Mercy Killing? Euthanasia? Split From Capt. Semrau Thread
- Thread starter zipperhead_cop
- Start date
- Status
TangoTwoBravo
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,370
- Points
- 1,110
ballz said:
Well then. What do you know about the Taliban and what do they have to do with this?
I have said that the Swiss are welcome to their laws. How is that narrow-minded or ego-centric? I am not telling them to change their laws, and they shouldn't be too worried about my views since I don't live in Switzerland.
As for being narrow-minded, I think I am offering a nuanced view of this issue. I support living wills and DNR orders. There is vast difference between turning off a ventilator for a brain-dead patient and withholding water or oxygen from somebody who is still concious.
I am not talking about hypothetical situations with someone who had tied themselves below high-tide or threantening to jump off a bridge. Of course you try to save them, and of course I would stop anyone from killing themselves (if I could).
There are also issues of consent. I respect that somebody has to give consent to medical care (although I am not a health care professional so it is a moot point I suppose). An individual may choose to refuse life-saving surgery for any number of personal reasons. Once again, I see that as different than him actively ending his life.
- Reaction score
- 3,100
- Points
- 1,160
My father spent the last six months of his life lying in bed, whacked up on enough morphine to drop an elephant, and when he wasn't in a near coma, he was wracked with pain. I saw the toll watching someone she loved for 50 years die before her eyes took on my mother. She is only getting some semblance of her former health back now, 4 years later. His death at the end was more relief than tragedy. He had cancer of the everything, was never going to get better, and suffered in pain for six unnecessary months, because someone decided any kind of life was quality of life. If I was a better son, I would have put a pillow over his face and ended all our suffering, not just his. That's all you'll get out of me on this one, no need for argument.
- Reaction score
- 1,521
- Points
- 1,040
I sympathise with you Kat, I really do.
Just over a year ago, I watched my sister die, and not a day goes by when I think of her. I was deployed when her cancer flared up and hospitalised her for the last month of her life. I called her on the Sunday before she died, and she was more worried about me being "over there". On the Wednesday (?) before she died, I was granted compassionate leave to be with her. I arrived in Toronto on Friday. From all accounts, she rebounded (a bit) when she heard I was coming home. I spent Friday night with her and my neice. On Saturday she woke up, I fed her breakfast, and then she went to sleep. She never woke up, drawing her last breath later that evening.
In spite of her pain and suffering, she was my sister, she was alive, and she knew she was surrounded by those who loved her. She even had her senses about her. I thanked her for beating up a guy for me when I was in grade 3 (she was in grade 6). She remembered his name even. She also gave our older brother a "noogie" that night. In spite of her pain, she was my sister, and she was alive. There is no way that I could have ended her suffering for her.
For me, personally, I think it's a very dangerous slope to initiate killing of other humans who pose no risk to others (eg: criminals about to kill innocents, enemies when at war, etc).
But I do respect your opinion and I think I can empathise with it. But I cannot agree with it.
Just over a year ago, I watched my sister die, and not a day goes by when I think of her. I was deployed when her cancer flared up and hospitalised her for the last month of her life. I called her on the Sunday before she died, and she was more worried about me being "over there". On the Wednesday (?) before she died, I was granted compassionate leave to be with her. I arrived in Toronto on Friday. From all accounts, she rebounded (a bit) when she heard I was coming home. I spent Friday night with her and my neice. On Saturday she woke up, I fed her breakfast, and then she went to sleep. She never woke up, drawing her last breath later that evening.
In spite of her pain and suffering, she was my sister, she was alive, and she knew she was surrounded by those who loved her. She even had her senses about her. I thanked her for beating up a guy for me when I was in grade 3 (she was in grade 6). She remembered his name even. She also gave our older brother a "noogie" that night. In spite of her pain, she was my sister, and she was alive. There is no way that I could have ended her suffering for her.
For me, personally, I think it's a very dangerous slope to initiate killing of other humans who pose no risk to others (eg: criminals about to kill innocents, enemies when at war, etc).
But I do respect your opinion and I think I can empathise with it. But I cannot agree with it.
- Reaction score
- 1,594
- Points
- 1,260
Tango2Bravo said:
I am sure you would be very effective, Sir. I enjoy your posts in the military threads, because even though they are out of my league, I learn from them. Suicide Prevention - of healthy young people - has long been an interest of mine, so I wanted to say that I agree with what say 100%!
- Reaction score
- 6,350
- Points
- 1,160
If anyone believes we don't euthanize our own, you know very little about nurses, doctors and morphine.
Perhaps folks interested in this topic should be aware of Bill C-384, a private member's bill presented to amend the Criminal Code which awaits a vote in parliament that has been delayed by prorogation. Bill C-384 received its first hour of debate on October 2, 2009. Bill C-384 should have its second hour of debate on March 12 or 15 and could be voted on March 17 or 24. It is unlikely to succeed (the similar bill C-407 in 2005 did not) but keeps the debate alive in Canada. It should be understood that in other countries there is a fine line that has been drawn between decriminalized and illegal. Few countries have made the act legal, they have merely removed it from their Criminal Code. The not so fine line in the discussion ongoing in this topic/thread is that there has not been an indication of implied or formal consent to end the individual's life.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Technoviking said:
Fortunately, your sister died with dignity and class. That is the best case scenario for any of us.
I have a personal story too.
My grandmother was diagnosed with Alzheimer's in mid 1987. We figured it out because she kept falling down and was losing her memory. One time she fell and went blind. That is when she had to go to the home. She lived for 60 years on Courcellette Road in Scarborough but then got shipped up to the home at McCowan and Lawrence (the name escapes me now). My grandfather got on the bus, subway, bus to go see her every night. When he got there, she gave him shit for being late for dinner (she didn't know she wasn't at home). Then she lost her bodily functions control and got diapered. Then she got stuck in a chair. Then my grandfather died from congestive heart failure due to not taking care of himself and going up to the home every night. Then she fell out of her chair too many times and got stuck in a bed.
For two years.
For two years the only coherent thing my grandmother was able to say was `I want to die. Why won`t God let me die` Funny, I never could come up with a decent answer.
Two years of staring at ceiling tiles, being sat up, being fed mushy food/shit like a baby, getting a diaper change, being laid back to stare at the ceiling tiles.
Finally, she got pneumonia. For four months. So all of the above, but gurgling in her own fluids, coughing/hacking/choking. Eventually, it was managing to overtake her rather unnaturally robust system and we were offered that she be given a steady diet of morphine and not given any more food or water. I`m thinking "WTF! We`re going to dehydrate her to death?!" I ask why we can`t just give her about 500 cc`s of morphine and have done with it. I get told `We don`t do mercy killings`. No, but apparently we are all about the lingering death killings?! Five years from start to finish that process took.
Doubtless there are as many varied stories as there are rules to govern them. I just think that as a generality, people need to get over the whole concept of "human life is precious". Says who? How about human life is merit based, and at such time as you either a) act like such a douche that you deserve to be deprived of it or b) you have zero physical capacity to enjoy it since life is about living and not just a pulse, measures can be taken to eliminate your burden of living?
IMHO
ballz
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 444
- Points
- 910
Tango2Bravo said:
What this has to do with the Taliban is that they have the exact same attitude. "The infidels can have their laws, this is our country, and we'll do it as we see fit." Is anybody getting any further ahead from them closing their eyes, plugging their ears, and burying their head in the sand?
Tango2Bravo said:
It's a simple question that you haven't answered, what is the difference between letting somebody die and helping somebody terminally ill kill themselves? That is why the hypothetical situations are being brought up.
Standing by and letting them die is no different in my mind than assisting them in suicide. To me, you either support both, or support neither. So, I say again, what is the difference between letting somebody die and helping somebody terminally ill that wants to off themself?
The other question I have (but please answer the other one first), why is it any of your business if somebody else chooses to die instead of suffering for 6 months? Why should you decide that they shouldn't be allowed to? They're not in anyway forcing you to end your life if you're ever in the same situation. They won't care if you choose to suffer for the 6 months, why do you care if they choose not to? What gives you the right to stop them?
And this isn't about "suicide prevention" in the least bit. We're not talking about making it legal to string up a depressed 16 year old by their neck and kick the chair out from in under their legs for them.
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
ballz said:
This is where, in my eyes, the euthanasia debate intersects with the abortion debate. Whether one finds abortion morally wrong or not, the decision to have one or not remains with one person and one person only - the woman carrying the foetus - and the right to choose should be guaranteed by law. As a man, I feel I have no right to impose my morals on another, even though I'm in favour of a woman's right to choose.
Similarly, assisted suicide/euthanasia is a personal decision, probably the most personal decision of all. The ability to do so should not be hampered by the morals of uninvolved people.
ballz
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 444
- Points
- 910
Well since we're bringing up abortion, the fact that the pro-life (for both abortion and assisted-suicide/mercy-killing) side of it is LARGELY based on religious reasons (the Bible says it's wrong so you're not allowed to do it), pisses me off more than any other part.
Now you're forcing your religion on somebody else. Isn't that a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
In fairness to T2B, whether his reasons stem from religion or not, he has left religion out of it. EDIT: That being said, I feel the only reason that can answer my question as to "what's the difference between allowing someone to die and helping them die" can be something along the lines of "because the Bible says there is a difference." So I look forward to T2B, or somebody else, bringing something besides that to the table so that this debate can go further.
Now you're forcing your religion on somebody else. Isn't that a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
In fairness to T2B, whether his reasons stem from religion or not, he has left religion out of it. EDIT: That being said, I feel the only reason that can answer my question as to "what's the difference between allowing someone to die and helping them die" can be something along the lines of "because the Bible says there is a difference." So I look forward to T2B, or somebody else, bringing something besides that to the table so that this debate can go further.
- Reaction score
- 1,521
- Points
- 1,040
My "problem" with this, though I agree that there are those who would be better off dead (*cough* PAUL BERNARDO *cough*) is the whole thing of: who decides?zipperhead_cop said:
As for zero physical capacity to enjoy life, imagine Stephen Hawking 100 years ago. He'd be "put down" under such criteria. He couldn't communicate with the outside world, and we would view him as a vegetable. Instead, thanks to technology, he can communicate with us.
This is but one case, and I get that. There are hundreds, if not thousands in such position as your Grandmother was, right now! I'm just afraid that handing off the keys to my life "could" be decided by a nanny state, worst case scenario.
- Reaction score
- 6,350
- Points
- 1,160
Technoviking said:
Soylent Green?
Technoviking said:
Dead simple. Themselves.
The only outside "decision" should be whether the person is thinking straight.
No, he'd have it as an option. There's a difference.
[quoe=]He couldn't communicate with the outside world, and we would view him as a vegetable. Instead, thanks to technology, he can communicate with us.
This is but one case, and I get that. There are hundreds, if not thousands in such position as your Grandmother was, right now! I'm just afraid that handing off the keys to my life "could" be decided by a nanny state, worst case scenario.
[/quote]
There's a difference between granting the individual the choice and government-ordered deaths.
- Reaction score
- 1,521
- Points
- 1,040
To clear this little fallacy up right now, I'll put my position firmly on my sleeve and then "get into it". I believe that abortion is immoral.ballz said:
OK, now that's out of the way...
If opposing abortion for religious reasons is forcing religion on you, then what is PETA doing to me when they smear tofu-pies in the faces of public officials? What is the leader of (insert political party here) doing when he speaks about anything? The reason behind someone's belief about anything is secondary to their belief, religious or otherwise. So, by speaking one's mind, they are *not* forcing their religion on you, they are talking about their own personal moral code.
(As an aside here, like it, lump it or hate it, our moral code in Canada (eg: laws, traditions, etc) is firmly based upon Judeo/Christian ethics.)
Please note that I haven't said why I oppose abortion, but I will do so right now. Logic tells me that a foetus is as human as an infant, toddler, adult or octogenerian. (Thinking back to biology 101, I can't remember all the stages of the human form, but I think one is zygote. Anyway, from conception to death. Hell, indiginity to a human body is a crime in our country). Logic also tells me that the feotus, zygote or whatever it may be called in a woman's womb is NOT her body. It is like a virus: the woman is the host, and this separate life form is living within. This life form has its own DNA, thoughts, circulatory system, etc, BUT is entirely dependant for its very life upon the host. Logic tells me that if it is wrong to harm humans without valid cause, then it is wrong to harm the most vulnerable of our species: the unborn (preborn?). Logic also tells me that if Jane Doe living in Vancouver, BC has an abortion today, it will have ZERO effect upon my life. But you know what? So too would zero effect be on me if Haiti has a 9.0 Earthquake today that flushes that country down the toilet (worse than what it is). But if morality is judged by effect on one's self, then that is egoism, and I'm not an egoist (and that's not a typo: I don't mean egotistical).
There are other reasons why I oppose abortion, but that's enough. I do NOT believe in the mantra of "My Body, My Choice" (I can feel the parades forming up in my honour now: NOT!). But you know what else I believe in? The rule of law. In Canada, there are no real functioning abortion laws. I think that's wrong. But that's the law. I would like it to change, and if I could, I would change it. But I can't, so I have to abide by it.
Don't worry, I'm not going to go blow up some abortion doctor's house or throw blood on women going in for abortions. Those acts are also wrong, and I find them to be hypocritical.
So, in short, people can believe in anything they want for any reason. If they oppose something for religious reasons, then that's fine too. I mean, I'm Roman Catholic, but because I say "I oppose abortion" does NOT mean I'm a puppet for the Pope. I'm a thinking, logical person, and because I speak my mind, I am not trying to convert you. Am I "forcing" my moral code on you? Though I think "force" is a bit strong, but it may not be entirely inaccurate. But by supporting abortion, I could argue that others are forcing their moral code on me.
Anyway, just my thoughts, they were free, and probably worth every penny ;D
- Reaction score
- 1,521
- Points
- 1,040
Dead Simple? What, no "no pun intended" smiley? ;DBrasidas said:
Of course, the counter is: what if they cannot get their thoughts communicated, and it only appears that they are in a vegetative state? I mean, to get it wrong, just once....
I'm sorry, but Soylent Green or not (now with butter flavour!), this is one slope down which I think we ought not to venture.
- Reaction score
- 6,754
- Points
- 1,360
No offense to those involved but this is NOT a thread about abortion.
That's a whole different ball game with its own thread somewhere.
Bruce
That's a whole different ball game with its own thread somewhere.
Bruce
ballz
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 444
- Points
- 910
Technoviking said:
I disagree that the reason is secondary. If the reason was secondary, we wouldn't debate anything. But I do know what you are saying. I cannot say you're reasons are not valid and mine are. That's ok, I can work with that.
Also, PETA is a bad example for you to use since we both know that we both can't stand them and would go to uncertain lengths to choke them with a piece of pie for forcing their beliefs on us.
Technoviking said:
Fine and dandy, their own moral code doesn't bother me. What bothers me is, why should their own personal moral rule over my own personal moral code? I suppose we're going to get into whole "well that is democracy" stuff, and the majority is right, but that's why we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because the majority CAN be wrong, so we agree that the majority cannot take away certain basic human rights.
So to me it comes down to the basic human rights, and the thing to note here is that an individual's rights end where another individual's rights begin. My "personal moral code" wouldn't limit another's, the other one does limit mine. So their rights are stepping on mine. You, or T2B, for whatever reasons (like you said, the specific reasons are irrelevant), would be infringing on my basic human rights.
Technoviking said:
First, I changed the bolded stuff to keep this all in perspective/on topic/off the topic of abortion. Second, I disagree with what's italicized for this reason:
Somebody supporting abortion/assisted-suicide/mercy killing/ etc etc etc, is not forcing you to abort your kid, assist in killing a loved one of yours, or killing somebody you feel deserves mercy. So they are not forcing anything on you. *IF* they did start forcing you to do that, I'd be the first person to slap em around a little for you until you could get your hands on them :nod:
- Status
Similar threads
