Euthanasia - Your Views?
-
Actually oldbread kind of pointed out the core of the issue. Giving the option of Euthanasia is simply another choice we can have, if we are opposed to Euthanasia we can chose not to do it.
However, people can opt for it if they chose to. This is simply offering another choice.
Oppose all you want, but if you end up with a disease which causes you constant pain or deprive you of even basic mobility, Euthanasia will definitely feel more tempting. I rather the option to be there.
-
if God gives you lemons, you make lemonades.
So you are in constant pain, and God decides your time is not up yet, and suicide is wrong.
Or...
If God gives you lemons, you find a new God.
your God think suicide is wrong. you decide to believe in something else.
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
Actually oldbread kind of pointed out the core of the issue. Giving the option of Euthanasia is simply another choice we can have, if we are opposed to Euthanasia we can chose not to do it.
However, people can opt for it if they chose to. This is simply offering another choice.
Oppose all you want, but if you end up with a disease which causes you constant pain or deprive you of even basic mobility, Euthanasia will definitely feel more tempting. I rather the option to be there.
if possible can we extend the same idea to stuff like erp and gst?
-
Old bread pretty much hit on the core of the issue here.
Euthanasia in the end is a personal choice, unlike compensation from organ "donations" it would not deprive a 3rd party of anything.
If you don't believe in Euthanasia, don't chose it. But allow the rest of the people who believe in it the choice of having it.
-
Originally posted by xtreyier:
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.
I liked your post and have also read all your other previous post. Some are very educational. Some are very interesting. Some are very LOL... I find your debate very unique and strong. LOL. Like the above, using science and logic to support your stand against Euthanasia instead of using religion as started by TS.
However, till the day we have not unlock the secrets of DNA, we are still term as "human". We are still subject to emotions. Our emotions are as complex as our DNA structure. It is these emotions that seperate us away from the tree. Though we are termed as humans , we are in different time, space and DNA structure with each other. And hence, different people made different choice.
No one can predict the near future. Is his or her choice for the better or for the worse? We do not know. It is for he/she to find out and work out. Because of this unknown, it will be very cruel to deprive them from making a choice of their own.
Just in case , I did not make my point clear. I agreed the government to lift the ban on euthanasia. Laws are dead. Humans are alive. We should not let laws to bind us in difficult and different situations or circumstances. And also the new law should disallow people from mis-using euthansia. Ideal ,rite??? ^^ Hahahaha... I hope the government can do close to it... can liao... :p
-
One time we sacrificed virgins to the gods, now we don't.
One day we will put old people to "sleep", then we won't.
-
the END is near...so it does not matters anyway
-
Euthanasia is not an issue if we have good palliative and hospice care to control pain. Sometimes the dosage of drugs needed to control pain may accelerate the dying process, but that's ok to me. Euthanasia should never be the solution for high medical costs, but people must recognize that there is a law of diminishing returns in medicine. At some point, we have to accept our mortality and say enough is enough. Patients will not seek euthanasia if they have good quality hospice care. Society must decide if that is considered sufficiently important to be willing to pay for terminal care.
-
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
Euthanasia is not an issue if we have good palliative and hospice care to control pain. Sometimes the dosage of drugs needed to control pain may accelerate the dying process, but that's ok to me. Euthanasia should never be the solution for high medical costs, but people must recognize that there is a law of diminishing returns in medicine. At some point, we have to accept our mortality and say enough is enough. Patients will not seek euthanasia if they have good quality hospice care. Society must decide if that is considered sufficiently important to be willing to pay for terminal care.
For one with such shallow political intellect despite your prestigeous training, it is amazing that you profess such contradictory opinion in your commentary.What do you suggest should be the acceptable cost of "good palliative and hospice care to control pain" - to the patient, the medical care-giver, the family, and the State ?
If "Euthanasia should never be the solution for high medical cost" - how should the lay person "recognize the law of diminishing returns in medicine" ?
What standards are you pretending to profess to allow a situation that "Society must decide if that is considered sufficiently important to be willing to pay for terminal care" ?
At the end of it all, is the high medical cost not the determinant for euthanasia to be accepted ?
-
if possible can we extend the same idea to stuff like erp and gst?
Hah, that would be nice wouldn't it?
I don't feel confident to comment on the GST issue, though personally i feel the ERP is neccessary to control traffic flow and reduce our dependence on oil. Let's face it, the world is not infinite and it's best to reduce our consumption and waste.
I just don't see why private transport would be considered a need in Singapore while our public transport are pretty adequate (albeit uncomfortable during rush hour) to handle it.
It's not realistic to expect we'd just sit up and decide we need to reduce consumption and to conserve, so i rather the government implement ways like this to control it.
-
I don't even understand why the view of a certain religion would have any bearing on government policy save policies on religious harmony.
The real issue on euthanasia, imo, is the debate between person choice vs state's interest in preserving life/potential for abuse.Now, high medical cost is factor in euthanasia, but I believe the real reason why people opt for it is because of the quality of life or lack thereof.
Assuming that the state has an innate interest in the preservation of life(given that suicide is illegal), such and option should only be made avaliable to terminal patients.
Now if an individual is suffering from, say, terminal cancer , with no hope of recovery and has already made a personal decision to spare himself/herself further pain, i do not see why there should any objections to it.
The problem with euthanasia probably lies with incoherent patients, who cannot make such a decision for themselves. Who is to say then that they would not want to live?
In such cases, it would be in the state's interest to err on the safe side, despite decisions made by the patient's family. This is obviously to prevent any potential for abuse.
However, even then, such a regulation cannot be cast in stone, the state should look into them on case by case basis.If Christianity so condemns such a practice, then its only authority would lie in the persuading its parishioners to take the matter up with their MP, and through them parliament.
-
What makes a society achieve greatness is its people. Alone, we would individually revert back to barbarism, where the strongest survive and the weak left to die.
Thus, each and every single human within a society is important and vital to its function as we share our resources to progress and advance as a human race.No human must be allowed to kill another or even themselves, no matter what the reasons may be, short of if the society faces an immenient doom from other beings.
This is the time honoured and wise tradition left by our ancestors to us, the continuing generation of mankind and not as an extinct species on this planet, that both secularists and theocratics can agree upon, a common ground where both can see eye to eye.
Terminally ill patients suffer from pain, and is an undeniable fact. But it is not sufficient grounds to end one's life from it. We humans know pain since childhood and can, and had even been able to overcome it. While medical science may yet find the cure for diseases, we do have medication to overcome pain till the end.
These patients are our fellow members of society. They had contributed to our progress and success. Their care and concern lies with their immediated next of kin and US. To give them the right to die would only demean their contribution, and prove how barbaric we are.
Once we allow even legal killing of the terminally ill, what will follow next? Afterall, an important milestone and precedent of mankind would have been created! Who next - blacks, browns, yellow, reds? Deformities, females, prostitutes, gays, AndrewPKYap, Poh Ah Pak, etc?
Worse still, investors will wonder why bother with funding research, might as well spend the money on a luxury boat and enjoy life. There is no cure for diseases, and 'mercy killing' is the preffered choice.
For hundred of years, every individual medical researcher wakes up filled with hope that he/she may find the cure for a particular disease. Each night their hopes are dashed. But they get over it and start afresh the next day, in our race to help ease suffering of our loved ones and mankind.
We may fail to find the cure today, but the next generation will not, and will build upon what we have found out today. Even if they fail, there is still the following generations to come. The quest for knowledge and cures MUST NOT end, for the sake of mankind.We owe our past generations for our todays and is our responsibility to make tomorrow right and good for our loved ones and the next generations to come.
The social costs to allow euthanasia is too high for mankind to bear. Better we bankrupt ourselves materially than to bankrupt our basic morality.
A son must never kill his mother just because she is in pain, the way a mother would never kill her son just because he is in pain, cries every night and creates problems for her in his first few years of babyhood.
But if euthanasia is allowed because of high medical costs, then it is another thing and an obstacle society must deal with so as not to be reprehensibly tempted to use it as an authorisation to kill another fellow human.
I myself had signed an AMD, not beacause i do not value life, but because i have no wish to bankrupt my next of kin or society, in order that the medical industrial complex obtain fat obscene profits. 3rd world labour costs but 'out of this world' product prices! My prematured death will be a protest to these fat CEOs and will wait for them to join me in Hell. -
Originally posted by xtreyier:
What makes a society achieve greatness is its people. Alone, we would individually revert back to barbarism, where the strongest survive and the weak left to die.
Thus, each and every single human within a society is important and vital to its function as we share our resources to progress and advance as a human race.No human must be allowed to kill another or even themselves, no matter what the reasons may be, short of if the society faces an immenient doom from other beings.
This is the time honoured and wise tradition left by our ancestors to us, the continuing generation of mankind and not as an extinct species on this planet, that both secularists and theocratics can agree upon, a common ground where both can see eye to eye.
Terminally ill patients suffer from pain, and is an undeniable fact. But it is not sufficient grounds to end one's life from it. We humans know pain since childhood and can, and had even been able to overcome it. While medical science may yet find the cure for diseases, we do have medication to overcome pain till the end.
These patients are our fellow members of society. They had contributed to our progress and success. Their care and concern lies with their immediated next of kin and US. To give them the right to die would only demean their contribution, and prove how barbaric we are.
Once we allow even legal killing of the terminally ill, what will follow next? Afterall, an important milestone and precedent of mankind would have been created! Who next - blacks, browns, yellow, reds? Deformities, females, prostitutes, gays, AndrewPKYap, Poh Ah Pak, etc?
Worse still, investors will wonder why bother with funding research, might as well spend the money on a luxury boat and enjoy life. There is no cure for diseases, and 'mercy killing' is the preffered choice.
For hundred of years, every individual medical researcher wakes up filled with hope that he/she may find the cure for a particular disease. Each night their hopes are dashed. But they get over it and start afresh the next day, in our race to help ease suffering of our loved ones and mankind.
We may fail to find the cure today, but the next generation will not, and will build upon what we have found out today. Even if they fail, there is still the following generations to come. The quest for knowledge and cures MUST NOT end, for the sake of mankind.We owe our past generations for our todays and is our responsibility to make tomorrow right and good for our loved ones and the next generations to come.
The social costs to allow euthanasia is too high for mankind to bear. Better we bankrupt ourselves materially than to bankrupt our basic morality.
A son must never kill his mother just because she is in pain, the way a mother would never kill her son just because he is in pain, cries every night and creates problems for her in his first few years of babyhood.
But if euthanasia is allowed because of high medical costs, then it is another thing and an obstacle society must deal with so as not to be reprehensibly tempted to use it as an authorisation to kill another fellow human.
I myself had signed an AMD, not beacause i do not value life, but because i have no wish to bankrupt my next of kin or society, in order that the medical industrial complex obtain fat obscene profits. 3rd world labour costs but 'out of this world' product prices! My prematured death will be a protest to these fat CEOs and will wait for them to join me in Hell.just curious about this, are you against the death penalty itself?
-
Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:
just curious about this, are you against the death penalty itself?
Yes. I am dead set against the death penalty. Death penalty should only be applied to animals, eg; tigers that maul humans, stampeding elephants, etc. These are beasts, without a care for human life, similar with terrorists, murderers, drug peddlers, traitors, etc. Any living creature that wages war on civilised society, harm our fellow human race, must be destroyed.
But i alone does not a society make. I can only discuss and give my viewpoints. In the end, when our society decides and enact decisions into law, i obey, as a member of our society, for the majority had spoken, for the good of all. -
do u think parents should have a option of euthanising their retarded, severely handicapped child?
had this thought when i was watching the channel 8 show, monday 8pm, where quan yifeng and christopher lee went around doing community service for needly family. it seems that in most cases, the source of the problem lies with retardness of parents or children. for one of the episode, i think the mother is a little dim witted, not behaving as a 30+ yr old mother would. as for retarded children, i shall not mention, the impact on their family is quite obvious.
it would be better for both parents and children if defective children are euthanised, sparing them the trouble of living in this world where imperfection is frown upon.
the severely retarded tend to be unable to look after themselves even when they are reach middle age, and their parents can't be around to look after them forever.
what if their parent suddenly die at home? they may be too mentally handicapped to cope with the situation. will they starve to death, with the corpse of their parent still lying in their house? then one fine day when neighbours complain of stench coming out from the apartment , police find 2 rotting corpses in the apartment. will this kind of scenario happen? well, it might.
-
Originally posted by deathmaster:
do u think parents should have a option of euthanising their retarded, severely handicapped child?
had this thought when i was watching the channel 8 show, monday 8pm, where quan yifeng and christopher lee went around doing community service for needly family. it seems that in most cases, the source of the problem lies with retardness of parents or children. for one of the episode, i think the mother is a little dim witted, not behaving as a 30+ yr old mother would. as for retarded children, i shall not mention, the impact on their family is quite obvious.
it would be better for both parents and children if defective children are euthanised, sparing them the trouble of living in this world where imperfection is frown upon.
the severely retarded tend to be unable to look after themselves even when they are reach middle age, and their parents can't be around to look after them forever.
what if their parent suddenly die at home? they may be too mentally handicapped to cope with the situation. will they starve to death, with the corpse of their parent still lying in their house? then one fine day when neighbours complain of stench coming out from the apartment , police find 2 rotting corpses in the apartment. will this kind of scenario happen? well, it might.
i really don't think i want to be euthanised because i'm retarded. even though i'm somewhat pro euthanisia.
-
I think that's already crossing the boundary deathmaster, that would be considered murder.
But meh i see your point.
-
Originally posted by deathmaster:
do u think parents should have a option of euthanising their retarded, severely handicapped child?
had this thought when i was watching the channel 8 show, monday 8pm, where quan yifeng and christopher lee went around doing community service for needly family. it seems that in most cases, the source of the problem lies with retardness of parents or children. for one of the episode, i think the mother is a little dim witted, not behaving as a 30+ yr old mother would. as for retarded children, i shall not mention, the impact on their family is quite obvious.
it would be better for both parents and children if defective children are euthanised, sparing them the trouble of living in this world where imperfection is frown upon.
the severely retarded tend to be unable to look after themselves even when they are reach middle age, and their parents can't be around to look after them forever.
what if their parent suddenly die at home? they may be too mentally handicapped to cope with the situation. will they starve to death, with the corpse of their parent still lying in their house? then one fine day when neighbours complain of stench coming out from the apartment , police find 2 rotting corpses in the apartment. will this kind of scenario happen? well, it might.
I am horrified by your view...speechless!
All i can say is that if that is the law, then let me the first one in line for your gas chamber. I am no Einstein, my IQ is nowhere near his. I alone cannot afford to take care of myself, for i need society to build schools, provide teachers, create jobs, etc for me. By your defination, i too, am a retard. -
Originally posted by xtreyier:
Yes. I am dead set against the death penalty. Death penalty should only be applied to animals, eg; tigers that maul humans, stampeding elephants, etc. These are beasts, without a care for human life, similar with terrorists, murderers, drug peddlers, traitors, etc. Any living creature that wages war on civilised society, harm our fellow human race, must be destroyed.
But i alone does not a society make. I can only discuss and give my viewpoints. In the end, when our society decides and enact decisions into law, i obey, as a member of our society, for the majority had spoken, for the good of all.Aiya, you are worse than animals. You are human !
-
1 child is dying every second while u all toking here
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
For one with such shallow political intellect despite your prestigeous training, it is amazing that you profess such contradictory opinion in your commentary.What do you suggest should be the acceptable cost of "good palliative and hospice care to control pain" - to the patient, the medical care-giver, the family, and the State ?
If "Euthanasia should never be the solution for high medical cost" - how should the lay person "recognize the law of diminishing returns in medicine" ?
What standards are you pretending to profess to allow a situation that "Society must decide if that is considered sufficiently important to be willing to pay for terminal care" ?
At the end of it all, is the high medical cost not the determinant for euthanasia to be accepted ?
Face it, Atobe...there are some concepts that are way above your level of intellect to comprehend. They do not pay me to teach overaged students basic English Comprehesion. Go and enroll yourself in one of those WISE programmes.
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
Actually oldbread kind of pointed out the core of the issue. Giving the option of Euthanasia is simply another choice we can have, if we are opposed to Euthanasia we can chose not to do it.
However, people can opt for it if they chose to. This is simply offering another choice.
Oppose all you want, but if you end up with a disease which causes you constant pain or deprive you of even basic mobility, Euthanasia will definitely feel more tempting. I rather the option to be there.
Legalizing euthanasia on the grounds of respecting individual choice is fair enough, as long as society is prepared to accept that the same option should be given to the man who wishes to jump from his HDB flat because his wife has left him. If it is pain that drives one to consider euthanasia, that option is a poor choice because pallaitive medicine has much to offer as an alternative.
-
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
Legalizing euthanasia on the grounds of respecting individual choice is fair enough, as long as society is prepared to accept that the same option should be given to the man who wishes to jump from his HDB flat because his wife has left him. If it is pain that drives one to consider euthanasia, that option is a poor choice because pallaitive medicine has much to offer as an alternative.
that one cannot cos already outlawed liao. i think even if can have euthanasia they also want you to pay for it in hospital.
anyway i doubt people care about whether jumping is legal when they jump in the first place. so it doesn't make a difference to legalise unless you're scared jump and never die kenna arrested
one of my sec sch chinese teachers said he was a volunteer cop in his younger days(when police still wear shorts) a guy jumped and he had to guard the corpse while being handcuffed to it in hospital.
-
Legalizing euthanasia on the grounds of respecting individual choice is fair enough, as long as society is prepared to accept that the same option should be given to the man who wishes to jump from his HDB flat because his wife has left him. If it is pain that drives one to consider euthanasia, that option is a poor choice because pallaitive medicine has much to offer as an alternative.
Then it would depend on the person's choice and the options available to him.
Hospice care isn't exactly cheap either, and there are old people that wants the option to be able to die in their own home.
Also there are dehibilitating diseases that even though do not cause you physical pain but robs you of quality of life (eg: confined completely to the bed).
Your example isn't a very good one, considering that this man is more than capable of leading a normal life if he gets over the wife leaving him. That however is not a choice to someone with a terminal disease.
It's not about you can chose to die whenever you want to. It's about given the choice to die when it's obvious(to everyone involved, including medical professionals) that there are no other options. And to continue living is simply to increase the amount of pain and suffering to both the patient and his family before the inevitable.
-
Originally posted by Cowbaycowboo:
1 child is dying every second while u all toking here
And while u are toking here, every old people is living longer every second than expected.