The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I've gone back to university taking classes for my degree and my sociology class has a group discussion at the end of term. My group is to discuss euthanasia (assisted suicide). One of the things we've decided to do is take a poll of people and find out what the general consensus or majority say about this. So, if you would, please post whether you're for it, against it, or just don't know.
Oh, yes! Please state briefly why you're for or against it. Thanks in advance.
Oh, yes! Please state briefly why you're for or against it. Thanks in advance.
Page:
I've gone back to university taking classes for my degree and my sociology class has a group discussion at the end of term. My group is to discuss euthanasia (assisted suicide). One of the things we've decided to do is take a poll of people and find out what the general consensus or majority say about this. So, if you would, please post whether you're for it, against it, or just don't know.
Oh, yes! Please state briefly why you're for or against it. Thanks in advance.
Oh, yes! Please state briefly why you're for or against it. Thanks in advance.
07763824417
Call me.
Call me.
Firstly, congrats on the decision. I went back at 25, and feel it’s made a huge difference in my life.
I for one am for it. I watched a close relative’s health detertiate over a number of months in increasing pain. They were going to die, so why not allow them the choice to spare them the pain and loss of dignity?
I for one am for it. I watched a close relative’s health detertiate over a number of months in increasing pain. They were going to die, so why not allow them the choice to spare them the pain and loss of dignity?
I'm in two minds about this. If someone is suffering greatly, and seriously want to die, they should be allowed to go. It should only be their consent that is listened to, though. But if they can't communicate, it gets complicated. If they're in a coma, euthanasia should not be allowed, but if they're conscious but unable to communicate, that's where the road gets bumpy and full of pot-holes.
I personally would want to die if I was in an advanced, uncurable, highly deteriorating state. It's not fair stretching out the heartache of my loved ones for those few extra days/weeks/months.
I personally would want to die if I was in an advanced, uncurable, highly deteriorating state. It's not fair stretching out the heartache of my loved ones for those few extra days/weeks/months.
I'm in favour, though it needs some strict regulation a la the clinic in Switzerland.
For a more detailed opinion (and feel free to use any of this; just gimme the credit!)...
A legal debate is currently taking place in the upper echelons of the justice system. Like many legal matters, it is being expressed in terms that have a tendency to send the casual observer (i.e. me) to sleep. Unlike many legal matters it is of the utmost importance to anyone who believes in personal liberty and the right to go about ones business without interference from the state so long as it does not conflict with the laws of the land. It is a debate concerning the right of an individual to take his or her own life versus the right of the state to stop one from doing so.
In fairness, this isn't a new debate. In this country I suppose one could point to the abolition of the statute that made suicide a criminal offence or, more recently, the case of Tony Bland. Mr. Bland was effectively killed in the Hillsborough tragedy, which saw hundreds of football fans crushed to death. Unfortunately for Mr. Bland, although his mind was dead his body was capable of life. That is to say, if he was hooked up to numerous machines that fed him, allowed his kidneys to function etc, then he was capable of life. This left him as little more than a warm body in a hospital bed surrounded by machinery. After 4 years of this (and I use the term loosely) existence, his parents went to court to win the right to switch off the machines that were feeding him. The courts said that they could on the basis that feeding him was a medical treatment from which he was drawing no benefit. Despite the actions of a meddlesome priest who's name isn't worth mentioning (his actions are though; he decided to bring a private prosecution for the murder of Mr. Bland. Apparently seeing your son halfway between life and death for 4 years isn't hell enough according to this man's God; only the addition of an accusation of murder produced sufficient suffering. Happily the courts made another correct decision by effectively telling him to take his high minded principles, fold them up neatly, and shove them as far up his backside as the hand of God would allow) Mr. Bland was allowed to die.
Yet that does not bring us up to date with the present situation. Mr. Bland had no voice of his own to say whether he wanted to live or die. Although the case established that the state doesn't have the right to keep people alive no matter what their quality of life may be, it said nothing about the withdrawal of treatment from somebody who was gaining some form of benefit from medical treatment (for example, one's life being prolonged by use of anti-cancer treatments) nor did it encompass a situation whereby someone needed assistance in ending their own life. There are two ongoing cases that discuss both of these situations. Firstly that of Diane Pretty and secondly a case involving a lady (her identity is unknown to anyone outside of the case itself) who is paralysed and wishes to have the ventilator that is keeping her alive switched off.
Let us look at the case of Ms Pretty. Should you be unacquainted with the facts of this case they are as follows; she has motor neuron disease and is in constant pain. She will soon be dead, having lived her last few years in agonizing pain. She wishes to take her own life as the pain is unbearable and will only get worse. However, such is the severity of her condition that she is unable to do this by herself. Therefore she has asked her husband to help her commit suicide. Should he do so he risks being prosecuted for aiding and abetting a suicide (because the law allows you to take your own life but will not allow anyone to help you). Naturally Ms Pretty does not want to be relieved from her pain at the cost of the man she loves being branded a criminal. To that end, she went to the courts and asked them to give a guarantee that her husband would not be prosecuted. The courts refused to do so. Ms Pretty is now taking her case to the European Courts but, should it not get heard in the next few months, she may well be dead anyway.
Personally speaking, I find the decision of the House of Lords a disgrace. How dare they tell Mr. Pretty that he cannot help his wife end her horrendous suffering. The main reason given seems to have been a variation on what is called the Floodgates argument. Namely that if they allowed him to assist his wife in committing suicide, numerous people may do the same. People may also commit murder and use this as a defence. Quite why they couldn't have simply distinguished the case on it's facts (which is essentially where a judge states that the judgement can only be applied to these exact set of circumstances, and so the case can't be used as a precedent) is beyond me. Instead, one woman is left to suffer because the state feels that it's own interests outweigh hers. By which I mean that the state seems to envisage that allowing Ms Pretty to take her own life with the help of her husband after it has been made clear by all parties that this is what is wanted would lead to some sort of breakdown in law and order.
And yet there is another side to that. You may be familiar with Dr Jack Kevorkian, an American doctor who specialised in assisted suicides. He helped over 100 people end their lives, all of whom were in circumstances similar to Ms Pretty. Kevorkian was acquitted of numerous murder charges before falling foul of his home state of Michigan. He had filmed himself giving the lethal injection to a Mr. Thomas Youk. The film found it's way onto '60 Minutes' (a US current affairs program) and on April 13 1999 Dr Kevorkian found himself convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to 10-25 years. And my first reaction? Good.
I have few doubts that the people whom Kevorkian helped to die were settled in their wish to end their lives. I don't believe that he acted in any way out of a desire to kill people for the sake of killing (step forward Dr Harold Shipman). But the idea of a doctor (particularly a skilled self publicist such as Kevorkian) specialising in euthanasia...well, I'm sorry but there are rather too many shades of the Totalitarian state sanctioned murder of the mentally or physically handicapped in the 30's for my liking. Maybe this is something that contributed to the decision of the House of Lords.
The second case is being decided as I type this; Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss who is the head of the High Court's family decisions, and as such is faced with numerous cases involving the welfare of individuals and families, has described the case as "agonising" and has admitted that she fears getting emotionally involved in the matter. Essentially, the case runs thus; a woman is paralysed from the neck down. She is on a ventilator which allows her to breath. She is lucid and can communicate with those around her. And she communicated her wish to die.
She is undoubtedly gaining benefit from the continued medical treatment in that she is alive and not in constant searing pain because of it. However, she doesn't want to live her life like that and so wants to end it. Except that, being paralysed, she cannot. And so she must ask the courts for permission to have her life support switched off. The main line of opposition to this comes from the idea that she is not mentally competent to make this decision due to her extreme circumstances. Let's forget just how patronising that is for a moment and look at the implication; they seem to be saying that if you state you have a wish to die then you are not mentally sound enough to make that decision. Nothing like a good old catch 22 to establish that having control over your life is an illusion carefully maintained by the state. Thankfully (though probably unhappily for those who enjoy nothing more than claiming that the state wants to control every aspect of your life at all times) this argument has been given little weight in court. 2 psychiatrists and an independent advisor to the court have stated that she is competent to make the decision.
Yet I suspect that the ruling will go against her (~edit~ I was wrong; it did not and she was allowed to die); doctors want her to try a rehabilitation program that could improve her quality of life and I would imagine that the court will state that she must at least try this to see if it alters her opinion at all. I could be wrong and I hope that I am, but the state seems unwilling to allow people to make their own informed decisions when one of the choices is their own death. I believe that our life and death should be something that remains unconditionally within our own control, and with luck this legal debate will enshrine that right in law.
For a more detailed opinion (and feel free to use any of this; just gimme the credit!)...
A legal debate is currently taking place in the upper echelons of the justice system. Like many legal matters, it is being expressed in terms that have a tendency to send the casual observer (i.e. me) to sleep. Unlike many legal matters it is of the utmost importance to anyone who believes in personal liberty and the right to go about ones business without interference from the state so long as it does not conflict with the laws of the land. It is a debate concerning the right of an individual to take his or her own life versus the right of the state to stop one from doing so.
In fairness, this isn't a new debate. In this country I suppose one could point to the abolition of the statute that made suicide a criminal offence or, more recently, the case of Tony Bland. Mr. Bland was effectively killed in the Hillsborough tragedy, which saw hundreds of football fans crushed to death. Unfortunately for Mr. Bland, although his mind was dead his body was capable of life. That is to say, if he was hooked up to numerous machines that fed him, allowed his kidneys to function etc, then he was capable of life. This left him as little more than a warm body in a hospital bed surrounded by machinery. After 4 years of this (and I use the term loosely) existence, his parents went to court to win the right to switch off the machines that were feeding him. The courts said that they could on the basis that feeding him was a medical treatment from which he was drawing no benefit. Despite the actions of a meddlesome priest who's name isn't worth mentioning (his actions are though; he decided to bring a private prosecution for the murder of Mr. Bland. Apparently seeing your son halfway between life and death for 4 years isn't hell enough according to this man's God; only the addition of an accusation of murder produced sufficient suffering. Happily the courts made another correct decision by effectively telling him to take his high minded principles, fold them up neatly, and shove them as far up his backside as the hand of God would allow) Mr. Bland was allowed to die.
Yet that does not bring us up to date with the present situation. Mr. Bland had no voice of his own to say whether he wanted to live or die. Although the case established that the state doesn't have the right to keep people alive no matter what their quality of life may be, it said nothing about the withdrawal of treatment from somebody who was gaining some form of benefit from medical treatment (for example, one's life being prolonged by use of anti-cancer treatments) nor did it encompass a situation whereby someone needed assistance in ending their own life. There are two ongoing cases that discuss both of these situations. Firstly that of Diane Pretty and secondly a case involving a lady (her identity is unknown to anyone outside of the case itself) who is paralysed and wishes to have the ventilator that is keeping her alive switched off.
Let us look at the case of Ms Pretty. Should you be unacquainted with the facts of this case they are as follows; she has motor neuron disease and is in constant pain. She will soon be dead, having lived her last few years in agonizing pain. She wishes to take her own life as the pain is unbearable and will only get worse. However, such is the severity of her condition that she is unable to do this by herself. Therefore she has asked her husband to help her commit suicide. Should he do so he risks being prosecuted for aiding and abetting a suicide (because the law allows you to take your own life but will not allow anyone to help you). Naturally Ms Pretty does not want to be relieved from her pain at the cost of the man she loves being branded a criminal. To that end, she went to the courts and asked them to give a guarantee that her husband would not be prosecuted. The courts refused to do so. Ms Pretty is now taking her case to the European Courts but, should it not get heard in the next few months, she may well be dead anyway.
Personally speaking, I find the decision of the House of Lords a disgrace. How dare they tell Mr. Pretty that he cannot help his wife end her horrendous suffering. The main reason given seems to have been a variation on what is called the Floodgates argument. Namely that if they allowed him to assist his wife in committing suicide, numerous people may do the same. People may also commit murder and use this as a defence. Quite why they couldn't have simply distinguished the case on it's facts (which is essentially where a judge states that the judgement can only be applied to these exact set of circumstances, and so the case can't be used as a precedent) is beyond me. Instead, one woman is left to suffer because the state feels that it's own interests outweigh hers. By which I mean that the state seems to envisage that allowing Ms Pretty to take her own life with the help of her husband after it has been made clear by all parties that this is what is wanted would lead to some sort of breakdown in law and order.
And yet there is another side to that. You may be familiar with Dr Jack Kevorkian, an American doctor who specialised in assisted suicides. He helped over 100 people end their lives, all of whom were in circumstances similar to Ms Pretty. Kevorkian was acquitted of numerous murder charges before falling foul of his home state of Michigan. He had filmed himself giving the lethal injection to a Mr. Thomas Youk. The film found it's way onto '60 Minutes' (a US current affairs program) and on April 13 1999 Dr Kevorkian found himself convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to 10-25 years. And my first reaction? Good.
I have few doubts that the people whom Kevorkian helped to die were settled in their wish to end their lives. I don't believe that he acted in any way out of a desire to kill people for the sake of killing (step forward Dr Harold Shipman). But the idea of a doctor (particularly a skilled self publicist such as Kevorkian) specialising in euthanasia...well, I'm sorry but there are rather too many shades of the Totalitarian state sanctioned murder of the mentally or physically handicapped in the 30's for my liking. Maybe this is something that contributed to the decision of the House of Lords.
The second case is being decided as I type this; Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss who is the head of the High Court's family decisions, and as such is faced with numerous cases involving the welfare of individuals and families, has described the case as "agonising" and has admitted that she fears getting emotionally involved in the matter. Essentially, the case runs thus; a woman is paralysed from the neck down. She is on a ventilator which allows her to breath. She is lucid and can communicate with those around her. And she communicated her wish to die.
She is undoubtedly gaining benefit from the continued medical treatment in that she is alive and not in constant searing pain because of it. However, she doesn't want to live her life like that and so wants to end it. Except that, being paralysed, she cannot. And so she must ask the courts for permission to have her life support switched off. The main line of opposition to this comes from the idea that she is not mentally competent to make this decision due to her extreme circumstances. Let's forget just how patronising that is for a moment and look at the implication; they seem to be saying that if you state you have a wish to die then you are not mentally sound enough to make that decision. Nothing like a good old catch 22 to establish that having control over your life is an illusion carefully maintained by the state. Thankfully (though probably unhappily for those who enjoy nothing more than claiming that the state wants to control every aspect of your life at all times) this argument has been given little weight in court. 2 psychiatrists and an independent advisor to the court have stated that she is competent to make the decision.
Yet I suspect that the ruling will go against her (~edit~ I was wrong; it did not and she was allowed to die); doctors want her to try a rehabilitation program that could improve her quality of life and I would imagine that the court will state that she must at least try this to see if it alters her opinion at all. I could be wrong and I hope that I am, but the state seems unwilling to allow people to make their own informed decisions when one of the choices is their own death. I believe that our life and death should be something that remains unconditionally within our own control, and with luck this legal debate will enshrine that right in law.
Probably like most people, I'm a little undecided on the subject, but if I am honest, I'm against it.
While, people may really want to die and feel they have to, at the end of the day, no-one should have the decision of life or death. I don't feel abortion is right, for me it is murder and euphansia is also murder.
Personally, should it be legalised I would not be that upset, as hundreds of abortions take place right here in Britain every week and the morning after pill has been legalised.
In conclusion, I'm against it, but I wouldn't raise my voice that loud, should it happen.
While, people may really want to die and feel they have to, at the end of the day, no-one should have the decision of life or death. I don't feel abortion is right, for me it is murder and euphansia is also murder.
Personally, should it be legalised I would not be that upset, as hundreds of abortions take place right here in Britain every week and the morning after pill has been legalised.
In conclusion, I'm against it, but I wouldn't raise my voice that loud, should it happen.
I think they should open up legalised murder cafes, like they did in Holland.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Something about abortion
Anyone want to explain the difference twixt abortion and euthanasia to him? Or is everyone having too much fun pointing at him and laughing as he exposes yet more of his ignorance?
> Something about abortion
Anyone want to explain the difference twixt abortion and euthanasia to him? Or is everyone having too much fun pointing at him and laughing as he exposes yet more of his ignorance?
Light, this is about people's opinions , I didn't agree with yours, but didn't start attacking it, because this is an opinionated poll, not a discussion.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Light, this is about people's opinions , I didn't agree with
> yours, but didn't start attacking it, because this is an opinionated
> poll, not a discussion.
What, you mean like you don't attack people's opinions on faith, or sexuality, or evolution? Hey, just cos I'm far better at making you look like a fool than you are at doing the same to others, don't blame me.
In any case, this is a place for discussion. It's called "discussing people's opinions". Thats always been my interpretation anyway. Plus, you could say I'm doing you a favour by pointing out your mistake so you don't repeat it in future. Alas, you're such an egocentric little simpleton that you'll probably parrot it along with your original opinion and still claim both are valid.
In summary: I'll say what I damn well like to you. If you don't like it, leave.
> Light, this is about people's opinions , I didn't agree with
> yours, but didn't start attacking it, because this is an opinionated
> poll, not a discussion.
What, you mean like you don't attack people's opinions on faith, or sexuality, or evolution? Hey, just cos I'm far better at making you look like a fool than you are at doing the same to others, don't blame me.
In any case, this is a place for discussion. It's called "discussing people's opinions". Thats always been my interpretation anyway. Plus, you could say I'm doing you a favour by pointing out your mistake so you don't repeat it in future. Alas, you're such an egocentric little simpleton that you'll probably parrot it along with your original opinion and still claim both are valid.
In summary: I'll say what I damn well like to you. If you don't like it, leave.
Page: