jackbrock
Sophomore
@jackbrock
Posts: 119
Likes: 20
|
Post by jackbrock on Jun 5, 2023 23:49:01 GMT
Some people say that a person should be kept alive no matter what.
It's been said the last few years of a person's life cost more in medical bills than all the years leading up to those last few years. Not that long ago, a person was declared dead the moment they stopped breathing and their heart stopped. We are living longer than ever now. Life expectancy has grown substantially over the centuries. During the Roman Empire, life expectancy was about 20 y/o. The numbers were low because infant mortality was so high; there were many adults who lived until their 70's. Wars, lack of sanitation, poor working conditions also had an effect. Now these issues aren't much of a factor in first world countries.
That's created a burden on many people as now people are dying of cancer, alzheimer's and other painful ways that are very unpleasant. This is hard both on the individual and loved ones. We put animals to sleep, but not humans.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 6, 2023 8:58:26 GMT
I don't have any real issue with it in the abstract, but in this world of massive inequality I could see legalising assisted suicide resulting in euthanasia for the poor and palliative care for the rich.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Jun 7, 2023 8:00:05 GMT
No point in forcing a person to continue to exist when they're suffering appallingly. A life of pain is not worth living.
|
|
monicah
Sophomore
@monicah
Posts: 300
Likes: 166
|
Post by monicah on Jun 7, 2023 8:31:45 GMT
I think in circumstances where the person requests it then it’s understandable. I think it’s wrong to let someone live in misery and pain than just letting them rest in peace
|
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jun 7, 2023 11:32:46 GMT
I watched my father go through several years of suffering as he was dying of emphysema. He tried, unsuccessfully, to commit suicide, for which he was charged with a crime in PA, and forced to go into court ordered psychiatric treatment for thirty days. Our system is barbaric as regards those dealing with terminal illness. If assisted suicide had been available I feel certain he would have requested it, and the family would have supported that choice. AFAIC, I don't think anyone who has not experienced this situation firsthand has any real right to mandate any legal issues regarding the matter, but it's a certainty that laws surrounding it in many parts of the US need to change drastically.
|
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jun 7, 2023 15:14:14 GMT
No point in forcing a person to continue to exist when they're suffering appallingly. A life of pain is not worth living. Which pain though? Physical? Mental?
A friend of mine told me that Canada had legalized euthanasia, not for sick people, for young people who want it, for depressed people, and not even clinically depressed but if they lost their job, don't have a girlfriend, etc., they legalized killing people for that.
Physical pain, yeah, I can understand that and past a point you cease to be living and are basically just a breathing corpse, so yeah then it should definitely be allowed. Thinning the population because people are unhappy? That's bullshit.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Jun 8, 2023 5:29:03 GMT
No point in forcing a person to continue to exist when they're suffering appallingly. A life of pain is not worth living. Which pain though? Physical? Mental?
A friend of mine told me that Canada had legalized euthanasia, not for sick people, for young people who want it, for depressed people, and not even clinically depressed but if they lost their job, don't have a girlfriend, etc., they legalized killing people for that.
Physical pain, yeah, I can understand that and past a point you cease to be living and are basically just a breathing corpse, so yeah then it should definitely be allowed. Thinning the population because people are unhappy? That's bullshit.
I was mostly thinking in terms of people suffering from severe medical conditions that cannot be treated effectively and that have ruined their quality of life. Depression is horrible and I sympathise with anyone suffering from it but it wouldn't fall under that umbrella. Depressed people can be helped. People dying slowly of, say, terminal cancer cannot be. Their bodies are literally killing them and it is cruel to force them to die a slow and painful death if they wish to hasten their end in order to avoid further suffering. I'd say the same of people who are paralysed and wish to end their existence. Such people will never be able to lead any sort of normal life. |
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Jun 8, 2023 20:15:10 GMT
I think it should be allowed in some cases.
If a person is terminal ill and in extreme pain, and this person has at best 6 months live, and the person will live these last 6 months in extreme pain, the person should be allowed to die.
Its selfish to force somebody who is dying to live in extreme pain, just because the family will be sad. they are not thinking about the dying person in pain, they are only thinking about themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jun 8, 2023 20:54:00 GMT
I think it should be allowed in some cases. If a person is terminal ill and in extreme pain, and this person has at best 6 months live, and the person will live these last 6 months in extreme pain, the person should be allowed to die. Its selfish to force somebody who is dying to live in extreme pain, just because the family will be sad. they are not thinking about the dying person in pain, they are only thinking about themselves.
How about when doctors fearmonger people into taking chemo and radiation for what they already know is a terminal cancer but tell the patient 'do you want to DIE? If not, take it', and then it doesn't work anyway, and they can't explain why oh, they took all those treatments for months and it made them so sick and it stripped them of every last bodily dignity they had, and the cancer has still spread all through their body and all the doctors can say is 'there's nothing more we can do, just go home and die'. And why? Money for one, but also 'oh it's so DUTIFUL to suffer in the name of research, you should be PROUD to be a guinea pig so SOMEONE ELSE won't have to suffer because YOU did, pointlessly, needlessly'.
People can try that guilt all they want, everybody knows most doctors plan to kill themselves if they get the diseases they treat their patients for, THEY have absolutely ZERO interest in sticking around to just be another test case for the journals to say 'well that didn't work whatsoever, let's find another poor sap and try again'. If the doctors refuse to be the lab rats, why should anybody else?
|
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Jun 8, 2023 20:59:57 GMT
I think it should be allowed in some cases. If a person is terminal ill and in extreme pain, and this person has at best 6 months live, and the person will live these last 6 months in extreme pain, the person should be allowed to die. Its selfish to force somebody who is dying to live in extreme pain, just because the family will be sad. they are not thinking about the dying person in pain, they are only thinking about themselves.
How about when doctors fearmonger people into taking chemo and radiation for what they already know is a terminal cancer but tell the patient 'do you want to DIE? If not, take it', and then it doesn't work anyway, and they can't explain why oh, they took all those treatments for months and it made them so sick and it stripped them of every last bodily dignity they had, and the cancer has still spread all through their body and all the doctors can say is 'there's nothing more we can do, just go home and die'. And why? Money for one, but also 'oh it's so DUTIFUL to suffer in the name of research, you should be PROUD to be a guinea pig so SOMEONE ELSE won't have to suffer because YOU did, pointlessly, needlessly'.
People can try that guilt all they want, everybody knows most doctors plan to kill themselves if they get the diseases they treat their patients for, THEY have absolutely ZERO interest in sticking around to just be another test case for the journals to say 'well that didn't work whatsoever, let's find another poor sap and try again'. If the doctors refuse to be the lab rats, why should anybody else?
Is this some sort of American thing, i am to European to understand ? |
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jun 8, 2023 21:17:16 GMT
How about when doctors fearmonger people into taking chemo and radiation for what they already know is a terminal cancer but tell the patient 'do you want to DIE? If not, take it', and then it doesn't work anyway, and they can't explain why oh, they took all those treatments for months and it made them so sick and it stripped them of every last bodily dignity they had, and the cancer has still spread all through their body and all the doctors can say is 'there's nothing more we can do, just go home and die'. And why? Money for one, but also 'oh it's so DUTIFUL to suffer in the name of research, you should be PROUD to be a guinea pig so SOMEONE ELSE won't have to suffer because YOU did, pointlessly, needlessly'.
People can try that guilt all they want, everybody knows most doctors plan to kill themselves if they get the diseases they treat their patients for, THEY have absolutely ZERO interest in sticking around to just be another test case for the journals to say 'well that didn't work whatsoever, let's find another poor sap and try again'. If the doctors refuse to be the lab rats, why should anybody else?
Is this some sort of American thing, i am to European to understand ?
Could be, I've never actually heard anyone talk about how other countries treat cancer patients, I know in America 500,000 people die from cancer every year and most of them took those 'lifesaving' treatments that still somehow weren't able to stop the cancer from spreading throughout the body. Then it's always touted even though these people spent the last months/years of their lives in excruciating misery and every indignity known to man and if anything only had their suffering prolonged and even with insurance still went broke for the privilege, can take 'comfort' in knowing the failure to save or treat them will somehow someway benefit somebody else somewhere FAAAAAAAAAR down the road.
|
|
jackbrock
Sophomore
@jackbrock
Posts: 119
Likes: 20
|
Post by jackbrock on Jun 11, 2023 1:46:27 GMT
I don't have any real issue with it in the abstract, but in this world of massive inequality I could see legalising assisted suicide resulting in euthanasia for the poor and palliative care for the rich. The wealthy have always had it better than the poor. |
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Jun 14, 2023 20:55:40 GMT
I hate the idea of suicide in general but I suppose it is needed in certain cases.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 21, 2023 13:05:08 GMT
If people truly wanted to commit suicide, there wouldn't be much anyone could do to stop them. There are several easy ways. The difficult part is apparently how determined the person really is.
If I were approached to help someone commit suicide, that would be my concern, how can I know it is what you truly want to do?
I can't be certain, and I prefer people did not ask me or my government for assistance.
|
|
jackbrock
Sophomore
@jackbrock
Posts: 119
Likes: 20
|
Post by jackbrock on Jun 22, 2023 1:37:41 GMT
Which pain though? Physical? Mental?
A friend of mine told me that Canada had legalized euthanasia, not for sick people, for young people who want it, for depressed people, and not even clinically depressed but if they lost their job, don't have a girlfriend, etc., they legalized killing people for that.
Physical pain, yeah, I can understand that and past a point you cease to be living and are basically just a breathing corpse, so yeah then it should definitely be allowed. Thinning the population because people are unhappy? That's bullshit.
I was mostly thinking in terms of people suffering from severe medical conditions that cannot be treated effectively and that have ruined their quality of life. Depression is horrible and I sympathise with anyone suffering from it but it wouldn't fall under that umbrella. Depressed people can be helped. People dying slowly of, say, terminal cancer cannot be. Their bodies are literally killing them and it is cruel to force them to die a slow and painful death if they wish to hasten their end in order to avoid further suffering. I'd say the same of people who are paralysed and wish to end their existence. Such people will never be able to lead any sort of normal life. They shoot horses in pain, but make humans suffer. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 23, 2023 16:19:34 GMT
I’m anti-euthanasia, but pro physician assisted suicide.
|
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jun 28, 2023 22:41:04 GMT
I was mostly thinking in terms of people suffering from severe medical conditions that cannot be treated effectively and that have ruined their quality of life. Depression is horrible and I sympathise with anyone suffering from it but it wouldn't fall under that umbrella. Depressed people can be helped. People dying slowly of, say, terminal cancer cannot be. Their bodies are literally killing them and it is cruel to force them to die a slow and painful death if they wish to hasten their end in order to avoid further suffering. I'd say the same of people who are paralysed and wish to end their existence. Such people will never be able to lead any sort of normal life. They shoot horses in pain, but make humans suffer.
Should it be legal to shoot anybody with a broken leg?
|
|
jackbrock
Sophomore
@jackbrock
Posts: 119
Likes: 20
|
Post by jackbrock on Jun 28, 2023 22:46:43 GMT
They shoot horses in pain, but make humans suffer.
Should it be legal to shoot anybody with a broken leg?
No. It's an expression; usually they do this because the animals' quality of life is down significantly. If a horse had four broken legs, it's a sign of compassion to put it out of it's misery. For a person with a broken leg, it's treatable and in a few months the person is usually healed. If someone was in an accident and was now quadriplegic, that's a different story. Their medical bills would be thru the roof. Some people would have insurance, or are very wealthy. Some aren't. I'm not saying it's right to kill poor people over rich, but the medical expenses would be high. |
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jun 28, 2023 23:54:00 GMT
Should it be legal to shoot anybody with a broken leg?
No. It's an expression; usually they do this because the animals' quality of life is down significantly. If a horse had four broken legs, it's a sign of compassion to put it out of it's misery. For a person with a broken leg, it's treatable and in a few months the person is usually healed. If someone was in an accident and was now quadriplegic, that's a different story. Their medical bills would be thru the roof. Some people would have insurance, or are very wealthy. Some aren't. I'm not saying it's right to kill poor people over rich, but the medical expenses would be high.
So it should be legal to kill someone based on what their finances look like?
|
|
jackbrock
Sophomore
@jackbrock
Posts: 119
Likes: 20
|
Post by jackbrock on Jun 29, 2023 0:05:37 GMT
No. It's an expression; usually they do this because the animals' quality of life is down significantly. If a horse had four broken legs, it's a sign of compassion to put it out of it's misery. For a person with a broken leg, it's treatable and in a few months the person is usually healed. If someone was in an accident and was now quadriplegic, that's a different story. Their medical bills would be thru the roof. Some people would have insurance, or are very wealthy. Some aren't. I'm not saying it's right to kill poor people over rich, but the medical expenses would be high.
So it should be legal to kill someone based on what their finances look like?
No, of course not. I'm not advocating killing people. That said, the reality is that many would choose death over having to live as a quadriplegic and they should be able to be euthanized as a choice. I'm not saying it's right, but for people to have a serious illness in the family is financially devastating. It would be great if the US got better health benefits for their people. Ironically, many of thr people who would benefit most would reject that idea. |
|
