Re: Euthanasia article

[Guest guest]

> My question is this: why keep someone who suffers from 8 or 9

> devastating diseases alive? Why let vegetative masses of flesh live?

> Hasn't anyone seen million dollar baby? Some people don't want to be

> fully conscious of a " mandated voluntary physician assisted suicide " .

> They want someone to help them see something like their favorite

> memory or something and be halfway conscious of the fact that the

> person helping them to relive that experience is also pushing a dose

> of pure norepinephrine into his veins that will in a few seconds

> cause sudden cardiac arrest with no pain. Would helping such people

> die painlessly and peacefully be an act of senseless violence and

> against human rights?

I would venture to guess that for many with firm religous beliefs, like

my mother had, ending one's life prematurely would be a sin even in the

state of say, end stage cancer. It seems to me that those who believe

that is a sin impose their belief upon all. In my own personal opinion,

I think the individual should have their wishes carried out one way or

the other. I can also add that with the hospice care my mother

received, the morphine we were allowed to give her could have been

abused at any time without negative repercussions. There would be no

autospy and the nurse who came to the home after my mother died never

measured the amount of morphine in the bottle. I knew that my mom would

never want a fatal dose and I am surely thankful that I was never put in

the position of being asked. It may sound hypocritical when I think

that a person has the right to choose their time of death and then

saying I wouldn't want to give an overdose but it's true.

Kim

[Guest guest]

Well put. Kim wrote: > My question is this: why keep someone who suffers from 8 or 9> devastating diseases alive? Why let vegetative masses of flesh live?> Hasn't anyone seen million dollar baby? Some people don't want to be> fully conscious of a "mandated voluntary physician assisted suicide".> They want someone to help them see

something like their favorite> memory or something and be halfway conscious of the fact that the> person helping them to relive that experience is also pushing a dose> of pure norepinephrine into his veins that will in a few seconds> cause sudden cardiac arrest with no pain. Would helping such people> die painlessly and peacefully be an act of senseless violence and> against human rights?I would venture to guess that for many with firm religous beliefs, likemy mother had, ending one's life prematurely would be a sin even in thestate of say, end stage cancer. It seems to me that those who believethat is a sin impose their belief upon all. In my own personal opinion,I think the individual should have their wishes carried out one way orthe other. I can also add that with the hospice care my motherreceived, the morphine we were allowed to give her could have beenabused at any time without negative

repercussions. There would be noautospy and the nurse who came to the home after my mother died nevermeasured the amount of morphine in the bottle. I knew that my mom wouldnever want a fatal dose and I am surely thankful that I was never put inthe position of being asked. It may sound hypocritical when I thinkthat a person has the right to choose their time of death and thensaying I wouldn't want to give an overdose but it's true.Kim

Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.

[Guest guest]

I have a problem with this part of it:

"Cortical DeathThe most difficult questions of euthanasia may arise when individuals are in an unconscious state or coma and are unable to convey their wishes. We believe that, when a medical pronouncement of cortical death has been made, the healthcare delivery team in consultation with the patient's family and friends, and with proper legal protections, should suspend treatment calculated to prolong life.

A friend of mine has a daughter who was run over by a car and experienced such severe head trama that she was expected to never come out of the coma she wound up in.

Guess, what? Except for short term memory loss (which is still getting better every day) and some motor control issues which are being worked through with occupational therapy, she is perfectly fine.

Nevertheless, the doctors advised offing her while she was in a coma to relieve her suffering.

Regardless if how seldom this is reported in the media, it happens once in a while, and there are quire a few head-trauma coma survivors. But because MOST doctors haven't witnessed it, and because the media simply does not know about most of these cases, most doctors opt for killing the patient.

Euthanasia should here be administered only in carefully defined circumstances and as a last resort and with all possible legal safeguards against abuse.

It happens anyway even though I am sure many of those killed could have recovered had they been allowed to live. "My question is this: why keep someone who suffers from 8 or 9 devastating diseases alive? Why let vegetative masses of flesh live? Hasn't anyone seen million dollar baby? Some people don't want to be fully conscious of a "mandated voluntary physician assisted suicide. They want someone to help them see something like their favorite memory or something and be halfway conscious of the fact that the person helping them to relive that experience is also pushing a dose of pure norepinephrine into his veins that will in a few seconds cause sudden cardiac arrest with no pain. Would helping such people die painlessly and peacefully be an act of senseless violence and against human rights?"

Yes. Just because others cannot see the potential value of someone who is in a vegetative state does not mean we should grant them the right to kill that person.

I have a DNR (Do Not Ressucitate) order and a living will which states that no extra-ordinary measure are to be used to keep me alive. But that is MY choice. I would never trust anyone else to make MY choice.

So I would say that I agree with every portion of what you have posted except the part which I highlighted.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

Good point. environmental1st2003 <no_reply > wrote: I have a problem with this part of it: "Cortical DeathThe most difficult questions of euthanasia may arise when individuals are in an unconscious state or coma and are unable to convey their wishes. We believe that, when a medical pronouncement of cortical death has been made, the healthcare delivery team in consultation with the patient's family and friends, and with proper legal protections, should suspend treatment calculated to prolong

life. A friend of mine has a daughter who was run over by a car and experienced such severe head trama that she was expected to never come out of the coma she wound up in. Guess, what? Except for short term memory loss (which is still getting better every day) and some motor control issues which are being worked through with occupational therapy, she is perfectly fine. Nevertheless, the doctors advised offing her while she was in a coma to relieve her suffering. Regardless if how seldom this is reported in the media, it happens once in a while, and there are quire a few head-trauma coma survivors. But because MOST doctors haven't witnessed it, and because the media simply does not know about most of these cases, most doctors opt for killing the patient. Euthanasia should here be administered only in carefully defined circumstances and as a last resort and with all

possible legal safeguards against abuse. It happens anyway even though I am sure many of those killed could have recovered had they been allowed to live. "My question is this: why keep someone who suffers from 8 or 9 devastating diseases alive? Why let vegetative masses of flesh live? Hasn't anyone seen million dollar baby? Some people don't want to be fully conscious of a "mandated voluntary physician assisted suicide. They want someone to help them see something like their favorite memory or something and be halfway conscious of the fact that the person helping them to relive that experience is also pushing a dose of pure norepinephrine into his veins that will in a few seconds cause sudden cardiac arrest with no pain. Would helping such people die painlessly and peacefully be an act of senseless violence and against human rights?" Yes. Just because others cannot see the potential value of someone

who is in a vegetative state does not mean we should grant them the right to kill that person. I have a DNR (Do Not Ressucitate) order and a living will which states that no extra-ordinary measure are to be used to keep me alive. But that is MY choice. I would never trust anyone else to make MY choice. So I would say that I agree with every portion of what you have posted except the part which I highlighted. Tom Administrator

Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

[Guest guest]

A part of the reason for pushing this stuff now is that the countries with socialized medicine are seeing their costs rise and know that they will rise more as the population ages. This article did not mention the cost angle, but I have seen it in others. The definitions will undoubtedly also expand over time to include things like depression and so on that people can't cope with. It almost certainly will also be applied to a range of birth defects as such as well.

Personally, I think if someone wants to kill themselves, counselling could be an option, but really, if they are determined, nothing will stop them. I do not think doctors should be corrupted into the job. If doctors began giving pronouncements of death, then people will trust the system less. Eventually, laws would have to be put in place protecting doctors and so it would get really nasty. Even though I am against suicide, if it comes down to it, it should be up to the person in question to do it, not someone else.

A Plea for Beneficent Euthanasia(This statement first appeared in The Humanist of July/August 1974.)We, the undersigned, declare our support on ethical grounds for beneficent euthanasia. We believe that reflective ethical consciousness has developed to a point that makes it possible for societies to work out a humane policy toward death and dying. We deplore moral insensitivity and legal restrictions that impede and oppose consideration of the ethical case for euthanasia. We appeal to an enlightened public opinion to transcend traditional taboos and to move in the direction of a compassionate view toward needless suffering in dying.We reject theories that imply that human suffering is inevitable or that little can be done to improve the human condition. We hold that the tolerance, acceptance, or enforcement of the unnecessary suffering of others is immoral.We believe in the value and dignity of the individual person. This requires respectful treatment, which entails the right to reasonable self-determination. No rational morality can categorically forbid the termination of life if it has been blighted by some horrible malady for which all known remedial measures are unavailing.DefinitionEuthanasia, which literally means "good death," may be defined as "a mode or act of inducing or permitting death painlessly as a relief from suffering." It is an effort to make possible a "gentle and easy death" for those afflicted with an incurable disease or injury in its terminal stages. It is beneficent euthanasia if, and only if, it results in a painless and quick death, and if the act as a whole is beneficial to the recipient.Dying with DignityTo require that a person be kept alive against his will and to deny his pleas for merciful release after the dignity, beauty, promise, and meaning of life have vanished, when he can only linger on in stages of agony or decay, is cruel and barbarous. The imposition of unnecessary suffering is an evil that should be avoided by civilized society.We believe that our first commitment as human beings is to preserve, fulfill, and enhance life for ourselves and our fellow human beings. However, under certain conditions, a meaningful or significant life may no longer be possible. It is natural for human beings to hope that when that time comes they will be able to die peacefully and with dignity. When there is great distress and the end is inevitable, we advocate a humane effort to ease the suffering of ourselves and others, without moral or legal recriminations.From an ethical viewpoint, death should be seen as part of a life-continuum. Since every individual has the right to live with dignity—however often this right may in fact be violated—every individual has the right to die with dignity.Euthanasia presents an ethical problem for patients who know that their condition is incurable or irremediable and their suffering unendurable only if their theology or philosophy has persuaded them that no human involvement in the termination of life is morally permissible. For ethical humanists, euthanasia should be no problem. Pain or suffering is to be endured with as much dignity as patients can summon, as long as there is present a possibility of relief or cure. It is not to be endured when it is completely pointless, as is the case in the final stages of incurable disease.Voluntary EuthanasiaWe recommend that those individuals who believe as we do sign a "living will," preferably when they are in good health, stating unequivocally the expectation that the right to die with dignity will be respected. The individual's regular physician should be informed of this will and be given a copy of it; and, if the physician is not willing to comply, another, more sympathetic physician should be chosen. Family and close friends should have copies of the "living will" or, in its absence, be aware of the individual's desire, in the event that at a terminal stage the person is incapable of communicating with others.When a living will has not been written or an intention stated before the onset of an incurable disease, the patient's expressed request for euthanasia should be respected. Preferably, this should be a reflective judgment stated over a period of time. In all of these cases, euthanasia is voluntary, and it follows from a person's own free conscience to control both his life and, to some extent, the time and manner of his death.Passive and Active EuthanasiaFor those who have reached the point of such acceptance, there is yet another distinction of major importance: that between passive and active euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is the withdrawal of extraordinary life-prolonging techniques, such as intravenous feeding and resuscitation, or not initiating such treatment, when the situation is hopeless. Given the tremendous advances in medical science, it is now possible to keep terminal patients alive far beyond the time they might ordinarily die. Active euthanasia is the administration of increasing dosages of drugs (such as morphine) to relieve suffering, until the dosage, of necessity, reaches the lethal stage. On the basis of a compassionate approach to life and death, it seems to us at times difficult to distinguish between passive and active approaches. The acceptance of both forms of euthanasia seems to us implied by a fitting respect for the right to live and die with dignity.Cortical DeathThe most difficult questions of euthanasia may arise when individuals are in an unconscious state or coma and are unable to convey their wishes. We believe that, when a medical pronouncement of cortical death has been made, the healthcare delivery team in consultation with the patient's family and friends, and with proper legal protections, should suspend treatment calculated to prolong life. Euthanasia should here be administered only in carefully defined circumstances and as a last resort and with all possible legal safeguards against abuse.Attitudes of PhysiciansOften physicians and families, unable to bear a terminal patient's torture, permit acts of euthanasia to occur, but with great fear and secrecy. It is time that society faced this moral dilemma openly. For some physicians the problem of euthanasia arises primarily because of a certain ambivalence in the Hippocratic Oath. We should point out that, by this oath, a physician is committed both to the treatment and cure of disease <i>and</i> to the relief of suffering. A physician's own theology or philosophy will often influence the decision about which horn of this "doctor's dilemma" to choose. Often, too, consciously or subconsciously, a doctor's choice will be determined by his unwillingness to "lose" a patient, especially in cases where there is close personal identification. But the physician has no moral right to frustrate the patient's reflective wishes in these circumstances. For an ethical humanist, the physician's primary concern in the terminal stages of incurable illness should be the relief of suffering. If the attending physician rejects this attitude toward the patient, another doctor should be called in to take charge of the case.ConclusionWe believe that the practice of voluntary beneficent euthanasia will enhance the general welfare of human beings and, once legal safeguards are established, that such actions will encourage human beings to act courageously, out of kindness and justice. We believe that society has no genuine interest or need to preserve the terminally ill against their will and that the right to beneficent euthanasia, with proper procedural safeguards, can be protected against abuse.SIGNERS(Affiliations, as of 1974, are given for identification only.)Nobel Prize LaureatesLinus ing, Stanford University Sir Thomson, Fellow of the Royal Society, England Jacques Monod, Institut Pasteur, France PhysiciansMaurice B. Visscher, M.D., Regents Professor, Univ. of Minnesota Medical School Jules H. Masserman, M.D. Pres., Int. Assoc. of Social Psychiatry Louis Lasagna, M.D., University of Rochester W. Furlow, M.D., University of Virginia Medical Center Eliot Slater, M.D., British Voluntary Euthanasia Society Religious LeadersJerome son, Chairman, Board of Leaders, N.Y. Society for Ethical Culture ph Fletcher, Professor of Biomedical Ethics, Univ. of Virginia School of Medicine Edna Ruth , Editor, The Churchman Algernon D. Black, Fraternity of Leaders, American Ethical Union Tilford E. Dudley, Director, Washington Office, United Church of Christ Rev R. Scotford, former editor of Advance (the national journal of Congregational Churches) Rev. Henry, Unitarian Minister, President of Good Death Fellowship Rev. L. Peet, Glide Memorial Methodist Church, San Francisco, CA Rev. Gardiner M. Day, Rector Emeritus, Christ Episcopal Church, Cambridge, MA Rabbi Friedman, Congregation Beth Or, Board of Directors, Society for Humanistic Judaism Rev. D. R. Sharpe, Baptist Minister and author Rev. H. L. MacKenzie, United Church of Christ PhilosophersMarvin Kohl, Professor, State University College, Fredonia, NY Kurtz, Professor, State University of New York at Buffalo Sidney Hook, Professor, New York University Ernest Nagel, Professor, Columbia University el, Professor, Columbia University Lawyers and BusinesspeopleCyril C. Means, Ir., Professor, New York Law School Arval A. , Professor, School of Law, University of Washington R. Barrington, Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Judicature of England and Wales Lloyd Morain, Vice President, International Society for General Semantics V. Pahl, Counselor, American Humanist Association Academics C. Maguire, Associate Professor, Marquette University O. Ruth , Professor of Psychology, Western land College Chauncey D. Leake, Professor, University of California Roy P. Fairfield, Coordinator, Union Graduate School Lee A. Belford, Chairman, Dept. of Religious Education, New York University Additional Signers Farmer, President, Council on minority Planning and Strategy Morain, Board of Directors, Association for Voluntary Sterilization Bette Chambers, President, American Humanist Association Sicco L. Mansholt, Former President of the Commission of the European Economic Community H. J. Blackham, President, British Humanist Association My question is this: why keep someone who suffers from 8 or 9 devastating diseases alive? Why let vegetative masses of flesh live? Hasn't anyone seen million dollar baby? Some people don't want to be fully conscious of a "mandated voluntary physician assisted suicide". They want someone to help them see something like their favorite memory or something and be halfway conscious of the fact that the person helping them to relive that experience is also pushing a dose of pure norepinephrine into his veins that will in a few seconds cause sudden cardiac arrest with no pain. Would helping such people die painlessly and peacefully be an act of senseless violence and against human rights? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year.

[Guest guest]

A part of the reason for pushing this stuff now is that the countries with socialized medicine are seeing their costs rise and know that they will rise more as the population ages. This article did not mention the cost angle, but I have seen it in others. The definitions will undoubtedly also expand over time to include things like depression and so on that people can't cope with. It almost certainly will also be applied to a range of birth defects as such as well.

Personally, I think if someone wants to kill themselves, counselling could be an option, but really, if they are determined, nothing will stop them. I do not think doctors should be corrupted into the job. If doctors began giving pronouncements of death, then people will trust the system less. Eventually, laws would have to be put in place protecting doctors and so it would get really nasty. Even though I am against suicide, if it comes down to it, it should be up to the person in question to do it, not someone else.

A Plea for Beneficent Euthanasia(This statement first appeared in The Humanist of July/August 1974.)We, the undersigned, declare our support on ethical grounds for beneficent euthanasia. We believe that reflective ethical consciousness has developed to a point that makes it possible for societies to work out a humane policy toward death and dying. We deplore moral insensitivity and legal restrictions that impede and oppose consideration of the ethical case for euthanasia. We appeal to an enlightened public opinion to transcend traditional taboos and to move in the direction of a compassionate view toward needless suffering in dying.We reject theories that imply that human suffering is inevitable or that little can be done to improve the human condition. We hold that the tolerance, acceptance, or enforcement of the unnecessary suffering of others is immoral.We believe in the value and dignity of the individual person. This requires respectful treatment, which entails the right to reasonable self-determination. No rational morality can categorically forbid the termination of life if it has been blighted by some horrible malady for which all known remedial measures are unavailing.DefinitionEuthanasia, which literally means "good death," may be defined as "a mode or act of inducing or permitting death painlessly as a relief from suffering." It is an effort to make possible a "gentle and easy death" for those afflicted with an incurable disease or injury in its terminal stages. It is beneficent euthanasia if, and only if, it results in a painless and quick death, and if the act as a whole is beneficial to the recipient.Dying with DignityTo require that a person be kept alive against his will and to deny his pleas for merciful release after the dignity, beauty, promise, and meaning of life have vanished, when he can only linger on in stages of agony or decay, is cruel and barbarous. The imposition of unnecessary suffering is an evil that should be avoided by civilized society.We believe that our first commitment as human beings is to preserve, fulfill, and enhance life for ourselves and our fellow human beings. However, under certain conditions, a meaningful or significant life may no longer be possible. It is natural for human beings to hope that when that time comes they will be able to die peacefully and with dignity. When there is great distress and the end is inevitable, we advocate a humane effort to ease the suffering of ourselves and others, without moral or legal recriminations.From an ethical viewpoint, death should be seen as part of a life-continuum. Since every individual has the right to live with dignity—however often this right may in fact be violated—every individual has the right to die with dignity.Euthanasia presents an ethical problem for patients who know that their condition is incurable or irremediable and their suffering unendurable only if their theology or philosophy has persuaded them that no human involvement in the termination of life is morally permissible. For ethical humanists, euthanasia should be no problem. Pain or suffering is to be endured with as much dignity as patients can summon, as long as there is present a possibility of relief or cure. It is not to be endured when it is completely pointless, as is the case in the final stages of incurable disease.Voluntary EuthanasiaWe recommend that those individuals who believe as we do sign a "living will," preferably when they are in good health, stating unequivocally the expectation that the right to die with dignity will be respected. The individual's regular physician should be informed of this will and be given a copy of it; and, if the physician is not willing to comply, another, more sympathetic physician should be chosen. Family and close friends should have copies of the "living will" or, in its absence, be aware of the individual's desire, in the event that at a terminal stage the person is incapable of communicating with others.When a living will has not been written or an intention stated before the onset of an incurable disease, the patient's expressed request for euthanasia should be respected. Preferably, this should be a reflective judgment stated over a period of time. In all of these cases, euthanasia is voluntary, and it follows from a person's own free conscience to control both his life and, to some extent, the time and manner of his death.Passive and Active EuthanasiaFor those who have reached the point of such acceptance, there is yet another distinction of major importance: that between passive and active euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is the withdrawal of extraordinary life-prolonging techniques, such as intravenous feeding and resuscitation, or not initiating such treatment, when the situation is hopeless. Given the tremendous advances in medical science, it is now possible to keep terminal patients alive far beyond the time they might ordinarily die. Active euthanasia is the administration of increasing dosages of drugs (such as morphine) to relieve suffering, until the dosage, of necessity, reaches the lethal stage. On the basis of a compassionate approach to life and death, it seems to us at times difficult to distinguish between passive and active approaches. The acceptance of both forms of euthanasia seems to us implied by a fitting respect for the right to live and die with dignity.Cortical DeathThe most difficult questions of euthanasia may arise when individuals are in an unconscious state or coma and are unable to convey their wishes. We believe that, when a medical pronouncement of cortical death has been made, the healthcare delivery team in consultation with the patient's family and friends, and with proper legal protections, should suspend treatment calculated to prolong life. Euthanasia should here be administered only in carefully defined circumstances and as a last resort and with all possible legal safeguards against abuse.Attitudes of PhysiciansOften physicians and families, unable to bear a terminal patient's torture, permit acts of euthanasia to occur, but with great fear and secrecy. It is time that society faced this moral dilemma openly. For some physicians the problem of euthanasia arises primarily because of a certain ambivalence in the Hippocratic Oath. We should point out that, by this oath, a physician is committed both to the treatment and cure of disease <i>and</i> to the relief of suffering. A physician's own theology or philosophy will often influence the decision about which horn of this "doctor's dilemma" to choose. Often, too, consciously or subconsciously, a doctor's choice will be determined by his unwillingness to "lose" a patient, especially in cases where there is close personal identification. But the physician has no moral right to frustrate the patient's reflective wishes in these circumstances. For an ethical humanist, the physician's primary concern in the terminal stages of incurable illness should be the relief of suffering. If the attending physician rejects this attitude toward the patient, another doctor should be called in to take charge of the case.ConclusionWe believe that the practice of voluntary beneficent euthanasia will enhance the general welfare of human beings and, once legal safeguards are established, that such actions will encourage human beings to act courageously, out of kindness and justice. We believe that society has no genuine interest or need to preserve the terminally ill against their will and that the right to beneficent euthanasia, with proper procedural safeguards, can be protected against abuse.SIGNERS(Affiliations, as of 1974, are given for identification only.)Nobel Prize LaureatesLinus ing, Stanford University Sir Thomson, Fellow of the Royal Society, England Jacques Monod, Institut Pasteur, France PhysiciansMaurice B. Visscher, M.D., Regents Professor, Univ. of Minnesota Medical School Jules H. Masserman, M.D. Pres., Int. Assoc. of Social Psychiatry Louis Lasagna, M.D., University of Rochester W. Furlow, M.D., University of Virginia Medical Center Eliot Slater, M.D., British Voluntary Euthanasia Society Religious LeadersJerome son, Chairman, Board of Leaders, N.Y. Society for Ethical Culture ph Fletcher, Professor of Biomedical Ethics, Univ. of Virginia School of Medicine Edna Ruth , Editor, The Churchman Algernon D. Black, Fraternity of Leaders, American Ethical Union Tilford E. Dudley, Director, Washington Office, United Church of Christ Rev R. Scotford, former editor of Advance (the national journal of Congregational Churches) Rev. Henry, Unitarian Minister, President of Good Death Fellowship Rev. L. Peet, Glide Memorial Methodist Church, San Francisco, CA Rev. Gardiner M. Day, Rector Emeritus, Christ Episcopal Church, Cambridge, MA Rabbi Friedman, Congregation Beth Or, Board of Directors, Society for Humanistic Judaism Rev. D. R. Sharpe, Baptist Minister and author Rev. H. L. MacKenzie, United Church of Christ PhilosophersMarvin Kohl, Professor, State University College, Fredonia, NY Kurtz, Professor, State University of New York at Buffalo Sidney Hook, Professor, New York University Ernest Nagel, Professor, Columbia University el, Professor, Columbia University Lawyers and BusinesspeopleCyril C. Means, Ir., Professor, New York Law School Arval A. , Professor, School of Law, University of Washington R. Barrington, Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Judicature of England and Wales Lloyd Morain, Vice President, International Society for General Semantics V. Pahl, Counselor, American Humanist Association Academics C. Maguire, Associate Professor, Marquette University O. Ruth , Professor of Psychology, Western land College Chauncey D. Leake, Professor, University of California Roy P. Fairfield, Coordinator, Union Graduate School Lee A. Belford, Chairman, Dept. of Religious Education, New York University Additional Signers Farmer, President, Council on minority Planning and Strategy Morain, Board of Directors, Association for Voluntary Sterilization Bette Chambers, President, American Humanist Association Sicco L. Mansholt, Former President of the Commission of the European Economic Community H. J. Blackham, President, British Humanist Association My question is this: why keep someone who suffers from 8 or 9 devastating diseases alive? Why let vegetative masses of flesh live? Hasn't anyone seen million dollar baby? Some people don't want to be fully conscious of a "mandated voluntary physician assisted suicide". They want someone to help them see something like their favorite memory or something and be halfway conscious of the fact that the person helping them to relive that experience is also pushing a dose of pure norepinephrine into his veins that will in a few seconds cause sudden cardiac arrest with no pain. Would helping such people die painlessly and peacefully be an act of senseless violence and against human rights? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year.

[Guest guest]

A part of the reason for pushing this stuff now is that the countries with socialized medicine are seeing their costs rise and know that they will rise more as the population ages. This article did not mention the cost angle, but I have seen it in others. The definitions will undoubtedly also expand over time to include things like depression and so on that people can't cope with. It almost certainly will also be applied to a range of birth defects as such as well.

Personally, I think if someone wants to kill themselves, counselling could be an option, but really, if they are determined, nothing will stop them. I do not think doctors should be corrupted into the job. If doctors began giving pronouncements of death, then people will trust the system less. Eventually, laws would have to be put in place protecting doctors and so it would get really nasty. Even though I am against suicide, if it comes down to it, it should be up to the person in question to do it, not someone else.

A Plea for Beneficent Euthanasia(This statement first appeared in The Humanist of July/August 1974.)We, the undersigned, declare our support on ethical grounds for beneficent euthanasia. We believe that reflective ethical consciousness has developed to a point that makes it possible for societies to work out a humane policy toward death and dying. We deplore moral insensitivity and legal restrictions that impede and oppose consideration of the ethical case for euthanasia. We appeal to an enlightened public opinion to transcend traditional taboos and to move in the direction of a compassionate view toward needless suffering in dying.We reject theories that imply that human suffering is inevitable or that little can be done to improve the human condition. We hold that the tolerance, acceptance, or enforcement of the unnecessary suffering of others is immoral.We believe in the value and dignity of the individual person. This requires respectful treatment, which entails the right to reasonable self-determination. No rational morality can categorically forbid the termination of life if it has been blighted by some horrible malady for which all known remedial measures are unavailing.DefinitionEuthanasia, which literally means "good death," may be defined as "a mode or act of inducing or permitting death painlessly as a relief from suffering." It is an effort to make possible a "gentle and easy death" for those afflicted with an incurable disease or injury in its terminal stages. It is beneficent euthanasia if, and only if, it results in a painless and quick death, and if the act as a whole is beneficial to the recipient.Dying with DignityTo require that a person be kept alive against his will and to deny his pleas for merciful release after the dignity, beauty, promise, and meaning of life have vanished, when he can only linger on in stages of agony or decay, is cruel and barbarous. The imposition of unnecessary suffering is an evil that should be avoided by civilized society.We believe that our first commitment as human beings is to preserve, fulfill, and enhance life for ourselves and our fellow human beings. However, under certain conditions, a meaningful or significant life may no longer be possible. It is natural for human beings to hope that when that time comes they will be able to die peacefully and with dignity. When there is great distress and the end is inevitable, we advocate a humane effort to ease the suffering of ourselves and others, without moral or legal recriminations.From an ethical viewpoint, death should be seen as part of a life-continuum. Since every individual has the right to live with dignity—however often this right may in fact be violated—every individual has the right to die with dignity.Euthanasia presents an ethical problem for patients who know that their condition is incurable or irremediable and their suffering unendurable only if their theology or philosophy has persuaded them that no human involvement in the termination of life is morally permissible. For ethical humanists, euthanasia should be no problem. Pain or suffering is to be endured with as much dignity as patients can summon, as long as there is present a possibility of relief or cure. It is not to be endured when it is completely pointless, as is the case in the final stages of incurable disease.Voluntary EuthanasiaWe recommend that those individuals who believe as we do sign a "living will," preferably when they are in good health, stating unequivocally the expectation that the right to die with dignity will be respected. The individual's regular physician should be informed of this will and be given a copy of it; and, if the physician is not willing to comply, another, more sympathetic physician should be chosen. Family and close friends should have copies of the "living will" or, in its absence, be aware of the individual's desire, in the event that at a terminal stage the person is incapable of communicating with others.When a living will has not been written or an intention stated before the onset of an incurable disease, the patient's expressed request for euthanasia should be respected. Preferably, this should be a reflective judgment stated over a period of time. In all of these cases, euthanasia is voluntary, and it follows from a person's own free conscience to control both his life and, to some extent, the time and manner of his death.Passive and Active EuthanasiaFor those who have reached the point of such acceptance, there is yet another distinction of major importance: that between passive and active euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is the withdrawal of extraordinary life-prolonging techniques, such as intravenous feeding and resuscitation, or not initiating such treatment, when the situation is hopeless. Given the tremendous advances in medical science, it is now possible to keep terminal patients alive far beyond the time they might ordinarily die. Active euthanasia is the administration of increasing dosages of drugs (such as morphine) to relieve suffering, until the dosage, of necessity, reaches the lethal stage. On the basis of a compassionate approach to life and death, it seems to us at times difficult to distinguish between passive and active approaches. The acceptance of both forms of euthanasia seems to us implied by a fitting respect for the right to live and die with dignity.Cortical DeathThe most difficult questions of euthanasia may arise when individuals are in an unconscious state or coma and are unable to convey their wishes. We believe that, when a medical pronouncement of cortical death has been made, the healthcare delivery team in consultation with the patient's family and friends, and with proper legal protections, should suspend treatment calculated to prolong life. Euthanasia should here be administered only in carefully defined circumstances and as a last resort and with all possible legal safeguards against abuse.Attitudes of PhysiciansOften physicians and families, unable to bear a terminal patient's torture, permit acts of euthanasia to occur, but with great fear and secrecy. It is time that society faced this moral dilemma openly. For some physicians the problem of euthanasia arises primarily because of a certain ambivalence in the Hippocratic Oath. We should point out that, by this oath, a physician is committed both to the treatment and cure of disease <i>and</i> to the relief of suffering. A physician's own theology or philosophy will often influence the decision about which horn of this "doctor's dilemma" to choose. Often, too, consciously or subconsciously, a doctor's choice will be determined by his unwillingness to "lose" a patient, especially in cases where there is close personal identification. But the physician has no moral right to frustrate the patient's reflective wishes in these circumstances. For an ethical humanist, the physician's primary concern in the terminal stages of incurable illness should be the relief of suffering. If the attending physician rejects this attitude toward the patient, another doctor should be called in to take charge of the case.ConclusionWe believe that the practice of voluntary beneficent euthanasia will enhance the general welfare of human beings and, once legal safeguards are established, that such actions will encourage human beings to act courageously, out of kindness and justice. We believe that society has no genuine interest or need to preserve the terminally ill against their will and that the right to beneficent euthanasia, with proper procedural safeguards, can be protected against abuse.SIGNERS(Affiliations, as of 1974, are given for identification only.)Nobel Prize LaureatesLinus ing, Stanford University Sir Thomson, Fellow of the Royal Society, England Jacques Monod, Institut Pasteur, France PhysiciansMaurice B. Visscher, M.D., Regents Professor, Univ. of Minnesota Medical School Jules H. Masserman, M.D. Pres., Int. Assoc. of Social Psychiatry Louis Lasagna, M.D., University of Rochester W. Furlow, M.D., University of Virginia Medical Center Eliot Slater, M.D., British Voluntary Euthanasia Society Religious LeadersJerome son, Chairman, Board of Leaders, N.Y. Society for Ethical Culture ph Fletcher, Professor of Biomedical Ethics, Univ. of Virginia School of Medicine Edna Ruth , Editor, The Churchman Algernon D. Black, Fraternity of Leaders, American Ethical Union Tilford E. Dudley, Director, Washington Office, United Church of Christ Rev R. Scotford, former editor of Advance (the national journal of Congregational Churches) Rev. Henry, Unitarian Minister, President of Good Death Fellowship Rev. L. Peet, Glide Memorial Methodist Church, San Francisco, CA Rev. Gardiner M. Day, Rector Emeritus, Christ Episcopal Church, Cambridge, MA Rabbi Friedman, Congregation Beth Or, Board of Directors, Society for Humanistic Judaism Rev. D. R. Sharpe, Baptist Minister and author Rev. H. L. MacKenzie, United Church of Christ PhilosophersMarvin Kohl, Professor, State University College, Fredonia, NY Kurtz, Professor, State University of New York at Buffalo Sidney Hook, Professor, New York University Ernest Nagel, Professor, Columbia University el, Professor, Columbia University Lawyers and BusinesspeopleCyril C. Means, Ir., Professor, New York Law School Arval A. , Professor, School of Law, University of Washington R. Barrington, Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Judicature of England and Wales Lloyd Morain, Vice President, International Society for General Semantics V. Pahl, Counselor, American Humanist Association Academics C. Maguire, Associate Professor, Marquette University O. Ruth , Professor of Psychology, Western land College Chauncey D. Leake, Professor, University of California Roy P. Fairfield, Coordinator, Union Graduate School Lee A. Belford, Chairman, Dept. of Religious Education, New York University Additional Signers Farmer, President, Council on minority Planning and Strategy Morain, Board of Directors, Association for Voluntary Sterilization Bette Chambers, President, American Humanist Association Sicco L. Mansholt, Former President of the Commission of the European Economic Community H. J. Blackham, President, British Humanist Association My question is this: why keep someone who suffers from 8 or 9 devastating diseases alive? Why let vegetative masses of flesh live? Hasn't anyone seen million dollar baby? Some people don't want to be fully conscious of a "mandated voluntary physician assisted suicide". They want someone to help them see something like their favorite memory or something and be halfway conscious of the fact that the person helping them to relive that experience is also pushing a dose of pure norepinephrine into his veins that will in a few seconds cause sudden cardiac arrest with no pain. Would helping such people die painlessly and peacefully be an act of senseless violence and against human rights? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year.

[Guest guest]

To an extent the media is right about certain health issues like weight. However, they do take it to the extreme in holding up those really scrawny women and steroid pumped up men as role models. Just an example. When I was a kid, GI Joe, the little 4 inch figures, were like normal sized me, except for two of them. The more recent run of them, they were all bulked up like pro-wrestlers. Same with the Star Wars figures.

The moral and ethical decay is just what Plato warned about in The Republic. He said that bards, meaning entertainers, "Bar bands" and such, would be a negative influence on society and should be either heavily regulated or banned. We see this today in that talentless hacks dominate the media of all stripes. Many consider it their purpose to "Push the limits", meaning to push more vulgarity and obsecenity on us and make us out to be the bad guys when we speak against it.

What gets me most about the media is their bias toward certain points of view, facts be damned, or cert6ain candidates, etc. Yes, much of the news they put out is either bad or pointless, like the missing hiker girl or a missing child (tragic yes, but why is it necessary to make it the main story around the whole country?). There are many serious things going on out there that should be addressed objectively and from all sides, but they aren't. Like the candidates now. For one side, if they bray the word "change!" then no serious questions are coming about what their idea of change actually is. There is no questioning about how that will work or its long term consequences. There are no questions about their pasts or anything else.

That our future is given such short shrift by the media and others is what really depresses me.

In a message dated 1/11/2008 2:45:35 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

Ironically, it is stuff like this article that makes me depressed. Depression is something everyone may encounter for periods of time in their lives. The solution offered by television ads and by doctors is to take a pill for the problem. But I believe society and what goes on in it plays a large part in why we are depressed. The media and our peers are constantly causing us to question our looks, our weight, our intelligence, our jobs, our morals, ethics, and values. Is it any wonder we never feel good about ourselves. I really feel like a total revamp of society would go a long way toward eliminating depression in the world. Of course a revamp of this nature borders on what communists do, such as telling all the good news and skimming over the bad. We cannot have that. Yet I wish the media would not take such a negative angle on even positive stories. They will call this "objective reporting," but I jokingly wonder whose objectives are being satisfied by such reporting. TomAdministrator Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year.

[Guest guest]

Choking is bad. Personally, I'm betting on a .357 magnum with a heavy powder load and proper placement, a simple thing. Probably never come to that though. Besides, I'd rather not end up in the bad place for nothing.

In a message dated 1/11/2008 3:37:49 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

"Choking has to be the most cost-effective way and painless too."It's not painless. You feel like your head is going to explode. I've tried hanging myself years ago. I should know. TomAdministrator Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year.

[Guest guest]

Yeah, it's just that people want the drugs for painless death. It's a gamble when people shoot themselves in the head because they could still experience pain after the shot and end up on a respirator afterwards. But, there are plenty of ways for depressives to kill themselves if they're determined. Choking has to be the most cost-effective way and painless too. VISIGOTH@... wrote: A part of the reason for pushing this stuff now is that the countries with socialized medicine are seeing their

costs rise and know that they will rise more as the population ages. This article did not mention the cost angle, but I have seen it in others. The definitions will undoubtedly also expand over time to include things like depression and so on that people can't cope with. It almost certainly will also be applied to a range of birth defects as such as well. Personally, I think if someone wants to kill themselves, counselling could be an option, but really, if they are determined, nothing will stop them. I do not think doctors should be corrupted into the job. If doctors began giving pronouncements of death, then people will trust the system less. Eventually, laws would have to be put in place protecting doctors and so it would get really nasty. Even though I am against suicide, if it comes down to it, it should be up to the person in question to do it, not someone else. In a message dated 1/10/2008 5:40:25 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, drumthis2001 writes: A Plea for Beneficent Euthanasia(This statement first appeared in The Humanist of July/August 1974.)We, the undersigned, declare our support on ethical grounds for beneficent euthanasia. We believe that reflective ethical consciousness has developed to a point that makes it possible for societies to work out a humane policy toward death and dying. We deplore moral insensitivity and legal restrictions that impede and oppose consideration of the ethical case for euthanasia. We appeal to an enlightened public opinion to transcend traditional taboos and to move in the direction of a compassionate view toward

needless suffering in dying.We reject theories that imply that human suffering is inevitable or that little can be done to improve the human condition. We hold that the tolerance, acceptance, or enforcement of the unnecessary suffering of others is immoral.We believe in the value and dignity of the individual person. This requires respectful treatment, which entails the right to reasonable self-determination. No rational morality can categorically forbid the termination of life if it has been blighted by some horrible malady for which all known remedial measures are unavailing.DefinitionEuthanasia, which literally means "good death," may be defined as "a mode or act of inducing or permitting death painlessly as a relief from suffering." It is an effort to make possible a "gentle and easy death" for those afflicted with an incurable disease or injury in its terminal stages. It is beneficent

euthanasia if, and only if, it results in a painless and quick death, and if the act as a whole is beneficial to the recipient.Dying with DignityTo require that a person be kept alive against his will and to deny his pleas for merciful release after the dignity, beauty, promise, and meaning of life have vanished, when he can only linger on in stages of agony or decay, is cruel and barbarous. The imposition of unnecessary suffering is an evil that should be avoided by civilized society.We believe that our first commitment as human beings is to preserve, fulfill, and enhance life for ourselves and our fellow human beings. However, under certain conditions, a meaningful or significant life may no longer be possible. It is natural for human beings to hope that when that time comes they will be able to die peacefully and with dignity. When there is great distress and the end is inevitable, we advocate a

humane effort to ease the suffering of ourselves and others, without moral or legal recriminations.From an ethical viewpoint, death should be seen as part of a life-continuum. Since every individual has the right to live with dignity—however often this right may in fact be violated—every individual has the right to die with dignity.Euthanasia presents an ethical problem for patients who know that their condition is incurable or irremediable and their suffering unendurable only if their theology or philosophy has persuaded them that no human involvement in the termination of life is morally permissible. For ethical humanists, euthanasia should be no problem. Pain or suffering is to be endured with as much dignity as patients can summon, as long as there is present a possibility of relief or cure. It is not to be endured when it is completely pointless, as is the case in the final stages of incurable

disease.Voluntary EuthanasiaWe recommend that those individuals who believe as we do sign a "living will," preferably when they are in good health, stating unequivocally the expectation that the right to die with dignity will be respected. The individual's regular physician should be informed of this will and be given a copy of it; and, if the physician is not willing to comply, another, more sympathetic physician should be chosen. Family and close friends should have copies of the "living will" or, in its absence, be aware of the individual's desire, in the event that at a terminal stage the person is incapable of communicating with others.When a living will has not been written or an intention stated before the onset of an incurable disease, the patient's expressed request for euthanasia should be respected. Preferably, this should be a reflective judgment stated over a period of time. In all of

these cases, euthanasia is voluntary, and it follows from a person's own free conscience to control both his life and, to some extent, the time and manner of his death.Passive and Active EuthanasiaFor those who have reached the point of such acceptance, there is yet another distinction of major importance: that between passive and active euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is the withdrawal of extraordinary life-prolonging techniques, such as intravenous feeding and resuscitation, or not initiating such treatment, when the situation is hopeless. Given the tremendous advances in medical science, it is now possible to keep terminal patients alive far beyond the time they might ordinarily die. Active euthanasia is the administration of increasing dosages of drugs (such as morphine) to relieve suffering, until the dosage, of necessity, reaches the lethal stage. On the basis of a compassionate approach to life and

death, it seems to us at times difficult to distinguish between passive and active approaches. The acceptance of both forms of euthanasia seems to us implied by a fitting respect for the right to live and die with dignity.Cortical DeathThe most difficult questions of euthanasia may arise when individuals are in an unconscious state or coma and are unable to convey their wishes. We believe that, when a medical pronouncement of cortical death has been made, the healthcare delivery team in consultation with the patient's family and friends, and with proper legal protections, should suspend treatment calculated to prolong life. Euthanasia should here be administered only in carefully defined circumstances and as a last resort and with all possible legal safeguards against abuse.Attitudes of PhysiciansOften physicians and families, unable to bear a terminal patient's torture, permit acts of

euthanasia to occur, but with great fear and secrecy. It is time that society faced this moral dilemma openly. For some physicians the problem of euthanasia arises primarily because of a certain ambivalence in the Hippocratic Oath. We should point out that, by this oath, a physician is committed both to the treatment and cure of disease <i>and</i> to the relief of suffering. A physician's own theology or philosophy will often influence the decision about which horn of this "doctor's dilemma" to choose. Often, too, consciously or subconsciously, a doctor's choice will be determined by his unwillingness to "lose" a patient, especially in cases where there is close personal identification. But the physician has no moral right to frustrate the patient's reflective wishes in these circumstances. For an ethical humanist, the physician's primary concern in the terminal stages of incurable illness should be the

relief of suffering. If the attending physician rejects this attitude toward the patient, another doctor should be called in to take charge of the case.ConclusionWe believe that the practice of voluntary beneficent euthanasia will enhance the general welfare of human beings and, once legal safeguards are established, that such actions will encourage human beings to act courageously, out of kindness and justice. We believe that society has no genuine interest or need to preserve the terminally ill against their will and that the right to beneficent euthanasia, with proper procedural safeguards, can be protected against abuse.SIGNERS(Affiliations, as of 1974, are given for identification only.)Nobel Prize LaureatesLinus ing, Stanford University Sir Thomson, Fellow of the Royal Society, England Jacques Monod, Institut Pasteur, France PhysiciansMaurice B.

Visscher, M.D., Regents Professor, Univ. of Minnesota Medical School Jules H. Masserman, M.D. Pres., Int. Assoc. of Social Psychiatry Louis Lasagna, M.D., University of Rochester W. Furlow, M.D., University of Virginia Medical Center Eliot Slater, M.D., British Voluntary Euthanasia Society Religious LeadersJerome son, Chairman, Board of Leaders, N.Y. Society for Ethical Culture ph Fletcher, Professor of Biomedical Ethics, Univ. of Virginia School of Medicine Edna Ruth , Editor, The Churchman Algernon D. Black, Fraternity of Leaders, American Ethical Union Tilford E. Dudley, Director, Washington Office, United Church of Christ Rev R. Scotford, former editor of Advance (the national journal of Congregational Churches) Rev. Henry, Unitarian Minister, President of Good Death Fellowship Rev. L. Peet, Glide Memorial Methodist Church, San Francisco, CA

Rev. Gardiner M. Day, Rector Emeritus, Christ Episcopal Church, Cambridge, MA Rabbi Friedman, Congregation Beth Or, Board of Directors, Society for Humanistic Judaism Rev. D. R. Sharpe, Baptist Minister and author Rev. H. L. MacKenzie, United Church of Christ PhilosophersMarvin Kohl, Professor, State University College, Fredonia, NY Kurtz, Professor, State University of New York at Buffalo Sidney Hook, Professor, New York University Ernest Nagel, Professor, Columbia University el, Professor, Columbia University Lawyers and BusinesspeopleCyril C. Means, Ir., Professor, New York Law School Arval A. , Professor, School of Law, University of Washington R. Barrington, Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Judicature of England and Wales Lloyd Morain, Vice President, International Society for General Semantics V. Pahl, Counselor, American Humanist

Association Academics C. Maguire, Associate Professor, Marquette University O. Ruth , Professor of Psychology, Western land College Chauncey D. Leake, Professor, University of California Roy P. Fairfield, Coordinator, Union Graduate School Lee A. Belford, Chairman, Dept. of Religious Education, New York University Additional Signers Farmer, President, Council on minority Planning and Strategy Morain, Board of Directors, Association for Voluntary Sterilization Bette Chambers, President, American Humanist Association Sicco L. Mansholt, Former President of the Commission of the European Economic Community H. J. Blackham, President, British Humanist Association My question is this: why keep someone who suffers from 8 or 9 devastating diseases alive? Why let vegetative masses of flesh live? Hasn't anyone seen million dollar baby? Some people don't want to be fully

conscious of a "mandated voluntary physician assisted suicide". They want someone to help them see something like their favorite memory or something and be halfway conscious of the fact that the person helping them to relive that experience is also pushing a dose of pure norepinephrine into his veins that will in a few seconds cause sudden cardiac arrest with no pain. Would helping such people die painlessly and peacefully be an act of senseless violence and against human rights? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year.

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

[Guest guest]

" The definitions will undoubtedly also expand over time to include

things like depression and so on that people can't cope with. It

almost certainly will also be applied to a range of birth defects as

such as well. "

Ironically, it is stuff like this article that makes me depressed.

Depression is something everyone may encounter for periods of time in

their lives. The solution offered by television ads and by doctors is

to take a pill for the problem.

But I believe society and what goes on in it plays a large part in

why we are depressed. The media and our peers are constantly causing

us to question our looks, our weight, our intelligence, our jobs, our

morals, ethics, and values. Is it any wonder we never feel good about

ourselves. I really feel like a total revamp of society would go a

long way toward eliminating depression in the world.

Of course a revamp of this nature borders on what communists do, such

as telling all the good news and skimming over the bad. We cannot

have that. Yet I wish the media would not take such a negative angle

on even positive stories. They will call this " objective reporting, "

but I jokingly wonder whose objectives are being satisfied by such

reporting.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

" Choking has to be the most cost-effective way and painless too. "

It's not painless. You feel like your head is going to explode. I've

tried hanging myself years ago. I should know.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

" For one side, if they bray the word " change! " then no serious

questions are coming about what their idea of change actually is.

There is no questioning about how that will work or its long term

consequences. There are no questions about their pasts or anything

else. "

While the media treats the candidates as sports competitors, they are

indeed ignoring issues. Take Obama as an example. The reason many

people can identify with him is because he has not told the public

specifically what we will do to solve the nation's problems once

elected. This allows people to project their own ideas onto Obama

and

believe (falsely) that he thinks the way they do.

What ought to be happening is that the most appealing cadidates ought

to be grilled ruthlessly about specifics and pinned down when they

become evasive.

I am betting that doesn't happen though.

Tom

Administrator