Assisted Suicide

Posted on

Brother Number One
Member Since: Jan 22, 2008

What you think of this? Its becoming a bit of a hot topic in the UK at the moment.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7732640.stm

[ Back to Top ]


Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002


Nov 17, 2008 12:11 pm

oh, man, thats a cunundrum if there ever was...that was/is a topic here too, Dr. Kevorkian has been the prison for doing it, he's a big proponent of the cause.

I am torn. On one hand, it seems like murder at face value, just murder with cooperation of the victim...at the same time, if I was dying with a terminal disease, and in a lot of pain, who are we to say they can't choose to end it...

Brother Number One
Member
Since: Jan 22, 2008


Nov 17, 2008 12:19 pm

Yeah I know. I'm really not sure where I stand on the issue to be honest.

I can see that some people may well feel obliged to top themselves to relieve their families if it were legal. Like they may feel pressured into doind it. Saying that, they can quite easiily (and cheeply) bugger off to Switzerland to do it at teh moment. Saying that the fact that its readily available in Switzerland and we can easily go there to do it is no reason to implement it here.

While I dont agree with dB that its legalised murder I can see the other side too that who are we too tell someone that they have to live when they are in so much pain that they can't bare it.


www.TheLondonProject.ca
Member
Since: Feb 07, 2005


Nov 17, 2008 01:36 pm

I think there would need to be a committee of sorts involved. One person alone should never be left in charge of a situation like this. I will say that it is inhumane to let someone suffer unnecessarily though.

Czar of Midi
Administrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002


Nov 17, 2008 03:09 pm

Yep, having gone through the things we did here for over a year with my pop in law. And the worst part is there was no way for him to communicate it to us.

He was terminal with no chance at all of ever living a normal life, and even less chance of living period. I still to this day wonder if he wanted to just go, or did he hang on for some reason that we will never know.
But myself, I have it stated very clearly that I am not to be held onto for any reason or kept alive by any machines or the like. And if I am never going to recover and am not able to communicate it is my wish to be terminated to put it bluntly.

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002


Nov 17, 2008 04:18 pm

I agree with BeerHunter, one person should not be in charge unless that one person is the one to die. If clear, notarized, legal instruction are available saying as such, yeah, go for it, but not one other person.

What if one's spouse wanted them to be done in for some self-gratification reason or some such thing...just doesn't seem like the right thing to do.

But, I am with Noize, if I am wired up to some machine, can't speak, living by the courtesy of that machine...pull the plug...at that point I am just a burden.

Czar of Midi
Administrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002


Nov 17, 2008 04:30 pm

I have to agree as well on the point that the decision should not be left to one person. I should have stated that as well in my first post.

The decision should include an un-biased party with some sort of education in making the decision.

That being either a legal consultant or medical person who has looked at the situation from an un-biased position. And that would dis-allow a family lawyer who might also stand to benefit from the parties passing not being allowed to make the decision.

It is as dB stated a very touchy subject to say the least. And is not a decision to be made by a person who would benefit from the persons passing in any way.

http://www.reverbnation.com/2ndg
Member
Since: Nov 27, 2007


Nov 17, 2008 07:21 pm

i guess this is kinda on the same subject, but i often wonder about what's gonna happen when one day we find there are just too many people on the Earth to sustain.

Im not for a minute saying not to help peolpe that are sick and dying, and im all for that, but there seems to be ever increasing laws to keep people alive, to the point it seems, that its just ridiculuous.
I know that might come across sounding dumb, but i think we could end up stuffing up the natural order of things.

i dont mean to upset anyone, but there has to be limit at some point for us, or we are gonna end up sucking the Earth dry.
its a little off topic, but this is just a example of what i mean.
Espeacially when someone is in so much pain and just wants to go, but the law says, NO!
You must live.(at any cost)

Why? its not living when you are confined to a bed, in 24 hr a day pain.

I have my views on why, but we'll leave it at that.

Member
Since: Jan 18, 2003


Nov 17, 2008 07:49 pm

i don't think the planet's population grows without bound. i think there are limiting factors which stop people from having kids. some say it's happened to a degree in europe already. things stay in balance for the most part with population i believe. or will, anyway

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002


Nov 17, 2008 08:39 pm

The earth is already over populated, personally, I assume that is why mass killing diseases are rearing their heads...much like too many fish in an aquarium, fish get stressed and start dying...

Eat Spam before it eats YOU!!!
Member
Since: May 11, 2002


Nov 17, 2008 10:58 pm

topic #1 personally I would want to live at any cost. But, I'm not suffering from massive pain so I dunno... I think it's just 'wrong' to want to die. However, I think people should be allowed to die if they want to. My step grandfather shot him self, he had late stage cancer and was miserable, yet functional enough to go to the garage and pull the trigger. My neighbor just died (halloween of all times) of cancer of pretty much everything... he was non functional as far as I know... but he was out on pain meds and just ebbed out on hospice.

I suppose the main issue is the fear that 'if I have the right to choose to die, someone might take advantage of me and kill me...'


as far as population goes... yeah... I read the earth can support up to 20 billion people if we all lived subsistence... but that won't save humanity... it'll just delay the problem until there's 20 billion of us.
when it boils down to it, when humanity climbs into space permanently , I want my children to be on top of the pile... so screw you guys :)

http://www.reverbnation.com/2ndg
Member
Since: Nov 27, 2007


Nov 17, 2008 11:44 pm

if we didnt keep coming up with these miraculous cures and more so, preventitive measures, when it comes to death then it could all balance out.

when you tip the scales on anyside too much, there are consequences.

its like you say dB, these diseases rear their ugly heads because we are giving them more of a chance.
antibiotics(alot of times are given for hardly any reason at all) and this and that, to keep as many alive as possible as easily as possible.
hence the more crazy ****getting around out there.
these ***** that regulate them know what its about.

im not saying we dont need em, we do, but no where near as much.
but maybe, even in that respect, its too late.


Member
Since: Jan 18, 2003


Nov 18, 2008 12:41 am

i saw a documentary recently about a technique being used in eastern europe to fight bacterial diseases. bacteriophages. viruses that specifically attack and destroy bacteria.

i dont remember the doc clearly now, but i guess the soviets were working on this during WWI, and in eastern europe one lab kept on going after the war. they're some of the only people in the world who are doing it apparently. but it was crazy. they'd gather sewage water and isolate out the right bacteriophages to attack the bacteria they were targeting. the idea here is that there's a bacteriophage out there naturally for every kind of bacteria: natural selection makes sure that the bacteria and the phages are at war and are evolving in tandem.

oh awesome, here it is:



i don't know much about this, but bacteriophages are of course real, and it's weird how peeps still aren't going down this road what with the antibiotic problems that are coming up now

http://www.reverbnation.com/2ndg
Member
Since: Nov 27, 2007


Nov 18, 2008 02:53 am

man this looks really interesting, i cant watch it though till tomorrow as i've run out of gig for this month. cant wait to check it though.

The Russki's do some great things.

Brother Number One
Member
Since: Jan 22, 2008


Nov 18, 2008 03:55 am

The planet is not overpopulated yet. Far from it.
We're over populated with our current state of governance though. Africa for example, with its natural resources is actually significantly underpopulated compared with a medium populated country such as, say, Germany. But through a combination of corrupt/bad local governance and exploitative western government, who are happy to keep them that way providing its profitable, the place is a shambles with needless famine. South America is similar, though not as bad. The economic problems don't tend to quite decend into humanitatrian disaster.

If anyone has studied any population dynamics, check out r and k species. One goes in peaks and troughs (like a bacteria) one is highly adapted adn steadily rises till it reaches equilibrium with its environment, stays in equilibrium for a while and then an environmental factor causes a crash and individuals with out the ability to evolve and adapt die. (thats the type of species we are). We haven't reached the plateau yet though.

Member
Since: Jan 18, 2003


Nov 18, 2008 07:59 am

i watched a bit of the bacteriophage thing again tonight. it is as good as i remember. and db might like it because there's a touch of conspiracy there, haha. drug companies never pursued this because it wasn't profitable.

Related Forum Topics:



If you would like to participate in the forum discussions, feel free to register for your free membership.