K
flappinghippo
Member
Haha. Where the fuck is the dignity in enduring pain if you never chose it?
Your life is your own. I think a bedridden patient has plenty of time to consider whether or not it's right to take his or her life, and the most qualified.
Not to mention you're spending thousands of dollars in medical expenses to slightly prolong your own shitty existence at the expense of improving the lives of your friends and family, or society through charities.
The government should not decide, but merely overlook the process and means devised to monitor foul play.
Your life is your own. I think a bedridden patient has plenty of time to consider whether or not it's right to take his or her life, and the most qualified.
Not to mention you're spending thousands of dollars in medical expenses to slightly prolong your own shitty existence at the expense of improving the lives of your friends and family, or society through charities.
The government should not decide, but merely overlook the process and means devised to monitor foul play.
+Po1ntDeXt3r+
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2003
- Messages
- 3,527
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2003
My concern is how 'enduring pain' would be defined..
in the case.. she has MS and bladder cancer.. but would MS alone be grows for euthanasia.. im not saying that I disagree if i was in her personal position but I think to legislate it would require considerable work..
when is pain too much?... would a psychosomatic pain be a reasonable option to be euthanise? another reasons it isnt done is that it flies in the face of the hippocratic oath.. it's very hard to feel that as a practitioner ure choices are to end someones life.
Pain cannot be judged well by an observer and i think i would be pro-euthanasia if it we could reasonably objectively gauge it but as yet we cannot.. and hence I can see a reason not to legislate it as of present.
in the case.. she has MS and bladder cancer.. but would MS alone be grows for euthanasia.. im not saying that I disagree if i was in her personal position but I think to legislate it would require considerable work..
when is pain too much?... would a psychosomatic pain be a reasonable option to be euthanise? another reasons it isnt done is that it flies in the face of the hippocratic oath.. it's very hard to feel that as a practitioner ure choices are to end someones life.
Pain cannot be judged well by an observer and i think i would be pro-euthanasia if it we could reasonably objectively gauge it but as yet we cannot.. and hence I can see a reason not to legislate it as of present.
K
katie_tully
Guest
I think it should be based on the subjectiveness of the patient feeling the pain. All pain is not equal and not all pain thresholds are equal.
I don't think it matters how much palliative care can be offered either, because it gets to a point where fluffy pillows aren't enough.
The thing is, nothing is stopping these people from committing suicide in an otherwise less dignified manner. It is their dying wish to neither spend the rest of their days in pain and incontinent, but to die with dignity, and thats all I think euthanasia offers them.
You're right though, I think it'd be extremely hard to find a doctor willing to renege on the hippocratic oath and it'd be even harder to find a doctor willing to do it on the grounds of potential law suits. It wouldn't be an easily accessible service.
I wonder what Dr Philip Nitschke has in his little stash....
I don't think it matters how much palliative care can be offered either, because it gets to a point where fluffy pillows aren't enough.
The thing is, nothing is stopping these people from committing suicide in an otherwise less dignified manner. It is their dying wish to neither spend the rest of their days in pain and incontinent, but to die with dignity, and thats all I think euthanasia offers them.
You're right though, I think it'd be extremely hard to find a doctor willing to renege on the hippocratic oath and it'd be even harder to find a doctor willing to do it on the grounds of potential law suits. It wouldn't be an easily accessible service.
I wonder what Dr Philip Nitschke has in his little stash....
+Po1ntDeXt3r+
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2003
- Messages
- 3,527
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2003
I really think that they have every right to. but to legislate it would be different!
im not sure wat legalising it will mean tho.. it may mean there will be a shorter investigation?.. or there will be a blind eye to all euthanasia?
I know how i view.. teens- 20 sumfing who have just tried to OD.. its sad..
im not against it at all in principle.. but in practise i think it will be unviable legally..
the last 2 doctors i heard commit suicide were 29 and 32.. both used a morphine OD..
im not sure wat legalising it will mean tho.. it may mean there will be a shorter investigation?.. or there will be a blind eye to all euthanasia?
I know how i view.. teens- 20 sumfing who have just tried to OD.. its sad..
im not against it at all in principle.. but in practise i think it will be unviable legally..
the last 2 doctors i heard commit suicide were 29 and 32.. both used a morphine OD..
K
katie_tully
Guest
I think the sole purpose of legislating for it would be to invalidate any future lawsuits by family members, etc. I think it's purely a way of protecting those parties legally more so than making the practice 'offcial'.
I think in any case it's sad when somebody has to take their own life, whether they're 80 and in pain, or 20 and in the midst of growing pains. Either way, if you feel as though your only option is to kill yourself it's incredibly sad.
I had tears when I read about the young newsreader who committed suicide the other day, tragic.
29 and 32 is so young, i assume the pressure in the industry is crippling for some.
I think in any case it's sad when somebody has to take their own life, whether they're 80 and in pain, or 20 and in the midst of growing pains. Either way, if you feel as though your only option is to kill yourself it's incredibly sad.
I had tears when I read about the young newsreader who committed suicide the other day, tragic.
29 and 32 is so young, i assume the pressure in the industry is crippling for some.
+Po1ntDeXt3r+
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2003
- Messages
- 3,527
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2003
as a general rule, most families wouldnt.. the govt does..
ive seen a few too many.. for me to want to legalise it.. i think as a fringe thing.. ill admit.. that there are words around where minimising the persons pain is used..
that usually helps.. we give them some benzodiazepines and morphine.. if they are dying.. comfort care. it is disputable whether this shortens life.. so it can be done in some instances.
I think we are out there to protect the vunerable .... realistically im apathetic to the legal wrangles around the doctor.. but I do feel for those that might use the same techniques for say a teen or a 20-30 sumfing suicide..
their attempts are so common... that it should be criminal to sell panadols to some of them... can u imagine if they got their hands on phenbarb :S..
the doctors were lonely and troubled.. they werent even completed in their field of training... one of the highest successful suicide rates..
ive seen a few too many.. for me to want to legalise it.. i think as a fringe thing.. ill admit.. that there are words around where minimising the persons pain is used..
that usually helps.. we give them some benzodiazepines and morphine.. if they are dying.. comfort care. it is disputable whether this shortens life.. so it can be done in some instances.
I think we are out there to protect the vunerable .... realistically im apathetic to the legal wrangles around the doctor.. but I do feel for those that might use the same techniques for say a teen or a 20-30 sumfing suicide..
their attempts are so common... that it should be criminal to sell panadols to some of them... can u imagine if they got their hands on phenbarb :S..
the doctors were lonely and troubled.. they werent even completed in their field of training... one of the highest successful suicide rates..
K
katie_tully
Guest
Oh god, committing suicide by way of panadol would be a horrid way to go.
My son was on phenobarb for the first 4 weeks of his life, he was a quiet little spaced out cabbage patch kid.
Reading your reponse though, I can see how many loopholes there would be regarding the legislation, misuse, etc. I'd be interested in reading the legislation from when it was first introduced in NT.
My son was on phenobarb for the first 4 weeks of his life, he was a quiet little spaced out cabbage patch kid.
Reading your reponse though, I can see how many loopholes there would be regarding the legislation, misuse, etc. I'd be interested in reading the legislation from when it was first introduced in NT.
+Po1ntDeXt3r+
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2003
- Messages
- 3,527
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2003
as would i.
yeah panadol ODs are stupid... VERY STUPID.. READ THIS PPL>>... STUPID..
I am on the verge of like slapping the next 16 yr old that i have to see with a panadol OD.. they are a crap way to die.. talk about long and excruciating..
I think we are all influenced by the lil things we see and experience.. I know that for many there is help (teens/mental illness).. for some there isnt (chronic illness).. but i cant save them all and what we do is to prevent the most.
yeah panadol ODs are stupid... VERY STUPID.. READ THIS PPL>>... STUPID..
I am on the verge of like slapping the next 16 yr old that i have to see with a panadol OD.. they are a crap way to die.. talk about long and excruciating..
I think we are all influenced by the lil things we see and experience.. I know that for many there is help (teens/mental illness).. for some there isnt (chronic illness).. but i cant save them all and what we do is to prevent the most.
K
katie_tully
Guest
Ha. I think they should include panadol in high school drug education. I can't count how many people I knew in HS who thought it was fine to take 4,5,6 panadol at a time.
I would just like for the word euthanasia to not become synonymous with 'giving up'. No, not everybody can't be saved.
I would just like for the word euthanasia to not become synonymous with 'giving up'. No, not everybody can't be saved.
+Po1ntDeXt3r+
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2003
- Messages
- 3,527
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2003
i just read the legislation..
its a fairly solemnly worded... I think it would be acceptable..
It has to be verified by 2 medical professionals.. but then so are psychiatric admissions.. and they are debated still.. and the patient is alive :S
its a fairly solemnly worded... I think it would be acceptable..
It has to be verified by 2 medical professionals.. but then so are psychiatric admissions.. and they are debated still.. and the patient is alive :S
dieburndie
Eat, Sleep, Repeat
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2006
- Messages
- 971
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2006
Did anyone see Nitschke on denton last night?
It would've been great if he was all "Yeah I support giving that shit to 18 year olds, I consider them adults that should be able to dictate their own circumstances as far as life and death are concerned"
Unfortunately, he seems to believe people should only be given control of their lives once they turn 65. Or is giving that impression in order to present himself as somewhat moderate (more likely).
It would've been great if he was all "Yeah I support giving that shit to 18 year olds, I consider them adults that should be able to dictate their own circumstances as far as life and death are concerned"
Unfortunately, he seems to believe people should only be given control of their lives once they turn 65. Or is giving that impression in order to present himself as somewhat moderate (more likely).
Undermyskin
Self-delusive
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2007
- Messages
- 587
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2008
Euthanasia
The name of this thread sounds a bit 'scary' but I still would like to see everyone's opinion about this topic because probably many of you will have 'Whose life is it anyway' as a prescribed text. If not, just give your general thoughts about euthanasism and how it's been operated in numerous professional meetings, seminars, conferences, etc. but still there's been no answer for: Should the patient be given an utter right to decide the destiny of his life? or Should the pharmacists have some rights over their patients to apply any treatments regarded as essential on them to maintain their lives? [Sorry for my poor English]
This not a thread to seek for an absolute answer like Right or Wrong but it's more like a place to weigh up ads and disads of giving any right to any person.
To start with, I'd give some of my opinions:
-Patients:
When someone attempts to commit suicide but is rescued in time to continue a life that call tedious, hideous, horrendous or whatever, we all know we can do something to help him/her because he/she is apparently a victimized casualty of the increasingly popular trend growing in a modern society: low self-esteem. (I used to be one but I never thought of killing myself!) To some people, an idiom like: "The one doesn't want to live doesn't deserve a life" can really work if he/she still has some sort of desire toward self-actualization. (When my best friend told me this, I made a decision on 'never giving up'. It was in my secondary graduation periods-yeah st similar to this but in year 9- and I ended up getting highest mark in literature in my school. lolz. And now I have no idea about literature! Perhaps the better effects are from people closest to you). However, to someone requiring special psychiatric treatment, this obviously will push them to the edge of suicide-commitment.
Back to our topic, if this person argues against our helps and demands a fully-satisfied citizenship, what should we do? He/she blames us for disrespect her/his determination and personal treatment, should we leave him/her alone and let him/her die? Having not mentioned the relationship between them and us, I just want to emphasize the very basic moral/ethical/human standard that never allows us to let see anyone die if we can help.
So, why are people castigating Dr. Emerson? Is that because they love Ken too much that obliviously agrees with whatever he says? (I like Ken but I don't idolize him to the ninth cloud)
- Pharmacists/ Physician/Doctors:
Their divine careers are to help people, to survive anyone they can but also to emotionally connect to their patients. Are they fulfilling such demands? Besides their missions to carrying on surgery (I'm shivering), resuscitating unconsious people, treating people with correct medicines and therapies, etc, they have to make an oath (Hypocrat) to smoothen any pains, wounds, physically and emotionally. However, although they are no saints plus they are not all capable to meet all of our demands, we people should not 'bag' them. Verbal abuse has much more drastic impacts on any human's life. Thus, what's the point of humiliating them? (I just remember reading some newspaper articles about mad doctors who committed sexual harassments and corruption and homicide. Just exclude all these possibilities, ok?) As said, they devote their lives to maintain others' lives. Why should they give up tho?
So, a question: 'Hypocrat's' vs human rights.
EDIT: Anyone has any concise and precise info about Michaellangelo's 'The creation of man'???
The name of this thread sounds a bit 'scary' but I still would like to see everyone's opinion about this topic because probably many of you will have 'Whose life is it anyway' as a prescribed text. If not, just give your general thoughts about euthanasism and how it's been operated in numerous professional meetings, seminars, conferences, etc. but still there's been no answer for: Should the patient be given an utter right to decide the destiny of his life? or Should the pharmacists have some rights over their patients to apply any treatments regarded as essential on them to maintain their lives? [Sorry for my poor English]
This not a thread to seek for an absolute answer like Right or Wrong but it's more like a place to weigh up ads and disads of giving any right to any person.
To start with, I'd give some of my opinions:
-Patients:
When someone attempts to commit suicide but is rescued in time to continue a life that call tedious, hideous, horrendous or whatever, we all know we can do something to help him/her because he/she is apparently a victimized casualty of the increasingly popular trend growing in a modern society: low self-esteem. (I used to be one but I never thought of killing myself!) To some people, an idiom like: "The one doesn't want to live doesn't deserve a life" can really work if he/she still has some sort of desire toward self-actualization. (When my best friend told me this, I made a decision on 'never giving up'. It was in my secondary graduation periods-yeah st similar to this but in year 9- and I ended up getting highest mark in literature in my school. lolz. And now I have no idea about literature! Perhaps the better effects are from people closest to you). However, to someone requiring special psychiatric treatment, this obviously will push them to the edge of suicide-commitment.
Back to our topic, if this person argues against our helps and demands a fully-satisfied citizenship, what should we do? He/she blames us for disrespect her/his determination and personal treatment, should we leave him/her alone and let him/her die? Having not mentioned the relationship between them and us, I just want to emphasize the very basic moral/ethical/human standard that never allows us to let see anyone die if we can help.
So, why are people castigating Dr. Emerson? Is that because they love Ken too much that obliviously agrees with whatever he says? (I like Ken but I don't idolize him to the ninth cloud)
- Pharmacists/ Physician/Doctors:
Their divine careers are to help people, to survive anyone they can but also to emotionally connect to their patients. Are they fulfilling such demands? Besides their missions to carrying on surgery (I'm shivering), resuscitating unconsious people, treating people with correct medicines and therapies, etc, they have to make an oath (Hypocrat) to smoothen any pains, wounds, physically and emotionally. However, although they are no saints plus they are not all capable to meet all of our demands, we people should not 'bag' them. Verbal abuse has much more drastic impacts on any human's life. Thus, what's the point of humiliating them? (I just remember reading some newspaper articles about mad doctors who committed sexual harassments and corruption and homicide. Just exclude all these possibilities, ok?) As said, they devote their lives to maintain others' lives. Why should they give up tho?
So, a question: 'Hypocrat's' vs human rights.
EDIT: Anyone has any concise and precise info about Michaellangelo's 'The creation of man'???
Last edited:
Jachie
it ain't easy being white
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2006
- Messages
- 1,662
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2008
Re: Euthanasia
not really the appropriate forum for this, kid.
My stance is that everyone has the right to die. Just as I defend a person's right to live, I defend a person's right to choose not to.
Freedom guys, it's a wonderful fucking thing.
not really the appropriate forum for this, kid.
My stance is that everyone has the right to die. Just as I defend a person's right to live, I defend a person's right to choose not to.
Freedom guys, it's a wonderful fucking thing.
smackattack
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2008
- Messages
- 27
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2008
Re: Euthanasia
If they want to die because of the terrible standard of life they are living through, let them.
If they want to die because of the terrible standard of life they are living through, let them.
sleepplease
Member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 328
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2008
Re: Euthanasia
I agree in principle, but I worry about it in practice. What about the elderly woman who decides that she's too much of a burden on her grandkids? I don't think it's cool for her to just get topped off etc. There's a lot of grey. Although a friend's granddad got euthanaised relatively recently (and I didn't even know that was allowed in Australia) and that was his decision, supported by his family, that he made over several months so he clearly was really informed etc. I guess it just has to be managed appropriately.
I agree in principle, but I worry about it in practice. What about the elderly woman who decides that she's too much of a burden on her grandkids? I don't think it's cool for her to just get topped off etc. There's a lot of grey. Although a friend's granddad got euthanaised relatively recently (and I didn't even know that was allowed in Australia) and that was his decision, supported by his family, that he made over several months so he clearly was really informed etc. I guess it just has to be managed appropriately.
Re: Euthanasia
It's not legalised in Australia because it sets a precedent and requires laws to govern it. At the same time it's not illegal.
I'm all for euthanasia, even if it's involuntary, for everyone over 100.
It's not legalised in Australia because it sets a precedent and requires laws to govern it. At the same time it's not illegal.
I'm all for euthanasia, even if it's involuntary, for everyone over 100.
K
katie_tully
Guest
Re: Euthanasia
May I redirect you to News and Current Affair forum where this has already been debated 9572847589 times.
http://community.boredofstudies.org...create-single-shot-euthanasia-coffee-pot.html
May I redirect you to News and Current Affair forum where this has already been debated 9572847589 times.
http://community.boredofstudies.org...create-single-shot-euthanasia-coffee-pot.html
Kwayera
Passive-aggressive Mod
beentherdunthat said:a) Natural life = Not natural if you kill yourself
A lot of people are dependant on painkillers. Sometimes, it's the only reason they're not commiting suicide.
b) But the fact is, painkillers work. And there are different types these days. Not only morphine. I do agree though, sometimes painkillers are a pain themselves. But isn't it worth the risk? Rather then killing yourself, you could live a while longer with a little pain. You won't kill yourself just because you're having a baby now would you? I heard thats tremendous pain.
No. No. No.
You have obviously never watched anyone die from terminal pancreatic cancer.
You know what happens? The pain becomes so great that they need to take greater and greater amounts of morphine; by the end stages they are delirious, comatose, and still in agony.
By the end they are not themselves. It is not a little pain. In the end it is the pain they die from, or the drugs that try and soothe it. Do you think it is cowardice, a sin, to give someone the choice to either live and die through that, or die without pain and with dignity?
All in the name of "the Word of God", you would, in fact, condemn someone to die in astronomical pain, instead of peacefully and painlessly on their own terms. That is nothing more than torture.