what's your opinions on non-consent euthanasia

[wheresmyplacebo]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5056326.stm


some doctor guy is claiming that all forms on euthanasia should be allowed, even when the person is unable to consent themselves

i don't agree with that personally, i agree with consented euthanasia, but this is pushing it a bit far and sets a scary precedant

[sophia]

\

[wheresmyplacebo]

He does make a good point however which is that what is currently allowed is for food and water to be withdrawn, so that the person has quite a long and protracted death which is probably quite uncomfortable or painful. His point is that surely it would be more humane to actively end their life, rather than just withdraw food and water and leave them to die. That seems quite a good point. However it does also seem that it would set a dangerous precedent, and anyway it's a long long way off, as euthanasia with consent is still illegal.


if treatment was going to be withdrawn which would kill them, im happy to see painkillers etc administered but otherwise nah

not forgetting if someone is braindead or soemthing, well they dont feel anything anyway

[sophia]

\

[Fiend_85]

some doctor guy is claiming that all forms on euthanasia should be allowed, even when the person is unable to consent themselves

It's murder.

[Disillusioned]

It's murder.

Quite. There's a slippery slope and anybody tolerating involuntary euthanasia is by definition accepting the kind of euthanasia programme seen in Nazi Germany. Although I believe euthanasia in any form is completely wrong. (As do most patient/disabled rights groups).

[Kentish]

It's murder.
Yes indeed. There's no other word for it.

Terminal diagnosis or not, taking life without consent is not appropriate in a medical setting.

[SuzyCreamcheese]

He does make a good point however which is that what is currently allowed is for food and water to be withdrawn, so that the person has quite a long and protracted death which is probably quite uncomfortable or painful. His point is that surely it would be more humane to actively end their life, rather than just withdraw food and water and leave them to die. That seems quite a good point. However it does also seem that it would set a dangerous precedent, and anyway it's a long long way off, as euthanasia with consent is still illegal.
Well that is quite true, and those cases, its a mere cruel formality that prevents doctors from just administering a quick and easy solution.

It really does depend though. Im not sure what i think about it. Ive seen patients in such an awful state and wished they could just die. Youd give a dog more dignity than that.
On the other hand, if they cant give their consent, then its probably for the best that the law stays as it is, as it so easily could be the start of a slippery slope.

[Man Of Kent]

It's murder.

:yes:

Nothing else to say.

[wheresmyplacebo]

It's murder.

yup my feelings

giving painkillers after wthdrawing treatment to keep them alive = fine

anything more, nah



consented euthanasia = perfectly allowable for me, don't allow it to be presented as an option, someone needs to ask for it specifically though

[Sofie]

consented euthanasia = perfectly allowable for me, don't allow it to be presented as an option, someone needs to ask for it specifically though

I'm with you on this.