Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Loren Pechtel · 06-04-2003, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dk
A questions please,
What's the difference between assisted suicide and euthanasia laws.

Assisted suicide: Patient: Please give me a way to die. Doctor: These pills will do it. Patient: Takes pills.

Euthanasia: Patient: Please make me die. Doctor: Gives an injection of potassium chloride.

winstonjen · 06-04-2003, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dk
I�m not sure there�s a rational distinction between doctor assisted suicide and euthanasia, perhaps you can tell me how such a discernment might be rendered. For example, doctors today prescribe fatal quantities of opiates to be taken in smaller quantities at the patients discretion. I don�t see a rational distinction. Without a rational basis for �doctor assisted suicide� it seems a foolish and pointless argument. The only issue therefore reduces to euthanasia.

I don't believe there's much moral difference either - the difference is only in who performs the act, not who requests it. I think it's more of a conscience issue for the doctors.

Radcliffe Emerson · 06-05-2003, 12:56 PM

I believe a person's life is their own, and it's theirs to either live, or take if they want. I don't think any other person should have the right to decide what a person does with their life, even if they want to take it.
Once you're at the age of consent of course. I know that opens a whole new area, but I think if a responsible adult decides they've had enough and they want to check out, they should have that right.

winstonjen · 07-14-2003, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Rick
Folks, he's off-topic and irrelevant, but try to keep the laughter to a minimum; and please, no flash pictures.

[joking]Do we get to see him in a cage? Can we feed him too?[/joking]

What I don't understand is why some people try to complicate the issue. Do they do it deliberately? Perhaps they do so to make it hard for any groups to come to an agreement.

Interestingly, the campaign against Oregon's DWD law made claims that the patient might not die from the lethal dose, and have to suffer more. But isn't that what the Xians and other fundies want anyway?

kiwimac · 07-14-2003, 06:22 AM

Why is it that we find differences of opinion so hard to cope with?

DK has merely expressed his opinion, others have found that opinion lacking, must there be rancor with this?

Frankly, I partly agree with him, Doctor's should NOT give lethal injections, either to dying patients in pain or to prisoner's on death row, it contravenes the Hippocratic oath every doctor takes and makes a mockery of their vow to "do no harm."

Having said that I have no particular problem with Euthenasia as long as there is a rigourously-applied series of steps that a patient must go through so that the law can be certain that a: the person was capable of making such a decision (and that inevitably means a "cool-off" period) and [b]: no undue coercion was applied to the patient by someone who stands to gain by their death.

Kiwimac

keyser_soze · 07-14-2003, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by kiwimac
[B]Why is it that we find differences of opinion so hard to cope with?

DK has merely expressed his opinion, others have found that opinion lacking, must there be rancor with this?

Frankly, I partly agree with him, Doctor's should NOT give lethal injections, either to dying patients in pain or to prisoner's on death row, it contravenes the Hippocratic oath every doctor takes and makes a mockery of their vow to "do no harm."

Having said that I have no particular problem with Euthenasia as long as there is a rigourously-applied series of steps that a patient must go through so that the law can be certain that a: the person was capable of making such a decision (and that inevitably means a "cool-off" period) and : no undue coercion was applied to the patient by someone who stands to gain by their death.

Kiwimac

It is not against the hipcratic oath, which is designed to do no harm. The greater harm is in forcing someone to suffer needlessly.

scigirl · 07-14-2003, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by kiwimac
Frankly, I partly agree with him, Doctor's should NOT give lethal injections, either to dying patients in pain or to prisoner's on death row, it contravenes the Hippocratic oath every doctor takes and makes a mockery of their vow to "do no harm."
...
Having said that I have no particular problem with Euthenasia

From Dictionary.com: Euthanasia = The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment.

scigirl

winstonjen · 07-14-2003, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by kiwimac
Frankly, I partly agree with him, Doctor's should NOT give lethal injections, either to dying patients in pain or to prisoner's on death row, it contravenes the Hippocratic oath every doctor takes and makes a mockery of their vow to "do no harm."

And what do you think about the parts of the Oath that forbid abortion, surgery and women practicing medicine? You shouldn't pick and choose which bits to follow and which not to. That job is for fundies and the bible.

The Oath is very out of touch with modern society.

winstonjen · 07-15-2003, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dk
Is that the truth, cross your heart hope to die. In 5 years I don't think 150 patents in Oregon have been put to death under suicide laws. If this proves anything, its that people in Oregon have had little use for suicide laws. Putting a good person to death proves nothing to anybody, because dead people never argue.

That's only the number that have commited suicide. The number that ask for the prescription so that they can have peace of mind, is higher. They do need it, because it gives them the strength to go on and not commit suicide earlier, and so they live longer. Isn't that what you want?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-05-2003, 12:56 PM	#113
Radcliffe Emerson Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: the dark side of Mars Posts: 1,309	I believe a person's life is their own, and it's theirs to either live, or take if they want. I don't think any other person should have the right to decide what a person does with their life, even if they want to take it. Once you're at the age of consent of course. I know that opens a whole new area, but I think if a responsible adult decides they've had enough and they want to check out, they should have that right.

07-14-2003, 06:22 AM	#115
kiwimac Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Mayfield, NZ Posts: 1,407	Why is it that we find differences of opinion so hard to cope with? DK has merely expressed his opinion, others have found that opinion lacking, must there be rancor with this? Frankly, I partly agree with him, Doctor's should NOT give lethal injections, either to dying patients in pain or to prisoner's on death row, it contravenes the Hippocratic oath every doctor takes and makes a mockery of their vow to "do no harm." Having said that I have no particular problem with Euthenasia as long as there is a rigourously-applied series of steps that a patient must go through so that the law can be certain that a: the person was capable of making such a decision (and that inevitably means a "cool-off" period) and [b]: no undue coercion was applied to the patient by someone who stands to gain by their death. Kiwimac

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.