Euthanasia/Spirituality - page 5

I am a member of this board, but rarely post. I have a few questions that I would like to ask. How many of you believe in Physician Assisted Suicide? I believe that a patient should have that right... Read More

  1. by   ohbet
    What slippery slope?
    It a question not of a healthy person, but to someone who is seriously ill and even doomed to die. Its not about the person who is suffering,often only for a time,simply from weariness of life,of a young person,whose first love affair has gone to pieces and who now despairs of life. Its about a person at the end of life, inescapably approaching death ,caused by incurable disease. What gives any one the arrogance, and the permission to play God, to say this person does not have the right to dispose of his life?
    Doctors should do everything possible to cure,but not everything to postpone death artificially and technically for hours,days or even years often in the midst of intolerable torment.
    Therapy is meaningful only as long as it leads,not merely to a continual vegetating,but to the rehabilitation and restoration of the whole person.
    Im reluctant to speculate,but I am, does this reluctance in our society to let people go in piece and dignity connected to religious right and the pro-life movement? Its not unreligious or un christian to allow humans the right to die.I dont get it.
    god help us
  2. by   micro
    And I apologize, as I use a cliche' too readily.......
    because my feelings here are not so easily for even myself to put into words........
    and I am in no way presenting my comments as religious or of any christian bias.....no offense to any religion or christian here.....
    just that that is where I am not speaking from.........

    guess i have just read too much science fiction in my life and have already seen so much of the past science fiction turn to fact.........
    if this makes sense.....this is the slippery slope.....that I speak of.........
    or not, because my feeling and thoughts go much deeper than that.............

    due respect to all threaders here, micro will step out until no cliche's she uses..........
  3. by   teeituptom
    Howdy yall
    from deep in the heat of texas

    After as rough a nite as I had last night, Can I sign up?????????????????????????????????????????????



    doo wah ditty
  4. by   Jenny P
    Good discussion here after MY tough weekend; I will reply AFTER I sleep because I'm not making any sence right now.
  5. by   ohbet
    micro,stop reading science fiction.
    1.There is no dispute over the moral reprehensibility of any form of compulsory euthanasia.Since the mass murder of Jews ,gypsies and slaves who were alleged to be "unfit to live",since the forcible killing of physically or mentally ill men and women[it is estimated that on the basis of a secret decree of Hitler,form sept. 1939 to august 1941 between 60,000 and 80,000; people were killed in speceal killing instituitions],since all these atrocities against human dignity,there is no disputing the fact that this form of compulsory euthanasia on state orderes is notheng shord of cold blooded murder.And tahe major internationsl declarations by doctores since the second world war make it clear that compulsory euthanasia is unthinkable and an offence against basic human rights.
    In Germany ,the world euthanasia is avoided,understandabe since the Hitler period. But in Greco Roman antiquity this word originally meant "good dying", a beautiful,good,quick easy, painless death . And medical eithanasia was first recognized as a task of doctors by Francis Bacon at the beginning of the sixteenth century: the relief of pain in dying. Is that to much to ask from society? God help us.
  6. by   micro
    ohbet.......

    will continue to read science fact and fiction........I will believe what i believe.........or not..........

    the above points you make very well............

    I 95% agree.........what is hindering us from proceeding more readily than we are now.

    Is it religious ideals, $$$$, fear of legal retribution? Is it a change in the hippocratic oath.

    I do believe that in the right circumstances that it is being done now.....and not on the sly..........
    but in a correct and measured comfort care measures that physicians order.............by alleviating pain, by only comfort care measures.....without life-sustaining measures.............it is allowed to happen.........

    but you still deal much with the present issues of advance directives......
    and I have seen too much......
    where the patient has specifically stated what they want done and it is down on all the papers and orders..........but yet it is not followed......
    WHY?

    Dignity of death. Dignity of choice? I would certainly hope so......
    But there are many barriers in our present system.

    And just to throw back out.........if it is ethical barriers.........maybe change should come, but slowly.........

    the risk of misuse is great.........
    I will restate

    micro is not the great debater...........
    but debates anyway........
  7. by   semstr
    Ohbet, it is true that the word euthanasia is still hooked to the Hitler regime over here in Germany and Austria.
    But I am very glad to report that in the last few years, this word has been spoken out loud very often, because our generation is standing up for themself.
    Also because more and more palliative wards and -houses are being opened.
    And a third, the discussion on euthanasia here in Europe is very loud, because of other countries legalizing it.
    Take care, Renee
  8. by   mario_ragucci
    What Nazi Germany did, in as far as killing off peoples, is wrong. During the Nazi years, I heard Eugenics was practiced as well. I'd like to go further and say the Nazi's were advanced in the knowledge of genetics for that time. I could be wrong.

    Not only did Nazi law influence the deaths of sick and ill non-arian, but I understand certain genetic diseases were recognised within their own race, and those germans were forbidden to have children.

    That wasn't a bad idea. If I fall in love and want to have children with a woman who has a terrible geneticly transfered disease like me, should I be condoned to take such as risk, which in this case would be preventable based on our knowledge and history?

    The whole idea of a superior race is wrong, but they did recognize genetic imperfections in their own race, and tried to prevent it from re-occuring.

    This is a tough one, but I figured I'd throw it out here, and see if anyone is for the prevention of terrible diseases by forbidding children of known carriers of the same genetically marked killer diseases, say, if the chance was greater than 50/50? Any chance?
  9. by   BBelle
    ohbet, I completely agree with you. It is the individuals choice what is right for them. It should not be up to the doctor's or the government. Belle
  10. by   ohbet
    Right on BBelle.
    I"ll be walking on thin ice here,and my intention is not to offend,but I think at base the issue is a theological problem for many.
    Many people used to have difficulties with artificial birth control,which was similarly interpreted and rejeced as a NO to the sovereignty of God over life,until they finally realized that God has made human being resopnsible for the very begininng of human life. With the issue of active Euthanasia,God has also given us the freedom and the responsibility for the very end of our lives.
  11. by   sbic56
    ohbet
    I like your thinking. The way you explain it with the acceptance of OTC's in the '60's, even those who base their beliefs in God, need to think about the similarities between how birth control was shunned, then eventually accepted by the church back then and the possibility that euthanasia will yet be accepted by the church in the future. Excellent point.
  12. by   micro
    Originally posted by ohbet
    Right on BBelle.
    I"ll be walking on thin ice here,and my intention is not to offend,but I think at base the issue is a theological problem for many.
    Many people used to have difficulties with artificial birth control,which was similarly interpreted and rejeced as a NO to the sovereignty of God over life,until they finally realized that God has made human being resopnsible for the very begininng of human life. With the issue of active Euthanasia,God has also given us the freedom and the responsibility for the very end of our lives.

    no thin ice here, ohbet.....
    keep on posting and asking and imploring.........

    micro :zzzzz

    to question about genetic imperfections........
    to do within scientific and research realms....
    micro here has given much blood to the cause......
    but there is such an ethical fine line.....or maybe that is only in my own head and fears..........


  13. by   Jenny P
    Hmmmm, this topic ranges from Hitlers' Germany to birth control and "the church"-- BTW, if you mean the acceptance of birth control by the "CATHOLIC church" it hasn't happened yet in this lifetime; the pope still only condones Natural Family Planning which is based on abstinence according to the womans' monthly cycle.

    Mario, concerning genetic testing? It is already available to couples who have a high probability of genetic defects; however, I am not sure if insurance companies or the government pay for it or not. I am not sure if we, as a society, have the right to say that certain people MUST be tested or they MUST be sterilized if they do have a genetic defect. And I'm not sure if (for the same reason) insurance companies should be involved with paying for the testing-- would the insurance company then have the right to say "you have this gentic defect, we won't pay for pregnancy or the medical bills for defects the child may have"? And, as we travel down this road in the future, at what point do we draw the line between devistating genetic defects such as Huntington's Chorea and finding the genetic markers for breast cancers or heart disease? Eventually, who would be able to "breed"? I agree with Micro: the future parallels science fiction and we need to be aware of where all of our current scientific research could take us at all times. I don't think we should try to build a superior race (as Hitler tried) or human being; nor should we try to outlaw some of the advances in genetic studies that we are sure to see in the future.

    So, what DO I believe? Going back to the topic of Euthanasia/Spirituality, I believe in the sanctity of human life. We have the ability to relieve pain and human suffering; and I strongly feel that if we relieve the mental and emotional pain a person has, we should not have to consider euthanasia. Hospice has so much to teach the medical fields that are preserving life AT ALL COSTS.

    The examples you gave, Ohbet, concerning the irrepairable brain damage in the cardiac arrest victim, or the burn victim, are possible instances of heroic medical care, could they be viewed even as abuse? Do ER docs HAVE to "SAVE" every single body that comes through the door? When did medicine and our society start viewing death as a failure or an adversary? Because I view human life as being sacred, I don't think we can decide to "put down" a human being! But at the same time, there should be some consideration made that after an hour of resuscitating a cardiac arrest victim (for instance), we already know the implications of cerebral anoxia at that point.

    The centurion with the broken hip, however; what do you feel they should have done with her? It was immensly painful for DH's 85 y/o Aunt when she broke her hip this past spring until they repaired her hip. Her break was such that they couldn't replace it and had to pin it instead; a new hip would have been easier on her because she could have walked sooner. And dear Aunt Hazel has lots of life left in her yet!

    I don't have the answers, but I do not view euthanasia as being the right thing to do with humans.

close