't particularly value life itself, I value quality of life. When the latter goes, there is not much point in the former IMO.


You started this thread talking about euthanasia for those nearing their end of life or for whom medical problems make life intolerable which is fair. Now you introduce the idea of euthanasia for transient phases of life like poverty or for those who are mentally ill, a patient group that specifically does not have the ability to make informed decisions. What next?

Nothing next. In my very first post I said that I thought euthanasia should be available to all adults who wished it, for whatever reason. I have not really introduced anything new since.


There is scant regard for safeguards, you seem to think it fine for the system to be abused (BTW having worked with those who are facing death I put the figure for patients with relatives who intervene in their care as closer to one in five or one in ten rather than five in a million) and have little insight into how what you are pushing for could easily be abused by the state, let alone malignant relatives.

I don't think it's fine for the system to be abused, just inevitable. Again, I have stated several times now that I think it should be a person's own decision, not someone else's. Not a relative's, not a legal representative's. It's true that abuse of the system can probably not be avoided even then. However, I do not think we would be anywhere close to the 1-in-10 ratio you suggest.



Perhaps you do not mean to emulate the Nazis but you should look very carefully at what you are proposing and how it could easily be abused.

I do worry about possible abuses of what I'm proposing, each case of which would be a terrible tragedy. However, I'm sorry to repeat myself, but I still think the good from the availability of euthanasia would outweigh the bad.

[EuroTroll]

Please guys don't fight. Otherwise I'll jump from the window.

No fighting here. ;)

[Spafranco]

Take one of the interstates anywhere in the US. Park your car near a school. Sooner or later some clown will come along and off you. :)

[donKey jote]

I do worry about possible abuses of what I'm proposing, each case of which would be a terrible tragedy. However, I'm sorry to repeat myself, but I still think the good from the availability of euthanasia would outweigh the bad.

I agree.
Personal decision euthanasia doesn't kill people, evil relatives or institutions do :p

[airshifter]

A lot of good points on this post.

For me, the "for whatever reason a person chooses" approach should be out the window. It shows a basic lack of human compassion IMO. Rather than let a person kill themselves due to poverty or a mental problem we as other humans should find the resources to help them overcome that. If a person really wants to kill themselves and can't deal with any other options they will likely do it regardless of how or if it is legal.

For instances of reducing suffering for a long term terminal illness, then sure I can see it. As long as that person makes the decision while of sound mind and body, no problem at all. Some living wills essentially do that now, allowing for intense pain relief and being removed from life support equipment.

The option of allowing it at any time is unreasonable to me. Beyond potential abuse for profit or other reasons, it's not humane IMO. As for anyone taking the comments I made about suicide wrong I should clarify.... I would be much more accepting in cases of human suffering long term who made that choice.

[airshifter]

Take one of the interstates anywhere in the US. Park your car near a school. Sooner or later some clown will come along and off you. :)

Very similar to the fact that internet trolls will show up on forums. But wait, that one is true!

[EuroTroll]

For me, the "for whatever reason a person chooses" approach should be out the window. It shows a basic lack of human compassion IMO. Rather than let a person kill themselves due to poverty or a mental problem we as other humans should find the resources to help them overcome that.

A utopian thought. That is to say, romantic nonsense. ;) There will always be circumstances that make people not want to live anymore, even if we cured all diseases and eradicated poverty. Circumstances where a person simply cannot be helped, and that make his/her life unbearable.


If a person really wants to kill themselves and can't deal with any other options they will likely do it regardless of how or if it is legal.

Now this is what I call "lack of compassion". Why must the final hours of such a person be painful, unpleasent and possibly involve illegal activity? Why must the person feel like a criminal for making a decision he/she has every moral right to make (in my opinion)?

I do understand the stigma attached to suicide. I don't share it, though.


Very similar to the fact that internet trolls will show up on forums. But wait, that one is true!

A cheap jibe. Everything I've posted on this topic is my honest opinion; I am not trolling!

Also, you should be familiar with this fundamental rule of civilized discussion: "Discuss the post, not the poster."

I wonder if we might possibly continue without me being called a troll or implied I'm a Nazi...? I do realise my view on this matter is unusual, but that does not justify personal insults.

[Rudy Tamasz]

A utopian thought. That is to say, romantic nonsense. ;) There will always be circumstances that make people not want to live anymore, even if we cured all diseases and eradicated poverty. Circumstances where a person simply cannot be helped, and that make his/her life unbearable.

ET, you might want to check out the story of this guy:
About Nick (http://www.lifewithoutlimbs.org/about-nick/)
In your book he would be a perfect candidate for euthanasia. He chose the opposite way and showed how one can cope with the cruelty of life and one's own weaknesses.

Overall, you look at the the choice between life and death quite lightly and superficially. That kind of attitude to a big issue sends a message to others on this forum to not take your arguments seriously.

[gadjo_dilo]

I wonder if we might possibly continue without me being called a troll .....

OK. Next time I shall call you euro. :p
Or maybe the argotic form for it: coco. :devil:

[EuroTroll]

ET, you might want to check out the story of this guy:
About Nick (http://www.lifewithoutlimbs.org/about-nick/)
In your book he would be a perfect candidate for euthanasia. He chose the opposite way and showed how one can cope with the cruelty of life and one's own weaknesses.

Firstly, I don't have a book for candidates of euthanasia! It's not my place to suggest whether another person should choose it or not. It's a very personal decision, yet one we should all be able to make IMO.

Nick's story is inspirational, and I'm sure there are many other such inspirational stories around. What I'm saying, though, is that we should have the choice whether to fight or flight. Try your hardest to overcome adversity, or give up. The former is obviously preferable! But I have no problem with people choosing the latter. It is their choice and I respect that.

As said, it's really a question of personal freedom - something I value above all else. The ability to take stock of what you've got and make a choice. Yes or no, fight or flight, life or death.


Overall, you look at the the choice between life and death quite lightly and superficially. That kind of attitude to a big issue sends a message to others on this forum to not take your arguments seriously.

Lightly - perhaps. Superficially - I don't think so. I think I'm well aware of the implications of what I'm suggesting. It just so happens that I don't consider death as bad as a miserable life.

[henners88]

A cheap jibe. Everything I've posted on this topic is my honest opinion; I am not trolling!

Also, you should be familiar with this fundamental rule of civilized discussion: "Discuss the post, not the poster."

I wonder if we might possibly continue without me being called a troll or implied I'm a Nazi...? I do realise my view on this matter is unusual, but that does not justify personal insults.
I don't think what airshifter said was in reference to you at all. :)

[EuroTroll]

OK. Next time I shall call you euro. :p
Or maybe the argotic form for it: coco. :devil:

I like it! ;) :D

[EuroTroll]

I don't think what airshifter said was in reference to you at all. :)

Yeah, that thought occured to me as well. Later, after I had posted. :)

If you weren't referring to me, airshifter, I apologise. ;)

[Rudy Tamasz]

As said, it's really a question of personal freedom - something I value above all else. The ability to take stock of what you've got and make a choice. Yes or no, fight or flight, life or death.

You forgot to mention suffering all the way through making your choice, one way or the other.


I think I'm well aware of the implications of what I'm suggesting.

I insist you are not and neither are any people. To be aware of the implications you need to die, resurrect and soberly analyze your experience. I have yet to see somebody who has done so.

[EuroTroll]

You forgot to mention suffering all the way through making your choice, one way or the other.

Unfortunately, that's something that can't be helped. And it's a decision millions of people struggle with every day, anyway.


I insist you are not and neither are any people. To be aware of the implications you need to die, resurrect and soberly analyze your experience. I have yet to see somebody who has done so.

A fair point, I suppose. But policy regarding end-of-life has to be made regardless of our limitations.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Unfortunately, that's something that can't be helped. And it's a decision millions of people struggle with every day, anyway.

Honestly, I always have reservations hearing a single person speaking in the name of millions. Representing many people is a very tall order and should be taken with an utmost responsibility.

[EuroTroll]

Honestly, I always have reservations hearing a single person speaking in the name of millions. Representing many people is a very tall order and should be taken with an utmost responsibility.

Fine. Replace the word "millions" with the word "many", if that makes my post more agreeable to you. :)

[airshifter]

Yeah, that thought occured to me as well. Later, after I had posted. :)

If you weren't referring to me, airshifter, I apologise. ;)

Both you and Henners are correct. That statement was in response to the person trolling, which wasn't you. In either case no apology needed. Short on time here, but I'll address your post more later in the day.

[gadjo_dilo]

I like it! ;) :D

Which one? :confused:

[EuroTroll]

Which one? :confused:

Coco :laugh:

Other suggestions: ET, Troll (with a capital T), EuroTroll, Señor Troll, etc. :D

[gadjo_dilo]

Ok. I'll call you Dom' Coco.
Matches very well one of my nicknames.
Like Lolek & Bolek if you know the cartoon. :laugh:

[EuroTroll]

There is another aspect to this... It's possibly not a very strong point, but a point nevertheless...

I've read about research done in Australia (IIRC) into the quality of life of the terminally ill elderly people. It reached the conclusion that the quality of life of such people improved noticeably after they had made arrangements for a peaceful exit (which is illegal, I believe, but possible). It gave them peace of mind. They no longer had to worry about a possible painful death.

What I'm getting at is that people who are contemplating suicide might well be helped by the availability of euthanasia. It would give them a viable exit strategy, and peace of mind. Peace of mind is a component of happiness. So the availability of euthanasia might deter a person from ending his/her life for quite some time, because the urgency of the matter would be removed. "I don't have to do it now, I can always easily do it later."

Just a thought. ;)

[Malbec]

I've read about research done in Australia (IIRC) into the quality of life of the terminally ill elderly people. It reached the conclusion that the quality of life of such people improved noticeably after they had made arrangements for a peaceful exit (which is illegal, I believe, but possible). It gave them peace of mind. They no longer had to worry about a possible painful death.

What paper? link from Pubmed please.

What do you mean by a peaceful exit? Why is it that you never address the existence let alone scope for improvement for end-of-life pathways?

Painful deaths that you seem to fear tremendously are actually quite rare, although that doesn't make them less pleasant. A suitable end-of-life pathway includes analgesia like high dose morphine and sedatives to make it considerably more comfortable. Why not address this aspect rather than going straight for the euthanasia option?


Just a thought. ;)

I think you need to look into this subject a lot more. What you're writing about means that you have clearly done very little research into the ethics of what you're proposing, which given the seriousness of the subject matter is rather bizarre to say the least. Nor have you looked at the alternatives. As Rudy has already suggested maybe you should do a little more reading around the matter?

[EuroTroll]

What paper? link from Pubmed please.

Sorry, no link. As I said, it's just something I read, and it was just a thought. It's not particularly important to my argument, so I won't spend the time trawling through countless medical papers.


What do you mean by a peaceful exit?

In that particular case, what was discussed was a method of suicide using a helium mask. It supposedly free from physical distress, although difficult and possibly unreliable.


Why is it that you never address the existence let alone scope for improvement for end-of-life pathways?

End-of-life pathways exist and there is, indeed, scope for improvement. :mark:



Painful deaths that you seem to fear tremendously are actually quite rare, although that doesn't make them less pleasant. A suitable end-of-life pathway includes analgesia like high dose morphine and sedatives to make it considerably more comfortable. Why not address this aspect rather than going straight for the euthanasia option?

It is true that there is a lot that can be done to relieve the suffering of the dying, even now. Physical pain can be relieved, but what about mental distress?

I too have a personal experience to share. About two years ago, a relative of mine died of cancer. It started with melanoma, and the cancer soon spread to other organs. He was operated on several times, he was given chemo and radiation therapy. Despite those, it was known to doctors that he was terminal about a year before he died. One year of dying!

His physical pain was relieved with morphine, so I don't think he suffered very much physically. Because of the increasingly high doses of morphine, however, in the later stages, he was "out of it" most of the time. When he was lucid, he mostly just cried...

What was the bloody point of all that?!

And why is it that you are so tremendously afraid of personal choice? The opportunity to think about your options -- end-of-life pathways and all -- and make a decision: do you want to go through all that or not?



I think you need to look into this subject a lot more. What you're writing about means that you have clearly done very little research into the ethics of what you're proposing, which given the seriousness of the subject matter is rather bizarre to say the least. Nor have you looked at the alternatives. As Rudy has already suggested maybe you should do a little more reading around the matter?

This is not an argument, it's just a personal attack.

Yes, I should do more reading on this matter. So should you. So should everyone on everything.

We hold these discussions with the knowledge we have. So why not address what I've written, instead of writing what a bad person I am, or how superficial my understanding is?

[dj_bytedisaster]

Several ways are already in place to allow you a "way out". In Germany you can write a "Patients will" and after the notarial act it is legally binding. I have such a thing. I have explicitly forbidden that my life be artificially prolonged by machines or certain drugs and I've named two people, who will represent my will, should I be unable to express it (for instance coma or dementia).
Should I become seriously ill to the point where I saw death as the better option, I could just go to the Netherlands, a small country that is much more enlightened that many others. I could end my life there in dignity.

[EuroTroll]

Pino has kindly added a poll to this thread now. :up: I hope you'll find a choice that suits you!

[gadjo_dilo]

I can't vote.
I don't know what I want.

[EuroTroll]

I can't vote.
I don't know what I want.

How about some coffee? ;)

[gadjo_dilo]

It's not an option in the poll..... :devil:

[EuroTroll]

It's not an option in the poll..... :devil:

Yeah, forgot that one. Bugger. :p

[Malbec]

One year of dying!

Or one year to look at one's own life, try to understand one's regrets and address them. Time to do the things one always wanted to do but was never able to. A year to build bridges with those people one had neglected, to make peace with those one really cares for but argued with. Time to mend fences, make peace with oneself, loved ones, God, friends or whoever else matters. Time also to make sure that ones' dependents will be looked after in the future after one has gone.

Time even to decide how one wants to die, discuss options with whatever your equivalent of a MacMillan's nurse is and set out DNR orders and so on.

But the problem here is also that you don't limit yourself to just those who are facing death. You've suggested it as an option for the poor, mentally ill and other undesirables. No mention at all of what I thought would be the default humane response which would be to HELP them so they don't feel death is the better option.

It is then a very short step indeed to arguing that the mentally ill do not have the cognitive ability and insight to make a decision about dying so why not give that power to a third party, maybe the state, to exercise.


This is not an argument, it's just a personal attack.

I'm very sorry you feel this way.

Since you told me your personal story I'll tell you mine.

Until I saw the light and changed specialities 8 years ago I was a surgeon.

I've lost count of the number of patients I've had to help through the final part of their lives when treatment stops being curative and becomes palliative instead.

Most of the time this has been with the luxury of time, in clinics during the day. Sometimes the choice has been more complicated, in emergency cases the patient has the option of a risky operation they are unlikely to survive but if they do will return them to a good level of function, or to give them supportive treatment that will not improve them but will give them a guarantee of a certain amount of time so they can settle their affairs in peace.

This is I think the most difficult decision any person can be expected to make. It is also one they have to make when they are least equipped to make an informed decision. They are stressed, scared and often unable to fully comprehend either the condition or the treatments on offer in the short time they are given. They may be cognitively impaired due to age, the disease and/or drug treatment. Then there are the relatives....

You claim flippantly that you think only five in a million euthanasia deaths will be a decent price to pay. Where did you get that figure from? (As an aside I generally get very suspicious when people start talking in terms of lives being a worthy price to pay)

My one in ten figure is due to my experience of the way patient decisions about their end-of-life are manipulated by their relatives. In terms of euthanasia, if its strictly controlled legally the proportion will be far less but it will not be anywhere near as low as you imagine.

I've seen relatives encourage patients to take the quicker way out for personal gain. This isn't as horrendous as it sounds, the gain doesn't have to be a financial one. For a relative who has spent decades looking after a sick patient death is a release and when the prospect of it arrives they can grasp for it enthusiastically. There are relatives who are in it for the money. Alternatively there are relatives who cannot bring themselves to come to terms with the fact that their loved one is dying and demand everything is done to prolong life regardless of its quality. Either way they are a significant number.

Then what about the subconscious effects that you don't see? How do you think the long term ill feel knowing that one of their loved ones is spending their life looking after them and denying them a real life? If their decision to go for euthanasia is taken principally with a view to unburdening their relatives do you really think thats a free choice?

Choice isn't informed choice unless its made with a full understanding of the circumstances, risks and benefits free from undue external pressure taken by a person with full cognitive abilities. Given the circumstances we're talking about, ie euthanasia and the end-of-life process, do you really think that this can be established in even a majority of cases?

Note I have not even touched on the legal and medicolegal issues euthanasia brings up which are equally complex, nor is the above in any form a complete account of the ethics of euthanasia.


So why not address what I've written, instead of writing what a bad person I am, or how superficial my understanding is?

I haven't commented on you as a person, I have no idea who you are. I do think your understanding is superficial and I've noted that whenever this is pointed out to you (not just by me) you take it personally. I think if you understood the greater consequences better you wouldn't make as many dismissive comments as you have done in this thread.

[BDunnell]

This is not an argument, it's just a personal attack.

Very over-sensitive, in my view, especially from the person who was in favour of 'spicing the forum up'. Malbec's comments seemed entirely reasonable given the complexity — not least the moral complexity — of the subject in hand.

[EuroTroll]

Or one year to look at one's own life, try to understand one's regrets and address them. Time to do the things one always wanted to do but was never able to. A year to build bridges with those people one had neglected, to make peace with those one really cares for but argued with. Time to mend fences, make peace with oneself, loved ones, God, friends or whoever else matters. Time also to make sure that ones' dependents will be looked after in the future after one has gone.

Time even to decide how one wants to die, discuss options with whatever your equivalent of a MacMillan's nurse is and set out DNR orders and so on.

That is, indeed, another way of looking at it. But all the things you mention can be done even if one chooses euthanasia as the final solution. In many cases, in the final phases of dying, there is usually very little opportunity for anything other than suffering... Do you see any purpose in that?


But the problem here is also that you don't limit yourself to just those who are facing death. You've suggested it as an option for the poor, mentally ill and other undesirables. No mention at all of what I thought would be the default humane response which would be to HELP them so they don't feel death is the better option.

I have never described such people as undesirables, nor do I think it! To introduce another personal aspect so you might possibly understand me better, I am mentally ill myself - I suffer with bipolar disorder. As you probably know, about 5% of all people suffer with that condition, in various level of severities, and about half of those attempt suicide at some point in their lives. Knowing full well the tribulations this condition brings, I understand that fully, and respect the choice to attempt to end it all. I do not consider them or myself undesirable or inferior.

There are many circumstances where a person can't be helped, or can be helped only in a very limited way. There are and there always will be, despite advances in technology. That is why I have not talked about the issues of possible help in specific cases.


It is then a very short step indeed to arguing that the mentally ill do not have the cognitive ability and insight to make a decision about dying so why not give that power to a third party, maybe the state, to exercise.

The slippery slope argument... Well, I don't buy it. We as a society can collectively decide where to draw the line, and the line does not have to go any further.



Since you told me your personal story I'll tell you mine.

Thanks! :up:


You claim flippantly that you think only five in a million euthanasia deaths will be a decent price to pay. Where did you get that figure from? (As an aside I generally get very suspicious when people start talking in terms of lives being a worthy price to pay)

You might say I pulled the figure out of thin air. It was a figure that seemed likely to me.

Yes, I was a little uncomfortable making that statement myself. I made it nevertheless because it wouldn't be the only policy whose cost could be counted in number of casualties. Vaccination with live viruses is an example. The many get immunity, the few get the disease...



Then what about the subconscious effects that you don't see? How do you think the long term ill feel knowing that one of their loved ones is spending their life looking after them and denying them a real life? If their decision to go for euthanasia is taken principally with a view to unburdening their relatives do you really think thats a free choice?

In a word: yes.


Choice isn't informed choice unless its made with a full understanding of the circumstances, risks and benefits free from undue external pressure taken by a person with full cognitive abilities. Given the circumstances we're talking about, ie euthanasia and the end-of-life process, do you really think that this can be established in even a majority of cases?

There is never a full understanding of anything in human life, only varying degrees of it. I do think the decision should be free from undue external pressure, but surely this is something each individual can regulate? The term "full cognitive abilities" implies a determination by an outside party whether a person can or cannot make a decision. I find this very distasteful, especially if the decision is about the person's own life and death.


I haven't commented on you as a person, I have no idea who you are. I do think your understanding is superficial and I've noted that whenever this is pointed out to you (not just by me) you take it personally. I think if you understood the greater consequences better you wouldn't make as many dismissive comments as you have done in this thread.

It is true that some of my comments have been dismissive. I regret that now. I think they derived from my feeling of being "under siege", ever since it was implied that I would have been in favour of Operation T-4.

[EuroTroll]

Very over-sensitive, in my view, especially from the person who was in favour of 'spicing the forum up'. Malbec's comments seemed entirely reasonable given the complexity — not least the moral complexity — of the subject in hand.

I was merely stating that that particular part of Malbec's post added nothing to the discussion, and was instead a musing on my humble person.

If my protest contradicts with something I have written earlier in another thread then... well, "I am large, I contain multitudes". :laugh:

[BDunnell]

There is never a full understanding of anything in human life, only varying degrees of it. I do think the decision should be free from undue external pressure, but surely this is something each individual can regulate? The term "full cognitive abilities" implies a determination by an outside party whether a person can or cannot make a decision.

Well, this happens all the time, via power of attorney agreements and so forth. And I'd argue that not every individual can regulate external pressures. People with dementia, to name but one condition, may very well not be able to.

[EuroTroll]

Well, this happens all the time, via power of attorney agreements and so forth.

I know it does. I just think it shouldn't in this case.


And I'd argue that not every individual can regulate external pressures. People with dementia, to name but one condition, may very well not be able to.

What that brings up is a procedural question. How do you ensure that a person is free from significant external influence when making the decision? One idea is to have euthanasia sanatoriums. You enter when you first express a wish for euthanasia. You are then separated from those who might otherwise influence you. You are given care and counseling. If, after a period of time, you still express the same wish, you are given the means to do it.

[Rollo]

You enter when you first express a wish for euthanasia. You are then separated from those who might otherwise influence you. You are given care and counseling.

Presumably the care and counseling is to prevent the grief caused by being separated from your nearest and dearest who might otherwise influence you.

[EuroTroll]

Presumably the care and counseling is to prevent the grief caused by being separated from your nearest and dearest who might otherwise influence you.

Sure. And to discuss other options.

[Malbec]

In many cases, in the final phases of dying, there is usually very little opportunity for anything other than suffering... Do you see any purpose in that?

I disagree. Most deaths do not involve the levels of pain you seem obsessed with. In fact, most people steadily decline and are brought down finally by cardiac or respiratory arrest in a peaceful manner. The point is also that in most cases one cannot predict whether a patient is going to die or is merely going through a bad patch that they will get through before being able to lead a relatively normal life for more weeks, months or years. Why lose that opportunity for prolonged quality life?


The slippery slope argument... Well, I don't buy it. We as a society can collectively decide where to draw the line, and the line does not have to go any further.

You may not buy it but as abortion in Britain shows, it happens.

Secondly you are giving the state a lot of legal power that can be misused with a wilfully aggressive interpretation of the law. Many totalitarian states don't actually write new legislation to infringe human rights, they merely abuse existing ones. I for one would feel more comfortable with my state not having access to any legislation that could allow for the deliberate killing of anyone. Before you claim this can't be possible I have already written that it is not difficult to claim that certain people are unable to decide for themselves whether they could or should have euthanasia, therefore the state should step in and take that power for them.


Vaccination with live viruses is an example. The many get immunity, the few get the disease...

Vaccination is there to save lives, not take them. Also live attenuated viruses (the attenuated part is extremely important) only cause disease in exceptionally rare instances, 'few' would not be an accurate word to describe that.


The term "full cognitive abilities" implies a determination by an outside party whether a person can or cannot make a decision. I find this very distasteful, especially if the decision is about the person's own life and death.

You may find it distasteful but that is the current legal and medicolegal state regarding consent. You will find that in cases where different parties disagree over the ability of a person to give their consent regarding a procedure, medical or otherwise, it is normal practice for a third party to determine whether they are able to understand the benefits and risks and come to a reasoned decision.

Do you think a demented or mentally handicapped patient's decision to kill themselves is valid if they do not understand what it entails? One is reminded of a mentally handicapped prisoner's last words before he was executed just over a decade ago in the states, "I'm going to go back and finish that hamburger once I'm executed"....

[EuroTroll]

I disagree. Most deaths do not involve the levels of pain you seem obsessed with. In fact, most people steadily decline and are brought down finally by cardiac or respiratory arrest in a peaceful manner. The point is also that in most cases one cannot predict whether a patient is going to die or is merely going through a bad patch that they will get through before being able to lead a relatively normal life for more weeks, months or years. Why lose that opportunity for prolonged quality life?

Again we come back to the freedom of personal choice. Need I say more?



You may not buy it but as abortion in Britain shows, it happens.

Secondly you are giving the state a lot of legal power that can be misused with a wilfully aggressive interpretation of the law. Many totalitarian states don't actually write new legislation to infringe human rights, they merely abuse existing ones. I for one would feel more comfortable with my state not having access to any legislation that could allow for the deliberate killing of anyone. Before you claim this can't be possible I have already written that it is not difficult to claim that certain people are unable to decide for themselves whether they could or should have euthanasia, therefore the state should step in and take that power for them.

How would I be giving the state a lot of legal power? I have always maintained that according to my scheme, the choice is the person's and noone else's. Yes, it is not difficult to claim that certain people are unable to decide for themselves, but it is also not difficult to counter that claim.



Vaccination is there to save lives, not take them.

And voluntary euthanasia would be there to relieve human suffering, which is a worthy goal as well.



You may find it distasteful but that is the current legal and medicolegal state regarding consent. You will find that in cases where different parties disagree over the ability of a person to give their consent regarding a procedure, medical or otherwise, it is normal practice for a third party to determine whether they are able to understand the benefits and risks and come to a reasoned decision.

Yes, that's true. But nevertheless I'm proposing a different approach for euthanasia.


Do you think a demented or mentally handicapped patient's decision to kill themselves is valid if they do not understand what it entails? One is reminded of a mentally handicapped prisoner's last words before he was executed just over a decade ago in the states, "I'm going to go back and finish that hamburger once I'm executed"....

If a person is able to show up in an institution, lucidly declare his/her wish to die, go through counseling, and declare that wish again, then I would treat that decision as valid, no matter what might be thought of the person's cognitive abilities.

It is simply the person's own business, and I do not believe we need to be protected from ourselves. Other people might need to be protected from us - that is true. But not we from ourselves.

[Malbec]

How would I be giving the state a lot of legal power? I have always maintained that according to my scheme, the choice is the person's and noone else's. Yes, it is not difficult to claim that certain people are unable to decide for themselves, but it is also not difficult to counter that claim.

Who do you think administers the right of an individual to anything? Who would propose the required legislation, write and enact it to enable euthanasia if not the state? How can you not see how if something is legalised the state can take advantage of it as much as any individual?


If a person is able to show up in an institution, lucidly declare his/her wish to die, go through counseling, and declare that wish again, then I would treat that decision as valid, no matter what might be thought of the person's cognitive abilities.


Have you actually considered the implications of what you have just written there? Your understanding of consent and free will differs fundamentally to that which underpins Western law of both Anglo-Saxon and Napoleonic codes. Have you thought about the implications of your scribblings above on issues like rape, paedophilia, medical practice, fraud and so on?

The mind boggles, it really does...

[EuroTroll]

Who do you think administers the right of an individual to anything? Who would propose the required legislation, write and enact it to enable euthanasia if not the state? How can you not see how if something is legalised the state can take advantage of it as much as any individual?

The state can grant or withhold a freedom, but I really don't see how it could take advantage of it. Our right to free speech, for example: how can the state take advantage of it? Or euthanasia: how exactly could the state abuse legislation that grants a personal freedom as I have outlined it?

And who is the state? In a democracy, it is "we the people". Ultimately, it is we that make the policies, through our representatives. The state is not some distant bogeyman with a will of its own...


Your understanding of consent and free will differs fundamentally to that which underpins Western law of both Anglo-Saxon and Napoleonic codes.

I don't see where consent comes into it, as we are not talking about an outside initiative that has to be agreed or disagreed with. We are talking about the freedom of a single person to do as he pleases to him-/herself, on his/her own initiative.

How does my understanding of free will differ? Do the mentally disadvantaged have no free will?


Have you thought about the implications of your scribblings above on issues like rape, paedophilia, medical practice, fraud and so on?

No, I haven't. I haven't thought there necessarily were any.

[Malbec]

The state can grant or withhold a freedom, but I really don't see how it could take advantage of it. Our right to free speech, for example: how can the state take advantage of it? Or euthanasia: how exactly could the state abuse legislation that grants a personal freedom as I have outlined it?

As an aside your profile states you are from Estonia, do you not have any memories of living in a totalitarian regime and how it can use/manipulate well meaning laws for purposes far removed from their original intention?

In the UK we have freedom of speech except for threatening abusive speech, anything likely to cause a breach of the peace, incitement and incitement to racial hatred or importantly sedition.

It so happens that generations of governments have generally chosen to respect freedom of speech and not exercised their right to silence critics that threaten their rule. However all it takes is the will and existing British laws can be used to clamp down on any criticism of government on the pretext that such speech incites sedition and if it leads to the prospect of public protests could incite a breach of the peace.

As for euthanasia, all one has to do is tinker with the definition of who has the ability to make decisions for those with impaired cognitive processes as I may have described multiple times before to be able to legally justify the killing off of large segments of undesirables.

Take a look at China which has used its one child policy to justify the forced sterilisation of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of women.


And who is the state? In a democracy, it is "we the people". Ultimately, it is we that make the policies, through our representatives. The state is not some distant bogeyman with a will of its own...

Does the Patriot Act ring a bell? Executive order 9066? Tuskegee syphilis experiment? Or perhaps you'd like to choose Britain, home of the parliamentary democracy which only recently assisted the US with the deportation and incarceration of British citizens to Guantanamo bay, only intervening to put forward questions that could be put to them while they were being tortured.

Or more relevantly look at Sweden and its eugenics programme that carried on until 1975.

Surely you are aware that 'even' democracies are perfectly capable of violating its citizens' human rights?


I don't see where consent comes into it, as we are not talking about an outside initiative that has to be agreed or disagreed with. We are talking about the freedom of a single person to do as he pleases to him-/herself, on his/her own initiative.

How does my understanding of free will differ? Do the mentally disadvantaged have no free will?

I'm not sure you understand what euthanasia is.

Killing someone with their consent = euthanasia.
Killing someone without their consent = murder

Still unable to see where consent comes into it?

If someone kills themselves without any external assistance its called suicide and there are many means out there available to those who want to do that already. What I thought you had been campaigning for here is assisted death in nice clean institutions with people to make sure it all happens safely and peacefully. Has it not crossed your mind therefore that without clear consent those institutions and people would be implicitly involved in murder?

In order to give consent one implicitly has to have enough cognitive function to understand the benefits, risks and consequences of the action one is about to undergo.


No, I haven't. I haven't thought there necessarily were any.

Go and do some research, why don't you start with the legal definition of rape? That may give you a clue.

[EuroTroll]

Well, I have to concede that consent does come into it, and there are probably insurmountable problems with allowing what I've discussed to those who are unable to give it in a legal sense.

So, scratch that. :D "Euthanasia for all who want it and are legally able to give their consent to be assisted with suicide" - that's the new topic. ;)

[donKey jote]

Hey Studitroll, try watching Dispatches on Channel 4 at 8pm GMT tonight: "Death on the Wards: Channel 4 Dispatches
Morland Sanders investigates allegations that tens of thousands of seriously ill people have been put on a `pathway to death', likened to legalised euthanasia, despite claims from these patients' families that they could have had months or even years left to live. The programme reveals the results of a survey of doctors into how the process of dying is managed in hospitals" :)

check PM

[EuroTroll]

Hey Studitroll, try watching Dispatches on Channel 4 at 8pm GMT tonight: "Death on the Wards: Channel 4 Dispatches
Morland Sanders investigates allegations that tens of thousands of seriously ill people have been put on a `pathway to death', likened to legalised euthanasia, despite claims from these patients' families that they could have had months or even years left to live. The programme reveals the results of a survey of doctors into how the process of dying is managed in hospitals" :)

check PM

:up:

[BDunnell]

Again we come back to the freedom of personal choice. Need I say more?

It is simply not possible, no matter how much you may try to do so, to avoid the fact that there are many circumstances in which an individual is not able to deal with their own affairs, hence — sorry to repeat myself — the handing-over of certain responsibilities via power of attorney agreements and the like. Do you reject the notion of such arrangements per se? You say they don't apply 'in this case'. Why not? What makes a decision regarding assisted suicide different to, for instance, one regarding the financial affairs of someone with dementia?

[BDunnell]

How does my understanding of free will differ? Do the mentally disadvantaged have no free will?

It may be deemed in someone's best interests that they are given a certain degree of assistance. Those in need cannot be expected under all circumstances to fend entirely for themselves. In no sense do I consider that this automatically sees the state exerting undue control over the lives of such individuals.

[BDunnell]

Well, I have to concede that consent does come into it, and there are probably insurmountable problems with allowing what I've discussed to those who are unable to give it in a legal sense.

So, scratch that. :D "Euthanasia for all who want it and are legally able to give their consent to be assisted with suicide" - that's the new topic. ;)

Even so, I would hope that suitable advice would always be proffered as to whether this is a sensible course of action. This, as far as I can see, doesn't unduly seem to trouble you.

[EuroTroll]

It is simply not possible, no matter how much you may try to do so, to avoid the fact that there are many circumstances in which an individual is not able to deal with their own affairs, hence — sorry to repeat myself — the handing-over of certain responsibilities via power of attorney agreements and the like. Do you reject the notion of such arrangements per se?

Indeed there are, and no, I don't.


You say they don't apply 'in this case'. Why not? What makes a decision regarding assisted suicide different to, for instance, one regarding the financial affairs of someone with dementia?

I said they shouldn't apply in this case. Assisted suicide is a graver matter (if you'll pardon the pun) than any financial transaction. That is why I think a delegation of responsibilities is not agreeable in this case.

I was initially hoping to come up with a catch-all solution, but Malbec has convinced me that the right for euthanasia cannot be awarded to those who are unable to legally consent to it. That disqualifies many people, which is unfortunate, but can't be helped I suppose.


It may be deemed in someone's best interests that they are given a certain degree of assistance. Those in need cannot be expected under all circumstances to fend entirely for themselves. In no sense do I consider that this automatically sees the state exerting undue control over the lives of such individuals.

Fine.


Even so, I would hope that suitable advice would always be proffered as to whether this is a sensible course of action. This, as far as I can see, doesn't unduly seem to trouble you.

Not unduly, no. Only duly. :)

I do think (now) that counseling should be mandatory before such a course of action is taken. A person should be introduced to other options, and these should be earnestly discussed and considered.

[EuroTroll]

Hey Studitroll, try watching Dispatches on Channel 4 at 8pm GMT tonight: "Death on the Wards: Channel 4 Dispatches
Morland Sanders investigates allegations that tens of thousands of seriously ill people have been put on a `pathway to death', likened to legalised euthanasia, despite claims from these patients' families that they could have had months or even years left to live. The programme reveals the results of a survey of doctors into how the process of dying is managed in hospitals" :)

check PM

Damn and blast it, I missed it because I fell asleep. :arrows: Did you watch it yourself, Donks? If so, what did you learn? :)

I'll see if I can find it on the 'net, later...

[donKey jote]

It focussed strongly on the Liverpool Care Pathway and on cases where the procedures either weren't properly communicated to the families or were made by "weekend" doctors without a "proper" knowledge of the patients' cases.

I learnt that dispatches often disappoints. My impression was that it went a bit down the daily mail road on this occasion by cherry picking a couple of clearly arguable cases, although the general points remain valid: LCP procedures could be tightened, made more transparent and communicated properly.

[Malbec]

It focussed strongly on the Liverpool Care Pathway and on cases where the procedures either weren't properly communicated to the families or were made by "weekend" doctors without a "proper" knowledge of the patients' cases.

I learnt that dispatches often disappoints. My impression was that it went a bit down the daily mail road on this occasion by cherry picking a couple of clearly arguable cases, although the general points remain valid: LCP procedures could be tightened, made more transparent and communicated properly.

Couldn't agree more. It didn't actually explain carefully about the controversial aspects of the LCP, for example it mentioned that some patients may not get food and water but didn't explain that that was only in cases where patients could no longer swallow and the alternative would be invasive procedures to insert feeding lines.

I do agree that proper communications and restricting its use to palliative care teams would improve things, but one thing the programme suggested was how different patient outcome expectations can be for the doctors and relatives and how difficult a situation this is to manage.

[gadjo_dilo]

For about 2 months I’ve been assisting helpless at the continous physical and mental decline of my old mother. In the last 4 days the situation has become too painful either for her or for me and I’m afraid it could still last for months. The problem is that in this country the assistance for old persons is practically inexistent and there’s nothing I can do as I’m supposed to go to work and even when I’m home she’s too heavy to be moved. I called up 112 and she was carried to the emergency hospital where once again we were humiliated and sent back home. It’s always the same, it’s a painful ( and expensive ) trip to a hospital where you are left to wait for hours, admonested for daring to disturb them, sent back home. I remembered about this thread and the discussions about euthanasia for all. I still think that if permited I wouldn’t be able to take or admit such decision but at the same time I can’t see a decent solution for us. Whenever I go to sleep ( as if I can sleep....) I wish that a miracle would happen and I’ll never wake up again. At this moment I think I have a single option, to kill her and then kill myself....

[henners88]

Please don't do that Gadjo! So sorry to hear what is happening with your mother :(
I hope your mother finds peace soon and you get the help you need from your loved ones or friends. Is there any counselling you can seek or someone close you can confide in? You shouldn't be doing this alone and please don't do anything silly. I've been there myself with a parent and although things are tough, time is a healer even if you never forget.

[steveaki13]

Oh Gadjo, I am so sorry to hear that. Please don't do anything like this. I have been in a similar situation, but nothing compared to yours. You must remember your mother and the good times. She would not want you do anything silly.
I am not very good with words, but you really need to ask someone for help. As Henners said you shouldn't go through this alone.

I hope you can find the strength to get through all your troubles and in time you can come back and chat to us on the Forums again.

[Starter]

Gadjo, is there such a thing as Hospice in your country? If there is you should call them, they will take care of your mom to the end.

[gadjo_dilo]

Thanks guys, I appreciate your good intentions and the fact you're trying to encourage me. But things are more complicated than you might think.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Just be strong. That's the only answer.

[MccarthyL]

I feel really bad about the idea of killing people, but the way they suffer is just unbearable for those who have at least a little bit of empathy. People that say like "No, euthanasia is murder!" most likely have never seen a person dying from the terminal stage of cancer. It's not a murder, it's an act of mercy.

[steveaki13]

I feel really bad about the idea of killing people, but the way they suffer is just unbearable for those who have at least a little bit of empathy. People that say like "No, euthanasia is murder!" most likely have never seen a person dying from the terminal stage of cancer. It's not a murder, it's an act of mercy.

I agree, but it clearly has to be done through official channels.

If someone is in that situation, it needs to decided by more than one official to stop abuse by one individual and it has to the opinion of medics, as a related individual is not always able to be rational.

If this was in place, then I think its a decent thing to do, rather than make people suffer for ages.

[Rollo]

I'm not sure you understand what euthanasia is.

Killing someone with their consent = euthanasia.
Killing someone without their consent = murder

Still unable to see where consent comes into it?

I can see how consent might be easily manipulated too.

Suppose that someone dying was on a donor list for organs and had an Advance Health Care Directive giving instructions to others about their medical care if they were unable to make decisions on their own. Pressure might be brought to bear by insurance companies on people who were either nominated in ACHDs or even people who had power of attorney to make such decisions.


As for euthanasia, all one has to do is tinker with the definition of who has the ability to make decisions for those with impaired cognitive processes as I may have described multiple times before to be able to legally justify the killing off of large segments of undesirables.

An "undesirable" might just as easily be someone who has valuable organs for which someone is willing to pay. Remember in the United States, medical bills are the biggest cause of bankruptcies.

[gadjo_dilo]

If someone is in that situation, it needs to decided by more than one official to stop abuse by one individual and it has to the opinion of medics, as a related individual is not always able to be rational.

Hmmm....Have you ever been consulted by a romanian doctor? :mad:




Killing someone with their consent = euthanasia.

Last night I bought a long list of drugs and when the chemist asked if I want something else I once again said I want a death pill. Before she thought I'm a murderer I added that I want it for myself. Unfortunately neither this time they haven't one.
So if one of you would ever have a will to kill someone I voluntarely offer myself.

[henners88]

My step father begged my Mum to kill him in his last weeks as he didn't have the strength to do it himself. She couldn't do it and he understood it was a massive ask. We all thought she would struggle after he died, but she has slowly learned to do all the things he was responsible for. Its a tough period and one we will all never forget, but life goes on and we find the strength to cope. Things always seem darker in the immediate aftermath, but time is a healer. That is all I can really say.

[gadjo_dilo]

Henners, I've already been through this with my father and I know I'm mentally strong enough to go on. I don't have a problem about what shall I do "after". But now I'm physically overwhelmed by the situation. She's in pain and very heavy and I literally can't move her despite the fact that my brother and a cousin try to help me. She's not having a certain incurable disease she's just old and her body and mind surrender. I can't find understanding at work and I'm risking my job if I stay with her during her crises. I have hundreds of extra unpaid hours but my manager won't let me stay home when I need. There are nights when she yells my name asking me to hold her from falling and I'm alone and tired and I can't do anything. I can't afford sending her to a private asylum and even if I'd do this effort I doubt they'll manage to cope with her. I don't wish her death but I wish I could die as I feel I can't take care properly of her.

[Spafranco]

What you're describing is the work of a psychologist. I said you should consult a psychiatrist. ;) The difference is, while one simply talks to you, the other prescribes medication. Depression is often a case simply of biochemistry: your body not producing enough serotonin and other substances necessary for well-being. This is often easily fixed with medications..
Nah...No medications for me.
I'm successfully assuming the status of a "dilo" for quite a long time. :laugh:


Now it's my turn to say, "give me a break". ;) It was created most probably because Dad doesn't believe in condoms and Mum forgot to take her birth control pill.
Right. I confess I also wanted to say something like this. :laugh:
But I feared that some smart guy would say that abortion was a solution.

This thread has suddenly turned towards your sad mental health. As Eurotroll stated, there are many medicines available to you that an alleviate the condition of depression that you purportedly are suffering from ,and which I doubt. People in the darkest areas of depression do not read hat forums whatever the psychosis is.
As to the Euthanasia issue. By all means, yes, this should be left to the patient suffering immeasurable pain. Is the reluctance to allow this escape from misery religious,societal or ethics?
Death row convicts have it better than law abiding people suffering horrendous pain.

[henners88]

Well Gadjo I feel very sorry for the position you are in and I hope you find some light as I'm sure your mum would not want you to take your own life. By sharing your experience here you will always attract people like myself who sympathise and who may have been in a similar position, but unfortunately you'll also realise it can be a cruel world and not everybody is as understanding or particularly nice. Just block out the negativity, ask your family for some support, and focus on giving you mum the best care you can and try and be satisfied you've done your best. You seem like a nice person and I'm sure eventually you'll be fine :)

[airshifter]

Gadjo,

The best you can do is the best you can do. Nobody should ever expect more, and you can't expect more from yourself either. Any end of life experience is stressful, and adding that you are the primary one helping care for your mother makes it much more so. Involve your family and others as much as you can. If they won't do it for her, ask them to do it for you. It is a lot to add to the rest of daily life, and all the factors can combine to make it very physically and emotionally taxing.

Last year I lost my father after he had complications after a surgery when he was fighting cancer. The situation was made much worse by a stepmother who couldn't communicate facts, and wanted to act as though she was the only one with a close relationship with him. I ended up flying out after she blocked attempts from myself and my brother to speak to his doctors and get straight information, and it created some waves. But I can sleep with a clear conscience knowing that my actions were only to respect his wishes.

So I'm not about to claim knowing your situation, but I do know the stress it can bring. Be strong and do what you can, and remember that you can't be superhuman. We are human, and no more. Please don't even think about hurting yourself for being human. If nothing else think of the emotional toll it would take on those that care about you, and possibly ask those people for their help through this.

[gadjo_dilo]

Thank you again guys for being so supportive. I'm that kind of dilo who still feels that a friendly gesture values more than 100 pills ( despite of some guys related to this industry opinion).
I admit it's probably weird to write about personal problems on a forum but spending so much time here I use to think of you as my friends even if we've never got to meet each other and even if sometimes those who I thought are nice aren't that nice at all.
I know it's gonna be a long journey with ups and downs and I'll probably manage to resist until the end. But our health system that condemns you to death through carelessness and the lack of a decent possibility of some professional assistance for those in need will continue to drive me crazy. In the future I'll probably become a militant for old people assitance.

P.S. Don't know if any of you is a manic film fan like me to have the curiosity and patiance to watch this film that meant the revival of romanian cinematography and was awarded at Cannes film festival. It's called "The death of Mr Lazarescu" and it's the one night journey of a patient from hospital to hospital until he dies. It's a black comedy but was inspired by a real fact and reflects the way we're treated in our hospitals. It's so realistic that it hurts even if you laugh at situations that look absurd. Euthanasia? No, just call an ambulance.
http://www.veoh.com/watch/v296548DrGYGMZz?h1=Moartea+Domnului+Lazarescu+CD1

[airshifter]

Thank you again guys for being so supportive. I'm that kind of dilo who still feels that a friendly gesture values more than 100 pills ( despite of some guys related to this industry opinion).
I admit it's probably weird to write about personal problems on a forum but spending so much time here I use to think of you as my friends even if we've never got to meet each other and even if sometimes those who I thought are nice aren't that nice at all.
I know it's gonna be a long journey with ups and downs and I'll probably manage to resist until the end. But our health system that condemns you to death through carelessness and the lack of a decent possibility of some professional assistance for those in need will continue to drive me crazy. In the future I'll probably become a militant for old people assitance.

P.S. Don't know if any of you is a manic film fan like me to have the curiosity and patiance to watch this film that meant the revival of romanian cinematography and was awarded at Cannes film festival. It's called "The death of Mr Lazarescu" and it's the one night journey of a patient from hospital to hospital until he dies. It's a black comedy but was inspired by a real fact and reflects the way we're treated in our hospitals. It's so realistic that it hurts even if you laugh at situations that look absurd. Euthanasia? No, just call an ambulance.
http://www.veoh.com/watch/v296548DrGYGMZz?h1=Moartea+Domnului+Lazarescu+CD1

I don't think there is anything strange at all about sharing real life personal issues on a forum, nor do I think that considering some on a forum friends is out of the ordinary. It should be a place to allow you to vent frustrations without people placing judgment on you, and a place where people treat you the same as they would in person. I can personally say I'm very glad that you seem more realistic on the struggle ahead.

As for becoming "a militant" for the elderly, if the system in your country is that poor, I can't blame you at all. Directing your anger properly could well make things easier for others in the future.

[jens]

None of them are good methods for suicide. I'm still of the opinion that there are no clean and quick methods available to the average person.


Putting head under train is perhaps pretty quick and efficient? But doesn't work for people, who suffer physically badly, i.e don't have ability to go to a railway.

Anyway...
In principle I am supportive of the idea of euthanasia. You may think about the worst painful moments of your life - and now think you have to endure this pain for your whole life. No thanks, I'd rather not live. What keeps us going is the hope that it's gonna be better. But in some situation it turns out it is sadly not possible, or at least incredibly unprobable and the suffering would still be way too huge to bear.