[Flipside]

Hmmmmmmmmm... Does seem a rather one-sided opinion, even from the wording you knew the guy was wanting to find fault in the whole thing, no matter what the Netherlands did.

[Goober5000]

Lynx: As Kazan is so fond of saying, that's argument ad hominem.  Argue the article, not those who wrote it.

And watch your language.  I'll close the thread if it turns into a flame-fest.

[NGTM-1R]

Originally posted by TrashMan

The question is - Slow, painfull death or quick, peacefull one..I know what I would chosse any time...

You know, it's funny, but when people are actually faced with that choice, they almost invariably choose the slow and painful. Seriously. It would not be that difficult for the majority of cancer or HIV patients to commit suicide, for example. Just overdose on painkillers, go to sleep, never wake up. But they don't. They choose to keep suffering...but keep living.

The same applies to people who lose limbs. Beforehand, they'll be on about how they'd rather die then live a cripple, but afterwards their tune changes completely.

[Lynx]

Originally posted by Goober 5000
Lynx: As Kazan is so fond of saying, that's argument ad hominem. Argue the article, not those who wrote it.

And watch your language. I'll close the thread if it turns into a flame-fest.

Tell that to those people who compare euthanasia in the Netherlands with Nazi actions.

[Janos]

Originally posted by Goober5000
Lynx: As Kazan is so fond of saying, that's argument ad hominem.  Argue the article, not those who wrote it.

[/b]
He is pointing out that the article is, in fact, biased. It also reverts to appeals to emotion ("THEY ARE KILLING BABIES FFS"), slippery slope and just completely random accusations ("holland nazies ww2").

Actually, by third reading, the entire thing is based on "euthanasia = killing is preferred". what

[mitac]

Originally posted by Tiara
In the end, it's all up to the patient. If he/she says no (or the legal guardians do) it won't happen! Doctors don't euthanise people without consent.

Isn't it odd that this point needs emphasis? It should go without saying that any procedure like those third-party-decisions that have been addressed during this thread cannot and will not happen.

Is it really such a bad thing that we give a person without hope of a normal life an oppertunity to die with at least a shred of dignity?

A definite "no". It isn't bad. And I have no sources to base this opinion.

For those saying that a baby can't decide on that matter : it's hard to say that, but that's what parents are for. They are the "representatives" of their children, they have an obligation to aid their well-being. Though death is a rather odd kind of well-being, it still should be a possible alternative to suffering or to lingering illness.

[Goober5000]

Here's an article on the Telegraph that may be of interest (registration required, but use BugMeNot)...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2001/04/19/ecfeuth19.xml

And here is a news article where a doctor was convicted of "euthanizing" his patient without consent but received no punishment...
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/322/7285/509/a

Do a Google search on the Groningen Protocol.

[Tiara]

Hey, I'm not claiming it doesn't happen. And i agree that it is totally wrong to do so without consent. But it happened maybe ~3 times since it was legalized. Now compare that to the number of incidents where a doctor cuts out the wrong organ or leaves a 10 inch clamp in someone's abdomen.

Also, in the few cases that it did happen, it was an act of mercy. In at least 2 of those few cases a doctor did it because;

- the patient only had 2 days to live at most.
- was mentally unstable due to the pain
- had no relatives or other legal guardians

The doctor made the call to euthanize the patient because it was pointless to make a person live on like that. I'm not condoning this action, but anyone who can't see why he made that descision is just kidding himself.

Untill you yourself stand next to a person in excruciating pain, screaming and all, and you have the power to make that pain go away, you have no right to judge.

It was even on the news here. As for the not punished part, he was. His liscence was revoked and was prohibited to ever practice again.

In short - just because very few times it goes wrong does that relly mean you must deprive the hundreds of others from the privilige to decide wether they want to live or die?

In the UK and US they can kill a person by no giving them nutrition and stopping the machines (pulling the plug) and having the person die on their own. This is essentially THE SAME but it involves starvation and excruciating pain. It's quite friggin' hypocritical that people from such countries even have the guts to comment on our practices.

Now which is better? Quick and painless death with a little bit of integrity or die a horrible death in pain beyond imagination?

[Tiara]

As a sidenote; 49 states in the US allow death by starvation.