|
|
Post by yume on Nov 1, 2005 15:04:27 GMT 8
Since we're beginning to debate... ;D
My teacher gave us this topic for debate this year...
The topic was "Euthanasia should be performed on terminally ill patients."
Euthanasia is the act of shutting off or taking away the support that is needed by a terminally ill patient to live. Or something like that.
I'll just make up an example:
Let's say ABC got involved in an accident. ABC went into an coma and the doctors classify her as terminally ill (cannot do anything to cure him).
So the doctors ask ABC's closest family members whether to continue letting him live or not. If the family members think that they should not prolong his suffering and think there is no hope, they will ask the doctor to end his life. This means that if ABC is on a life support system to continue living, the doctor will shut off the support system. This is one example of euthanasia.
I was on the opposition team for my class. And the opposition team won... ;D But out of all the classes who debated this topic, our class was the only opposition team to win.
I just want to know whether you guys think it's right or wrong and why.
For me, I strongly oppose euthanasia because I think that no one has the right to take his/her own or anyone else's life. Everyone has the right to live.
Usually, euthanasia is performed by the doctors. Doctors and nurses are here to help people recover. Not to take away lives.
The doctors wouldn't know how to define "terminally ill". There was a case of a woman who was involved in an accident and was in a coma. 20 years after the accident, she awoke and is also able to communicate. The doctors thought there was no hope for her to be able to get out of her coma, but she did. (I hope I got all the facts right...)
So what do you guys think? Should euthanasia be performed or not?
|
|
|
|
Post by genie on Nov 1, 2005 15:08:23 GMT 8
tidak faham lar...
|
|
|
|
Post by agentpink on Nov 1, 2005 15:14:06 GMT 8
i tink it shud not b done...God is the creator of all living creature on earth..no one is suppose to take away lives except for God..
|
|
|
|
Post by agentpink on Nov 1, 2005 15:14:41 GMT 8
hmmm...izzit a bit to da religion than science and law??i mean my post
|
|
|
|
Post by chilicandy on Nov 1, 2005 15:40:55 GMT 8
against... strongly against....
I always believes we are here because we are needed here, for some reason ...
and if we have to suffer or be ill, we still have to be strong until the last...
but making the decision to take away ones life just because he/she is terminally ill, is akin to acting like god... and no humans should act like god....
|
|
|
|
Post by yume on Nov 1, 2005 16:39:18 GMT 8
Euthanasia: the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit. (The key word here is "intentional". If death is not intended, it is not an act of euthanasia) I got this from euthanasia.com...uh...so complicated. I'll just make up an example: Let's say ABC got involved in an accident. ABC went into an coma and the doctors classify her as terminally ill (cannot do anything to cure him). So the doctors ask ABC's closest family members whether to continue letting him live or not. If the family members think that they should not prolong his suffering and think there is no hope, they will ask the doctor to end his life. This means that if ABC is on a life support system to continue living, the doctor will shut off the support system. This is one example of euthanasia. Does this help? So far all oppose...what about those who agree? |
|
|
|
Post by TensionDBSK on Nov 1, 2005 17:05:01 GMT 8
Alright I might sound rather inhumane here but I agree to conducting euthanasia on the terminally-ill ones. Here I wish to qualify my terms of debate to passive euthanasia and also define terminally-ill as a situation that one is incapable of living and has shown no sign of improvement throughout a series of observation by the doctor. Since this isn't a formal debate I'll just skim through  I support passive euthanasia (removal of supporting elements such as the feeding tube of the patient) first of all to relieve the pain of the patient. I however stress that the permission of the patient must be obtained. If he/she were in a coma it has to be the request of the family members. I agree that everybody has the right to live and that they're born to this world for a reason but we also cannot neglect that everybody is given the option whether or not to continue living in a tormented situation. In this case of a terminally-ill patient euthanasia is necessary to lift him of his suffering and religiously return him to the arms of God. The reason I qualified the term to be PASSIVE euthanasia is simply to prevent the doctor and the family member of being accused of murder crime (active euthanasia/assisted suicide) Yume: It's really nice to know that the woman was in normal condition after 20 years of coma but I doubt this situation is very probable in many terminally-ill cases. We have to remember that we're not only considering terminally-ill as a coma but also as many other situations such as a fully-paralysed person who wishes to take his own life or maybe a brain-dead guy. Waiting for a person not only takes up a lot of time and anticipation from the family members as well as manpower from the hospital (if many were to do that) but it would also take up a lot financially (I know I sound materialistic but this is the brutal fact). If euthanasia didn't exist as an option the doctors would have much more work to do..the patient would suffer much more and not forgetting the family members who would along suffer mentally. Considering the coma case you mentioned earlier: We can't expect the family members to contribute financially to her expenses for occupying the hospital and also mentally torturing the family members while awaiting her recovery. This thought of having her to recover everyday will eventually become a mental burden and would be rather disturbing especially if the family member would to have his/her personaly problem. Hence the family member would lack concentration in conducting his/her obligation/responsibility or daily routines. Therefore passive euthanasia should be conducted on terminally-ill patients. There will be more points coming but that's all for now..hehe.. |
|
|
|
Post by kenrick on Nov 1, 2005 18:08:41 GMT 8
This is a topic which I have debated for months but no reasonable consensus seems to be achieved.
Debates aside; this is my opinion:
Whether euthanasia is active or passive it should not be the doctor (or any personnel from the hospital) who decides whether the feeding tube should be removed or any lethal drug is to be administered.
The truth is that not all doctors are virtuous-some are very mercenary and have little interest in saving lives. Should they be given authority to perform euthanasia they will probably give up on a patient is financially stable.
Of course there can be an idealistic set of regulations to perform euthanasia-i.e. in what medical state the patient has to be in before euthanasia can be considered. I am still not in favour of this for two reasons:
i) Will the doctor leave the financially less able patient unattended just so that the medical state of the patient will deteriorate to a level that the doctor is allowed to perform euthanasia?
ii)Is it possible to allow for any violation of human rights which the United Nations espouses? Should a person be given the right to decide on the survival of anyone else?
On the contrary I am in favour of euthanasia if it is the patient's desire to end his/her life. Few would fully comprehend the pain a patient has to endure through therapy. And if chances of survival seem bleak why let the patient suffer?
I do recognise that there are many flaws in this even if religious challenges are put aside for the moment.
(i) Is the patient fully knowledgeable about his/her medical state? Is it possible that the patient has been misled by advice by any medical personnel?
(ii) Is the patient under any pressure-financial and emotional pressure-as to not burden his/her family members with medical expenses?
(iii) Who is to determine whether the patient's decision is a rational one or a rash one made out of the spur of the moment?
Just my 2 cents. Kudos to Yume for bringing up this issue. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by hoyohoyo on Nov 1, 2005 18:24:50 GMT 8
Maybe you guyz can have a read on some news about Ba Jing and Bing Xin..... China writers..... they are pro-euthanasia.....  and they had passed away....  |
|
|
|
Post by yume on Nov 1, 2005 19:39:38 GMT 8
This is a topic which I have debated for months but no reasonable consensus seems to be achieved. Debates aside; this is my opinion: Whether euthanasia is active or passive it should not be the doctor (or any personnel from the hospital) who decides whether the feeding tube should be removed or any lethal drug is to be administered. The truth is that not all doctors are virtuous-some are very mercenary and have little interest in saving lives. Should they be given authority to perform euthanasia they will probably give up on a patient is financially stable. Of course there can be an idealistic set of regulations to perform euthanasia-i.e. in what medical state the patient has to be in before euthanasia can be considered. I am still not in favour of this for two reasons: i) Will the doctor leave the financially less able patient unattended just so that the medical state of the patient will deteriorate to a level that the doctor is allowed to perform euthanasia? ii)Is it possible to allow for any violation of human rights which the United Nations espouses? Should a person be given the right to decide on the survival of anyone else? On the contrary I am in favour of euthanasia if it is the patient's desire to end his/her life. Few would fully comprehend the pain a patient has to endure through therapy. And if chances of survival seem bleak why let the patient suffer? I do recognise that there are many flaws in this even if religious challenges are put aside for the moment. (i) Is the patient fully knowledgeable about his/her medical state? Is it possible that the patient has been misled by advice by any medical personnel? (ii) Is the patient under any pressure-financial and emotional pressure-as to not burden his/her family members with medical expenses? (iii) Who is to determine whether the patient's decision is a rational one or a rash one made out of the spur of the moment? Just my 2 cents. Kudos to Yume for bringing up this issue. ;D I agree with most of what kenrick wrote... haha! this is a very good topic...in future, when u in the college/uni, u will learn this topic thru the Moral education, which is a compulsory subject...hehe! Maybe u can search the news of Terri Schindler-Schiavo who died on March 31 this year, 4 days after her feeding tube was removed, under the court order. www.religioustolerance.org/schiavo6.htmwww.terrisfight.org/We will???  Hehe...I didn't know that... |
|
|
|
Post by idolhunter on Nov 1, 2005 21:05:51 GMT 8
Euthanasia: the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit. (The key word here is "intentional". If death is not intended, it is not an act of euthanasia) I got this from euthanasia.com...uh...so complicated. I'll just make up an example: Let's say ABC got involved in an accident. ABC went into an coma and the doctors classify her as terminally ill (cannot do anything to cure him). So the doctors ask ABC's closest family members whether to continue letting him live or not. If the family members think that they should not prolong his suffering and think there is no hope, they will ask the doctor to end his life. This means that if ABC is on a life support system to continue living, the doctor will shut off the support system. This is one example of euthanasia. Does this help? So far all oppose...what about those who agree? Euthanasia: I will agree to it.... 1. Terminally ill 2. Unconcious.. If the option are the 2...please take my life... ;D I wouldn't want to wake up and suffer it all for nothing.. I would prefer to go on to the next level..if any  |
|
|
|
Post by Jane on Nov 1, 2005 21:57:23 GMT 8
i tink it shud not b done...God is the creator of all living creature on earth..no one is suppose to take away lives except for God.. haha...i totally agree with agentpink about this ! =) |
|
|
|
Post by shinghui on Nov 2, 2005 11:45:29 GMT 8
i disagree about euthanasia..
1st of all..it is not out right to decide whether the patient shud die or not..the right to live is in God's hand..and not ours
2.What if the patient had euthanasia and the next day theres a cure for his or her disease? i think i will be a great regret since anything could happen within a day.
3. What if the patient has a strong mind to continue his or her life? We are not him or her.. how could we probably know what r they thinking? they probably wanted to accomplish any of their dreams..and we ended their lives by using this way?
4.Try imagine that u r one of them..do u think that u will let people end ur life because they could not afford to pay for ur expenses..uh..that is a way of killing..seriously...
God would not allow people to end other's lives and it is a sin..no matter how... i personally think that the person who decide to put euthanasia on other lives will have a guilt feeling..
|
|
|
|
Post by yume on Nov 2, 2005 13:25:35 GMT 8
i disagree about euthanasia.. 1st of all..it is not out right to decide whether the patient shud die or not..the right to live is in God's hand..and not ours 2.What if the patient had euthanasia and the next day theres a cure for his or her disease? i think i will be a great regret since anything could happen within a day. 3. What if the patient has a strong mind to continue his or her life? We are not him or her.. how could we probably know what r they thinking? they probably wanted to accomplish any of their dreams..and we ended their lives by using this way? 4.Try imagine that u r one of them..do u think that u will let people end ur life because they could not afford to pay for ur expenses..uh..that is a way of killing..seriously... God would not allow people to end other's lives and it is a sin..no matter how... i personally think that the person who decide to put euthanasia on other lives will have a guilt feeling.. Agree with some of shinghui's points... ;D |
|
|
|
Post by eemun on Nov 2, 2005 14:48:35 GMT 8
i think it is a tough decision for both patient's family and the doctor in responsible...
to me, i would think that euthanasia is a right choice, cause practically, i dun think it is wise to spend thousands and thousands money on a terminally ill patient ...
afterall, if u still continue spending like this, the patient will not necessary recover ...
standing in the patient's position, if i knew i have no hope, i will choose to end my life too, cause i dowan to leave such a heavy burden for my family ...
however, judging this topic in ethical point of view, euthansia is actually not much different from killing someone ...
taking other people's life is a crime ...
that's why malaysia doesn't practice that ...
sometimes, we have to consider not only the patient's condition, but also financial wise ...
if the family cannot support the patient, and the patient has no hope, the most practical way is to let him die in peace,
but i think at most time, not many people have to courage to this cause human have emotions ...
|
|
and they had passed away.... 
Hehe...I didn't know that...
Daniel's Merchandise section 
