Assisted Suicide Poll.

[Talthyr Malkaviel]

Originally posted by MagiK: I have to apologize for the wording of the last question. Due to the space limitation on the question form I had a hard time trying to think of a way to phrase it so that it would fit. The last question..was in my mind concerning the occurance of a massive head trauma where there is little or no sign of personality, or the patient is in so much agony that they are not coherent (as I am told that some bone cancer patients get this way)...All I could think of was being in sheer agony and being unable to muster the strength or control to make my wishes known. I guess this throws into light another issue, in that we all should have some sort of legal document outlining our wishes made while we are still healthy.

Ah, well I was also a bit confused due to the wording, but I also went for yes on option 3, guessing that you meant this, so that'a bit of a relief. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[AzureWolf]

I think a good way to go about that would be to notify what you would like to happen to you if such a situation did occur. Just like you sign a form saying whether you would like to be an organ donar or not.

[Melusine]

Originally posted by MagiK: I have to apologize for the wording of the last question. Due to the space limitation on the question form I had a hard time trying to think of a way to phrase it so that it would fit. The last question..was in my mind concerning the occurance of a massive head trauma where there is little or no sign of personality, or the patient is in so much agony that they are not coherent (as I am told that some bone cancer patients get this way)...All I could think of was being in sheer agony and being unable to muster the strength or control to make my wishes known. I guess this throws into light another issue, in that we all should have some sort of legal document outlining our wishes made while we are still healthy.

Ah OK.
Well in that case I agree that in an ideal situation, it would be good for everybody to make their wishes known, preferably on paper, so that IF something happens (like a coma, head trauma, rapidly developing Alzheimer, etc), there is a document for the medics to consult. I do realise however that the situation's often less than ideal: a lot of people don't realise that they too can have an accident. It's really surprising how many people have an 'oh well, that won't happen to me anyway' attitude. My own attitude is more like 'I sure hope it won't happen, but just in case it does...' LOL

Anyway, in the case of people without a 'will', I don't think I have a fixed opinion. I'd judge that on a case-by-case situation. For example, I can understand that after several years of coma, the family of the patient decides to 'pull out the plug', so to speak. On the other hand, I often hear people ignorantly comment that 'if I get Alzheimer, you can shoot me in the head'. Alzheimer, however, is an illness with a usually very gradual decline, and in fact is often worse for the patient's loved ones to endure than for the patients themselves. So this could lead to the family deciding in favour of euthanasia even when the patient still has some degree of happiness. That would be very wrong. So if there were to be made a law stating that family members can decide on euthanasia in special cases, I would say that there would have to be made some VERY strict regulations, if such a law should be made at all. I understand that it's the only solutions in some cases (when someone is clearly in unalleviatable* agony and unable to request death)(* - is that a word?) but I can also think of many cases in which the family, deliberately or not, could make the wrong decision.

Originally posted by Melusine: (when someone is clearly in unalleviatable* agony and unable to request death)(* - is that a word?) but I can also think of many cases in which the family, deliberately or not, could make the wrong decision.

I don't think it is a word, but I understood what you mean..and I agree with what you said.

[Sir Taliesin]

I answered yes to all three, though I am a religious person. Once the pain can't be stopped, I just don't see the point in continuing. I also agree with Yorricks post about preventatives and money.

One thing that burns me up with the Federal Government, is it's adament stand against Oregon's Assisted Suicide Law. Of course, I also get a bit perturbed with the Feds stand against State Legalized Marijuana use, where the people of that state have voted to make it legal. But that's another topic.

Originally posted by Sir Taliesin: I answered yes to all three, though I am a religious person. Once the pain can't be stopped, I just don't see the point in continuing. I also agree with Yorricks post about preventatives and money. One thing that burns me up with the Federal Government, is it's adament stand against Oregon's Assisted Suicide Law. Of course, I also get a bit perturbed with the Feds stand against State Legalized Marijuana use, where the people of that state have voted to make it legal. But that's another topic.

I agree with you Sir T. Origially the idea was States were free to govern them selves and the Fed just handled interstate policy, but now they use the massive fist of "federal money" to beat the states into submission or be left out of the dole. Another black mark against the Federal Income Tax right there.

[The.Relic]

I was unable to complete the poll, since as was stated previously questions two and three mention doctors assistance and the hippocratic oath stricly prohibits doctors to intentionally harm or terminate a patients existence except under very strictly regulated circumstances.
I do believe terminally ill patients should have the right to end their lives if they so choose, especially when they are in advanced stages and there is no hope for recovery.
What I have not seen mentioned and is a major bone of contention for me is profitability and required financial gain for the medical profession to keep terminally ill people alive as long as possible. I agree that any of us who really love someone would be more than willing to do whatever we can financially to help them, even when they are terminally ill, but when should the line be drawn. Would we take out 3rd, 4th mortgages on our homes to help pay the expenses, sure we would. Will the patients family gradually have to sell and mortgage everything they have to remain alive? Unless they are independantly wealthy, or the pass quickly, you bet they will if they continue to live that long. And if they do, what then, they get booted out of the hospital when the insurance runs out, and there is no more money to pay the expenses, nothing left to sell, can't take out anymore mortgages, and hopefully they can be placed in a state run hospital. Unless people are independantly wealthy, many of them will be totally destitute by the time it is over and have nothing left to bequeath to their loved family members. Would we help them anyway? Of course we would. But I can guarantee that the vast percentage of terminally ill people would prefer to be allowed to pass with dignity rather than to put their loved ones through all of this and have nothing or little left. We want to be able to share what we have gained in our lives with our loved ones, not have everything stripped away for no certainty other than to line peoples pockets. And we definately don't want them to put themselves into often irredeemable debt to prolong our tormented lives. How many of us would honestly want to be terminally ill, being forced to exist in agony and have our loved ones devestate themselves financially. I certainly would never wish such a thing.

[ 06-02-2002, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: The.Relic ]

[Sir Goulum]

Yes, No and NO

[johnny]

yes on all three, and euthanasia is legal in holland so it was no tough decision.

Just a bump so that some who didnt might vote.