A good friend of mine had her 17 year old cat euthanized 2 weeks ago due to kidney and liver failure. She was obviously extremely upset, as Buster (the cat) had helped her through some rough times in her life. I repeatedly told her that she did the right thing. I meant it every time I said it. I think it's a very compassionate thing to do when an animal is in pain. I think it takes love to euthanize a beloved pet who is in pain. After all, the thought of them suffering is worse than the thought of them dying and being at peace.

I feel my opinion of animal euthanization for medical purposes i.e. an inoperable condition, conditions that will ultimately result in severe pain or a suffering death for the animal is shared by a vast majority of people. However, my opinion of doctor assisted suicide probably isn't.

Dr. Jack Kevorkian is a well known doctor, who served time in prison due to doctor assisted suicide. I feel he should have never been convicted. To me, doctor assisted suicide is not a crime. He did not aimlessly walk around looking for people who had the ability to recover from an illness to murder. He wasn't like Dr. Harold Shipman who killed his patients for more sinister motives, such as money. Dr. Kevorkian 'killed' only people who consented and wanted to die, because they had terminal illnesses and/or suffered from intense pain that they obviously would never recover from. Dr. Kevorkian and Dr. Shipman are on two completely different levels to me and I feel almost reptilian in comparing them.

My point is, why, by most standards, is it considered "compassionate" and "loving" to euthanize an animal who is in pain, who cannot consent to their death, who cannot communicate their needs? Yet, when a human being is in pain, who can consent and give permission to be euthanized, who can consent to their death, who can communicate their needs, it is considered murder, or a crime? What the hell is the difference? It's almost like it is not acceptable for an animal to suffer so we euthanize them, but yet, when a human being is suffering in a similar manner, we try to prolong their suffering as much as possible because let's face it... medications don't always work they way they are intended to. Some people are just in so much pain, that there is nothing else left in their minds and they openly welcome death because they aren't afraid of it anymore.

Dr. Kevorkian said; "My aim was not to cause death. My aim was to end suffering." He caused death by ending suffering... but veterinarians do it every day.

I think that human euthanasia should be decriminalized. These people consent and give permission to have the doctor end their lives of suffering. It's not like they're sitting there and get shitload of medications pumped into them in an effort to flat out murder them. They are aware of it the entire time. The animals it happens to, aren't.

This is just one of those double standards that gets to me. I don't mean for this to turn into a pissing match, because I know a lot of people (if you've ever thought about this) may strongly disagree with me, and that's fine. I'm just trying to find some common ground here.

The whole ordeal with my friend and her cat made me think about this. I just want to see what other people think.

 

I would have to agree. How is it any different than someone being on life support and a family member finally deciding to pull the plug. The person is still technically alive. Apparently it's ok to have a will that says pull the plug if I'm in said condition, but dying and in pain you can't say hey, I'm ready to go, lets do this. If a person wants to die, then they want to die.

Oh, and if I ever have to put my cat down or dogs, i'll probably cry. I don't even want to think about it.

 

Euthanasia is legal in Washington and Oregon

 

Beautiful! It should be legal everywhere.

 

It's currently working it's way through the Montana court system and is limitedly available in Texas.

But you have to be carefull of these types of legislation because once they are there you can find your own personal belief pushed aside


Euthinasia is a potential slippery slope. If it's legal everywhere how long until it becomes manditory in certain situations somewhere.

"In 2005, a six-month-old infant, Sun Hudson, with a uniformly fatal disease thanatophoric dysplasia, was the first patient in which "a United States court has allowed life-sustaining treatment to be withdrawn from a pediatric patient over the objections of the child's parent"

It has happened before it can happen again

 

if someone wants to die, it shouldnt be illegal for anyone to help them. Assuming its with consent and all.

 

Then you get instances where some persons parent has cancer and they drug them and say It was what they wanted....... "Oh my inheritance yeah that helps me cope."


Plus tons of stupid chicks in high school say they want to die and some of them actually mean it (because they are stupid) Kids are fucked up

 

Of course it's a slippery slope, but with proper legislation, it can be overcome.

In instances regarding children under the ages of 18, the physician should not be able to administer euthanasia without parental consent. A court has no right to over-ride the parent's decisions in that matter. However, things like this will happen regardless of if human euthanasia is decriminalized or not. The state and religion will always find a way to get into our business.

I completely understand what you mean.

I'm talking about people who are terminally ill or in severe pain, yet are still coherent enough to make the decision to be euthanized. Not someone who is nearly catatonic or in a catatonic state. In that instance, only a presigned form that was signed before the individual lost all understandable forms of communication, should be used to legally euthanize them.

As to the high school chicks, again, they are not in a state of perpetual physical pain. Whether they mean it or not, euthanasia should not be legal in that case because there are not any applicable genuine reasons to administer it. Of course, they might be upset after some guy hit it and quit it, but that doesn't mean they should legally go to a doctor for assistance. In instances such as this, they can just kill themselves and it would be much less controversial.

I think if someone really wants to die, they'll find a way to do it if they are physically capable of doing so. If they are paralyzed, in pain, suffering, and want to be at peace, I think it is well within their rights as a human being to solicit a physician for assisted suicide.

 

I have personally seen many people that I wish I could have helped end their suffering but even with them begging, it was not within my power to do. It is heartbreaking and soul rending. It is just as sad to have a person coding who desperately needs to die but the family insists on all life saving measures and we are forced to keep bringing them back to suffer.

I believe there should be a way for people under certain conditions to be allowed to end their lived humanely. But this needs to be very closely monitored with multiple checks and balances, like psych evals and numerous medical exams by more than one doctor. This has the potential to go horribly wrong and be used for personal gain.

As far as the animals go, we are allowed to euthanize our animals when they are suffering but we are also allowed to euthanize them for no reason at all. You can go to a vet and have you pet put down for no other reason than you don't want to feed them any more. Since we don't want people bringing Grandma in to be put down because she doesn't hear good any more and her insurance policy is matured, we have to regulate this very carefully.

 

I dont believe doctors should be allowed to assist in suicide, doctors are there to keep people alive not help them die.

however, that doesent mean that i am against having some sort of a provider for this kind of service. Preferrable a cold hearted bastard with a .357, lets keep those costs down to prevent the insurance premiums from raising due to a more expencive method of suicide.

also i dont thing suicide should be illegal. It is YOUR life, if you want to throw it away that is your business, not the courts.

 

Wow Jack!! I am totally stunned by your response, I hope it is sarcasm or devil's advocate or something.

I am not talking about people who have lives to throw away. Just because you are breathing does not mean you are living. I am refering to people whose lives have become a one long experience of more excrutiating pain and there is no hope. People who can't even take care of their basic bodily functions but have full mental abilities. Before you decide these people are throwing away their "lives", you should spend some time with hospice and see how these people are "living". The deserve to be able to chose their destiny and be able to leave this world with some dignity.

And it is not the job of the doctor to keep people alive. It is the job of health care professionals to keep people healthy, physically, mentally and spiritually. We can keep some one technically alive almost indefinitely, but is that the best thing for them. It is sometimes more mentally and spiritually healthy to help ease the physical suffering and allow some one a dignified death on their terms.

And on a side note, you need to get something in writing, a living will, if something should happen to you right now, your current wife would be allow to make all of your health care decisions. She may not have your best interests at heart and she would be the beneficiary of you life insurance, even if your son is named, since she is his guardian she would designate how the money is allocated. I've seen some bad stuff happen, so just be prepared and keep a copy in your wallet.

 

you just described how i feel since november. HAH!

yeah but ending any sign of life is basically the complete opposite of keeping people healthy no matter how you look at it. What is more unhealthy than death? lol

im sorry but if somebody is gonnna die, a bullet in the head is a hellofalot cheaper than having a doctor do it. dead is dead. You arent less dead from a direct lead injection to the brain than you would be if some high priced doctor came in and killed you another method.

like i said, im all for euthenasia as long as the family agrees, after a certain point it is just a warm husk of a body that doesent realized the brain has stopped functioning on a cognative level.

i just wouldnt want to see tons of hospital expences for keeping them alive be replaced with tons of hospital expences in order to stop the body from functioning.

EDIT: On a side note, my explicit instructions upon my death are that the remains of my body are to be disposed of in the most economical method possible. A dumpster is fine with me. Once my body is done it is basically garbage. I mean, i dont go out and bury the wrapper to my mcdonald cheede burger.

 

Strictly on the topic of cost, it is much more cost effective to have a doctor help these individuals end their suffering than it is to them to contiuanlly see doctors that have nothing to offer them except bills and ineffective treatments for years and years.

The cost of a bullet to the brain is much less than a leathal injection, however it's effectiveness is not as good as you might think. There are several cases of gun shot wounds to the brain that do not kill an only leave the victim in a state of continual coma or worse (and yes there are worse things). A suppervised leathal injection, monitored by a healthcare professional would be much more economical and efficient.



Side note:
I wasn't referring to the decisions after you death, but before it. Like what extremes would be used to save your life and how long you would on life support and what sort of procedures would be performed or with held. I have witness cases where a young individual was critically wounded and the mother wanted every thing possible done, but the estranged wife came in 20 minutes later and said she didn't think he would want to live like that and didn't want anything else dont....And that's when the fight started!!
I just want the right people making those choices for you since you are in that boat, where you are technically still married but don't want to be. Good Luck.

 

If you want some irony look up the symbol that is plastered around the hospital. It is the staff that Hermes used to direct the dead.

I agree in that it should be legal, my parents and myself had the conversation about the terri schiavo incident and said we wouldn't want to go though that. I told them if i am ever need life support the rest of my life and can not function at least somewhat properly I would rather not live. Isn't this the same thing in a way?

 

Two of the verses in the modern day Hippocratic Oath state:

"I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God."

"I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug."

You say that if someone takes their own life, it is theirs to throw away, I agree. It is your business. But, what if that person is under a physician's care and they are physically unable to take their own life but mentally, they dream of it? What is the difference of that person who is mentally stable and able to solicit a doctor for help in ending their life and a person who takes their own life by their own hands? The only difference is that a doctor assisted one and not the other. The doctor can make that death relatively painless. Someone who takes their own life may not be lucky enough to have that option.

My mother took her own life by a drug overdose. I was so pissed off at first. "How could she do this to my dad, my brother, and to me?" "Why did she do this?" "How could she be so ******* selfish?" amongst many other questions. It didn't take me long to forgive her. I came to the conclusion that it was her life, she can take it if she wants to, and I, nor anyone else, have any say in the matter.

That's how I feel about everyone after I directly experienced losing a loved one to suicide. It is not my business or anyone else's to force anyone to live. People that are physically incapable of killing themselves should have options just like physically capable people should.



What if all signs of life have already been ended? Brain activity in someone considered a 'vegetable' doesn't necessarily mean that person is alive and aware of the world around them.

I completely agree with you about the 'dead is dead' part. But like I said previously, not everyone is physically capable of taking their own lives in the manners in which you described. It would be a hell of a lot easier to legally go to a 'high priced' doctor and ask them to inject you with substances that will help to end your life, than to ask someone to put a gun to your head and blow your brains out because you can't do it yourself.

You say you are all for euthanasia if the family agrees, but what if the person is completely coherent, able to make their own decisions, and wants to be euthanized without their family's approval? Their brains are still functioning as normal and they can consent to being euthanized. Do you mean you think their family should have a say in it?

Hospital expenses from keeping people alive, who either want to be alive or don't, will be more than consentually ending someone's life who actually wants to die. I'm not talking about hospitals purposely trying to end someone's bodily functions. I'm talking about if someone's bodily functions have already ended or are going to end. The long term cost of keeping someone alive that doesn't want to live is much more expensive than letting them exercise what should be their right to die.

You remind me of my dad in your last paragraph. He is the exact same way and has told me roughly the same thing. I intend to fulfill his wishes, even though I don't want to treat him, even in death, as if he was nothing to me. But that's what he wants, so that's what he'll get.


I think it is extremely similar. If there is anyone like Terri Schiavo who has no brain/bodily functions, they can't consent to their own complete demise, so it should be up to the family. In her case, it was, and it was this one large fiasco. If euthanasia was legal and she had signed legal forms wherein she wished that her life be terminated in the case that she would ultimately end up in, all of that could have been avoided.

 

or you can just shoot them again.