2008-11-13, 10:20 | Link #1 | ||
Moving in circles
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 49
|
Euthanasia, Discussion and Debate
Let me die
Ailing British teen refuses heart transplant Quote:
Even though the AMD was passed into law in 1996, only 10,000 people — out of a population of 4 million — have signed such a document in the past 12 years. So, it seems that the majority of Singaporeans see no need for the AMD. However, Singapore's health minister believes otherwise. Based on feedback he has received, and from the personal experience of his wife, who agrees with the philosophy behind the AMD but hasn't yet signed one, he concluded that there are other factors holding people back. Namely, the moral objection to what seems, at first blush, to be legal support for euthanasia. Archbishop says NO to euthanasia Quote:
|
||
2008-11-13, 10:57 | Link #2 | |
On a sabbatical
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Wellington, NZ
Age: 43
|
Quote:
Now what he's doing, on one hand, (at least to him and MOH) is to reduce suffering of patients with terminal illness... BUT what if just a little later after, a new cure for the ailment appears? I know of a case of someone with osterocoma - he almost went for an amputation - then they found out that liquid nitrogen can stop the disease, especailly since it wasn't the final stage yet. Close call, huh? Besides, I don't think life is something we can play with. Our lives are intertwined with others. Our decisions affect others - even from non-religious view. Apparently, almost all major religions (except Hinduism and Haruhiism) in Singapore are against it. That should give some idea of public's views. |
|
2008-11-13, 11:48 | Link #3 | |||
Moving in circles
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 49
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'm not too fond of religion. But that's just me, of course. |
|||
2008-11-13, 13:21 | Link #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In line to confess his sins.
Age: 36
|
Very well put, TinyRedLeaf.
I believe that people should have the right to end their life gracefully if they feel that their suffering is too much to bear. We even put our pets down if they're in too much pain, and I think that humans should be given the same opportunity. Your life is just that; yours. It's heartbreaking that someone who's barely in her teens has been through so much already. Life can be much too cruel.
__________________
|
2008-11-13, 13:21 | Link #5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: PMB Headquarters
|
Quote:
On the issue of euthanasia, this isn't the same thing. Euthanasia is intentionally ending a patient's life by means of utilizing toxic substances, whereas the refusal of a heart transplant is a complete different issue and should not be mixed. If it is the archbishop's idea of forcing the heart transplant, then the teen has no choice. He or she should have not followed the religion knowing that its religious belief is absolute (dictatorship). |
|
2008-11-13, 14:01 | Link #6 | |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
Quote:
Voluntary withdrawal of treatment or refusing high-risk treatment is basically letting the natural course of the disease take effect. Heart surgery/replacement is *high risk*. Secondary complications from diabetes can be horrible (e.g. internal organ gangrene and necrosis) and some patients choose to stop treating their diabetes because death from a diabetic coma is preferable to screaming uncontrollable painful death from rotting inside. However..., there doesn't seem to be any direct connection between the Singaporean arch-bishop's comments and the English teenage heart patient. These were two totally separate and unrelated news stories. The teenager's big issue was that she is 13 (her religion isn't even mentioned but its probably Church of England) - not normally an age where they get to decide their fate legally. She convinced her parents to opt out of the high-risk surgery and I'm just glad to see medical policy supports her.
__________________
|
|
2008-11-13, 15:32 | Link #7 | |
Moving in circles
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 49
|
Quote:
The relation comes in with regard to Singapore's Advanced Medical Directive, which allows a terminally-ill Singaporean to refuse extraordinary treatment that may or may not prolong his life. But, predictably, some people here have mistaken the health minister's support for the AMD as a "yes" vote for euthanasia. They invoke the same old fear of slippery slopes, that is, voluntary death by natural causes today, assisted suicide tomorrow. |
|
2008-11-13, 16:07 | Link #8 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
Ah, thanks for the clarification --- the arch-bishop's diatribe just sounded sort of ambiguous. Didn't know there was an AMD issue in Singapore (glad to hear there's an AMD though). I can only think that people against the options of an AMD have never had to deal with messy dying situations that pain meds will not placate.
__________________
|
2008-11-13, 16:17 | Link #9 | |
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
|
|
2008-11-13, 17:30 | Link #10 | |
9wiki
Scanlator
|
Quote:
I hope that doesn't come across as an argument. I'm just expressing my (ever-growing) shock at the failings of society. And, while I think it's a slippery slope, being from the country I can understand mercy killing.
__________________
|
|
2008-11-13, 17:40 | Link #11 |
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Well, I'm for euthanasia. Especially in cases where the patient is explicitly asking for it.
That removes the moral difference between poisoning someone and turning off his life support. They're both "OK", in the same circumstances. (Except in cases where there's no life support to unplug... Then euthanasia's still fine, but the other option is moot.) So, to me, they're pretty much the same, in that they allow the patient to escape the pain at the cost of his life. I don't see where the "failing" is. |
2008-11-13, 21:37 | Link #12 | |
9wiki
Scanlator
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2008-11-13, 22:48 | Link #13 |
On a sabbatical
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Wellington, NZ
Age: 43
|
/\ /\ /\ Oh, now I get it. I thought the two articles were meant to be interlinked.
Still, I'm against euthanasia for people who are still alive and kicking. For those who are brain-dead, that's a different story for a different place. For whoever can still have awareness of what is around oneself - it is a miracle that he is still alive, whatever one has. One more day may mean one more day of suffering, but it gives you one more day to do something one has forgotten to do. Then again, there are others who have absolutely no idea of what to do in their lives as they had, have (and possibly never have) purpose in their lives. That's pretty meaningless. Still, that, I feel =/= argument to go thru euthanasia. For those who don't know what euthanasia is like, as someone who provides "pastoral care" (read - consoling and kind words - but I'm no nurse - I'm not even employed by the hospital!) It's actually rather painful. It's usually administered as an IV jab. The poison is not exactly anywhere near the fast-acting of Zyklon B in WWII. Nowhere near. It's so slow, it can take as much as 30 min in cases to kill. The patient, while trying to achieve a 'merciful death", has to suffer just before dying. Compare this to someone who dies naturally. There is a huge difference. As far as i know, euthanasia is usually an order from the patient, not family/friends/doctors. The family has no choice but to accept. The doctor has no choice but to follow orders. I have no choice but to see the patient suffer more than ever. Sometimes after seeing this, I run to the toilet and scream "WTF" in full. (In Japan, few understand English of THAT level) It's painful for the family too, but it's a choice they have to accept. Therefore, I don't really agree with Euthanasia. |
2008-11-13, 23:11 | Link #14 | ||
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Quote:
As to dying naturally - well, let's hope that none of us ever die during a battle with cancer while undergoing chemotherapy. That's dying naturally, but the pain and agony (according to my grandmother, who died while undergoing chemotherapy and probably would have opted for euthanasia if it were available) is terrible. Quote:
I think there are two types of thought that come into play here: those who feel that life should be as long as possible; and those who feel that life should be as pleasant as possible. I fall into the latter category. For example, suppose you reach a ripe old age and then develop something - let's say it's cancer. If you remain untreated you'll probably only live for another year, but you can live in your house, go where you want, and at worst you'll only experience moderate discomfort (and that isn't even guaranteed). The other option is that you can go to the hospital to undergo operations and chemotherapy - you'll probably be in the hospital for about a year, and the chances that you'll be cured completely are unknown. Your total lifespan is also unknown. You might end up spending your final days in that hospital, confined to your hospital bed and ward, feeling queasy and ill nearly every waking moment. Which option appeals more to you? If you feel that you'd rather extend your life as long as possible, then that's your philosophy and of course euthanasia goes counter to that. If you'd rather live out your last days in peace, it doesn't indicate that you're a supporter of euthanasia, but you might be open to it. As far as the suffering it would place on a family, I have mixed feelings about that. I am sickened by families that view an elder member as little more than a trophy - they do not seem to care about how much suffering this person goes through or what their wishes really are, so long as they are alive. If they truly cared for the person then I'd imagine that they'd be in agony no matter what: they'd be sad if that person passed away; they'd be sad to know that this person was physically and mentally suffering at all waking hours. So, ultimately, I feel that euthanasia is the individual's decision. They should be given a mental health examination to ensure that they are of proper mind to make such a decision, and they should be given a week or more between the initial request and the execution of that request. As far as I know those are relatively standard procedures. If you don't like euthanasia, then when your time comes, don't do it. Why force your opinion on others? And because someone always brings it up: if a doctor is not comfortable with performing euthanasia, then they should not be obligated to do it. As far as I know, most hospitals/laws allow for doctors to pass on the duty if it goes against their beliefs or makes them uncomfortable.
__________________
|
||
2008-11-13, 23:52 | Link #15 | |||
On a sabbatical
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Wellington, NZ
Age: 43
|
Quote:
Spoiler for if you hate religion, this is not for you:
Quote:
Quote:
Maybe this is where East Asia and the West differ - respect plays an important aspect in life. It's a Confucian thing, really. With 1/4-Japanese background, I can understand. (and this 1/4 actually dictates my surname, since it's my grandfather on my father's side which has the Japanese line - the rest are either German or Brit) |
|||
2008-11-13, 23:58 | Link #16 | ||
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Quote:
I'm not clear on how you would feel if people were, say, taken off of medications that were crucial for them to live - that would essentially be giving them a death sentence that could take weeks to months to be fulfilled. That's my own curiosity, though, and I'm sure it varies from person to person even among those who share the same belief as you. Quote:
__________________
|
||
2008-11-14, 07:14 | Link #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: PMB Headquarters
|
In other words, the teen's life is not as important as the will of God? If you believe that you are a transit passenger to either heaven or hell, then where is heaven or hell? And once again, what you are implying is that people who don't agree with your "God" are the same as hating religion. That does not make any sense at all! More over, it is not the will of your God that is against euthanasia, but the will of your arch-bishop. And that's not the same entity or thing at all.
However, it is not your fault to hold such belief. It is good that there are people with religious belief, but it isn't for people to be give up logic and stick to the idea that human life is less important than the will of the arch-bishops and that the only objective of humanity is to reach the final destination known as heaven or hell in your opinion. |
2008-11-14, 16:16 | Link #19 |
Ehh I love suits?
Join Date: Oct 2008
|
Euthanasia and suicide. It's a free world, you can do what you want, just if it doesn't annoy other people. Like the hell I care. Sure I've never understand them and will mock them as pussies, because that's what they are. They lose at life, they end their own body, no matter how many warning pop-ups and alarms evolution put in man not to do stupid things and kill himself, people still find that the best thing to do after you stepped into poo after getting fired from your job and finding your partner doing another person in home. How about selling all your property and moving to Middle-Eastern deserts (in the middle of nowhere) if you feel so bad at your situation and location? I mean empty deserts could be pretty fun!
Suicides are Darwin's examples. Their brains fail. For christ's sake little girl, hire a gigolo, rent an elephant, paint the hospital walls in yellow without telling the officials... You have money. People who live in the woods trying to find something to eat to survive don't have money. |
2008-11-14, 17:04 | Link #20 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: PMB Headquarters
|
Quote:
http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...858427,00.html Apparently, a 13 year old British girl is going to die unless she get a heart transplant. A heart transplant generally means that they will be opening up her chest, yanking out her heart, and replacing it with someone else's heart. If the blood type and organ is compatible, it will be considered a successful surgery and she will live. Otherwise, it may cause side-effects and she might die even after doing the heart transplant. And so, not wanting to suffer all these pain and surgery, she chose not to do so and refused the heart transplant. It is not the same as suicide under these circumstances. |
|
|
|