Well, I would rather see some of the ways treatments are preformed questioned and regulated more. I have seen a great deal of treatments of the terminally ill used simply because they could. Think of it as unapproved experimentation by doctors on patients that were dying anyway. I would hate to accuse them of padding the bill so to speak but I think it does happen just for that reason and it happens more often than we think especially when you are dealing with AIDS or Alzheimers etc.

Just because we can prolong life does not mean we should. Just because we can stick 6 embryos in a woman does not mean we should.

Some of these decisions should effect the doctor financially as much as it effects the patient. I think doctors do get god complexes and it does hit all of us in our insurance premiums.

I recently watched an 80-something relative of my husband die a slow and painful death of dehydration because she’d had a stroke and could no longer swallow. Her two adult children (in their early 60’s) refused to allow her to have a drip for hydration (or sedation) because she was “going to die anyway”, so they didn’t see any point in prolonging the agony (for themselves).

For those who are curious, it took her close to a week to die – and her mind was intact the entire time. She could nod or shake her head for yes and no to questions that were asked of her. If she’d been given the “choice” of euthanasia, I’m sure she would have grabbed it with both hands to escape the torture her children were putting her through.

And let’s face it, there are much more subtle forms of psychological pressure that could be brought to bear on the elderly to get them to request to be euthanized by their selfish, greedy children who can’t wait to inherit. We always consider extreme case scenarios – like quadraplegia or persistent coma – when talking about euthanasia, but the reality is that the vast majority of people (like +90%) who will be euthanized will be the elderly who are the most easily victimized and bullied segment of our society. We need to make laws that take into account the most common scenarios, not the least likely.

That being said, if a person of sound mind can convince a panel of psychologists that they genuinely want to die (say, similar to the hoops you need to jump through to get gender reassignment surgery), then I don’t necessarily object to the laws being changed to allow this. I strongly object to the simple decriminalization of euthanasia.

In the case of people in a persistant vegetative state, who can’t decide for themselves, the decision should be up to the immediate family whether or not to keep them alive. It should be done humanely, rather than make the person starve to death. And under no circumstances should the family face legal repercussions. They’ve already faced the agony of watching their loved one wither away.

I consider it the most basic of human rights. For me it’s simple: It’s my life and if I want to end it, at any time, for any reason, that’s my right. The idea that anyone has the hubris to insist that I remain living when I no longer want to, is mind boggling to me. Just because others may think my life has meaning, doesn’t mean that I do.

http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/archive/berg.htm

On the whole, I’m pro euthanasia, because I’d like to have that option myself. But I can see difficulties in devising a workable system that protects the vunerable. Because while there are people that are kind to suffering animals, there are others who are not. There was a programme on local TV yesterday about a blind 93 year old woman who was cheated out of her home by her son: if, in other circumstances, he had had the right to decide whether to ‘end her suffering’ there’s no reason to think he’d consider anything but his own best interests.

Most people are endowed with capacity to show mercy to a suffering animal, why is it wrong to shown anything less to a fellow human being?

Took the words or would have – out of my mouth.
It’s personal and that’s the way I’d like to see it stay.

Also, there are many people with horrid conditions whose relatives are not “neglecting” them. Fact is, they often don’t have the “medical” know how to keep them safe.

Case in point, Hospice said just one month before my MIL died that she was well enough that they would no longer help in her care. WTF? Um, any food or liquid given to her could very well have killed her as she choked to death on it! Lets not even get into the idea of trying to get a pill down her throat.

Oh yes, I could see the “guilt” now as one of her sons tried to feed her, she begins choking, and he could do nothing to help. “Man, I KILLED my mother.”

Sigh. Sorry, just a touchy topic for me.

But in fact, the inability to provide home medical care by the unlearned masses is a reality, not a “neglect” issue.

Case in point, the rugby guy. We are making huge strides in stem cell research, we might find a “cure” for paralysis. But if you’re dead, it’s too late for you.

That’s all good “for you”.

As someone who has been HIV+ since 1990 I don’t get this argument. Your promise of some miracle cure that I have heard over and over again does not help the guy suffering right this moment. How can you assume to know what he is going through? How can you assume to know better than he does? How does he benefit in his current condition with these vague promises when faced with the length of his suffering?

My lover John died an agonizing death as his brain was infected by AIDS. My mother recently died after suffering years as a victim of alzheimer’s. On both occasions I had to participate in the decision to not allow the doctors to put them on machines.

Just because you can elongate life through mechanical and pharmaceutical means delaying the natural progression without having to provide any cure underlines the simple fact that the doctors are already “playing god”. The power has already corrupted the system and to not deal with this question properly through humanitarian means you are denying the realities you are already participating in and ignoring the suffering of the patients you are striving to help.

Seems to me the current method to deal with these diseases with no cure is to drug them up so much they can’t complain to the doctors or nurses as they rot. Is shutting the patient up so you don’t have to answer the simple question “can you cure this?” really the best answer?