welcome to the great debate. todays matc will be between deamonomic and thesmilies. the topic shall be, wehter or not doctor assisted suicide is ok. thesmilies will be arguing that it isnt, while deamonomic will be argueing that it is.
24 hours to post, no double posts. since i made the thread ill wait for thesmilies to post first.
btw, double posting will from now on result in disqualification.
__________________________________________________ _________________________________________________
In the words of a Tiger Ace:
"The Tiger is worth 10 of your shermans. The problem is, you always have 11"
We are the tactical gaming community... L
welcome to the great debate. todays matc will be between deamonomic and thesmilies. the topic shall be, wehter or not doctor assisted suicide is ok. thesmilies will be arguing that it isnt, while deamonomic will be argueing that it is.
24 hours to post, no double posts. since i made the thread ill wait for thesmilies to post first.
btw, double posting will from now on result in disqualification.
__________________________________________________ _________________________________________________
In the words of a Tiger Ace:
"The Tiger is worth 10 of your shermans. The problem is, you always have 11"
We are the tactical gaming community... L
alrighty then...
AHHHH, I knew I would get paired up with you.
So, here we go:
Many people have seen others suffer terribly while dying. When asked, "Are you in favor of euthanasia?" most people reply "yes," meaning that they would prefer painless death over suffering. But when asked, "If terminally ill, would you rather treatment make you comfortable, or have your life ended by a physician?" their responses might be different.
People confuse their support for the right to refuse medical treatment"”a right supported by law and by civil and religious leaders"”with support for the right to die by assisted suicide or euthanasia. The more people know about the care of people who are terminally ill and the pros and cons of legalizing euthanasia, the less they support legalization. Yet the public is still grossly misinformed. A recent poll indicates that only 61 percent of people are aware that under current law, patients may refuse any and all unwanted treatments. Ten percent of the population believe that the law requires a patient to accept whatever treatment a doctor wants to provide....
A More Humane Option
Patients who request assisted suicide or euthanasia are usually asking in the strongest way they know for mental and physical relief from suffering. When that request is made to a caring, sensitive, and knowledgeable physician who can address their fear, relieve their suffering, and assure them that he or she will remain with them to the end, most patients no longer want to die and are grateful for the time remaining to them....
Wise social policy dictates that some people's wish for physician-assisted suicide cannot outweigh all other effects of its legalization on the many patients who would die inappropriately, just as in the Netherlands. To legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia would truly be what ethicist Daniel Callahan has called "self-determination run amok."
Clearly the wiser, more humane course is to successfully provide good palliative care to terminally ill patients. Advances in our knowledge of palliative care in the past twenty years make clear that care for the terminally ill does not require us to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia. Our challenge, which can be met, is to bring that knowledge and that care to the critically ill.
Our success in providing palliative care for those who are terminally ill will not only address the suffering of the individual patients, but do much to preserve our social humanity. If we do not provide such care, legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia will become the simplistic answer to the problem of dying. Euthanasia will become a way for all of us to ignore the genuine needs of terminally ill people.
If the advocates of legalization prevail, we will lose more lives to suicide (although we will call the deaths by a different name) than can be saved by the efforts of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention and by all the other institutions working to prevent suicide in this country.
The tragic impact on depressed suicidal patients will be matched by what will happen to the elderly, the poor, and other terminally ill people. Assisted suicide and euthanasia will become routine ways of dealing with serious and terminal illness just as they have in the Netherlands; those without means will be under particular pressure to accept the euthanasia option. In the process, palliative care will be undercut for everyone.
Many people have the illusion that legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia will give them greater autonomy. The Dutch experience teaches us that legalization of physician-assisted suicide enhances the power and control of doctors, not patients. In practice it is still the doctor who decides whether to perform euthanasia. He can suggest it, withhold obvious alternatives, ignore patients' ambivalence, and even put to death patients who have not requested it.
Euthanasia advocates have come to see suicide as a cure for disease and a way of appropriating death's power over the human capacity for control. In the process, they have derailed constructive efforts to better manage the final phase of life. Our social policy must be based on a larger and more positive concern for people who are terminally ill. It must reflect an expanded determination to relieve their physical pain, to discover the nature of their fears, and to diminish suffering by giving affirmation to the life that has been lived and still goes on.
This great debate thing never seems to work out as planned...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thesmilies:
AHHHH, I knew I would get paired up with you.
So, here we go:
Many people have seen others suffer terribly while dying. When asked, "Are you in favor of euthanasia?" most people reply "yes," meaning that they would prefer painless death over suffering. But when asked, "If terminally ill, would you rather treatment make you comfortable, or have your life ended by a physician?" their responses might be different.
People confuse their support for the right to refuse medical treatment"”a right supported by law and by civil and religious leaders"”with support for the right to die by assisted suicide or euthanasia. The more people know about the care of people who are terminally ill and the pros and cons of legalizing euthanasia, the less they support legalization. Yet the public is still grossly misinformed. A recent poll indicates that only 61 percent of people are aware that under current law, patients may refuse any and all unwanted treatments. Ten percent of the population believe that the law requires a patient to accept whatever treatment a doctor wants to provide....
A More Humane Option
Patients who request assisted suicide or euthanasia are usually asking in the strongest way they know for mental and physical relief from suffering. When that request is made to a caring, sensitive, and knowledgeable physician who can address their fear, relieve their suffering, and assure them that he or she will remain with them to the end, most patients no longer want to die and are grateful for the time remaining to them....
Wise social policy dictates that some people's wish for physician-assisted suicide cannot outweigh all other effects of its legalization on the many patients who would die inappropriately, just as in the Netherlands. To legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia would truly be what ethicist Daniel Callahan has called "self-determination run amok."
Clearly the wiser, more humane course is to successfully provide good palliative care to terminally ill patients. Advances in our knowledge of palliative care in the past twenty years make clear that care for the terminally ill does not require us to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia. Our challenge, which can be met, is to bring that knowledge and that care to the critically ill.
Our success in providing palliative care for those who are terminally ill will not only address the suffering of the individual patients, but do much to preserve our social humanity. If we do not provide such care, legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia will become the simplistic answer to the problem of dying. Euthanasia will become a way for all of us to ignore the genuine needs of terminally ill people.
If the advocates of legalization prevail, we will lose more lives to suicide (although we will call the deaths by a different name) than can be saved by the efforts of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention and by all the other institutions working to prevent suicide in this country.
The tragic impact on depressed suicidal patients will be matched by what will happen to the elderly, the poor, and other terminally ill people. Assisted suicide and euthanasia will become routine ways of dealing with serious and terminal illness just as they have in the Netherlands; those without means will be under particular pressure to accept the euthanasia option. In the process, palliative care will be undercut for everyone.
Many people have the illusion that legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia will give them greater autonomy. The Dutch experience teaches us that legalization of physician-assisted suicide enhances the power and control of doctors, not patients. In practice it is still the doctor who decides whether to perform euthanasia. He can suggest it, withhold obvious alternatives, ignore patients' ambivalence, and even put to death patients who have not requested it.
Euthanasia advocates have come to see suicide as a cure for disease and a way of appropriating death's power over the human capacity for control. In the process, they have derailed constructive efforts to better manage the final phase of life. Our social policy must be based on a larger and more positive concern for people who are terminally ill. It must reflect an expanded determination to relieve their physical pain, to discover the nature of their fears, and to diminish suffering by giving affirmation to the life that has been lived and still goes on. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
i both agree and dissagree with you. the humane tratment part, that is purly perspective based. because while you may see giving them treatments and drugs a more humane way. others will see assisted suicide as the more humane. let me tell you a little story. i had a dog several years ago. she got injured and was bleeding internally (sp??) when we finaly realized what was happeneing we took her to the vet. he said there was nothing he could do. now at this point sure we could have given her drugs to make her more comfurtable. but they wouldnt have been enough to take away all the pain. and she would have just been lying there waiting to die. not running around, not having any enjoyment at all. i ask you, what is the more humane act here? we put her down. i miss that dog everyday.
with humans its even worse. because we have more cognitive abilities then dogs do. do you really want to be lying there on drugs, knowing that your fate has been sealed. there is nothing that can save you, and you are still in pain. now this will go on for days weeks. and all you can do is lie there and suffer. i ask agian what is the more humane act here?
you seem to not realize that alot of the time treatments tend not to reuce the pain you are in, but increase it, atleast for a short time. not to mention the side effects of the treatments wich may in the long run be worse then the illness they ere treating.
and all that is assuming that there is a treatment at all. sometimes there isnt. is it right to force them to lie there suffering? is it right to force the families to sit there and watch, even tho they all want euthanasia?
they should atleast have the option for it. atleast have it avialable. you make it sound as if everyone would take it automaticaly. no they wouldnt. though i say that the doctors have the right to decline. because it isnt right to force the doctor to do it if they dont want to. but then agian, the whole act of euthanasia relies on the doctor being willing to do it in the first place. many people will still not choose euthanasia, because their time with their loved ones will outweigh the want for death.
but like i said, it should be an option. doesnt have to be law that you must give the patient this, it only needs to not be illegal. it should be an option because who are any of us to deprive that person of that right if they so choose???
__________________________________________________ _________________________________________________
In the words of a Tiger Ace:
"The Tiger is worth 10 of your shermans. The problem is, you always have 11"
We are the tactical gaming community... L
Posting Permissions
deamonomic
Reply With Quote
