When Straits Time devotes 9 pages of its real estate to talk about euthanasia, that gets me excited.
The concept of euthanasia is, simply put, assisted killing. Whether it is merciful or otherwise, seen from the perspective of the dying man in pain, or from his wife who labours to take care of him, or from his son who is anxious about the medical bill, is subjective and debatable.
In life, we are at different time given options to choose. Sometime, we come across situations when there is no choice. However, when it comes to life and death, I hope I can can choose how I die.
I have seen a person, when confronted with a very difficult situation, took suicide as his way out. I have also seen the same widow, while battling with cancer pain, chose to die slowly, continued to encourage people around her, and only stopped when the pain overwhelmed her.
We already have the advance medical directive in Singpaore ( http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_543_2004-12-18.html). I can decide in advance that, at some point in time in future, when faced with a terminal disease, I will stop taking medicine or accept medical procedures in order not to prolong my suffering.
Euthanasia takes that decision one step further. I can now get somebody to have me killed when I decide I cannot take it anymore. It is a "pro active" way of not prolonging pain and suffering.
I believe in not killing anyone including myself. I hope that when it comes to my turn, I will have the encourage not to take my way out of life through murder. But I certainly cannot impose my way on others who have different conviction.
So my stand on euthanasia is this. If you want to kill yourself or have someone to kill you to ease your pain, that is your choice. I can respect that choice. However, I have no intention of killing myself or getting people to kill me. I am especially weary that my son, if he becomes more concerned about his pocket than anything else in this world, would want to capitalise on anything to help end my misery (and his).
Therefore, if attempts are made to change our laws to allow people to make the choice of killing themselves or have themselves killed by others, I want the rules to be made very clear, in the following manner:
(i) I did not say I need any "assistance" to complete my journey on this earth. Please do not put words into my mouth that I have ever said I wanted myself killed, that at various time and venue I have alluded or expressed opinion about my "altruistic" desire. Please just assume that I am an old fart who refuses to die.
(ii) I do not want any expert to declare that my mind can no longer make any "logical" decision, that under any "reasonable" circumstances, in the interest of my poor suffering wife and children, it is best that I be put out of the way as a favour to society and the rest of mankind. I do not want to die, sir.
(iii) Please, and don't ever tell me that assisted killing is henceforth an "opt out" option, that I will be automatically awarded a $10,000 medisave voucher for the procedure unless I choose to forgo the good money. I need to make a living to save up for my coffin money, but I do not really need a new joke to tell my PRC business associates.
Euthanasia - Your Views?
-
Originally posted by xtreyier:
utilitarianism is an ethical theory that all action should be directed toward achieving greatest happiness for the greatest number of people - the belief that the value of a thing, a life, or action must and should be determined by its utility.
Egalitarianism is the affirmation, promotion of the belief in equal political, economic, social and civil rights for all people.
Should human life be considered an utility, a tool to be used and then discarded when its 'use by' date runs out? After all, 'pratical needs truimphs rights'.
The old, the retarded, the useless, the less than intelligent humans, the ugly, the fat, the stinkers, smokers, prostitutes, gays, deviants, mormans, conspiracy theorists, etc, etc, should be killed so that a society be kept pure, in the pursuit of 'practical needs'.
We would have difficulty communicating with those of different lingo. Lets kill them as well.
We would have difficulty in asimilating with different skin colours. Lets kill the blacks, the yellows, the browns, etc.
We would have difficulty accepting different religions. Lets kill them too.We would have difficulty living with people with different temperament. Lets kill them.
We would have difficulty sharing a space with someone whom we dislke. Lets kill them.Look around and see who's left?
That's the consequences when we allow 'practical needs to overide rights'. Utilitarianism is only good up to a certain point. When we apply utiltarianism to life itself, we will be in deep shit.Today we talk about legalised ethanasia. Tomorrow, who will go next? The Pandora box of 'Practical needs' had been opened, and it can never be covered back.
Logically, scientifically and mathematically, utilitarianism will lead mankind into a higher plane of existance,to understand the universe and harness its energies to save mankind, for we would have discarded 'baggages' whom will only stop us from evolving faster.
But Utilitarianism will ultimately destroy mankind instead, for in the search of perfection, we flawed humans will only kill each other. The last human life will save no one.
Better we accept egalitarianism, and together, leaving none behind, move towards our ultimate destiny to evolve and populate the stars. We may not do so in this generation, but the next or the following ones will be able to do so, with none need to have their life prematuredly ended.
------------------------------------------------------
The invalid lying on the bed suffers more from depression than pain. No human wants to die.
They need pyschological help, not the needle to end life. Every moment of his/her life is precious during their lucid moments - to be able to see a new dawn, the smell of planet earth's air, fellow humans, etc.
They want to know the results of their achievements - plans, children, grandchildren, etc, before leaving this planet for the great unknown - a place where no person had ever returned before.
What lies there, no one knows, despite our brave front and false bravados. No human wants to die. The plea for death is only a wish for attention to alleviate their pain, depression and loneliness.
So you want to murder them instead?
i believe the attention is more on voluntary euthanasia, not free for all lethal injections for everyone or at least those who can't make the decision.
dragging the old, the retarded, the useless, the less than intelligent humans, the ugly, the fat, the stinkers, smokers, prostitutes, gays, deviants, mormans, conspiracy theorists, etc, etc, should be killed so that a society be kept pure, in the pursuit of 'practical needs' into the arguement against euthanasia doesn't make sense.
the consideration of euthanasia is to allow one to make a choice when they're suffering from a painful terminal illness, or at least to make a choice for your family when they're in that situation but are unable to make a choice.
which is why i mention earlier, i'm against putting people down when they're retarded. you're confusing different situations together.
-
We don't like that the government makes decisions for us, yet somehow we feel it's ok that we can decide whether an individual has the right to chose death when it is medically recognised they would not endure what's left of it in a comfortable manner.
You feel it's ok for someone to suffer in extreme pain or deprived of even minimum mobility because you feel suicide is the wrong path to take.
And then we complain that the government makes decisions for us, when we are just as comfortable making decisions for others based on our own principles.
Isn't that hypocritical?
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
We don't like that the government makes decisions for us, yet somehow we feel it's ok that we can decide whether an individual has the right to chose death when it is medically recognised they would not endure what's left of it in a comfortable manner.
You feel it's ok for someone to suffer in extreme pain or deprived of even minimum mobility because you feel suicide is the wrong path to take.
And then we complain that the government makes decisions for us, when we are just as comfortable making decisions for others based on our own principles.
Isn't that hypocritical?
don't quite get you? my idea was to have the right over our own lives since there're different beliefs in sg its better to make our own choices personally. preferably the choice to be made by the subject himself/herself? just need docs to verify patient still sound of mind. if the person thinks euthanasia is wrong, he can reject it, if not there's the choice of opting for it should the need come.
i have no particular stand on suicide. i don't feel its ok or not to have someone to suffer in extreme pain or deprived of even minimum mobility? since its unlikely for a person to choose to be in that state?
-
Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:
don't quite get you? my idea was to have the right over our own lives since there're different beliefs in sg its better to make our own choices personally. preferably the choice to be made by the subject himself/herself? just need docs to verify patient still sound of mind. if the person thinks euthanasia is wrong, he can reject it, if not there's the choice of opting for it should the need come.
i have no particular stand on suicide. i don't feel its ok or not to have someone to suffer in extreme pain or deprived of even minimum mobility? since its unlikely for a person to choose to be in that state?
What happens if patient is in coma?Or say the docs are bribed?
-
euthanasia will put a lot of pressure on those who are really sick but has no intention of dying.
-
Originally posted by dragg:
euthanasia will put a lot of pressure on those who are really sick but has no intention of dying.
Agree. -
Originally posted by dragg:
euthanasia will put a lot of pressure on those who are really sick but has no intention of dying.
agree too
-
Originally posted by yamizi:
What happens if patient is in coma?Or say the docs are bribed?
i felt it should only be an option for the ones who are really dying like those comfirm by docs, terminal cases. the ones doc's felt cannot last any longer liao and in constant pain all the time(need painkiller every few hours type). and since i favour a personal decision,it shouldn't be a problem if the patient's in coma. otherwise i was thinking more about turning off life support system by family and not lethal injection put them down, something thats already a choice.
as for the doctor being bribed, haha to be honest
i haven't thought about that. usually when i'm thinking about these stuff i was thinking about the ones who really need it and have no need for bribing the doc, and i'm thinking more about cancer/aids patients so i'm not sure why the doc's being bribed came in? that one seems more of a personal fault of the doc? -
Originally posted by dragg:
euthanasia will put a lot of pressure on those who are really sick but has no intention of dying.
assuming its not terminal and if there's no intention of dying in the first place, pressure is mostly about medical costs, something which needs to be changed also.
we are all given choices in life, most of us are going to give up half way regardless of the reasons same thing applies to this situation. anyway if you're really sick and dying its an additional choice, if not it shouldn't be a concern.
-
Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:
i felt it should only be an option for the ones who are really dying like those comfirm by docs, terminal cases. the ones doc's felt cannot last any longer liao and in constant pain all the time(need painkiller every few hours type). and since i favour a personal decision,it shouldn't be a problem if the patient's in coma. otherwise i was thinking more about turning off life support system by family and not lethal injection put them down, something thats already a choice.
as for the doctor being bribed, haha to be honest
i haven't thought about that. usually when i'm thinking about these stuff i was thinking about the ones who really need it and have no need for bribing the doc, and i'm thinking more about cancer/aids patients so i'm not sure why the doc's being bribed came in? that one seems more of a personal fault of the doc?I think I had mentioned in the much earlier part of this thread in regards to the ethical issue.
Ideally, I might have agree with you that those who are so seriously ill that is beyond recovery wish for a good death. But given in a profit-driven society, I have my reserves in agreement.
The doc's bribe will comes in if the patient has bought large sum of insurances to the beneficiaries. Or the patient having a lot of assets via a will to the beneficiaries. TV drama a lot of such stories mah =)
-
Euthanasia is fine, just dont murder me
When Straits Time devotes 9 pages of its real estate to talk about euthanasia, that gets me excited.
The concept of euthanasia is, simply put, assisted killing. Whether it is merciful or otherwise, seen from the perspective of the dying man in pain, or from his wife who labours to take care of him, or from his son who is anxious about the medical bill, is subjective and debatable.
In life, we are at different time given options to choose. Sometime, we come across situations when there is no choice. However, when it comes to life and death, I hope I can can choose how I die.
I have seen a person, when confronted with a very difficult situation, took suicide as his way out. I have also seen the same widow, while battling with cancer pain, chose to die slowly, continued to encourage people around her, and only stopped when the pain overwhelmed her.
We already have the advance medical directive in Singpaore ( http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_543_2004-12-18.html). I can decide in advance that, at some point in time in future, when faced with a terminal disease, I will stop taking medicine or accept medical procedures in order not to prolong my suffering.
Euthanasia takes that decision one step further. I can now get somebody to have me killed when I decide I cannot take it anymore. It is a "pro active" way of not prolonging pain and suffering.
I believe in not killing anyone including myself. I hope that when it comes to my turn, I will have the encourage not to take my way out of life through murder. But I certainly cannot impose my way on others who have different conviction.
So my stand on euthanasia is this. If you want to kill yourself or have someone to kill you to ease your pain, that is your choice. I can respect that choice. However, I have no intention of killing myself or getting people to kill me. I am especially weary that my son, if he becomes more concerned about his pocket than anything else in this world, would want to capitalise on anything to help end my misery (and his).
Therefore, if attempts are made to change our laws to allow people to make the choice of killing themselves or have themselves killed by others, I want the rules to be made very clear, in the following manner:
(i) I did not say I need any "assistance" to complete my journey on this earth. Please do not put words into my mouth that I have ever said I wanted myself killed, that at various time and venue I have alluded or expressed opinion about my "altruistic" desire. Please just assume that I am an old fart who refuses to die.
(ii) I do not want any expert to declare that my mind can no longer make any "logical" decision, that under any "reasonable" circumstances, in the interest of my poor suffering wife and children, it is best that I be put out of the way as a favour to society and the rest of mankind. I do not want to die, sir.
(iii) Please, and don't ever tell me that assisted killing is henceforth an "opt out" option, that I will be automatically awarded a $10,000 medisave voucher for the procedure unless I choose to forgo the good money. I need to make a living to save up for my coffin money, but I do not really need a new joke to tell my PRC business associates. -
I couldn't care less; if someone wants to die, please let them die with dignity.
-
If I am terminally ill, I would refuse treatment till I die. I don't want to be killed.
If there is pain and discomfort, I would bear it till the end. I would'nt mind some pain killers though. I would like to learn about pain, endurance, perserverance, and mind over matter thingys before the curtain drops.
Sparing those around you is one consideration for euthanasia, saving money is the other, and this what that revive the discussion on euthanasia again.
-
Is there a choice for a person who's old, broke and sick to live till his last days?
Who will pay to keep him alive, continue to treat him and ease the pain the same way as those who can afford to pay ?
If PAP will take full responsibility for that old broke, I'll not support euthanasia.
-
Originally posted by mancha:
If I am terminally ill, I would refuse treatment till I die. I don't want to be killed.
If there is pain and discomfort, I would bear it till the end. I would'nt mind some pain killers though. I would like to learn about pain, endurance, perserverance, and mind over matter thingys before the curtain drops.
Sparing those around you is one consideration for euthanasia, saving money is the other, and this what that revive the discussion on euthanasia again.
OKay, if you are having some real painful disease that cause you to cramp and jerk every few seconds and causs you to scream and shout now and then and it is not treatable and will kill you in a year or so. Please tell me that you will endure that. -
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
OKay, if you are having some real painful disease that cause you to cramp and jerk every few seconds and causs you to scream and shout now and then and it is not treatable and will kill you in a year or so. Please tell me that you will endure that.It's always easy to make morally right choices when you're not in the same shoes.
-
I have a high conviction that AMD is sufficient. (Advanced Medical Directive).
It is difficult and unwise to move further.
I think even though there are many valid and evolving arguments, most likely the best outcome is similar to 377A.
No need to touch it.
-
I don't care about others. I just don't want to get killed because someone else think I can no longer make decision that I want to stay alive.
--
I couldn't care less; if someone wants to die, please let them die with dignity.
-
Originally posted by ArtBoon:
There are many things for me to chose, eg which dog to guard my house.
But some things I cannot exercise choice.
I did not choose my own birth, so I will also not deliberately choose my death.
I've been figuring for a long long time about how and what I really feel/felt but couldn't exactly put it nicely in words. I guess you said what I wanted to.
If we were to be suffering, then we should live through the torment. Who knows, there could be miracles! (Like, a sudden cure being found, a decision to donate all my organs, becoming a guinea pig for some kind of experiment.. better than dying without doing a thing)
-
Whether that person wants to consider to live or not is that person's choice.
I should not be making decision to put that fellow away to save money for himself or for those around him.
Is there a choice for a person who's old, broke and sick to live till his last days?
Who will pay to keep him alive, continue to treat him and ease the pain the same way as those who can afford to pay ?
If PAP will take full responsibility for that old broke, I'll not support euthanasia.
-
To legalise Euthanasia is tantamount to permitting homicide or suicide in any case. I don't know how my last days would be like, and if I am indeed some kind of prophet who foretells the future, I want myself to know I wouldn't die in the hands of other people.
People in the past did not seek medical help to die. The idea of medicine and medical science is the remove pain, but I do not see dying earlier (even without suffering) as an elevation of torment. If the idea of science and medical treatment was to elevate pain for the living, should we just respect that ideology and not misuse it? We did not invent science, and I believe I owe most of the things I understand about life to those who actually delved further into the field to find out more. The scientists or chemists who found cure and treatment certainly did not wish to kill, and if medicine was not meant to kill in the first place, then it should not be.
To live is in itself more than a blessing, and what more can a living human ever ask for? In pain or peace, it is all part of life itself. I am not too much philosophical to speak for others, but there is no one exception for my case which I wouldn't want any form of assistance in dying.
Doctors and medical officers are there not to kill, even if Euthanasia relieves pain. Is there not any other form of available help to calm the suffering? Death is certainly not an option. (At least not when the person typing here holds so much passion for life.)
People (foolish ones) who commit suicide seek 'peace' or to escape reality, speaking generally. Speaking in this context, suicide and Euthanasia is similar, maybe too much.
-
TTT203
I cannot impose my views on others. I just express my own.
Thanks for reminding me of what I wrote earlier :)
I have taken the liberty of acknowledging your "help". Hope you don't mind
http://arthurboon.blogspot.com/2008/12/euthanasia-may-get-me-murdered.html
-
Salaam,
Luckily for us in singapore we have not YET reached this stage.
But suicide is haram.
Allah knows best.
interesting question i wonder how muslim nations deal with coma patients.
any one knows?
-
good question... no idea....