It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Euthanasia isn't it time we are given a choice.

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 08:14 AM
a reply to: boymonkey74

Hey sorry. It was not meant as an attack. I have worked in intensive care for 30 years. The principle of Double Effect is very valid in relation to the OP. There is an argument in the UK that this is a form of euthanasia. The Telegraph had an article several months ago about it. Here is a quote from BBC article regarding its use in the UK and a link to the source.

Although euthanasia is illegal in the UK, doctors are allowed to administer potentially lethal doses of painkilling drugs to relieve suffering, provided they do not primarily intend to kill the patient. This is known as the doctrine of double effect.


You mentioned the LCP and I agree it is a very effective tool to manage people's distress prior to death. The problem with it as you mentioned is that it was incorrectly used in many places.

posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 08:21 AM
a reply to: earthblaze

I wish I knew that before it would have saved emma years of pain
I loved her because she nnever complained about it and had such a lovely smile for me all the time.
I can only hope if I get to her age I have half the grace and dignity she had.

posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 05:36 PM

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: schuyler

Who is to say she "should have" died at the time?

SHE is to say she "should have" died at the time.

How can you disrespect that?

OK, so here she is in the hospital, lucid, alive, with a chance for recovery. I'm supposed to kill her because, some time in the past, she signed a living will that said if she were in a vegetative state with no chance of recovery that "we" should not use extraordinary means to keep her alive?

Are you equating an unconscious person with NO CHANCE OF RECOVER who CANNOT EVEN COMMUNICATE with someone who is alive, lucid, communicating, and deemed recoervable by a physician?

I'm sorry, but I consider that completely INSANE! A "Living Will" does not entitle you to kill someone any time they get sick. A "Living Will" is designed specifically for cases when the patient is comatose and terminally ill.

If you continue to not understand the difference here, go READ one.

posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 11:09 AM
a reply to: schuyler

This is from the post I replied to:

But it wasn't, as the doctor explained. She was alive, conscious, and lucid. As it turned out, she jumped the gun with her "wishes." She lived another year or so, in fairly comfortable circumstances and in no pain. Who is to say she "should have" died at the time?

You were talking about your mother, who I see, was "extremely ill."
I'm not sure how to address your question. Apparently she afraid she WAS dying, and WOULD become incapacitated? No, I am not saying, AT ALL, that a lucid, aware, frightened person is equivalent to a vegetative or terminal condition with death imminent.

I think, though, on rereading your post, that you are saying that she had filled one out prior to that - and that she wanted to be disconnected from treatment at the time in question, being extremely ill, but her doctor told her she wasn't dying.

In that situation, then, for a doctor to say, "You are not going to die" is perfectly appropriate. When my husband was in critical condition (with no Living Will) he thought he was going to die. I've been sick enough that I thought I was going to die.
Neither of us did.

Refusing treatment and asking for Euthanasia are two different things, but that's not really what you were talking about, I see that.

Sorry if I wasn't clear in reading or responding. Sorry for your losses also. My father was gravely ill, and he HAD a Living Will, from years earlier. We all knew his wishes. Yet my mother allowed him to be miserable in the hospital while 'the relatives' were en route. ..... I was there with them, in the hospital, and he was angry. I protested that he should not be allowed so much pain - but they said they couldn't up his dose of morphine, so he was SUFFERING...Fighting the ventilator, uncooperative with the staff, in pain, and they kept him going anyway. It was horrible. Heartbreaking.

Eventually (after all the family had come and seen him) they discharged him, because they knew he was terminal - with hospice care, and he was taken back home. Within a day, he was gone. But at least he was at home, with his family and friends around him. (Congestive Heart Failure and COPD were the culprits).

edit on 6/2/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 04:50 PM
You can see from some of the responses here just why laws allowing euthanasia must be very carefully crafted and not succumb to the emotions of people who "want choices" but have no idea what they are doing when enacting them. If we followed the dictates of some people here what we would have is legalized murder.

There is a VAST difference between someone choosing to have life support terminated if in the future they are in a comatose state and not in a position to choose one way or another and someone who is alive, lucid, and sick, but NOT to the point of terminal illness. Some of you suggest that I violated my own mother's wishes because she misunderstood the terms of a Living Will. I have suggested you are insane, and I stand by that perception. You either really don't get it that a "Living Will" is not the same thing, or you willfully choose to pretend it is. In either case, it's a damn good thing you aren't in charge of making up these laws because YOU need serious oversight.

Here's YOUR scenario in action:

Granny is sick, but she isn't terminal in any sense of the term. Though any doctor would agree that she "is in failing health," you can't find anyone who will say, "She has only a few weeks to live" because they don't really know. But Granny is depressed about it all and says she wants to die. So you say, in effect, "Hey! Granny wants to die! Get the pills!" and leave them at her bedside and make sure she knows there is a glass of water within arm's reach so that if she "wants to do it" it will really be very easy. And you say, "See you in the morning, Granny--or not!"

Then you think you're this compassionate soul who just "helped Granny along." And besides, now you get to divide up her stuff.

Yes, that IS true, and yes, that IS happening, as the statistics I showed you prove well enough. EVEN WITH so-called "safeguards" in place, such as the need to ask for "the pills" three times, two weeks apart each to make sure you're not dealing with a snap decision, EVEN THOUGH more than one licensed physician needs to certify and agree to make these drugs available, STILL--who avails themselves of these laws?

Middle-class white people--overwhelmingly. Now just ask yourself how that could possibly be? Why aren't minorities and low-income people represented equally here? It can't possibly be for racist reasons, could it? that's unthinkable! So why is it that people with assets tend to kill themselves off at a statistically much higher rate than people without assets?

Because, DESPITE all the safeguards in place, death "finds a way" to visit the richer just a little faster than everyone else, helped along by "well-meaning" people who believe it's in Granny's "best interests to end her suffering."

posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 02:57 PM
a reply to: TurtleSmacker

Your body, your choice. The only thing I'd worry about is the potential for abuse. For example, someone gets medical power of attorney for grandma and arraignes the procedure known as "euthanasia" against her will or knowing to get his inheritance early, for example. I'm sure there are many other possible scenarios.

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in