SKL Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 I don't consider a feeding tube to be an extraordinary measure to keep a human alive. IMO a caretaker needs to feed the person they are caring for, whether it's a perfectly healthy child or a terminally ill person. A slow death by starving is severe abuse IMO. DNR and other choices to not apply advanced technology to force a dying person back to life again are in a different category. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 (edited) And I am concerned about being able to rely on a legal document that isn't very recent, without being able to ask the person "do you still want this." We've had many threads about consent being something you can withdraw right up to the last minute WRT sex or abortion. And also, in sex, regardless of past consent, there is no consent if the person is unconscious or very intoxicated. How then do we accept old documents (or even hearsay) for consent when a person is very ill? Don't people ever change their minds when an event is imminent? If you go sign this paper when you are healthy, how do you really know what you're going to want when you're in a very different state? I remember one time as a teen when I was feeling suicidal and I swam out into a big lake, intending to swim until I could not swim any more and then say goodbye. Well, apparently I changed my mind and I managed to swim back. I have a friend who, in her younger years, often said that she had no desire to live past age 60 and would not want to be kept alive in such an "old" body. Well, now she's getting close to 60 and she's as active and interested in life as ever. What if she has a document somewhere that says don't fix me, and she's in a car accident or something? Should they let her bleed out and die because there is a legal document that says so? Edited March 4, 2016 by SKL 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 (edited) I don't consider a feeding tube to be an extraordinary measure to keep a human alive. IMO a caretaker needs to feed the person they are caring for, whether it's a perfectly healthy child or a terminally ill person. A slow death by starving is severe abuse IMO. DNR and other choices to not apply advanced technology to force a dying person back to life again are in a different category. It does seem awful, but I think it's on the line - even if you take for granted that you stop when the person is no longer able to process the food. It is invasive in a way that hand feeding isn't - you are cutting a hole into a person's organs, it is a site for irritation, infection, and so on, the act of being fed that way can be uncomfortable. It's hard to think about, but it wasn't that long ago that anyone too ill to actually take in food by mouth would die from it, and I'm not sure it was as bad a way to go as people who are reasonably healthy tend to assume - its a way that people are allowed to die. Many care facilities in Canada recommend that tube feeding not be initiated on the unconscious who will not recover, or terminal patients, or people who don't want it. Edited March 4, 2016 by Bluegoat 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mamiof5 Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 I really tried to keep my initial response short, just didn't want to get into it that much. But, a couple things that have popped out more than others...the "thou shall not kill" commandment goes way beyond just murdering, it also covers a lot of what we do with our own bodies. And, the comments about the pets...I just can't get myself to compare the situation between a human life and an animal life, there's just no comparison. My sympathies for those who mentioned loved ones, neighbors, anyone close to you who died in one way or another. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ottakee Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 Tube feeding for someone who just can't eat but is otherwise living a life is different than. Adding a feeding tube to prolong life at the very end stages. We have had an active.little 5 year old.foster boy that was tube fed and did very well. That is different in my mind than adding a feeding tube at the very end to someone with a terminal illness or the very elderly. 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 Tube feeding for someone who just can't eat but is otherwise living a life is different than. Adding a feeding tube to prolong life at the very end stages. We have had an active.little 5 year old.foster boy that was tube fed and did very well. That is different in my mind than adding a feeding tube at the very end to someone with a terminal illness or the very elderly. Yes, there is a huge difference. Just like invasive surgeries or serious drugs with side effects are one thing for a person who will recover, but another for someone who will not. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarenC Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 Voted no. Agree with a poster above about violating a commandment. We aren't God, we don't decide when life begins or ends. I've never understood this reasoning. Aren't we playing God when we take extreme measures to keep someone "alive"? 13 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 I'm staunchly against it. That said I do not think being against helping someone die faster is the same as not prolonging their pain or keeping them alive longer. For example, if the patient is in physical pain, I have no qualms about giving them pain relief IF they want it. The goal there is not to kill them faster, though it might have that effect. The goal is simply to reduce their suffering. Another example, I don't think forcing them to endure extraneous measures that will not reduce their pain or change their prognoses is required either. One can be for reducing pain and not extending life past its natural course and also not be for assisted suicide. 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeachyDoodle Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 I've never understood this reasoning. Aren't we playing God when we take extreme measures to keep someone "alive"? Yes. Which is why I oppose both. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 For those of you who haven't read it yet, "Being Mortal" by Atul Gawande goes into a lot of this stuff. It's a fantastic read, and really opened my eyes to the issues surrounding death. It isn't so much about assisted suicide as about how people live near the end in general. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Florida. Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 (edited) I voted yes, but I think doctors should be able to choose whether or not they will offer such a service. I really tried to keep my initial response short, just didn't want to get into it that much. But, a couple things that have popped out more than others...the "thou shall not kill" commandment goes way beyond just murdering, it also covers a lot of what we do with our own bodies. And, the comments about the pets...I just can't get myself to compare the situation between a human life and an animal life, there's just no comparison. My sympathies for those who mentioned loved ones, neighbors, anyone close to you who died in one way or another. And yet...The same book that says "Thou shall not kill" orders people to commit genocide; to slaughter entire towns full of people including children. Except for the virgins in some cases. You can keep those for yourself and do with them as you please. Edited March 4, 2016 by Lady Florida 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 I voted yes, but I think doctors should be able to choose whether or not they will offer such a service. I'm conflicted about this. On the one hand, it seems perfectly reasonable because assisted suicide isn't something to take lightly. On the other hand, the idea of doctors being able to refuse services they have a moral problem with makes me nervous because, taken to its logical conclusion, it could end up making it very hard to get even basic care in certain parts of the country. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Florida. Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 (edited) I'm conflicted about this. On the one hand, it seems perfectly reasonable because assisted suicide isn't something to take lightly. On the other hand, the idea of doctors being able to refuse services they have a moral problem with makes me nervous because, taken to its logical conclusion, it could end up making it very hard to get even basic care in certain parts of the country. I agree, but was thinking more in terms of what a practice offers, not an outright refusal. Some doctors around here don't give flu shots, they tell you to go to the health department or pharmacy. Kind of on that order. So, you'd be able to choose a doctor based on whether or not he/she offers that service. And I do think there would be enough doctors who do offer it, that people wouldn't have a problem accessing one. There is probably a middle ground in there somewhere. Edited March 4, 2016 by Lady Florida 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 I agree, but was thinking more in terms of what a practice offers, not an outright refusal. Some doctors around here don't give flu shots, they tell you to go to the health department or pharmacy. Kind of on that order. So, you'd be able to choose a doctor based on whether or not he/she offers that service. And I do think there would be enough doctors who do offer it, that people wouldn't have a problem accessing one. There is probably a middle ground in there somewhere. That makes sense. :) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mamiof5 Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 I've never understood this reasoning. Aren't we playing God when we take extreme measures to keep someone "alive"?I know. And it's really a fine line. Yes, extreme measures is not OK, we aren't. God to try to prolong life either. It's hard though, " extreme " measures may differ depending on the Dr., the family, etc. I just hope that all attempts are made to try to keep the patient as comfortable as possible, and that he/she will go when it's his/her time. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luanne Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 Yes, it is playing God and yes, it is murder. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seasider Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 I haven't read through - I will just say that my desire would be to have a physician who resisted demanding that I pursue heroic efforts. I think that for patients who are clearly terminal and of sound mind, their doctor should graciously accept the patient's decision about ending invasive treatments. I don't imagine that's physician-assisted death, but I feel like many folks I know have docs that push invasive treatments right until the very end. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luanne Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 Just because certain things are mentioned in the Bible doesn't mean God condoned it. Unless you have actually read everything in context, ...... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparklyUnicorn Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 I think it should be allowed, but I don't think it should be easy to get permission to do it. My kid was asking me about this recently. He didn't understand why people don't just kill themselves in those circumstances. I said well they literally may be unable to physically do it because of their condition. I also said they will often make it difficult for someone to even do something like stop eating. I've seen it happen where family did everything in their power to keep a loved one alive through extreme means. The person had no quality of life and only suffered. I understand both sides, but that is very hard to watch. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luuknam Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 I voted yes, but I don't really think one ought to need a physician to be honest. When one's life is over (or soon over) why does one need anyone else to agree or assist? I sure wouldn't need it, unless, of course, I were unable to move (paralyzed or similar). Then it ought to be optional to be requested or put into an Advanced Directive. You could do what my grandfather did, even if you're paralyzed (he wasn't). He just refused to eat or drink anything anymore, and he had a DNR and the like so they couldn't make him. His doctor did put him on morphine because dehydration is supposedly a very painful way to die. FWIW, this was in NL, where euthanasia is legal, but he wasn't in a position he wanted to jump through all the hoops (Alzheimers, etc). So, it wasn't physician assisted suicide per se, since the doctor did nothing to kill him, and only made the suffering less. Of course, if he'd jumped through the hoops, the doctor could've given him something that wouldn't have been as painful as killing himself through dehydration. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparklyUnicorn Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 You could do what my grandfather did, even if you're paralyzed (he wasn't). He just refused to eat or drink anything anymore, and he had a DNR and the like so they couldn't make him. His doctor did put him on morphine because dehydration is supposedly a very painful way to die. FWIW, this was in NL, where euthanasia is legal, but he wasn't in a position he wanted to jump through all the hoops (Alzheimers, etc). So, it wasn't physician assisted suicide per se, since the doctor did nothing to kill him, and only made the suffering less. Of course, if he'd jumped through the hoops, the doctor could've given him something that wouldn't have been as painful as killing himself through dehydration. Yes and I have seen people being forced to have an IV in those circumstances. Sometimes they don't even allow people to do that! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luuknam Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 The problem I have with this is that it is hard to tell who is really deciding or influencing the decision. Is it the "loved one" who doesn't want the hassle of caring for an incapacitated person, or who wants to get at the inheritance before it gets eaten up by medical bills, or who is honestly trying to help the ill person but doesn't really truly know what that person wants? It seems to me that this is too easy to influence. Even in a room with lawyers and witnesses and everyone smiling, there could be some coercion going on behind the scenes. Interestingly, my parents told me they have updated their will, and that my brother inherit as soon as they're legally incompetent (or something along those lines). So, they could be in a nursing home with Alzheimers for a decade or more, paid for through their social security etc, while my brother and I already inherit. They're in NL; I don't think you can create a living will like that in the US at this time. Having that reduces the temptation to euthanize them for the money (okay, I'm not tempted, and they're far from that point anyway, being only 60 and 62, but you get the idea). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luuknam Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 Yes and I have seen people being forced to have an IV in those circumstances. Sometimes they don't even allow people to do that! Which is a different issue from physician assisted suicide/euthanasia. The right to refuse treatment is different from the right to get (lethal) treatment. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 It's weird to me how many of the same people opposing the death penalty favor assisted suicide. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melindamcarr Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 Just because certain things are mentioned in the Bible doesn't mean God condoned it. Unless you have actually read everything in context, ...... Have you not read the book of Joshua? The writer of that book definitely believed God commanded and condoned the killing of thousands of people. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 It's weird to me how many of the same people opposing the death penalty favor assisted suicide. I don't see how the two have anything in common. The government putting a person to death for a crime is light years away from a terminally ill person choosing to die to avoid a lot of pain. 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 It's weird to me how many of the same people opposing the death penalty favor assisted suicide. The two are unrelated. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantlion Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 And yet...The same book that says "Thou shall not kill" orders people to commit genocide; to slaughter entire towns full of people including children. Except for the virgins in some cases. You can keep those for yourself and do with them as you please. If you look at the correct translation of the "Thou shalt not kill" it should read "Thou shalt not MURDER," and in some version of the bible, that is what it says. The killing ordained (allowed) by God to exterminate the Canaanites is called "the ban" and it was allowed. The way we've framed it in my history classes is that murder is illegal killing. Obviously there is a wide range of beliefs on whether killing should happen just because it's legal (ie abortion), but there can be positive moral implication for Physician assisted suicide, whereas I think all of us would have moral issue with genocide no matter who ordered it. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternalsummer Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 Yes; I'm pro death penalty, pro-life, and a little iffy on euthanasia. All are separate issues. It might be different if I had a religious basis for them? I'm not sure. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regentrude Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 It's weird to me how many of the same people opposing the death penalty favor assisted suicide. Big difference. In assisted suicide, a person chooses to die. You could also find it weird how many people who are in favor of the death penalty will not allow a person to make the choice to die. 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regentrude Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 And, the comments about the pets...I just can't get myself to compare the situation between a human life and an animal life, there's just no comparison. No, there is no comparison. Which is why we should not withhold from a fellow human being the compassion we are willing to show towards to a mere animal. If human lives rank higher, so does human suffering. 16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternalsummer Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 making the choice for oneself is one thing; making it for someone else (an innocent someone else, whether disabled or terminally ill or mentally incapacitated or just very young and terminally ill/disabled) is another. that is the part that gives me pause with euthanasia. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparklyUnicorn Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 It's weird to me how many of the same people opposing the death penalty favor assisted suicide. I'm surprised you are surprised. I oppose the death penalty. Someone who is sane and able to make a reasonable decision about ending their own life, to me, is different. I don't think someone who is suffering should be forced to live. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparklyUnicorn Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 No, there is no comparison. Which is why we should not withhold from a fellow human being the compassion we are willing to show towards to a mere animal. If human lives rank higher, so does human suffering. Yes this boggles my mind. A lot of people would consider it cruel to keep a suffering pet alive, but we think it's wrong to allow someone who is suffering to choose to die? (Of course baring they are out of their mind, depressed, or can't make a good decision. I don't think others should be allowed to decide for them.) 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creekland Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 You could do what my grandfather did, even if you're paralyzed (he wasn't). He just refused to eat or drink anything anymore, and he had a DNR and the like so they couldn't make him. His doctor did put him on morphine because dehydration is supposedly a very painful way to die. FWIW, this was in NL, where euthanasia is legal, but he wasn't in a position he wanted to jump through all the hoops (Alzheimers, etc). So, it wasn't physician assisted suicide per se, since the doctor did nothing to kill him, and only made the suffering less. Of course, if he'd jumped through the hoops, the doctor could've given him something that wouldn't have been as painful as killing himself through dehydration. Short of being paralyzed (quadriplegic) anyone with half a brain and a Bio or Chem class could come up with multiple ways to not need anyone else. I honestly fail to see why anyone else needs to be involved. I also think it's incredibly important to not use methods those who are desperate (and not as science educated) tend to use - like jumping in front of a train or truck. It's seriously not at all right to make someone else live with any guilt. We won't even go as far as that idiotic co-pilot in France or pretty much any of those various shooting jerks who want to go out with fame. Those folks are in a totally different category than what anyone on here is discussing. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Χά�ων Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 Just because certain things are mentioned in the Bible doesn't mean God condoned it. Unless you have actually read everything in context, ...... A biblical example of a request for assisted suicide from a man on deaths door and explanation on why acclerating death is not the same as suicide. Your welcome. 1 samuel 31 For those not familiar with the text, the story is that Saul, mortally wounded and facing death by enemy, asked his armourbearer to kill him. His armourbearer is too afraid and Saul takes his own life. 3. (3-6) The tragic end of King Saul. The battle became fierce against Saul. The archers hit him, and he was severely wounded by the archers. Then Saul said to his armorbearer, "Draw your sword, and thrust me through with it, lest these uncircumcised men come and thrust me through and abuse me." But his armorbearer would not, for he was greatly afraid. Therefore Saul took a sword and fell on it. And when his armorbearer saw that Saul was dead, he also fell on his sword, and died with him. So Saul, his three sons, his armorbearer, and all his men died together that same day. a. The battle became intense against Saul: Saul, struck by many arrows and severely wounded, knew the battle was completely lost. He pleaded with his armorbearer to kill him, and when he would not, Saul killed himself (Saul took a sword and fell on it). i. In the way most people think of suicide, Saul's death was not suicide. Clarke explains well: "He was to all appearance mortally wounded, when he begged his armourbearer to extinguish the remaining spark of life . . . though this wound accelerated his death, yet it could not be properly the cause of it, as he was mortally wounded before, and did it on the conviction that he could not survive." http://biblehub.com/commentaries/guzik/commentaries/0931.htm 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bolt. Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 I think that most people who would choose suicide, and *could* accomplish it without help -- those people probably don't involve others. On the other hand, these issues most specifically effect people who have lost the physical ability to enact their own will. In those cases, should they also loose the freedom to enact their own will? Or should they be entitled to help? I have a blind friend that I help in daily life: there are a lot of times when I think she is being mildly foolish. Is she entitled to "sighted help" to enact her will to be foolish? Or, since she needs sighted help to do these things, should her freedom be over ruled by my good judgement simply because I have sight and she does not? But that's about her freedom to buy entirely too Much junk food when she is already heavily and dangerously obese. When does a person in a position that they need help to do what they want need to justify that desire to their helper? Well, yes, when the helper's role is possibly immoral and intensely personal, some justification and transparency is needed and reasonable -- but if well/ordinary people can decide to end their own lives, does loosing the ability to do it eliminate the freedom to choose it entirely? It's a conundrum. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6packofun Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 A biblical example of a request for assisted suicide from a man on deaths door and explanation on why acclerating death is not the same as suicide. Your welcome. 1 samuel 31 For those not familiar with the text, the story is that Saul, mortally wounded and facing death by enemy, asked his armourbearer to kill him. His armourbearer is too afraid and Saul takes his own life. http://biblehub.com/commentaries/guzik/commentaries/0931.htm Oops, you didn't get the rest of the story in 2 Samuel 1. :) Saul asks the amour bearer to kill him, we know only that the man is afraid for some reason (principles? being the murderer of Saul? Doesn't say so speculating is just that.). He doesn't do it, Saul leans on his sword and then the sword bearer kills himself. THEN, in the very next book a man comes to David and recounts the story of how Saul TRIED to kill himself and couldn't quite do it. So this guy takes it upon himself to put him out of his misery and brings proof back to David. Why don't we see what David thought about that? 13 David inquired of the young man who had brought him the report, “Where are you from?†“I’m the son of a foreigner,†he said. “I’m an Amalekite.†14 David questioned him, “How is it that you were not afraid to lift your hand to destroy the Lord’s anointed?†15 Then David summoned one of his servants and said, “Come here and kill him!†The servant struck him, and he died. 16 For David had said to the Amalekite, “Your blood is on your own head because your own mouth testified against you by saying, ‘I killed the Lord’s anointed.’†Well, it doesn't look to me like this "assisted suicide" was thought very highly of. But maybe you can find another way to look at it. lol 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Florida. Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 It's weird to me how many of the same people opposing the death penalty favor assisted suicide. :confused1: The two aren't at all comparable. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternalsummer Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 I don't understand the bible I guess, and my views on these things aren't directly informed by it so I guess it doesn't matter, but isn't that recounting the same episode with two sets of facts and interpretations? How do you know what is correct in that case? 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creekland Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 I think that most people who would choose suicide, and *could* accomplish it without help -- those people probably don't involve others. On the other hand, these issues most specifically effect people who have lost the physical ability to enact their own will. In those cases, should they also loose the freedom to enact their own will? Or should they be entitled to help? I have a blind friend that I help in daily life: there are a lot of times when I think she is being mildly foolish. Is she entitled to "sighted help" to enact her will to be foolish? Or, since she needs sighted help to do these things, should her freedom be over ruled by my good judgement simply because I have sight and she does not? But that's about her freedom to buy entirely too Much junk food when she is already heavily and dangerously obese. When does a person in a position that they need help to do what they want need to justify that desire to their helper? Well, yes, when the helper's role is possibly immoral and intensely personal, some justification and transparency is needed and reasonable -- but if well/ordinary people can decide to end their own lives, does loosing the ability to do it eliminate the freedom to choose it entirely? It's a conundrum. That conundrum is why those of us not willing to be there and do that would have to actually end our lives sooner than we might want to otherwise. We know it's not going to happen if we don't do it ourselves, so need to do it while we still can even if we might rather get to a different point in not being able to do things first. Aren't laws great? :glare: Hopefully they will have changed by the time I (or anyone else feeling similarly) reach that stage. I believe our country is on the correct path for that to happen. Only time will tell though. We live next to a nurse who worked as a personal nurse for a quadriplegic artist - this guy: http://www.ericmohn.com/about.htm Our neighbor told us he let him have whatever he wanted - food, etc, as he saw no reason why he shouldn't let him enjoy what could be enjoyed in life. When Eric's end came, he could easily have been saved (hearsay from our neighbor) and they asked him if he wanted treatment for pneumonia. His view? "No way! Don't you think I've suffered in this body long enough?" 45 years... if he wanted to - fine - and he was a superb artist! (Our neighbor has some of his paintings and they're incredible - even if he had done them by hand!) But if he didn't want to - or didn't want to do all of those years, he should have had a choice. At least they gave him a choice at the end rather than just saying, "fixing this is easy!" It definitely wasn't terribly kind letting the disease kill him though - making him endure that at the very end. Well, it doesn't look to me like this "assisted suicide" was thought very highly of. But maybe you can find another way to look at it. lol It is rather ironic that the man who killed tens of thousands and not always in a direct war situation would be concerned about one life, isn't it? Personally, it makes far more sense that he cared about this one life since Saul was the king and wouldn't have cared a hoot if the man had killed anyone else less notable requesting to die. We don't even know if this young man's story is true, of course. He could merely be bragging hoping to win favor with who he thought would be the new king. David never took the time to investigate the facts to check things out and we have two different stories. I could seriously see the same issue proving to be a problem today if we were talking about the president (any country) vs John Doe and a war situation. I seriously doubt it was a concern at all about assisted suicide or mercy killing in general. One would have to ignore a ton of David's life to think that. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 I don't understand the bible I guess, and my views on these things aren't directly informed by it so I guess it doesn't matter, but isn't that recounting the same episode with two sets of facts and interpretations? How do you know what is correct in that case? There are plenty of examples of this sort of thing in the Bible, and the answer to your question depends on which one. Sometimes it is really two sets of facts, and you don't know. Sometimes they are in some sense both true. Sometimes they are talking about or trying to emphasize different things about the incident. Particularly in the OT, from a Christian perspective, what you have are a series of accounts by the Hebrews put together, and interpreted from their perspective in light of what they know about God. THis accounts for some of the things that seem rather odd to us about it, like commandments to slaughter a bunch of people - from their perspctive, God as the author of all things was behind their history, including wars and such, and this is a way of describing and aknowledging that. But typically we can't jump directly to saying that the story tells us that God encourages genocide, nor can we assume that all accounts of what happened need to be identical. It's better, often, to real these kinds of accounts as a philosophy of history. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 It's weird to me how many of the same people opposing the death penalty favor assisted suicide. Well, I think it can sometimes be because of inconsistancies in thought as there are some related elements, but they also have significant differences that can account for that. For someone whose main concern is freedom of choice around life the fact that the death penalty really destroys that would be significant. But I think you would find that there are quite a few people who oppose both, or neither, as well. Personally, I am generally against euthanasia, and generally against the death penalty, in any kind of modern context at least, though I think the state can have a right to that kind of force under very limited circumstances. Most of which simply don't apply to an individuals decision about euthanasia though they do have a higher level relation with regards to how we think about life. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 Yes this boggles my mind. A lot of people would consider it cruel to keep a suffering pet alive, but we think it's wrong to allow someone who is suffering to choose to die? (Of course baring they are out of their mind, depressed, or can't make a good decision. I don't think others should be allowed to decide for them.) There are some studies that show that most people asking for euthaniasia are depressed. And then there is the question - can we withhold something that we determine is a human right - the right to make decisions about health and life say - on the basis of depression? But as for animals - I think one difference is that we don't see them in general as having the same kind of right to life, or maybe even obligation to life, as others. After all, not only do we euthanize them when they are in pain, we may do it when they can't do their work, when we want to eat them, or when we cannot care for them. We can even see in cases where these things have been restricted as a kind of compassionate issue - say with sending horses to slaughter - that it has created serious problems of its own. I think we would have to be very careful in setting up the kind of relationship we have with animals as being the model for the relationship with people, even if we confine it to good examples rather than exploitative ones. There have been in recent years some attempts to make some primates persons under the law - I rather wonder if that would not make it impossible, since they could not easily indicate a wish for death, to euthanize those animals. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regentrude Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 (edited) There are some studies that show that most people asking for euthaniasia are depressed. There are also studies that show that terminally ill patients who know that they have the legal option of ending their lives through physician assisted suicide often choose to stick it out and not avail themselves of the opportunity at all. Just knowing that the option is available if they can bear it no longer helps them endure. Edited March 5, 2016 by regentrude 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 Yes this boggles my mind. A lot of people would consider it cruel to keep a suffering pet alive, but we think it's wrong to allow someone who is suffering to choose to die? (Of course baring they are out of their mind, depressed, or can't make a good decision. I don't think others should be allowed to decide for them.) IMO it's more that we aren't as concerned about whether or not a pet actually wants to live or has something more to offer in this life despite his troubles. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxbridgeacademy Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 It's weird to me how many of the same people opposing the death penalty favor assisted suicide. I don't think it's weird. It's about choice and Free Will, for me anyway. With assisted suicide I'm choosing to die, with death penalty.... not so much. I think a person has the right to choose their own death I don't think the state has the right to kill their own people. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HRAAB Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 I'm not sure how I feel about physician assisted suicide, with the emphasis on 'physician assisted'. I have concerns about involving doctors. The animal argument has never had any sway with me on this issue. I mean, personally, I use animals for my benefit. There's a roast in the oven, and someone had to kill the animal and butcher it for me to get my meat. Making it more personal, I've had to have pets put down. It was hard. I remember sitting beside our dog, holding her paw. Still, I just can't connect that to humans. My aunt chose to stop her medication. I understood, and the family supported her in that decision. My dad basically gave up on living and practically quit eating. I understood. Honestly though, I'm not sure how I would have felt if they had chosen to take a more direct route and intentionally end their life. My cousin just passed away from complications from Alzheimer's, and everyone, his wife, children included, were so relieved that his suffering was over. Would it have felt different if he had intentionally ended his life, and in his case, it would had to have been much earlier while he could make that decision. That would have taken away precious time his family had with him. I really don't know. Someone making their own decision, while mentally capable, okay. Involving the medical profession? That I'm not comfortable with. One thing I'm opposed to is prolonging life when there is no hope. My family knows how I feel about that. Let me go. If not, I'll come back and haunt you. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SporkUK Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 As a disabled person who has suffered from medical abuse and seen it happen to others, I could not trust such a thing to a physician. I think we would need entire system changes to get into that: better palliative care, better access to care and equipment and medication for chronic disabilities, better legal framework for people to create guidelines beforehand, and far wider social and enforced civil rights for disabled people and more before I could begin thinking down that path. But others need this considered faster than society is changing. Maybe a compromise would be requiring it to be in a completely separate place and team devoted to that which had the framework and counselling and careful oversight and such, but I don't think I would ever want it available or legal in general hospitals. Even if available to me, I wouldn't want the doctor treating me considering that option in their hands at all, ever. I don't think it should be in the hands of physician ever, it would need to be another profession outside of that. Even my very lovely GP who I've freaked out this week [my low blood pressure made his machine error out 3 times which resulted in me having to do many tests to prove I wasn't about to fall unconscious - this is not the first time this has happened but he was the most I've seen someone panic about it], I wouldn't want that in his mind or on his shoulders or in his hands. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bolt. Posted March 6, 2016 Share Posted March 6, 2016 The more I think of this, the more I think, "Why doctors?" -- I can't imagine it takes much (if any) medical skill to assist a person with suicide (if it were legal to do so). I think doctors have a hard role, and it might not be necessary to add this element to it. What about "lawyer assisted suicide"? (They would sure know how to view their role as one of advocacy and 'helping' someone enact their own wishes, acting as a representative. They'd be a detached outsider to a medical situation, and not feel like they were on a 'care team'. They'd be wise to issues like coercion and keeping things above board, maybe?) Or maybe the ability to designate an individual of your own choosing, through a lawyer. Thoughts? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.