SA Footy

Just wondering why euthanasia is the best method for relieving an animal's suffering, yet when a person is terminally ill doctors, family and scientists will employ just about every method possible to prolong that person's life, regardless of how much suffering they may be going through (and also, regardless of that person's wishes).
So which is it, does euthanasia relieve suffering or not? If so, why is it more humane to prolong a human's suffering yet more humane to end an animal's suffering quickly?

therisingblues wrote:Just wondering why euthanasia is the best method for relieving an animal's suffering, yet when a person is terminally ill doctors, family and scientists will employ just about every method possible to prolong that person's life, regardless of how much suffering they may be going through (and also, regardless of that person's wishes).
So which is it, does euthanasia relieve suffering or not? If so, why is it more humane to prolong a human's suffering yet more humane to end an animal's suffering quickly?

The fundamental issue is that with animals there is almost no likelihood of the family wanting the euthanasia to occur to speed an inheritance - though rarely Granny may have left her money to her cat!. But with humans owning money and property, even with the consent of the individual required, the vulnerable elderly could be persuaded they should request euthanasia because they are "suffering". [Read - made to feel guilty about burdening the family, or delaying the inheritance...]

In reality, there are many situations where allowing a person to die, rather go on suffering pain when there was nothing that can be done, would be sensible, and years ago doctors did tend to be "generous" with the morphine in such situations, if the patient expressed the wish to end the suffering. In today's litiginous society they wouldn't dare - the relatives may gleefully accept the inheritance and then sue the doctor to get more! As well, today, the government thinks only a government and its agents can be trusted to make such a judgement honestly, but they don't want to have to do it, so the whole issue is avoided. The only exception I know of is Holland, but I don't know how it is regulated there.

I remember seeing a survey(sorry, no citation, will look it up later) that suggested euthanasia was performed quite regularly by doctors. One of the arguments for legalising it is to regulate what is already happening.

I see no reason in principle and believe autonomy should trump the sanctity of life. Pragmatic concerns like Psyber's are often cited as arguments against euthanasia but with appropraite legislation they can be avoided. The NT legislation required two doctors to say the patient was suffering a chronic illness and was in a lot of pain. I reckon there was some compulsory counselling too.

Yes, I understand the NT system, and I think the Dutch set up is similar.
I am basically for a human being having the option of euthanasia, but I understand there has been some controversy about abuse of the system in Holland too, along the lines of relatives persuading/bullying the elderly to apply. I can't find references either at the moment.

I'm pretty sure the Brits that tried and failed in the High Court to get euthenasia or 'assisted suicide' as I think they prefer to call it now ended up going to Switzerland for it instead.

I find it disgusting that you could end up in court for making an animal endure the kind of suffering that humans are forced to suffer. It's not just physical suffering either.

My great grandmother finally died at the age of 107 by which time she had endured almost zero quality of life. For the last 10 years her eye sight was so poor she couldn't read or even enjoy the view from a window even with glasses, her hearing so poor any conversation had to be shouted so audio books or the radio/tv were out of the question even with hearing aids, she could only get out of bed and into a chair and needed assistance with everything. Yet her mind was as sharp as ever...can you begin to imagine what it was like to be trapped in a body that no longer allows you to function with a fully compos mind. She said many times that she wished she could end it by just going to sleep and not waking up and no family member would have stood in her way had it been an option...and no there was no inheritance involved.

I'm all for it...would definitely opt for it myself and as an atheist watch out any god-bothering bible basher that tries to impose their beliefs on me...if you think it's wrong that's fine I won't force you to have it but don't tell me I can't based on that.

Regards
JAS

Ain't Euthanasia just Chinese adolescents?
Sad old joke I know!

Psyber wrote:Yes, I understand the NT system, and I think the Dutch set up is similar.
I am basically for a human being having the option of euthanasia, but I understand there has been some controversy about abuse of the system in Holland too, along the lines of relatives persuading/bullying the elderly to apply. I can't find references either at the moment.

Isn't there non-voluntary euthanasia in Holland? Before people arc up, this means people who lack the capacity to make the decision are euthanased when objectively their quality of life is intolerable., not bumping off people who don't want to die.

The Big Shrek wrote:

Psyber wrote:Yes, I understand the NT system, and I think the Dutch set up is similar.
I am basically for a human being having the option of euthanasia, but I understand there has been some controversy about abuse of the system in Holland too, along the lines of relatives persuading/bullying the elderly to apply. I can't find references either at the moment.

Isn't there non-voluntary euthanasia in Holland? Before people arc up, this means people who lack the capacity to make the decision are euthanased when objectively their quality of life is intolerable., not bumping off people who don't want to die.

I'm not sure about whether that is so. The question arises about who would initiate it and make the decision. Here I'd be concerned about nursing homes wanting to clear beds occupied by pensioners so they could offer them to people who have wealth above the government set threshhold, who can then be charged an up-front bond and much higher daily fees.

An elderly relative of mine had an atypical dementia that meant her memory went fast while she was physically fit and mobile. She needed low level care but in a secure environment, a combination hard to get. We only got her into anything decent quickly because we paid a private Social Worker in SA to ring around and drop the hint she would be paying full fee, and so she got the next available bed.

While your still breathing, you still have to pay your taxes...

One thing that I did find interesting is that we actually already have Euthanasia via the use of pain killers, when someone is in terrible pain they are given Morphine which is steadilly increased as it becomes less effective over time, in the end it is actually the Morphine that kills people not the actual disease, yet there appears to be no other way of relieving a person in intense pain except to do that.

That's the doctrine of double effect Sojourner. Doctors can use a dose of morphine that will cease the pain even though they know it will cause death if the intention is to cease the pain.

Sojourner wrote:One thing that I did find interesting is that we actually already have Euthanasia via the use of pain killers, when someone is in terrible pain they are given Morphine which is steadilly increased as it becomes less effective over time, in the end it is actually the Morphine that kills people not the actual disease, yet there appears to be no other way of relieving a person in intense pain except to do that.

Correct, my Oma, was in pain on her last week/s and they advised my Dad & Mum, that if they kept increasing them so she wouldn't suffer she'd eventually shut down due to basically overdosing, along with decreasing the amount of nutrients via a drip, it's what they did and thankfully ended her life more quickly then dragging it out....

It's your own decision to make and one that everyone should stipulate to their loved ones. I've told my wife if something every happened to me, shut down the machines...

I'd rather die then be in a vegetative state etc...

The one thing in your life that is truly yours,and yours alone,that is your life itself is one of the few things you get no say in deciding when or how it ends.( Unless you do take matters into your own hands)

For mine,I dont agree with euthanasia,this is from a view of all man kind and what benefits legalising it would be.From a personal perspective I am for it as I would not like to endure the pain many of us have over the years watching family and friends fade away,I am certain I dont want to die a slow painfull death.

Sad but true Psyber,the almighty $ has some bearing on this discussion...

Tough topic this one.