My Board

In Religious Education today, under the topic Morality we were looking at Euthanasia. There are many different interpretations of euthanasia, especially with different religions (Be it that we were looking at it from the Christian point of view).
[quote name=\'http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Euthanasia\'][i]Voluntary euthanasia[/i]
This is the truest and fullest form of euthanasia wherein the individual requests euthanasia - either during illness or before, if complete incapacitation is expected (coma would be an example). Euthanasia in these cases differs from suicide by existing only within the context of the amelioration of suffering in the process of death. Volition must be informed and free (i.e. not under duress from any third party).

[i]Non-voluntary euthanasia[/i]
Where an individual lacks sentience (in a coma, for example) and hence cannot decide, or distinguish, between life and death, such a person cannot give consent or cannot give informed consent, and therefore any euthanasia is not voluntary but also not involuntary. Famously notable as \"turning off life-support\", it is often done when resuscitation is not expected, or after severe brain damage that renders a person incapable of making life decisions.

[i]Involuntary euthanasia[/i]
Where an individual may distinguish between life and death - and may fully realise the difference between them, any medical killing is involuntary. If, for example, a man is going to experience severe agony and does not consent to death, euthanasia imposed upon him is ethically and morally, if not legally, forbidden as murder.[/quote]

Like many other discussions we\'ve had in class about topics similar to this, to me it’s very double-sided. I don’t think voluntary euthanasia, nor Non-voluntary euthanasia (in certain cases, at least) is wrong. If a person wants to end their own suffering, I don’t think it is for the law or anyone else to argue, it’s their life, their body, their choice. Obviously there will be certain situations when it comes to non-voluntary euthanasia. An example that was used in class was a coma situation, where the person was already declared dead, and life support being the only \'life\' they had left, to me this wouldn’t be a very hard decision on the families behalf as there is no hope. Another example was the same as above, only the person had a chance of living, only to suffer severe pain and mental issues, and declared as basically a vegetable.

A case here that is still going, was about a woman who ended her mother’s life who was terminally ill. Her mother requested it, with the daughter doing as her mother wished. Her siblings however did not agree, and the daughter was done for murder. This to me is a serious flaw in the justice system; the mother consented, she had a very grim outlook and unfortunately her other children saw her condition differently to the woman and the daughter, they felt that she was not ready to die nor should she be allowed to choose (this is how I interpreted it). Referring back to what i said at the start about playing God; I feel sorry for the daughter who now has murder charges as well as imprisonment, and pity the other siblings for what they have done to their own flesh and blood.

So anyway, I would like to see your opinions on this as it is becoming a more apparent \'issue\' in today’s society.

[i][b]* Please keep posts to the topic, this could be a sensitive subject to some members and there will be no tolerance to insensitive/disrespectful replies[/b][/i]

Personally, I think if the person is in a non-voluntary state of euthanasia; it's too difficult to really decide. There would have to be certain cases or situations whereas I would be able to make a decision (or help assist in one). If they, the person, have said in the past that if they were to fall into a 'hopeless' (or what seems to be hopeless) coma (or medical sistuation) that they want to be put to rest as soon as we know that there isn't going to be a large chance of them coming back anytime soon; that would be it. I would have no grips about it. Of course, I would mourn for the loss of the person; but at least I knew that it was what they wanted. Problem with this though, is legality. Lets say, hypothetically, I told Amanda that I wanted to be put to rest immediately after falling into a state of euthanasia (non-voluntary) and she put me to rest; if my family were to find out, they could easily dispute it as her making the judgement on her own. I think this is sort of like that one case where the woman was slowly dying but her husband decided to put her to rest; and then the family tried to get the courts involved.

The only thing I worry about are those who have no relatives, no friends, or are simply unidentified. Sometimes it's not just a simple matter of life or death, but "Who's responsibility is it to make this decision". I would think that a hospital or law enforcement agency/group would go out of their way trying to find whoever is in the hospital that's in a vegetable state or coma due to a tramatic accident or so forth; whereas they had no idenfication on their persons. But even then, what if they were to find nobody? You can't just walk up to someone and ask, "Do you think this man/woman should live or die?" Because some people just don't have a geniuine concern for anyone but theirself. Or even worse, the doctor were to decide - as if they don't see enough death on a daily basis; why should they be put through the agony of actually deciding the fate of a person?

As you've said, it's a rather sensitive topic. But really, I haven't a definite point of view except the one if someone were to have told me that they didn't want to live life as a vegetable or unconscious person. Otherwise, it would just be too difficult of a decision for me to make alone. :-/

Well personally I agree with euthanasia if the patient is no longer able to live a life without pain and if he make\'s the decision to do so, I\'m talking about terminal patient\'s here who have no chance of recovering from their illness. In belgium you need the permission of 3 doctors to be able to commit euthanasia. Which in the case of my grandfather was a stupid law. My grandfather had cancer and had to live in pain for several months, they tried every pain killer possible but it didn\'t work. Then when my grandfather said it was enough he couldn\'t get a third doctor to agree. My grandfather had to live in pain while under a heavy state of medication so he wouldn\'t feel everything. The result was that when we went to visit him he didn\'t even recognize us most of the time. This was a very hard time for me because I was the only male grandchild he had so we did lots of stuff together. But finally a third doctor agreed and my grandfather could be put to rest.

Anyway back to the euthanasia case, my opinion is that there can be no strict law as to who can and who cannot do that. They should look at every case seperatly and discuss with the patient ( if still possible ) or with the family ( taking the wife into account as someone who knows the patient the best ). After doing that they could take a decision as to yes or no.