"Assisted" Suicide / Euthanasia

[M.K]

http://www.assistedsuicide.org/

Assisted suicide is the process by which an individual, who may otherwise be incapable, is provided with the means (drugs or equipment) to commit suicide. In some cases, the terms aid in dying or death with dignity are preferred.These terms are often used to draw a distinction from suicide; in some legal jurisdictions, "suicide" (whether assisted or not) remains illegal, while "aid in dying" is permitted.

The term euthanasia refers to an act that ends a life in a painless manner, performed by someone other than the patient. This may include witholding common treatments resulting in death, removal of the patient from life support, or the use of lethal substances or forces to end the life of the patient.

This discussion entails whether or not this practice is ethical, practical, and/or applicable to the human race. Recently, the state of Washington in the United States legalized Assisted Suicide, and the first woman has taken her own life as a result:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/23/us/23suicide.html

woman with pancreatic cancer has become the first person to die under a law passed last year allowing doctor-assisted suicide in Washington, according to an advocacy group that pushed for the law.

The woman, Linda Fleming, 66, of Sequim, Wash., died Thursday evening after taking lethal medication prescribed by a doctor under the law, according to a news release by the group, Compassion and Choices of Washington. The release said Ms. Fleming received a diagnosis of Stage 4 pancreatic cancer a month ago, and “she was told she was actively dying.”

Ms. Fleming was quoted in the release as saying: “I am a very spiritual person, and it was very important to me to be conscious, clear-minded and alert at the time of my death. The powerful pain medications were making it difficult to maintain the state of mind I wanted to have at my death.”
In November, voters approved the Death with Dignity Act, 58 percent to 42 percent, making Washington the second state — after Oregon — to allow assisted suicide. The laws in both states have been deeply controversial, particularly among religious groups. Washington passed its law after the United States Supreme Court in 2006 rejected an effort by the Justice Department to block Oregon’s law, which took effect in 1998.

-In Oregon, over the past year, 401 patients commited suicide in assitance with these laws.

Questions/Discussions of Interest:
-Is the practice of euthanasia or assisted suicide ethical and/or applicable to the human race?
-Does the will to live and the decision to allow such "death sentences" lie with the government or the "victim"?
-Do terminally ill patients have the right to take their own life?
-Do parents of terminally ill children have the right to decide on whether or not the child will undergo one of these?

~~~

In my opinion, the option of Assisted Suicide is absolutely applicable to terminally ill patients, however, it should not even be available to those who have curable or non-terminable diseases. Euthanasia should only be applicable with the consent of the patient, and if the patient is unresponsive, then the option is tossed out unless the parents, legal guardians, or closest living relatives can provide video or written proof that the patient condones and wishes to be killed under such circumstances.

 

[|RK|]

For this, we can simply turn back to that old suicide topic from the DH.

Besides religion, can you tell me what makes suicide wrong? Ah, yes, the chances that the person should wait to choose because happiness is around the corner. But in medical cases? To have them continually living a hell on Earth? It would actually be better for these mercy killings to occur.

If it's for other, non-harming reasons, then first we should at least offer them counsel, to psychoanalyze them. Try and help them to see the brighter side of life. If such fails, then we should let them commit suicide... themselves. Give them the needle, let them inject themselves, and that's as far as the assistance goes. If they can inject themselves, then just let them. If they can't, then there is still some psychological reason they can't, and that should be taken care of... unless it happens to be a fear of needles.

Then we also have the expenses that goes along with helping to assist suicide. What does killing people in a quick and clean way cost, as opposed to tossing them out of a helicopter? If it has too much expense, then there is no way we should be getting involved in other people's death.

Heard the news story about the Chinese man who pushed the suicidal off the bridge?

Suicidals tend to be selfish, thinking only if themselves and what they want. Killing them quickly and cleanly would prevent this selfishness to some extent, but still not much of a change there. Governments of any kind shouldn't be getting involved in assisted suicide, period. Minus terminal illnesses. They may just want their family to not hurt anymore because they're still alive, but they won't make it.

So yeah, illnesses: yes; normal suicide: no.

 

[RDK]

What constitutes "illness", and what about the severity of said illness? I could fit plenty of things under the umbrella term "sick".

 

[M.K]

What constitutes "illness", and what about the severity of said illness? I could fit plenty of things under the umbrella term "sick".

Exactly.
We might be able to psychoanalyze the patient, but what if the patient lies about their true condition? What if they truly want to die, yet their family desperately wants them to live? Is it ethical to kill or let the patient kill his or herself if their sickness or disease is non-terminal?
I suppose that non-terminal illnesses could also indicate ones that do not kill, yet are associated with very painful chronic symptoms in which the patient would choose to die rather than live with the symptoms. I believe it is unethical for the patient to be killed BY the doctor, yet if the patient wants to take it into their own hands to kill themselves, then so be it, but the act should not be condoned, supported, or approved by the government or medical society.
If a bed-ridden terminal patient wishes to die to relieve themselves of disease pain, then so be it. The medical team should have the consent of not only the patient, but of the closest family members.

 

[RDK]

Exactly.
We might be able to psychoanalyze the patient, but what if the patient lies about their true condition? What if they truly want to die, yet their family desperately wants them to live? Is it ethical to kill or let the patient kill his or herself if their sickness or disease is non-terminal?
I suppose that non-terminal illnesses could also indicate ones that do not kill, yet are associated with very painful chronic symptoms in which the patient would choose to die rather than live with the symptoms. I believe it is unethical for the patient to be killed BY the doctor, yet if the patient wants to take it into their own hands to kill themselves, then so be it, but the act should not be condoned, supported, or approved by the government or medical society.
If a bed-ridden terminal patient wishes to die to relieve themselves of disease pain, then so be it. The medical team should have the consent of not only the patient, but of the closest family members.

That wasn't really the point.

The point I was trying to make was that any illness, terminal or not, is an arbitrary line when considering whether or not suicide is okay. It's either okay or it's not okay, and nobody has given any good reasons as to why it's not okay.

 

[Miggz]

I don't believe the practice of assistant suicide is right. In my eyes, it isn't too different from Independent suicide. As I mentioned in my previous suicide post, all life is precious. Suicide is such a touchy subject because none of us knows what happens to us after we die. Without a doubt...an individual's own belief does play some part in their suicidal action, but I digress. One method mentioned above was the pulling of the plug. I won't lie, the idea of being in a coma is frightening. I suppose its like sleep paralysis, being able to think/hear/smell, ect, but just can't move. Even if a person is in a coma, is deciding to pull the plug really the right thing to do? Obviously I have no clue what being in that kind of state is like, but if I can hear my loved ones all around me...I think that alone will remind me that I am still alive, and not alone.

Generally when I hear the term suicide the word "selfish" always comes to mind. The way I see it, giving someone the permission to give you the tools to your death is still selfish. Why should I burden someone else with such a decision? I know the law is allowing it in some places. But can you honestly tell me that these people don't have any shred or regrets lingering...pulsating in the back of their minds? If they any shred of human decency, then I'd think the answer is yes.

Regarding your second question, I don't feel government have any right to make such a decision. All the government can do is lay down the foundation. At the end of the day, its up to the individual to actually obey their rules. Life and Death are clearly more serious then parking tickets, or petty store theft. In fact, I find a lot of governments sentencing to be flawed. How can government begin to make decisions about something serious as assistant suicide, when they clearly have a flawed methods of dealing with less serious issues? Point blank, I feel its the victims choice.

Now for your third question. I think you know my answer for this one already. Again, I feel suicide is wrong. Having a disease that is causing extreme suffering is indeed a shame. But at the end of the day, life is still life. Nobody knows what happens to us when we die. Even though the individual is suffering, their has to be at least one loved one suffering right along side them emotionally. I'm sure its pretty rare when both the terminally ill patient and their loved one(s) mutually agree on pulling the plug. Regardless, if the patient wants to die and the loved one(s) wanted them to live and vice versa, one person is being selfish in both scenarios. Its important for the terminally ill person to not waste their time thinking when or how to kill themselves, but to enjoy the time they have left with the people that mean something to them. So technically, they can kill themselves. But is it "truly" right? I think not.

The last one is pretty tricky. I'm sure government will say something about the age of the child making a difference. But to be honest, this is really hard to answer. I suppose it all depends on the child's personal understanding of death. Do they believe in heaven, ghosts, ect? To make my point short and sweet, I feel if the child can speak fluently and can build a strong understanding of the current situation, then I say it should be the child's choice.

 

[M.K]

That wasn't really the point.

The point I was trying to make was that any illness, terminal or not, is an arbitrary line when considering whether or not suicide is okay. It's either okay or it's not okay, and nobody has given any good reasons as to why it's not okay.

I understand how you say that, but could you elaborate more? It seems to me like you are saying that the decision to commit independent or assisted suicide is a positive one in both a terminal and non-terminal disease situation, but I may be misinterpreting what you are saying.
I agree with your stance, however, that suicide is always an option, as gruesome as it is.

I don't believe the practice of assistant suicide is right. In my eyes, it isn't too different from Independent suicide. As I mentioned in my previous suicide post, all life is precious. Suicide is such a touchy subject because none of us knows what happens to us after we die. Without a doubt...an individual's own belief does play some part in their suicidal action, but I digress. One method mentioned above was the pulling of the plug. I won't lie, the idea of being in a coma is frightening. I suppose its like sleep paralysis, being able to think/hear/smell, ect, but just can't move. Even if a person is in a coma, is deciding to pull the plug really the right thing to do? Obviously I have no clue what being in that kind of state is like, but if I can hear my loved ones all around me...I think that alone will remind me that I am still alive, and not alone.

If I recall correctly, they don't pull the plug on coma patients, they pull the plug on brain-dead people or those who cannot function on their own without life support. Being in a coma...well, it's hard to describe unless you've actually BEEN in one. I would assume it's a very, very deep unconciousness, therefore, it would be hard to be aware of the surroundings.
I'm almost positive that your interpretation or perception of a coma is incorrect, though. It's not that "awake", if you get what I'm saying.

 

[Miggz]

If I recall correctly, they don't pull the plug on coma patients, they pull the plug on brain-dead people or those who cannot function on their own without life support. Being in a coma...well, it's hard to describe unless you've actually BEEN in one. I would assume it's a very, very deep unconciousness, therefore, it would be hard to be aware of the surroundings.
I'm almost positive that your interpretation or perception of a coma is incorrect, though. It's not that "awake", if you get what I'm saying.

From what I have read about coma, the individual doesn't normally hear but their have been cases of people waking up and have reported hearing loved ones while in a coma state. I suppose it depends on the brain damage. So one would be surprised at how "alive" some coma patients really are.

 

[Lythium]

If I recall correctly, they don't pull the plug on coma patients, they pull the plug on brain-dead people or those who cannot function on their own without life support. Being in a coma...well, it's hard to describe unless you've actually BEEN in one. I would assume it's a very, very deep unconciousness, therefore, it would be hard to be aware of the surroundings.
I'm almost positive that your interpretation or perception of a coma is incorrect, though. It's not that "awake", if you get what I'm saying.

From what I have read about coma, the individual doesn't normally hear but their have been cases of people waking up and have reported hearing loved ones while in a coma state. I suppose it depends on the brain damage. So one would be surprised at how "alive" some coma patients really are.

I agree that some speculation is necessary for this topic, but wouldn't it be better to post some sort of source regarding the specifics of comas? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coma

I think the most difficult question here is the one that regards children. As Miggz stated, any government will determine that children are unable to properly realize the impact of their decisions, and so, would not be permitted to make such a decision. In that case, the power would reside within the parents or legal guardians. This is problematic, however, because it is not their life. Should it still be the parents' decision? What if a child does not want to die, and their parents decided that it would be in their best interest that they should? Does the child's opinion have any weight? Or their age? Or even their understanding of death?

In the Netherlands, child euthanasia is legal for newborn babies. They have a system of guidelines they must follow: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content-nw/full/352/10/959/T2 However, child euthanasia is only permitted due to grave illness or severe birth defects, such as spina bifida: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6621588/

Should a severe birth defect be a cause for euthanasia? If so, this is starting to reek of eugenics.

 

[M.K]

I agree that some speculation is necessary for this topic, but wouldn't it be better to post some sort of source regarding the specifics of comas? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coma

I think the most difficult question here is the one that regards children. As Miggz stated, any government will determine that children are unable to properly realize the impact of their decisions, and so, would not be permitted to make such a decision. In that case, the power would reside within the parents or legal guardians. This is problematic, however, because it is not their life. Should it still be the parents' decision? What if a child does not want to die, and their parents decided that it would be in their best interest that they should? Does the child's opinion have any weight? Or their age? Or even their understanding of death?

In the Netherlands, child euthanasia is legal for newborn babies. They have a system of guidelines they must follow: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content-nw/full/352/10/959/T2 However, child euthanasia is only permitted due to grave illness or severe birth defects, such as spina bifida: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6621588/

Should a severe birth defect be a cause for euthanasia? If so, this is starting to reek of eugenics.

For one, Wikipedia is not a reliable source for information regarding comas and the effects on the human body induced by a comatose state.
Second of all, you are correct that the hardest decision is one based upon children's right to die. Should it be in their own hands, or through the consent of the parents? Does a child possess the qualities of understand, judgement, and maturity to make such a life-changing (or ending) decision? This is an iffy subject that would best be solved by disallowing the process of Euthanasia or Assisted Suicide until the Age of 18, in which a person can be confidently granted drugs to kill themselves or be killed by the doctor.
Newborn babies are the same. Obviously they cannot make their own decisions, however, do the parents have the right to choose the baby's fate? I believe they do, however, they must be given many opportunities to back out or reconsider, and the baby must be treated as best as possible before the decision is made. If it looks like the baby will suffer for a couple years and then die, or suffer a lifetime, I believe it is appropriate to end the child's life and "put it out of it's misery".

 

[Lythium]

For one, Wikipedia is not a reliable source for information regarding comas and the effects on the human body induced by a comatose state.

I agree. I've been saying it all along. However, I've noticed other debaters occasionally using Wikipedia articles. Here's a different source: http://www.medicinenet.com/coma/article.htm No one else was posting information about comas, I just thought I would put it out there.

Second of all, you are correct that the hardest decision is one based upon children's right to die. Should it be in their own hands, or through the consent of the parents? Does a child possess the qualities of understand, judgement, and maturity to make such a life-changing (or ending) decision?

That's what I said in my previous post.

This is an iffy subject that would best be solved by disallowing the process of Euthanasia or Assisted Suicide until the Age of 18, in which a person can be confidently granted drugs to kill themselves or be killed by the doctor.

What if the child in question is 16 or 17? Do they have less of a right to end their lives if they choose to? Should we make them suffer through another year or two?

Newborn babies are the same. Obviously they cannot make their own decisions, however, do the parents have the right to choose the baby's fate? I believe they do, however, they must be given many opportunities to back out or reconsider, and the baby must be treated as best as possible before the decision is made. If it looks like the baby will suffer for a couple years and then die, or suffer a lifetime, I believe it is appropriate to end the child's life and "put it out of it's misery".

I agree.