I thought maybe there was a physical or psychological reason why they couldn't do it, especially since from what I saw in the article, they waited 2 years to have this approved and done? Could they have set a sort of pre-death will to say that the day a doctor confirms that they have gone completely blind, just put them down too? Maybe they could have had a bit more time or maybe even find a way to delay the blindness, were they able to see anything at all when they died?
To be deprived of one sense is bad enough, to lose another? I'm not sure I can say I'd want to live that way either. I'd be pretty much down for ending my life after losing my eyesight(as an artist, a writer, an avid reader and so forth, it's pretty damn significant).
I think it should be the right of every adult to choose when to end their life, with some counseling of course.
1.If we do not own our lives, are we really free? No, but freedom means freedom to make the wrong choice. Because we are able to end our own lives does not mean we should. And in this case, the doctor's shouldn't have - the men were capable of finding a method of ending their lives without the aid of the doctors.
2.Should a person's desire to die be beyond the influence or control of religious, social, and political lobbies/institutions? Religious, certainly. If somebody believes for religious reasons that suicide is wrong then what that means is that they should not end their own lives. It has no bearing on the choices of the non-religious.
3.Why should a person be slave to oppressive religious 'values' or invasive government policy? Especially if the suffering person is not a member of that religion/political party? That's a difficult one because you have to question where government values actually become 'invasive'. The government needs some level of control over the population, or their would be no point to it. If nobody has any control, we have anarchy. There is a level at which it becomes oppressive for sure, but it's difficult to determine where exactly that is.
I still think there's something morally 'iffy' about asking another person to take your life when you're capable of doing so yourself, but the the doctors will no doubt only do so voluntarily and I can see why it's legal.
GalacticGoatFeatured By OwnerJan 16, 2013Hobbyist General Artist
I think as long as someone is an adult and can understand the concept that death is permanent then their faith is in their own hands and people need to bugger off. Medical professionals should be able to administer euthanasia, I honestly rather then then someone try to commit suicide at home and fail and end up permanently damaged or suffering much longer from the attempt.
While I understand the plight of these twins, suicide assisted by a health provider, re: doctor, goes against one of the key principles of medicine...do no harm. This isn't the same as removing an injured or infected limb to save a patient's life; assisted suicide is actually taking a life, which is the ultimate act of harm.
It is unfortunate that some individuals are so distraught that they seek death in order to escape a horrible life. But, I must ask, if the quality of their lives is so horrible that society accepts and assists with their demise, then we should not even quibble about those who are mentally ill or unbalanced in their quest to escape life. I am not making light of anyone or anything here, but these two gents were in otherwise good health, but we want to let them do their own thing. Does nobody else see the madness in this "solution"? Gee, life isn't perfect for me, so I will die, but I need another person to help me. Sorry, but I feel that any doctor or other medical professional that assists in taking a life this way should never again practice medicine.
"Does nobody else see the madness in this "solution"?"
They were deaf, they were going blind, the world was shutting off to them. They were looking at multiple decades of life without sound or sight. A world of complete darkness and separation from the world. They weren't emo teens or people with superficial "Gee, life isn't perfect for me, so I will die" impulses.
The doctor is doing their job in using their knowledge and ability to make sure the patient goes in peace, as opposed to the people who use the services of Doctor Smith & Wesson who leave a mess for someone to clean up.
Again, it is a personal perception, which is acceptable to leave to the affected individual. But when you involve another person, it is no longer suicide. The term "assisted suicide" was meant to play on people's sympathies.
Euthanasia is a dicey issue. I get what you are saying about the physician assist being an advantage, but what happens to him if and when the procedure fails? What if the family decides to sue, claiming the deceased what not of sound mind? Seems to me a visit to the court ahead of time might be the best way to resolve these issues or at least mitigate them.
The deceased have already written off that they are sound of mind. They've gone through the process already. You don't show up at a clinic out of the blue and die.
If you involve a doctor in your end, I would think it's still a suicide because the whole situation is initiated by the patient. The patient is seeking a service, the same way people go to garages to get cars fixed. Just in this case you leave in a hearse.
"How you can say that in such a nonchalant manner befuddles me."
Why is that befuddling? It's plain, to the point, and true. Someone looking to end their suffering, especially in a country that allows for Doctor assisted endings, is looking for a service.
They want to go in peace and they should be afforded that luxury.
Nothing befuddling about it.
If you had a threesome with Lindsay Lohan and Margaret Cho and then got a flesh eating brain crushing disease you should be allowed to avoid that horrible end. The best way to achieve that is by way of prefessional help, that reduces the possibility of unfortunate complications or misery expanding mistakes.
The twins were losing all contact with the world around them. They decided it was time to go. They needed professional help, they got it, they're at peace. Nothing befuddling about it.
I completely aware of euthanasia laws of other countries. The fact that they exist has no bearing on my own personal beliefs.
What befuddled me, since you cannot read, is how you made the somewhat callous off the cuff comment on how visiting your MD to be euthanized is like any other service you pay for, except this one kills you. While this is an applicable commentary, as I said, it comes off as callous. I understand that reading a forum post at times is difficult to ascertain the poster's attitude or demeanor, your commentary gave me the impression that the process is a routine service that anyone can buy, no questions asked.
So, in the end, the befuddling part was the fact that you are so vocal about an individual's right to die by physician assist, yet you made such a casual comment.
"What befuddled me, since you cannot read, is how you made the somewhat callous off the cuff comment on how visiting your MD to be euthanized is like any other service you pay for, except this one kills you. "
I explained throughly what I meant. Learn how to read. I was not callous, unless you're hyper sensitive to honesty.
I can certainly sympathize with the twins in this case, and definitely think equating this instance to murder is by far an overreaction. I also recognize the benefits of allowing the choice to die, and I personally believe that those with terminal illnesses or suffering a great deal of pain should be allowed to request that a doctor aid them in dying as they see fit.
However, I do think we need to be very careful in defining what really constitutes a valid reason for euthanasia. I don't think there are any easy answers to this and no answers that any change in law could fully satisfy, but I say this out of fear that a lot of progress and institutions that society has made available to help those with certain conditions would become obsolete. Take for instance those with Down Syndrome, Autism, bipolar disorder, etc. These are all things that I would say hold some stigma in society. However, it has been demonstrated that one can lead a full and happy life with ailments like these, and part of the help that is provided to achieving a relatively normal life for these individuals comes from our expanded understanding of why these ailments occur and how to treat them. Unfortunately, should enough people begin to opt out of life, it may very well leave those who choose to continue living with Down Syndrome, Autism, depression, bipolar disorder, etc. without as many resources available to them. After all, as unfortunate as it is, funding often comes down to the population size being affected. Furthermore, so does the funding in research that may lead to better treatments.
Maybe, and hopefully, these societal stigmas are changing. I like to believe they are. I suppose my mind isn't fully made up on the issue of euthanasia, but I hope my post gave a secular reason as to why we might be better off prohibiting some forms of it.
This reminds me of The Giver. In it children are euthanized for being different, or old people are euthanized, and one time, a young girl named Rosemary, who was going to be a Giver arranged to be euthanized because the memories passed down to her were to much to handle. Euthanasia could be used to murder people, let's be real here, but when you can't take anymore pain, maybe it's the right choice.
Making it law would be...difficult. There are very specific circumstances in which euthanasia should be an option. (To avoid confusion and murder) You shouldn't just give any healthy suicidal person freaking cyanide. Also, what if the future euthanasia laws are loosened, and some parent wants to kill their kid for being a redhead, or being weird? I think that's what people are ultimately afraid of. A society like in The Giver Or you you know, NK. A little misguided, but yeah.