{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
6/22/2014 5:28:42 AM
19
Why are animals treated with more humanity than fellow human beings?
When a pet is old, frail, sick, terminal, etc... its owners often make the decision to euthanise it to save it from a painful end to its life. If someone were to permit an animal in their care to die after suffering an excruciatingly long and painful death, they would undoubtedly be labelled uncaring and inhumane. Why should this sentiment not similarly extend or apply to humans in similar situations where they, unlike pets, can also have the capacity to [i]expressly consent[/i] to being euthanised?
Is it not more [i]inhumane[/i] to allow a fellow human being to suffer a painful end to their life?
-
I would imagine because of the gray area involved. If you allow for one individual to dictate their end, what is there to say we all are unable to decide when to die? A depressed person might abuse this, even in clean health. The discussion should be less about "yes or no," and involve the specific parameters surrounding euthanasia. Should it be due to age, or also illnesses? Are there specific injuries, and what are they? How is it done, and is there a way for other's to say "no" when psychological health is in question? I believe it is something we should consider, and perhaps there should be the addition of this as a medical practice, since the Hippocratic Oath doesn't really align with this process.
-
Yeah. I'd probably pull the plug on myself if it got to a point that life wasn't worth living.
-
4 RepliesDoctors will give a terminally ill patient a lethal shot of morphine if the disease is too bad and is causing a lot of pain.
-
1 ReplyEdited by Recon Number 54: 6/22/2014 7:15:42 PMI've always been amazed at how we acept the responsibility and make "quality of life" decisions, as painful as they are, for our pets but are willing to let our loved ones suffer the agony and indignity that sometimes occurs at end-of-life. What REALLY pissed me off was when I worked in ICU's and the patient's children were many states away, on the phone, saying "do EVERYTHING that you can for them" and they had no idea what our technology and medicine were capable of doing in order to fulfill that request. When they finally (and in many cases, they never did) came down to see their parent, they were shocked, appalled and angry when they saw the shell of their loved one lying in bed being kept "alive" but the person was either not there, or were suffering. The families blamed us. "What have you done to my mother/father/grandparent??!?!" Not realizing that their order to "do everything you can" is why there was a husk of a person suffering in that bed. It is my sincere hope that current and subsequent generations learn what the real implications of "do all that you can" means for a patient. That it can prolong suffering despite there being no hope of recovery or improvement. That it's not all that difficult to keep a body breathing and a heart beating. That there is more to life and more to being alive than having a pulse and respiration. That we learn to see when someone we love is suffering, and can act in a way that respects their wishes, their desires and accept the incredible responsibility that comes with deciding when "they've gone through enough". PS: I am not even speaking of active euthanasia. I am speaking about allowing medical technology to "prolong vital signs" when there is no hope of recovery or improvement. Not "putting the person to death" but simply "allowing them to die". We (many of us) don't even do that. As family, we're terrified that any decision other than "do all that you can" is tantamount to euthanasia or murder. But the number of people who ask medical caregivers to "do all that you can" won't even take the time to look and see what that means for their loved one. That, to me, is more common, widespread and inhumane than the subject of euthanasia.
-
2 RepliesI got mixed opinions on this subject here DAZ. I've had a grandmother who had alzheimer's. It started early and then got worse and worse. It was hard see that. Her memories disintegrating. Then it brain function. By then end of it she could not recognized none of us. She was stuck in a special care home. At that point most of us was wishing she would just die. But I am not the one to decide faith (Due to religious beliefs) Other side of the coin You're getting rid of hope. You're giving doctors the ability to kill. If pass over that moral line what's going to stop us to go father.
-
[quote]Is it not more [i]inhumane[/i] to allow a fellow human being to suffer a painful end to their life?[/quote] *Clears throat* Because all [i]human[/i] life is sacred. That means that if you can stay alive for another three days by having your legs chopped off and your bone marrow sucked out through the open wound without anesthesia, it's your duty/responsibility to do so! Because any amount of time you can spend alive is objectively worth it. Even if it costs thousands if not millions of dollars and the quality of life is absolute shit.
-
Any kind of consensual assisted suicide should be legal, regardless of physical health.
-
I agree with those sentiments.
-
Bump for constructive thought
-
Edited by Warlock: 6/22/2014 5:50:12 AMHumans can understand how other humans feel. The thing with pets is that you can't really understand what they go through, so you assume the worst. I can't speak for everyone, but when I see an animal suffering, I feel like it's worse for them than it is for humans because I have a reference point to understand human suffering. Also you can think of it as humans having a higher value of life than animals. You'd probably want to keep a human around as long as possible because you feel him or her still has something to give to this world. Oh. If is this is exclusively about consent, then I just think humans ought to make the call to put down an animal since the animal can't express consent. If a human expresses consent, then I think you should euthanize him or her, only if they're truly suffering though. I think a guy named dr kavorkian did stuff like that.
-
1 ReplyAnimals "belong" (in a sense) to their respective owners so they can make decisions for them because the animals cannot. Humans, on the other hand, can make decisions and speak for themselves. Plus, "owning" other people stopped a long time ago in the USA.
-
It should most definitely be legal, obviuosly provided the person in question provides consent. Proud to be Belgian for things like this. Second country in the world to legalize euthanasia and soon to be the first that extends the procedure to minors as well, albeit only in certain cases.
-
I'm a massive supporter of the right to euthanasia. For people who are depressed, terminally ill, psychotic et cetera.
-
3 RepliesEdited by Enlightened One: 6/22/2014 9:01:47 AMI don't care what anyone says.. You are a dick and selfish if you won't put someone out of their misery when they are in irreversible pain due to age, sickness or dying. My folks told me if they were on life support, pull the plug and that's what I'd do.. I don't want them to suffer or be a vegetable and they don't want that either, who would!?
-
It depends, I wouldn't want to be euthanized without my own consent... but if I was, say, a vegetable, I wouldn't want to live.
-
I guess it just gets tricky when they're depressed but not actually in pain.
-
5 RepliesThis topic often comes up with people that are, say, in a coma, or some other state in which they can't make the decision themselves. The controversy is that that person may not want to 'have the plug pulled' on them, why should someone else make that decision for them? As for animals, they can't really communicate their feelings on that sort of thing, [i]that's[/i] where you get the difference I think.
-
Thought provoking, as always.
-
Edited by Jim the Jew Lord: 6/22/2014 5:32:59 AMOnly idiots think euthanasia is inhumane and cruel
