The Euthanasia Poll

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by Selenay

What is your opinion on euthanasia?

I support euthanasia 100% under all circumstances, and believe that each person is perfectly capable of deciding whether they wish to live or die. To me, that is a decision that can only be made by the individual; not the government, not family or friends, not the doctors themselves. I find it quite telling that governments exist in the west that are legally able to choose to take a person's life or deny them the right to take their own life.

Originally Posted by Selenay

How should patients be euthanized (by this I mean should it be done by hospital practitioners, or should a patient be able to do it in the comfort of their home? Should a religious figure be permitted to do it? A loved one?)

If the patient is not conscious enough to make the decision for whatever reason, then I think it should be performed by a hospital practitioner (unless they've stated their wish prior to becoming comatose etc.). Should the patient still be conscious enough to express their wish, then I believe it should be done by whomever they choose, whether it be a medical practitioner, a religious figure or a family member or friend. Where it is performed should be up to the individual as well. After all, it is their life and their death, and no one should own that life/death, but the patient.

Originally Posted by Selenay

What regulations, if any, do you think should be put in place to stop it/regulate it/allow it?

At this point I'd like to use/address your own answer, Selenay.

I agree that a committee of some sort should exist, however, regulations should be set in place to be sure that these committees do not take an unnecessary length of time (whether too brief or too prolonged) to make the decision. Health care systems everywhere are suffering, and here in Canada tend to be understaffed because of our lovely conservative government. So in Canada, at least, we would have a bit of work to do as far as doing something about the current minority government and the toll Mr. Harper has taken upon this country's health care system. Part of that would be making sure enough medical staff are employed that such decisions would not be rushed or delayed due to hospitals being understaffed.

I believe the sole role of such a committee should be to assess whether or not the decision is influenced by families, doctors or other outside forces. However, I don't believe the ability of the patient to make a so-called cognizant decision, to me, should affect the outcome. I think it leaves room for a lot of abuse, especially when we get into who is deemed in possession of their full mental faculties and who is not, and how members of the committee, who should technically be unbiased persons, sway the decision.

I also find it odd to judge a person's right to take their life according to how cognizant they are. Say a patient requesting euthanasia is not found to be "aware" enough, or not mentally healthy enough to make the decision. However, said person has an advanced form of cancer with only a slim chance of recovery, yet the doctors deny him/her the right to die because he/she has been deemed not capable of making a cognizant decision. Or let's say that someone who is fully mentally aware and completely capable of reason has been diagnosed with cancer, and decides that they no longer wish to go through treatment, even if there is decent chance of recovery. To them the treatment has become excruciatingly painful both physically and mentally, and while there is a decent chance of survival, they do not like the prospects of what their life will be life after treatment (especially, when treatment has required the removal of a limb). It also seems as though we are simultaneously placing increased value on one person's pain over another's pain according to so-called mental awareness.

Both should have the right to end their own life, and neither government, nor doctor, nor family member should have the right to deny them that, in my books.

I do agree on the creation of such documents, however.

Originally Posted by Selenay

I think that if a patient is opting to select euthanasia, there should be a review committee, akin to a transplant review board, to determine a few things before the patient is permitted to chose that. In this case, there should be an evaluation to determine if the patient is able to make cognizant decisions about their own medical care and to determine that the patient is choosing it of their own free will, and not being pushed into it by family or doctors. There should also be a committee ensuring that the patient is, in fact, terminal, and that quality of life is already compromised.

This would mean that patients in an irreversible coma would not be eligible for such an action, however I would support the creation of a document like a DNR that would stipulate that in such a case they would prefer to be euthanized.

Originally Posted by Words

I would not condemn someone for choosing to end their own life rather than live in terrible pain (for example). On the contrary, my heart would absolutely go out to them.

I, however, would not be a part of their bringing their life to an end because I do believe that ultimately only God has the 'right' to end a life. And yes, this would apply even if I/a loved one was in agony. And yes, I have - for personal reasons - thought about this matter a great deal.

Words

Originally Posted by Words

Correct. I wouldn't be able to make an 'end' decision. As much as I might want to, I wouldn't be able to do it.

I'm not sure if this is the correct thread for this, but something about these statements bothers me. Often the religious demand that their religious beliefs be respected both in life and in death, and yet, I feel that if that is to take place, then that respect must be reciprocal.

If an ill family member has requested that they be euthanised, and at one point it comes to a religious family member to give the word (in accordance with the patient's wishes) and said religious family member refuses, they often give the excuse that it is against their religious beliefs to do so. Yet this decision affects the free will of the ill family member who is no longer able to take matters into their own hands, yet who has specifically requested to be euthanised. In my opinion, refusing to carry out their last wishes shows disrespect toward the wishes of that ill family member.

I am not a religious person and often find myself at odds with religion, yet if a family member or friend has expressed a full religious service at their funeral and I have been given the responsibility assuring that they receive that service, it no longer comes down to my personal beliefs. It is not my funeral, and the funeral should have nothing to do with what I believe. I would do as they asked because I respect them and their beliefs.

I think if you respect someone, it becomes necessary to rise above one's own beliefs in such instances. In the case of euthanasia, it seems as though it strips the patient of the remnants of their own sovereignty.

Granted, such a conflict of beliefs could be solved by such a document as Selenay suggested, however, it's the principle behind it that bothers me.

My two cents on the issue.

[Selenay]

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

I believe the sole role of such a committee should be to assess whether or not the decision is influenced by families, doctors or other outside forces. However, I don't believe the ability of the patient to make a so-called cognizant decision, to me, should affect the outcome. I think it leaves room for a lot of abuse, especially when we get into who is deemed in possession of their full mental faculties and who is not, and how members of the committee, who should technically be unbiased persons, sway the decision.

I also find it odd to judge a person's right to take their life according to how cognizant they are. Say a patient requesting euthanasia is not found to be "aware" enough, or not mentally healthy enough to make the decision. However, said person has an advanced form of cancer with only a slim chance of recovery, yet the doctors deny him/her the right to die because he/she has been deemed not capable of making a cognizant decision. Or let's say that someone who is fully mentally aware and completely capable of reason has been diagnosed with cancer, and decides that they no longer wish to go through treatment, even if there is decent chance of recovery. To them the treatment has become excruciatingly painful both physically and mentally, and while there is a decent chance of survival, they do not like the prospects of what their life will be life after treatment (especially, when treatment has required the removal of a limb). It also seems as though we are simultaneously placing increased value on one person's pain over another's pain according to so-called mental awareness.

Both should have the right to end their own life, and neither government, nor doctor, nor family member should have the right to deny them that, in my books.

I do agree on the creation of such documents, however.

We have people in place to evaluate whether or not people are competent enough to stand trial, we have people to evaluate whether or not parents are fit to raise their children... all of these institutions are subjective, but are guided by overarching concepts of what determines competency.

As to the example of a patient not being deemed aware enough with the advanced form of cancer... No. I do not support euthanasia in this case because if they are not mentally competent to make a medical decision about themselves, then how can we be sure it is not something said in the throes of mood? If a patient determines that they do not wish to go through treatment, they can deny it, and once it is in the stages of decline, they can request to be euthanized.

I am not placing value on anyone over another, merely saying that... Well. Here's an example back to you:

Patient X has end stage pancreatic cancer and has stated, when previously asked, that they do not wish to be euthanized. Patient X is now in excruciating pain, slipping in and out of consciousness, talking about how she wishes for them to just kill her. Do we euthanize her?

How do we know that her request made from a conscious choice to refuse treatment or if it is a fever raving made from a wish for the PAIN to stop, not the LIFE? How can we be sure that Patient X truly wants to die, if she is not mentally sound to make that decision?

Should terminal children be euthanized solely on their parents say-so? Someone who is mentally impaired?

[Corkey]

Originally Posted by Selenay

We have people in place to evaluate whether or not people are competent enough to stand trial, we have people to evaluate whether or not parents are fit to raise their children... all of these institutions are subjective, but are guided by overarching concepts of what determines competency.

As to the example of a patient not being deemed aware enough with the advanced form of cancer... No. I do not support euthanasia in this case because if they are not mentally competent to make a medical decision about themselves, then how can we be sure it is not something said in the throes of mood? If a patient determines that they do not wish to go through treatment, they can deny it, and once it is in the stages of decline, they can request to be euthanized.

I am not placing value on anyone over another, merely saying that... Well. Here's an example back to you:

Patient X has end stage pancreatic cancer and has stated, when previously asked, that they do not wish to be euthanized. Patient X is now in excruciating pain, slipping in and out of consciousness, talking about how she wishes for them to just kill her. Do we euthanize her?

How do we know that her request made from a conscious choice to refuse treatment or if it is a fever raving made from a wish for the PAIN to stop, not the LIFE? How can we be sure that Patient X truly wants to die, if she is not mentally sound to make that decision?

Should terminal children be euthanized solely on their parents say-so? Someone who is mentally impaired?

Mentally impaired, no, children no, because their minds have not fully developed to understand the consequences of such an act. My mother had her mind, she never complained till the day she could not take the pain any longer. At the time Kavorkjan was in jail and could not come to help her. She had expressed in life as well as at the end that she didn't want heroic measures, and that she wanted if available legal euthanasia. That never happened in California. So her desperation to end the pain put my father in the unattainable position of having to deny her what she wanted most, her dignity. He would have gone to prison if he had complied with her wishes. That is why we need to have a national policy on this, and we need to treat our terminally ill citizens with all the respect they deserve.