TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Dementia sufferers may have a duty to die
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Dementia sufferers may have a duty to die - Page 2

post #31 of 57
There are two different possible ways to abuse a euthanasia system. It can be abused by euthanizing people who do not want to be euthanized, and it can be abused by euthanizing people who want to be euthanized for wrong reasons.

From my reading of the article, Baroness Warnock (what a title!) was addressing the latter question: what reasons are valid reasons for a person to want to die? Here are some possible reasons that people might want to be euthanized:

a) In pain in a way that drugs don't help with.
b) Terminal and just waiting to die; euthanize to end the emotionally painful wait.
c) Depressed.
d) A child afraid of what mom will do when she finds out what the child has done.

Most people (who support euthanasia) would agree that reasons a & b are valid and reasons c & d are not valid. But what about

e) Considers purpose in life to contribute to society, currently a financial drain on society.

There are people who want to die because of reason e. So, if euthanasia is legal, is e a reason, or should people with reasons a & b be given the fatal drugs they want and these same drugs withheld from people with reason e?

This is the discussion that the news article is about. I really don't know what my personal take on it is, but I think calling this women a monster doesn't really make sense. She's addressing an important moral question. The way to fight it is to come up with a good argument about why a & b are different from e.

If you think euthanasia is always wrong, I would expect that this lady's position about question e has the same moral value for you as this lady's position about question a. So the problem is not with her position about point e, but instead with the entire idea of euthanasia.

Of course, if point e is a valid reason for a person to want him or herself to die, then where is the line between it being a valid reason for a person's own choice and a valid reason for the state's choice? That's an important issue, but I think the moral question of whether e is a valid reason for personal choice should be addressed first. And, really, I don't think it's too hard to keep that line strong. Simply never, ever, ever allow people to be euthanized without a statement from them before the illness that they support euthanasia.
post #32 of 57
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
More "generalized" statements - but not necessarily fact.

As for the original topic of this thread, I personally believe in euthanasia. I would like to be able to make that choice if I were to become a burden on my family.
No not generalized at all, i have saw stories from many different almost full socilaist countries, where, they talked about if this pill or whatever was worth it., based on there bottom line. So your telling me you would trust NSH on when your life ends?

SO when do we start Euthanasia camps? and at what age, 75?,65?, how about 35?
I dont want any goverment making my chocies for me.

lol remember the movie logon's run?

anyway that is how i feel about it(bottom line is i dont trust the goverment with my life)

Quote:
Originally Posted by mschauer View Post
The mother of a good friend of mine died of Alzhiemers. it's a horrible way to go.
For me, the idea of euthanasia isn't repugnant. Making sure it isn't abused is very problematic though.

Yes it is a horrible way to go, how the idea of euthanasia is not bad, To me the way it was being talked aout in the newspaper story was that they state should also be able to make that choice for you and me whoever.

euthanasia should be a choice for people, but not for the state.
post #33 of 57
Bruce, it appears again as though we aren't even on the same page.

Just because a government legislates that something is legal does not mean they will be the ones making the decision. Just as there are laws that allow abortion, the government isn't the ones making the decision at the clinic. Their part in the process would be define the parameters in which the euthanasia was performed "legally".

Making something "legal" is not the same as that body making the ultimate decision.

The decision should be between the family and the doctor just as abortion is between the patient and the doctor so in that respect the government would need to legalize it and make legislation on how and when it would be allowed to be enacted. The only part of this affecting the NHC system would be that it would cost them less if someone and their family opted for euthanasia and they would not have to continue covering health care costs indefinitely.
post #34 of 57
Thread Starter 
But you see there are places , where the goverment makes that choice.
even about abortion.

I wonder, how many people have seen a women being taken for a forced abortion?
(at least that is what i was told later she was being taken for) If that idea does not scare you , it should.

stuff likes that can happen in the west, if we just keep giving up choices to the goverment.
post #35 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
But you see there are places , where the goverment makes that choice.
even about abortion.

I wonder, how many people have seen a women being taken for a forced abortion?
(at least that is what i was told later she was being taken for) If that idea does not scare you , it should.

stuff likes that can happen in the west, if we just keep giving up choices to the goverment.
Yes, I do believe those things happen in third world countries. However, I am just positive enough to believe that we western countries have come further than that. Abortion has been legal here for some time now and I don't know of any women who have been forced by our government to go get an abortion or taken from their homes to a clinic and an abortion performed on them against their will by our government.

I don't see legalizing something as giving up our choice, in fact I see it as quite the opposite. If there is legislation that allows us a free choice that's better IMO than having something totally prohibited. It actually is giving us more free choice. Even though there are aspects of every government that we don't like or agree on (these threads will easily attest to that), we do NEED government to regulate certain activities. Without that regulation we would have chaos so it's not always a bad thing as far as I'm concerned.
post #36 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
Yes it is a horrible way to go, how the idea of euthanasia is not bad, To me the way it was being talked aout in the newspaper story was that they state should also be able to make that choice for you and me whoever.

euthanasia should be a choice for people, but not for the state.
Actually, the very first sentence is :

Quote:
The veteran Government adviser said pensioners in mental decline are "wasting people's lives" because of the care they require and should be allowed to opt for euthanasia even if they are not in pain.
No place in the article does it suggest that people should be put to death against their wills.
post #37 of 57
Thread Starter 
no but it does, hint at the goverment should also be helping to make that choice.
post #38 of 57
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
Yes, I do believe those things happen in third world countries. However, I am just positive enough to believe that we western countries have come further than that. Abortion has been legal here for some time now and I don't know of any women who have been forced by our government to go get an abortion or taken from their homes to a clinic and an abortion performed on them against their will by our government.

I don't see legalizing something as giving up our choice, in fact I see it as quite the opposite. If there is legislation that allows us a free choice that's better IMO than having something totally prohibited. It actually is giving us more free choice. Even though there are aspects of every government that we don't like or agree on (these threads will easily attest to that), we do NEED government to regulate certain activities. Without that regulation we would have chaos so it's not always a bad thing as far as I'm concerned.
we are not talking legalizing, we are talking about what what point do you allow the goverment to make health care choices for you, based on the money.

i dont need the goverment to regulate when i die. People just keeping giving up control to the goverment, and attempts like this is just another means to do it.
post #39 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
no but it does, hint at the goverment should also be helping to make that choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
we are not talking legalizing, we are talking about what what point do you allow the goverment to make health care choices for you, based on the money.

i dont need the goverment to regulate when i die. People just keeping giving up control to the goverment, and attempts like this is just another means to do it.
It would seem as though your interpretation differs from others. Fair enough.
post #40 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
To me the way it was being talked aout in the newspaper story was that they state should also be able to make that choice for you and me whoever.
Like i said in my earlier post, don't take what the newspapers say for gospel. Their the biggest story tellers known to man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
i dont need the goverment to regulate when i die.
I really think your looking too much into this all because of one womans thoughts.

Live for today Bruce, don't think too much into the future because it's honestly not worth it.
post #41 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
no but it does, hint at the goverment should also be helping to make that choice.
I don't know how you get that from the article, but OK...
post #42 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschauer View Post
I don't know how you get that from the article, but OK...
Me neither. I am not seeing that.
post #43 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschauer View Post
The mother of a good friend of mine died of Alzhiemers. it's a horrible way to go. For the last year of her life she was basically a vegetable. She may not have been in pain but to say that she had "good quality of life well into" the disease (as the article does) isn't what I would call accurate. With Alzhiemers there is no hope for improvement so why put them and their loved ones through the horrible end?

The woman in the article made her point in a cold and insensitive manner but I can't say I totally disagree with her. We are conditioned to recoil in horror whenever it is suggested that there might be a financial aspect to such things. But if you can take a step back and look at the issue objectively can you really say it makes any sense to keep the body alive when the spirit is gone and will never return as is the case with Alzhiemers? There comes a point when there really isn't any doubt the person in the body is gone even though the heart is still beating.

For me, the idea of euthanasia isn't repugnant. Making sure it isn't abused is very problematic though.

I can euthanize a dog or a cat, I can not and will not ever believe in euthanizing a human being. I have no right to play God

Believe me I watched my Father who had no quality of life. It is not fun to watch a person you love waste away. Not be able to do anything at all for himself, not even eat. Not be able to talk or even know we were there much of the time. But I can't play God.

It isn't up to me to say if it makes sense to keep the body alive when the spirit is gone. Who am I to say the spirit is gone, who are you to say?
Can you see inside someone's spirit?
I don't think anyone has the right to say:

Quote:
There comes a point when there really isn't any doubt the person in the body is gone even though the heart is still beating.
What an awful thing to say IMO. My father wasn't gone until he died, my Mother was with him when he died and he knew she was there and he understood what she was saying. He got very calm and passed into eternity very peacefully. That is a great comfort to her.
post #44 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
It isn't up to me to say if it makes sense to keep the body alive when the spirit is gone. Who am I to say the spirit is gone, who are you to say
You betcha I have a right to say how and when I choose to exit this world.

Quote:
What an awful thing to say IMO. My father wasn't gone until he died, my Mother was with him when he died and he knew she was there and he understood what she was saying. He got very calm and passed into eternity very peacefully. That is a great comfort to her.
I understand some people feel that way. I think it shows the utmost arrogance for you to suggest that because you feel that way my, for all practical purposes, lifeless body must be maintained like a potted plant after the point at which I have specified that I should be let go. That is not for you to say.
post #45 of 57
Friends, there are some very deep personal feelings and convictions in this matter, and I sense that we may be approaching some heat. Can we please remember to keep our comments respectful, and if anyone has a bone to pick with another member do it privately. Thanks.
post #46 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
What an awful thing to say IMO.
I really dont think it is awful. Like i said in my post about my brother dying in agony, i really mean in agony, and it was heartbreaking that we had to see him suffer like he did.

We didn't see the worst of it, we saw him in his last week and that was bad enough. My sister in law and niece had to endure it, and the last 24 hours of his life were in their words "Horrendous". That wasn't the brother i knew only 6 month's previous that's for sure.

I really started to question my faith in God after the way he suffered.
post #47 of 57
Thread Starter 
Folks, i was not talking about a person,making the choice when there is No hope.

i am talking about a "what if" the state starts making that choice.
and how much control over that do people want to give.
post #48 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
i am talking about a "what if" the state starts making that choice.
and how much control over that do people want to give.
I honestly can't ever see that happening. Never say never i suppose, but to be honest, after losing 4 family members in the last 3 years i've realised theres more important things to think about than something that is just a "what if".
post #49 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
Folks, i was not talking about a person,making the choice when there is No hope.
.
That is what the article in your first post is about. The person making the decision for themselves.

Maybe you should start another thread if you actually want to discuss something other than than what you posted. Much confusion could be avoided if you did.
post #50 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
Folks, i was not talking about a person,making the choice when there is No hope.

i am talking about a "what if" the state starts making that choice.
and how much control over that do people want to give.
As you probably know, that did happen in Nazi Germany. Hitler ordered the "mercy killing" of nearly 100,000 sick and disabled people, many of them infants and children. Nazi Euthanasia.That was just 69 years ago, so no, it can't be ruled out.
post #51 of 57
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschauer View Post
That is what the article in your first post is about. The person making the decision for themselves.

Maybe you should start another thread if you actually want to discuss something other than than what you posted. Much confusion could be avoided if you did.

no, its not.
post #52 of 57
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post
As you probably know, that did happen in Nazi Germany. Hitler ordered the "mercy killing" of nearly 100,000 sick and disabled people, many of them infants and children. Nazi Euthanasia.That was just 69 years ago, so no, it can't be ruled out.
yep, i know, and there are stories about it being down in russia, and china also,

and it can happen here.
post #53 of 57
Theres a lot of things that can happen, but it doesn't mean it will.

Imagine sitting night after night worrying about "what if". Live for today that's my advice Bruce.
post #54 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosiemac View Post
Theres a lot of things that can happen, but it doesn't mean it will.

Imagine sitting night after night worrying about "what if". Live for today that's my advice Bruce.
Mine too.
People have very different feelings about this. But I have seen some things in my life that make me believe what I believe.

Then it begs the question what is so wrong with dying? Why are we afraid of it?
post #55 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by CC12 View Post
Mine too.
People have very different feelings about this. But I have seen some things in my life that make me believe what I believe.

Then it begs the question what is so wrong with dying? Why are we afraid of it?
Good questions. I've actually thought about this and no, I'm not sick nor am I particularly morbid. For the most part I'm pretty optimistic and upbeat, I enjoy my life and our family is very close. Having said that, I can honestly say that I do not fear dying. If I were to get ill with incurable cancer like my friend's husband did, I would not want to sit around losing weight, being in pain, causing others to have to wait on me hand and foot, clean me and feed me for 3-6 months or whatever length of time I had. I've watched people go through that and I hope never to subject my dear husband or beautiful daughter to the stress and heartache my friend and her daughter went through living in a house with her husband upstairs just waiting to die. If I were allowed to make a choice to save them from those months of pain and suffering and also save myself from the pain and suffering then I would bless whomever allowed me to make that decision and have it carried out. I underlined that to emphasize that it would be my decision - not the governments (they would only enact laws which would allow me to make the decision and have it done legally).
post #56 of 57
America and England have had a eugenics movement already, about 100 years ago. Winston Churchill supported eugenics. Thousands of disabled or mentally infirm people were sterilized or denied treatment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/feb/06/race.usa


This was before the creation of the NHS btw.
post #57 of 57
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/..._the_lord.html for an interesting take on the future of thanatogenics.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Dementia sufferers may have a duty to die