Originally posted by ArtBoon:Putting a new born to death is killing that person.
what is the difference, putting a terminally sick to death is still killing
Yes, both are killing.
I will not do either type of killing.
Nor would I want a law that allow my son to do that to me (when I am terminally sick)
Originally posted by seyKai:what is the difference, putting a terminally sick to death is still killing
but it is still subject to the patient consent whether he/she wish to be terminated. There is an ethic clause in Doctor principles that stated by all means, a doctor shall do his/her uptmost to relieve a patient pain.
We may, at healthy stages, saying euthanasia as a killing, but you never know, you might end up with a terminate illness that cost so much pain and troublesome for your family. At that moment, guess you may plead to the doctor to finish you off.
In a layman term, it may be cruel to do it, but in medical term, it is a release of pain and suffering.
Originally posted by angel7030:
but it is still subject to the patient consent whether he/she wish to be terminated. There is an ethic clause in Doctor principles that stated by all means, a doctor shall do his/her uptmost to relieve a patient pain.We may, at healthy stages, saying euthanasia as a killing, but you never know, you might end up with a terminate illness that cost so much pain and troublesome for your family. At that moment, guess you may plead to the doctor to finish you off.
In a layman term, it may be cruel to do it, but in medical term, it is a release of pain and suffering.
read my first part of the post...........
In the olden days, when contraception was unavailable. The newborn was put to death by suffocation with a wet towel over the face.
Is modern society more civilise?
What is right or wrong is only in the eyes of the beholder.
Originally posted by Beyond Religion:
Agree. It is not directly relevant.I just used that case as two extreme scenarios to illustrate when killing oneself is clearly justified (in Rommel's case) and when it is clearly not (killing oneself because of unrequited love). Additionally, there are cases that are somewhere in between the above two extremes (the case of the dying patient)
My point is that to sort out the issue of euthanasia and to achieve social acceptance of a decision (whatever that maybe), there needs to be an accepted litmus test that defines exactly where in the above continuum does an act of killing oneself (as forced by "circumstances") becomes justified.
Hmm I'm not sure how 'justify' is being define but my take is that, taking of life, to be precise, any life should be avoid at best. However, it is not possible to do so in the real world out here.
Regards to euthanasia, I have 2 concerns:-
1. Family members that are authorised to make such decision may make it in a haste manner such as to vest the assets of the deceased.
2. From a religious/moral/conscience point of view, is it fair to let the medical practitioner to be the butcher in taking another's life away? Can this point be compare and contrast to the person who pulls the lever at the gallows during the execution of a death sentence? I believe the person who actually bring death to another will have a very different experience to speak of.
But then again, in a secular society that we are living, I guess moralities and conscience are to be put aside, what is the interest for the people is that whether the act is legal or not.
Originally posted by seyKai:read my first part of the post...........
In the olden days, when contraception was unavailable. The newborn was put to death by suffocation with a wet towel over the face.
Is modern society more civilise?
What is right or wrong is only in the eyes of the beholder.
No, today in China with a child policy, still many chinese kill their baby if the baby sex was not born to their wishes. And today many countries also support abortion, which is also a murder, but if you are to abort due to medical reason such as abnormal foetus, it is understandable, same goes to terminal illness, if you are in pain and suffering, you hv the right to end your own life, it is not a killing or suicide, but a man wishes.
Originally posted by yamizi:Hmm I'm not sure how 'justify' is being define but my take is that, taking of life, to be precise, any life should be avoid at best. However, it is not possible to do so in the real world out here.
Regards to euthanasia, I have 2 concerns:-
1. Family members that are authorised to make such decision may make it in a haste manner such as to vest the assets of the deceased.
2. From a religious/moral/conscience point of view, is it fair to let the medical practitioner to be the butcher in taking another's life away? Can this point be compare and contrast to the person who pulls the lever at the gallows during the execution of a death sentence? I believe the person who actually bring death to another will have a very different experience to speak of.
But then again, in a secular society that we are living, I guess moralities and conscience are to be put aside, what is the interest for the people is that whether the act is legal or not.
Yes, I share your concerns. I am also personally against euthanasia for religious reasons.
If I am in pain and suffering, and I kill myself to escape that pain and suffering, that in my view that is suicide, because I choose death to escape my pain and suffering.
================
same goes to terminal illness, if you are in pain and suffering, you hv the right to end your own life, it is not a killing or suicide, but a man wishes.
There are many forms of euthanasia.
If we cast aside religious beliefs and exchange our views objectively, I cannot think of a good reason why we should reject the concept of euthanasia.
It simply means the terminally ill have freedom of choice when their quality of life has decayed to the point of no return.
Others are free to choose how they want to end their life.
I just do not want a law that permit me to be "mercily "killed legally without my permission.
Sg got some kind of ethics department or not ?
Originally posted by BadzMaro:Sg got some kind of ethics department or not ?
How to define ethics sia.
It can be so subjective.
Originally posted by BadzMaro:Sg got some kind of ethics department or not ?
Got, Kong Meng Hill temple at Sin Ming Raod.
I don't think the issue all along was that you can be "legally killed" by your relatives because there is such an option, but only applicable when the doctor himself decides there isn't much chance of you recovering from a coma.
The issue actually, is whether there should be such an option opened to a terminally ill patient who is verified to have no choice of recovering from his/her illness, which is costing alot of pain for both the patient and his/her family, both physically and finanically.
The main issue is quite simple, can we have the right to chose death for ourselves?
I believe the current model is quite reasonable, you need to have doctors to verify that you can't be cured and in a reasonable state of mind to make this decision. If i recall correctly, your application is submitted to a board of doctors for approval to make sure they concurred with your doctor.
Even before the lethal injection, you're asked again whether you want to proceed with this.
Oregan in the US has this law.
Under the law, a capable adult Oregon resident who has been diagnosed by a physician with a terminal illness that will kill them within six months may request in writing, from his or her physician, a prescription for a lethal dose of medication for the purpose of ending the patient's life. Use of the law is voluntary and the patient must initiate the request. Any physician, pharmacist or healthcare provider opposed on moral grounds does not have to participate.
The request must be confirmed by two witnesses, one of whom cannot be related to the patient, be entitled to any portion of the patient's estate, be the patient's physician, or be employed by a health care facility caring for the patient. After the request is made, another physician must examine the patient's medical records and confirm the diagnosis. The patient must be determined to not suffer from a mental condition impairing judgment. If the request is authorized, the patient must wait at least fifteen days and make a second oral request before the prescription may be written. The patient has a right to rescind the request at any time. Should either physician have concerns about the patient’s ability to make an informed decision, or feel the patient’s request may be motivated by depression or coercion, the patient must be referred for a psychological evaluation.
The law protects doctors from liability for providing a lethal prescription for a terminally ill, competent adult in compliance with the statute restrictions. Participation by physicians, pharmacists, and health care providers is voluntary. The law also specifies a patient's decision to end his or her life shall not "have an effect upon a life, he
Under the law, a capable adult Oregon resident who has been diagnosed by a physician with a terminal illness that will kill them within six months may request in writing, from his or her physician, a prescription for a lethal dose of medication for the purpose of ending the patient's life. Use of the law is voluntary and the patient must initiate the request. Any physician, pharmacist or healthcare provider opposed on moral grounds does not have to participate.
The request must be confirmed by two witnesses, one of whom cannot be related to the patient, be entitled to any portion of the patient's estate, be the patient's physician, or be employed by a health care facility caring for the patient. After the request is made, another physician must examine the patient's medical records and confirm the diagnosis. The patient must be determined to not suffer from a mental condition impairing judgment. If the request is authorized, the patient must wait at least fifteen days and make a second oral request before the prescription may be written. The patient has a right to rescind the request at any time. Should either physician have concerns about the patient’s ability to make an informed decision, or feel the patient’s request may be motivated by depression or coercion, the patient must be referred for a psychological evaluation.
The law protects doctors from liability for providing a lethal prescription for a terminally ill, competent adult in compliance with the statute restrictions. Participation by physicians, pharmacists, and health care providers is voluntary. The law also specifies a patient's decision to end his or her life shall not "have an effect upon a life, health, or accident insurance or annuity policy."
wha so long, back to square one, you prefer Stevenson or beijing 101?
Euthanasia is wrong. There can be no justification for approval to end one's life, assisted or unassisted.
Our ancestors were only animals on earth, as scientifically provened in archeological digs, lived in caves and ate food raw, no different from bears and tigers. At some point, a higher evolved and enlightened being must have taught neantherdals the concept of civilisation, and was worshipped as an Almighty for the good it brought in communual living, seperating us from beasts.
It does not take a leap of faith to believe in the concept of an almighty being. Just look at your cat, dog, or monkeys around you. Do they build cities, do they buy stocks and shares, do they worship almighty beings? After sharing this planet for million of years, they are still where they are - beasts, while we have progress beyond Earth and are looking towards the stars, with the moon as our stepping stone to the Universe.
With civilisation taught to our ancestors, we were inculcated with the doctrine of valuing life. The Almighty being was right to want our ancestors to value life. The purpose being that if we don't - we will only end up killing each other at the slightest provocation, even ourselves.
That doctrine was proven wise, for it ensured peace, productivity and a fruitful life on our planet. Bed of roses were not promised to us, but if we persevere, we can overcome ANY obstacles, but only if WE DONT GIVE UP ON OURSELVES.
Our ancestors were taught medicines and medication techniques. Some of it lost in time, some still passed down through the centuries but we are still evolving in medical knowledge at the capacity that our brains can handle. Dogs and cat are still chewing grass as medication.
One day, we will be able to unlock the secrets of DNA - the building blocks of life - and diseases will be a thing of the past. Thus we must spend heavily on R&D on medical science in order to see advancement and death from disease conquered.
In the meantime, many who plead for death are mainly due to high medical costs. Immediate next of kin as well as society must be spared from such high costs. If we don't, the only pragmatic solution is to influence those sick or incapicitated with diseases to die forthwith - practical but absolutely barbaric, and not the hallmark of a civilised state.
Thus, the issue of euthanasia and its need lies not with the right to die, but a subconcious protest against high medical costs! Do we need aircon rooms? Do we need fluffy beds? Can a panadol be sold at 3 cents instead of 50cts a pill?
So, those who protest against euthanasia must come out with a solution to help the dying - with dignity and not bankrupt their next of kin or society.
Originally posted by xtreyier:
So, those who protest against euthanasia must come out with a solution to help the dying - with dignity and not bankrupt their next of kin or society.
What will be your suggestions?
I totally and completely oppose Euthanasia.
If you have a brain haemorrhage and became a veg for more than a year.
What do you want your children to do?
If your mother have a brain haemorrhage and became a veg for more than a year.
What do you want to do?
Originally posted by Stevenson101:Oregan in the US has this law.
Under the law, a capable adult Oregon resident who has been diagnosed by a physician with a terminal illness that will kill them within six months may request in writing, from his or her physician, a prescription for a lethal dose of medication for the purpose of ending the patient's life. Use of the law is voluntary and the patient must initiate the request. Any physician, pharmacist or healthcare provider opposed on moral grounds does not have to participate.
The request must be confirmed by two witnesses, one of whom cannot be related to the patient, be entitled to any portion of the patient's estate, be the patient's physician, or be employed by a health care facility caring for the patient. After the request is made, another physician must examine the patient's medical records and confirm the diagnosis. The patient must be determined to not suffer from a mental condition impairing judgment. If the request is authorized, the patient must wait at least fifteen days and make a second oral request before the prescription may be written. The patient has a right to rescind the request at any time. Should either physician have concerns about the patient’s ability to make an informed decision, or feel the patient’s request may be motivated by depression or coercion, the patient must be referred for a psychological evaluation.
The law protects doctors from liability for providing a lethal prescription for a terminally ill, competent adult in compliance with the statute restrictions. Participation by physicians, pharmacists, and health care providers is voluntary. The law also specifies a patient's decision to end his or her life shall not "have an effect upon a life, he
Under the law, a capable adult Oregon resident who has been diagnosed by a physician with a terminal illness that will kill them within six months may request in writing, from his or her physician, a prescription for a lethal dose of medication for the purpose of ending the patient's life. Use of the law is voluntary and the patient must initiate the request. Any physician, pharmacist or healthcare provider opposed on moral grounds does not have to participate.
The request must be confirmed by two witnesses, one of whom cannot be related to the patient, be entitled to any portion of the patient's estate, be the patient's physician, or be employed by a health care facility caring for the patient. After the request is made, another physician must examine the patient's medical records and confirm the diagnosis. The patient must be determined to not suffer from a mental condition impairing judgment. If the request is authorized, the patient must wait at least fifteen days and make a second oral request before the prescription may be written. The patient has a right to rescind the request at any time. Should either physician have concerns about the patient’s ability to make an informed decision, or feel the patient’s request may be motivated by depression or coercion, the patient must be referred for a psychological evaluation.
The law protects doctors from liability for providing a lethal prescription for a terminally ill, competent adult in compliance with the statute restrictions. Participation by physicians, pharmacists, and health care providers is voluntary. The law also specifies a patient's decision to end his or her life shall not "have an effect upon a life, health, or accident insurance or annuity policy."
All good.... I guess we just have to try it and see it.. see if any issues will come up...
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:If your mother have a brain haemorrhage and became a veg for more than a year.
What do you want to do?
Depends,
1st, we need to understand if she is rich or not, if so, ensure that her beneficiary heir is you, then, you can make a decision for her to end her life, most people like this are in coma, there is a life, but no more soul.
2nd, if she is poor and got nothing for you, call it a day, help her end her life better before she end your life with the hospital bills.
3rd, if she is rich but hasn't make any beneficiary or had appointed another person and not you as the benficiary, wait as long as you can, hope she wait up and change her mind
Originally posted by seyKai:If you have a brain haemorrhage and became a veg for more than a year.
What do you want your children to do?
how can a vegetable tell her/his children what to do?? Xiao liao
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:I totally and completely oppose Euthanasia.
it is not up to you, it up to PAP and your decendent to decide...so shut up and sleep.