Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Steve the Original

Euthanasia

Recommended Posts

OK reading another Topic and a comment came up about Euthenasia whats your thoughts on this...

 

We all know in some countrys people can choose when they want to Die and are given help in doing so,ie Drugs are provided to Terminate thier own life..after all we wouldnt let an Animal suffer..

Do you think this is right?

What about Euthanasia for the Old and Fragile who are a Burden on the NHS and other Services should they be put down even if they dont want to be??

 

Have a look on u-tube for Logan Run an old TV series...they were Disposed of at the age of 30....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thin end of the wedge in my opinion. It would start off as voluntary then slowly become compulsory - all for the "best possible reasons" obviously. Trust government? No thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A question that is asked by doctors these days is concerning a patients thoughts & preferences on resuscitation in certain circumstances which could equate to a type of euthanasia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's only down to the fact that modern medicine can keep folk alive (if you can call it life); for an extended period; or at the other end of the scale, keep premature babies alive; that we tend to face this dilemma. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But on the other hand the news today was talking about DNA research aimed at striking at the heart of cancer cells through DNA which is a direct opposite of euthanasia....how long will people be able to live in years to come with the best efforts of science , would a population of increasing longevity be able to survive on this planet ,& will it just be targeted at the chosen wealthy few ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real problem is that for decades medical research has concentrated on saving life and extending the spark of life, without reference to the quality of life the patient is likely to enjoy.

 

My Grandmother, for example, suffered two catastrophic strokes within the space of a fortnight back in the late Eighties. Medical science kept her alive, and she then spent the next twelve years trapped in the shell of a body which she had absolutely no control over, with my poor mother and other family members schlepping to visit her in a care home three times a week.

 

My greatest fear is that she was actually conscious of the indignities being visited upon her on a daily basis - just occasionally there would be something in her eyes which would convince me that she still had her faculties but could do nothing to communicate.

 

Ten years previously she wouldn't have survived her first stroke, never mind her second. And I can't help thinking that would have been kinder. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is definitely a line to be drawn in cases like that Inky ,& probably it should be based on how you would like things to pan out if you were in the same position as your loved one. "Where there's life there's hope " is a nice thought but quality of life also needs to be considered in what could be a slow ,lingering death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The real problem is that for decades medical research has concentrated on saving life and extending the spark of life, without reference to the quality of life the patient is likely to enjoy.

 

My Grandmother, for example, suffered two catastrophic strokes within the space of a fortnight back in the late Eighties. Medical science kept her alive, and she then spent the next twelve years trapped in the shell of a body which she had absolutely no control over, with my poor mother and other family members schlepping to visit her in a care home three times a week.

 

My greatest fear is that she was actually conscious of the indignities being visited upon her on a daily basis - just occasionally there would be something in her eyes which would convince me that she still had her faculties but could do nothing to communicate.

 

Ten years previously she wouldn't have survived her first stroke, never mind her second. And I can't help thinking that would have been kinder. 

 

My mum went through a similar fate inky.... she had a stroke (from which she recovered very well) however a subsequent fall and the onset of infection in the wound to repair her broken hip, left her bed-ridden in her living room for the last few years of her life; relying on carers to lift her out of bed, to wash and feed her etc.... not the sort of ending to her life she would have chosen for herself I'm sure seeing as mum often used to walk into town from Bewsey (even into her mid-80's and even up to the week before she had her stroke)

 

I felt a great relief for her when she finally passed away, but can't help thinking that given the option, she would have ended things sooner herself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's face it, doctors - especially in cancer care and the treatment of other often fatal conditions - already routinely practice euthanasia, with the informed consent and approval of the patient or their loved ones.

 

I'm not talking about administering a single, fatal, dose of morphine or whatever. But as soon as paliative care is all that is left, the treatment options they have available include courses of action which will make a patient more comfortable for their last days or weeks but will inevitably end their lives. Heavy opiate sedation for pain relief without artificial feeding and hydration will bring about death in an already weakened patient in less than 48 hours. Such is the course which my own mother's last days took last year. Her liver cancer had returned for the second time, had spread, and was untreatable. Once she declined to the point it was obvious there was to be no last minute rally from her, the Christie arranged for a hospital bed at home plus support with sedation from the district nurses and a speciallist ambulance crew to transport her home. She made it home and passed away that night.

 

But then there are patients whose condition is not going to kill them quickly, but will either debilitate them completely whilst leaving them to live on for years or will kill them slowly and with untreatable pain or distress. Such patients are equally deserving of dignity at the end of their lives.

 

Yes there need to be safeguards, and I'm not convinced a Dignitas clinic style approach is the right answer either, but there does need to be a way for people to access care which will end their suffering as well as care which will cure their condition where medicine has acheived that.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it may be more difficult to be in favour of euthanasia the closer you are to the finishing post young Kije .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting idea from one medico; that that we should cease spending £millions on cancer research and just accept that if you get it your on your way out. Extending this argument would suggest, that the money being spent on promoting preventative life-style changes, could also be saved; on the basis that smoking etc will give you cancer, you'll die earlier, and the Gov will save on pensions, bus passes and winter fuel allowance. Just a thought !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well unless they find a magic source of cash that will continue to pay for people that they are keeping alive longer than would have happened previously; with all the additional money that will be needed for carers, doctors etc. they are going to have to stop finding cures for things!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite what it said Observer, it proved that certain groups such as smokers etc. were still much more likely to get cancer.  Lifestyle choices have a big impact on your chances of getting cancer as does genetic or hereditary causes. What it did find is that there are cancers that are not down to hereditary or environmental issues.  They also neglected to look into the two most common cancers all together.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is getting funding for all these studies which is the lottery element Obs.

The claim that it is 'luck' or 'bad luck' is perhaps another way of saying that after all the £ billions spent on research they either have no idea what causes cancer or they have some idea but are not going to make it public.

The "it's all down to smoking" conclusion has finally had to be abandoned - the fact that smoking has declined so much since the 50's yet cancer rates have continued to rise has long since pointed to the unreliability of this assertion.

 I'm not saying that smoking does not damage health as I can't see that inhaling tar and chemicals directly into one's lungs cannot fail to cause damage and so smoking very probably is a cause of some cancers - but it is not the universal bogey man it is made out to be. I would suspect that pollutants from industry are a far more dangerous and widespread causative agent.

 

There has long since been reason to suspect that viruses, bacteria and fungi have a strong causative link to many cancers, but these areas of research have not been 'lucky' in attracting follow up funding.

Personally I can't see how  so many £ billions can have been spent and so much research been done with so little progress having been made. I also can't believe that the whole of the medical scientist community are complete blithering, incompetent idiots.

I could however believe that governments and the big pharma  companies are corrupt and care far more for material gain than the relief of suffering. Which leads me to believe that the causes and probably the cures of various cancers are known - but are not considered financially desirable.

There appears to be a stronger drive in fields of research for the means to kill us all off rather than prolong our lives.

 

As for euthanasia, one would have to be really naïve not to have realised that this has been going on for years, however there does seem at present to be less of an effort made to prevent death in the old and long term sick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems a very convenient time for a euthanasia debate to resurface.....a faltering economy & a rising welfare & pension bill ,then we have a so called pensioners champion arguing how many pensioners would love to work longer.Surely a better policy would be to get the younger generations & bogus "disabled" back to work & off the welfare account  . Giving the older generation the ease of their bones on better pensions would be a much better idea instead of asking them to work ever longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What about Euthanasia for the Old and Fragile who are a Burden on the NHS and other Services should they be put down even if they dont want to be??

 

Have a look on u-tube for Logan Run an old TV series...they were Disposed of at the age of 30....

'Steve the Not So Bloody Original', carry on posting these type of topics and you shall be getting a visit from the Grappenhall Branch of 'The Grumpy Old Bastards Club'  and you will definitely be a victim of Youfanasia, pal.

Signed - Secretary and Head Club (wooden variety) Basher. :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...