Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
religion and sick children
Comments
-
So we shouldn't point out that animals actaully have better rights than us in this regard even though we should treat humans better than animals? I think it's relevant.
Well "better" is a subjective word here. Sure on the face of it, it would be great to be a dog or a cat if a typical middle class house. All you do is sleep, eat, go for a walk, ride the neighbours pouch and fall asleep next to the fire. Not a bad life! Then again if your in Korea you might be someone's meal!:eek:
Pets whether we like it or not are mere comodities to people. Once they have used up their time, they are then put down. Do you think we should put down OAP's when their back gets sore and they get heard of hearing, like a dog?Well I doubt it's ALL religion's fault but most consider this life a test and oppose getting out early. Sure I've witnessed the churches handling of suicides and while they've got better at it it still carries a religious stigma..
Were are getting someone then. It is good of you to acknowledge this as the facts of the article prove it.You've been on this forum long enough to know the slippery slope fallacy is not an acceptable argument. There are no massive implications apart from the one's you're imagining. It will require strict wording and safety nets put in place but there's no reason to suggest we can't do that other than scaremongering (usually done by people with ulterior motives)
So it’s in my head then, this slippery slope I am talking about? Strict wording, safety nets etc. So we are relying on government officials to judge who can and cannot die legally? You can of course disagree with this but to say that any misgivings about euthanasia are just imagined is being utterly naïve, deliberately so. If so then why the strict wordings, safety nets etc. that you advocate in the first place? Sure its just another piece of legislation that can be passed in the Dail over a brunch. No need to worry, right?
The slippery slope argument is real, not saying its true or right but the argument is real.A study from the Jakobovits Center for Medical Ethics in Israel argued that a form of non-voluntary euthanasia, the Groningen Protocol, has "potential to validate the slippery-slope argument against allowing euthanasia in selected populations".[24] Anesthesiologist William Lanier says that the "ongoing evolution of euthanasia law in the Netherlands" is evidence that a slippery slope is "playing out in real time".[25] Pediatrician Ola Didrik Saugstad says that while he approves of the withholding of treatment to cause the death of severely ill newborns where the prognosis is poor, he disagrees with the active killing of such newborns.[26] Countering this view, professor of internal medicine Margaret Battin finds that there is a lack of evidence to support slippery slope arguments.[27] Additionally, it is argued that the public nature of the Groningen Protocol decisions, and their evaluation by a prosecutor, prevent a "slippery slope" from occurring
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_and_the_slippery_slope0 -
-
Jank, the point that was made originally was that it's sad that we treat animals more humanely than humans. As in when animals are in suffering we put them out of their misery, but we don't do this for people.
Now, you appear to agree with this (under certain circumstances), so what in the name of jesus are you arguing for? You're taking a point that was made and extending it to circumstances that it was not intended for.
You just seem to want to argue for the sake of arguing.0 -
Yes, we are different species. I don't think humans automatically have more fundamental rights than other animals (why separate "humans" and "animals"?), I think our society has conferred more rights on our own species than on others. I suspect a society of chimps would confer more rights on its own members than on a human (even if those rights aren't established by the same process).Finally. The very fact you state the humans have more fundamental rights then animals means that there is an inherit difference between a man and a horse/cat/dog/chimp etc.
I'd be very loathe to use the conferral of different rights as proof that humans are somehow qualitatively "better" than chimps (or even ants). That seems to be a path that might lead to a bizarre set of conclusions....
Actually, I think it's quite useful. You (and I) are very close to chimps after all. If we don't advocate torture (whether physical or mental) for some great apes, why on earth would we advocate torture (albeit, not direct) for one particular species of great ape?Therefore we should NOT be comparing the rights animals have to humans.0 -
Well "better" is a subjective word here. Sure on the face of it, it would be great to be a dog or a cat if a typical middle class house. All you do is sleep, eat, go for a walk, ride the neighbours pouch and fall asleep next to the fire. Not a bad life! Then again if your in Korea you might be someone's meal!:eek:
Pets whether we like it or not are mere comodities to people. Once they have used up their time, they are then put down. Do you think we should put down OAP's when their back gets sore and they get heard of hearing, like a dog?
What has this got to do with the point that we treat terminally ill and in agony animals better than humans? You have lost me. Not for the first time.Were are getting someone then. It is good of you to acknowledge this as the facts of the article prove it.
So it’s in my head then, this slippery slope I am talking about? Strict wording, safety nets etc. So we are relying on government officials to judge who can and cannot die legally? You can of course disagree with this but to say that any misgivings about euthanasia are just imagined is being utterly naïve, deliberately so. If so then why the strict wordings, safety nets etc. that you advocate in the first place? Sure its just another piece of legislation that can be passed in the Dail over a brunch. No need to worry, right?
The slippery slope argument is real, not saying its true or right but the argument is real.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_and_the_slippery_slope
What are you on, seriously? No one mentioned forced euthanasia or that the state chooses who dies. It would be up to a patient and doctor to come together and agree it or in the cases of children born with no hope of life, their parents and doctor. You make reference to the point that I don't see it as an easy thing to implement correctly and safely but that it is doable and then your next sentence is "Sure its just another piece of legislation that can be passed in the Dail over a brunch. No need to worry, right?" Where the hell did that come out of? And are you suggesting that we don't bother trying to land a good balance because it's hard work? Oh jebus forbid that our TD's tax their brains a bit and come up with something. And also what's the scaremongering about the state about? We elect them and we can change them if they do wrong. It's not some tyrannical dictatorship!
Anyways how about you suggest a system for euthanasia you'd be happy to see implemented since you're for it in certain circumstances.0 -
I would hazard a guess it was something to do with that cold, evil, irrational desire to see their dying child live. The bast@rds!
Sometimes people's desire to see their dying child live blinds them to the child's own pain.
Sometimes people have trouble getting past their own feelings when it comes to doing what's right for someone else.
I have had pets put down when they were terminally ill - and I am very aware of the temptation to keep putting off the decision, hoping that (1) somehow they might recover (even for a short while), or (2) that maybe they will die unexpectedly, sparing you the task of killing them yourself.
However when you are putting off tough decisions to spare yourself emotional pain, you may very well be causing unnecessary distress to another creature or person. Your own pain should not have priority over the pain of someone else.
I have huge sympathy for parents in these situations, but sometimes the kindest thing for the baby is the hardest thing to do. Some people just don't have the strength to spare the child unneeded pain.
And sometimes religious belief makes a tough decision impossible, by imposing moral absolutes that give no room for the kinder option.0 -
Sometimes people's desire to see their dying child live blinds them to the child's own pain.
Or maybe, the fact that their child IS NOT YET DEAD, leads them to cling on to their life. At the end of the day, if you believe that there is any chance of survival, then pain or no pain, life is what you will choose. Many people, children or otherwise can suffer great great pain and live to tell the tale. I certainly wouldn't be so cold as to spin it as cold, or as 'torturing children'.Sometimes people have trouble getting past their own feelings when it comes to doing what's right for someone else.
You cannot spin death of their child as doing the right thing. If they switch off the machine for the sake of the child, its the right thing. If they believe there is hope, and keep up the bedside vigil its the right thing. Just because a parent does not give up hope, does not mean its some kind of selfish cruelty.I have had pets put down when they were terminally ill - and I am very aware of the temptation to keep putting off the decision, hoping that (1) somehow they might recover (even for a short while), or (2) that maybe they will die unexpectedly, sparing you the task of killing them yourself.
However when you are putting off tough decisions to spare yourself emotional pain, you may very well be causing unnecessary distress to another creature or person. Your own pain should not have priority over the pain of someone else.
Assuming that the parents in these cases are just thinking about themselves, is not the same as knowing that this is the case. I think its rather cold to start judging these people.I have huge sympathy for parents in these situations, but sometimes the kindest thing for the baby is the hardest thing to do. Some people just don't have the strength to spare the child unneeded pain.
This is not about sparing a child unneeded pain. This is about hope. The hope that while there is breath in their lungs, there is a chance however slim. So even if they are in such pain, if life comes out from it, its worth it.And sometimes religious belief makes a tough decision impossible, by imposing moral absolutes that give no room for the kinder option.
Again, all this 'kinder option' nonsense is just a way of people feeling self righteous, and what a disgusting means they use to boost them onto this moral high horse. That being the pain, emotion, despair and hope of parents of dying children. Its tasteless.0 -
You don't have to like it for it to be true.0
-
MagicMarker wrote: »Jank, the point that was made originally was that it's sad that we treat animals more humanely than humans. As in when animals are in suffering we put them out of their misery, but we don't do this for people.
Now, you appear to agree with this (under certain circumstances), so what in the name of jesus are you arguing for? You're taking a point that was made and extending it to circumstances that it was not intended for.
You just seem to want to argue for the sake of arguing.
The general point I am making is that this issue is not a wholly religious one, yet some posters are using this issue as yet another stick to beat religion with. To me that is pretty low.0 -
Advertisement
-
doctoremma wrote: »
Actually, I think it's quite useful. You (and I) are very close to chimps after all. If we don't advocate torture (whether physical or mental) for some great apes, why on earth would we advocate torture (albeit, not direct) for one particular species of great ape?
By that extension then, we should give these great apes the right to vote and a passport.0 -
I'd quite happily give chimps the right to vote and a passport. Not sure they'd do anything productive with either, mind. And obviously, they would only be allowed to vote in their own constituencies, so it's not something I'm going to worry about too much.By that extension then, we should give these great apes the right to vote and a passport.
Although...maybe there's an argument against allowing one species to vote for legislation affecting another? A biological constituency, if you like....0 -
I would hazard a guess it was something to do with that cold, evil, irrational desire to see their dying child live. The bast@rds!
Or perhaps -as the article states“While it is vital to support families in such difficult times, we are increasingly concerned that deeply held belief in religion can lead to children being potentially subjected to burdensome care in expectation of 'miraculous’ intervention,
So some parents, waiting for their God to intervene and perform a miracle (which by definition is a mighty rare event) allow their children to suffer needless and often painful medical treatment that is futile. They deny their children the right to die and seek to delay them joining God? That makes no sense. It is cruel, it is selfish.
As someone who went through both chemotherapy and radiotherapy as an adult I can testify it is awful, so awful that the second time I was diagnosed with cancer I seriously considered not undergoing treatment.
My aunt, a devout Catholic, was dying of lung cancer but with continued treatment she may have gained a month or two of 'life' - she refused as she believed what she was enduring was not 'life' - it was existence and, given her deep faith, she accepted it was her time to die and was in great form in the days before she died as she absolutely believed she was about to join her parents in the Afterlife she has been taught awaited those who believe.
Surely, if one is deeply religious one should accept the will of God - in the case of these children it is God's will that they 'join him' and they are being kept alive by science and science alone. Is that not defying God's will by using artificial methods to preserve life while hoping he will change his mind?0 -
Now why did I hold out any hope Jank would offer his suggestion for legalising euthanasia.
Also Jimi given your views of an afterlife would you not suggest the ethical thing to do in a situation where a child has no hope of a decent life (see Anencephaly) would be to hasten their journey to said afterlife where they can be without suffering?0 -
Right to Die Campaigner Tony Nicklinson DiesTony Nicklinson's death comes just days after he lost his High Court battle for an assisted suicide warning that he had been condemned to a life he said was worse than death.
It emerged that Mr Nicklinson had been refusing food for up to seven days after learning the outcome of his appeal on Tuesday of last week.
He suffered pneumonia and deteriorated rapidly. In 2004 Mr Nicklinson issued an advanced directive refusing any life sustaining treatment should he fall ill.
That poor man. He literally had to starve to death. Although I'm hoping this was not the case and that something happened behind the scenes to ease his passing.0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »Surely, if one is deeply religious one should accept the will of God - in the case of these children it is God's will that they 'join him' and they are being kept alive by science and science alone. Is that not defying God's will by using artificial methods to preserve life while hoping he will change his mind?
No response to this? Anyone????0 -
Advertisement
-
LittleBook wrote: »Right to Die Campaigner Tony Nicklinson Dies
That poor man. He literally had to starve to death. Although I'm hoping this was not the case and that something happened behind the scenes to ease his passing.
I'm in tears watching the news this minute. The reports are that he contracted pneumonia and refused treatment - it is being quoted as 'his opportunity'. The pictures of him crying in sheer despair are heart-wrenching.
The police have stated that they aren't going to investigate his death.0 -
doctoremma wrote: »I'm in tears watching the news this minute. The reports are that he contracted pneumonia and refused treatment - it is being quoted as 'his opportunity'. The pictures of him crying in sheer despair are heart-wrenching.
The police have stated that they aren't going to investigate his death.
A small mercy for his wife.
At least the torture this poor man had to endure is over and he had the full support of his wife in his courageous and sadly futile battle to be allowed the dignity of an easy passing from an existence that was unbearable.
Imagine if she hadn't supported him...:eek: now think of the children who are suffering similar torment because their parent's selfishness.0 -
i know what you mean, but the problem is, that there's just no real guidance from a higher power on these kinds of issues.Bannasidhe wrote: »Surely, if one is deeply religious one should accept the will of God - in the case of these children it is God's will that they 'join him' and they are being kept alive by science and science alone. Is that not defying God's will by using artificial methods to preserve life while hoping he will change his mind?
i mean if there was at least some kind of book or something to follow, like a set of instructions on how to handle the things life throws at you?
if there was, it would probably say something along the lines of..
or words to that effect, so at least they'd have an idea of what their god wanted them to do.Matthew 19:14 - But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come to me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven0 -
Northclare wrote: »Can you copy and paste a link of those Studies Sean thanks.
Sorry for the delay in responding (eeh gadz, it's been a week!), haven't been using the A&A forum much lately. I had a google for you there and it would appear that my statement is at least partially incorrect. It would appear the studies I referred to were in relation to people who are 'moderately' religious (as opposed to very religious). Just pop in 'religiosity+fear of death' into Google and you should find some info on the topic.
Sorry again for the delay (and apologies if someone answered already. I'm just starting to read through the thread now).0 -
doctoremma wrote:Actually, I think it's quite useful. You (and I) are very close to chimps after all. If we don't advocate torture (whether physical or mental) for some great apes, why on earth would we advocate torture (albeit, not direct) for one particular species of great ape?By that extension then, we should give these great apes the right to vote and a passport.
This is why no one likes debating with you Jank. You argue against points no one is making.0 -
Advertisement
-
i know what you mean, but the problem is, that there's just no real guidance from a higher power on these kinds of issues.
i mean if there was at least some kind of book or something to follow, like a set of instructions on how to handle the things life throws at you?
if there was, it would probably say something along the lines of..or words to that effect, so at least they'd have an idea of what their god wanted them to do.
Yet if you read this thread you will see that not all religious people are like that and equally not all non-religious people are utterly rational about it either....
Hanging on, hoping for any chance of a turn around that will save your child from what ever disease is killing them transcends religion completely. I just hope people at least become aware of this.0 -
This is why no one likes debating with you Jank. You argue against points no one is making.
I can see clearly what points people are trying to make much like in this thread where people are using sick and dying children as a points scoring exercise to assert their own already made up opinion that religion is bain of everything even though there are fact that prove otherwise. This is why people have a problem with some atheists.0 -
Yet if you read this thread you will see that not all religious people are like that and equally not all non-religious people are utterly rational about it either....
Hanging on, hoping for any chance of a turn around that will save your child from what ever disease is killing them transcends religion completely. I just hope people at least become aware of this.
However, non-religious people are unlikely to prolong their child's suffering in hope of a miracle - which is what this thread is about.0 -
Anyone can hope for a turnaround, but when the doctors say it's time to let go, and the parent says "No, I prayed for a miracle and I'm going to get one" then they are very specifically letting religion get in the way of expert opinion. This is not a universal attitude of all caring parents that "transcends religion completely".Hanging on, hoping for any chance of a turn around that will save your child from what ever disease is killing them transcends religion completely. I just hope people at least become aware of this.0 -
Do you think animals should have the same rights as humans?
Do you think animals are the same as humans?
As has been pointed out, these questions are largely irrelevant. Whether animal rights and human rights does not really change the point I was making. When an animal is suffering it is considered humane to end its suffering. When a human is suffering the "humane" option is not available. I find this odd, and it has nothing to do with relative rights.
If you want to bring rights into it then I think it is even more odd. Animals have less rights, in most regards, than humans. Despite this they appear to have an advantage in that they are expected to suffer when there is a person that can make that decision for them. Humans, on the other hand, only have the option of refusing treatment and sustenance in the hope that the suffering is shortened. So for me the animal with the better rights is at a disadvantage in this area.
MrP0 -
In ANY circumstance. No of course not. In some circumstances I would be open to it.Now why did I hold out any hope Jank would offer his suggestion for legalising euthanasia.
Since you've posted again, any chance you could outline where and how you would be open to euthanasia?0 -
i'd suggest YOU go back to post #1 and read both the thread title and the link in the OP.Yet if you read this thread you will see that not all religious people are like that and equally not all non-religious people are utterly rational about it either....
nobody is saying that ALL religious people with dying kids are doing this this or ALL non-religious people aren't, but the whole point of this thread is to discuss an article explaining that a majority of people doing this (at least in a particular hospital) ARE religious types, which is what is being discussed.
i'm thinking he'd start with anyone frequenting the A&A forum here.Since you've posted again, any chance you could outline where and how you would be open to euthanasia?
0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »However, non-religious people are unlikely to prolong their child's suffering in hope of a miracle - which is what this thread is about.
Em, No. Perhaps you should read the thread, especially this post.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80297432&postcount=34
You will find that 3% of non-religous people are likely to do this compared with 5% of religous people. The difference is negiable and indicates yet again that this is not a wholly religious issue.0 -
Anyone can hope for a turnaround, but when the doctors say it's time to let go, and the parent says "No, I prayed for a miracle and I'm going to get one" then they are very specifically letting religion get in the way of expert opinion. This is not a universal attitude of all caring parents that "transcends religion completely".
And what about the parents who are not religous? What are their reasons for continuing treatment against medical advice?0 -
i'd suggest YOU go back to post #1 and read both the thread title and the link in the OP.
Well let us see.
Thread Title: "Religion and sick Children", hmm not off to a good start..
First line of the OP: "yet another example of the damage inflicted by the muddled thinking of the religious." Well that came quick!
Lastly the OP goes on a rant stating that 20 years ago such an article wouldn't have been published because of some magical influence the church has over the media.
So please, figure my cynicism in this matter.nobody is saying that ALL religious people with dying kids are doing this this or ALL non-religious people aren't, but the whole point of this thread is to discuss an article explaining that a majority of people doing this (at least in a particular hospital) ARE religious types, which is what is being discussed.
Robindch did, I called him up on it and he didnt reply back to me.
Now if there was an apporporaite level of balance to this topic I would have no issue. But to focus on the 5% of couples while ignoring the rest of the 95%, never mind the 3% of the non religious couples that did extactly the same as those baby eating, torture loving religous nut cases just make the whole arguement seem like nothing than a stupid witch hunt.
What is more, people are using sick and termnally ill children to score this point. Now you tell me if that isn't low.0 -
Advertisement
-
Since you've posted again, any chance you could outline where and how you would be open to euthanasia?
I think in the case of Tony Nickelson it could have merit. Now I am not clued into the case but as far as I know it was the courts of the UK that dismissed him, not some church or religous organisation. Aren't people free to go to Holland or Switzerland to avail of assisted death services?
It would be interesting if a poll was conducted to see how many people agree with it or not. It is a topic that is deeply complex and emotive.0 -
-
any discussion here on the topic will be a heck of a lot more balanced than it would have been in the Christianity forum, if the thread had even been allowed to exist without being locked. :rolleyes:Now if there was an apporporaite level of balance to this topic I would have no issue.
i'm not sure how you can use the phrase witch hunt with a straight face. in face i'm actually not sure that anyone of a religious disposition should ever be allowed to use the phrase given that the phrase wouldn't even exist were it not for the church persecuting, torturing and viciously murdering thousands of innocent women.But to focus on the 5% of couples while ignoring the rest of the 95%, never mind the 3% of the non religious couples that did extactly the same as those baby eating, torture loving religous nut cases just make the whole arguement seem like nothing than a stupid witch hunt.0 -
I believe that anyone found to be assisting a suicide is liable for prosecution in their home country (certainly the UK, suspect Ireland too), even when it was carried out legally in another country.Aren't people free to go to Holland or Switzerland to avail of assisted death services?
It would be interesting if a poll was conducted to see how many people agree with it or not. It is a topic that is deeply complex and emotive.
My quick Google suggests that nobody has ACTUALLY been prosecuted in the UK for assisting a suicide that took place abroad but that obviously doesn't mean it's legal.0 -
This is a very trick area, in fact there have been a number of cases regarding this specific thing, Debbie Purdy's case probably being the most famous.doctoremma wrote: »I believe that anyone found to be assisting a suicide is liable for prosecution in their home country (certainly the UK, suspect Ireland too), even when it was carried out legally in another country.
My quick Google suggests that nobody has ACTUALLY been prosecuted in the UK for assisting a suicide that took place abroad but that obviously doesn't mean it's legal.
The issue is that there isn't really any guidance on what, exactly, helping someone to commit suicide is. There are obviously some easy examples, feeding them the pills to overdose or injecting them directly.
Where it becomes more complicated, and where some case law has been generated, without any real result, is accompanying some to a country where they can avail of assisted suicide.
If you read the legislation it is apparently a someone who merely travels with a person to, for example, the Dignitas Clinic in Switzerland, might find themselves being arrested on there return.
Several people has tried to resolve this uncertainty through the courts, by trying to force the DPP to actually say whether or not they would presecute. The DPP have managed to avoid directly answering the question, they throw out the old "case by case basis" or "prosecution must be in society's interest" lines. So no real confirmation.
What this means in real terms is we end up with really sad stories like this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/oct/17/law-switzerland
No prosecutions resulted form his suicide, but my understanding is his parents did not accompany him to Switzerland due to the risk of prosecution on their return. So he died without his parents at his side. Not acceptable.
MrP0 -
I think in the case of Tony Nickelson it could have merit. Now I am not clued into the case but as far as I know it was the courts of the UK that dismissed him, not some church or religous organisation. Aren't people free to go to Holland or Switzerland to avail of assisted death services?
It could have merit? It should be as clear as day he should have been allowed to end his life. You are correct in your pre-emptive defence of the church, the courts made the decision based on the law of the land. The question arises as to why the law is the law. And as for going to Holland or Switzerland I'm flabergasted at how cold you can be. These people are in pain and should be allowed to end their life surrounded by their loved ones not making a death trek accompanied by someone they could be getting in trouble for helping them. I wonder how much thought you gave this subject or did you just set out to clarify that it wasn't the church's doing?It would be interesting if a poll was conducted to see how many people agree with it or not. It is a topic that is deeply complex and emotive.
It's complex yes as I've already said. We need to have the right safeguards in place but it's doable. This leaves "emotive". In what way? I have yet to see one argument other than the slippery slope (the same technique the religious use against gay marriage) offered online or off. I can imagine such a poll on this forum anyway would be hugely one sided but am willing to put that to the test.0 -
any discussion here on the topic will be a heck of a lot more balanced than it would have been in the Christianity forum, if the thread had even been allowed to exist without being locked. :rolleyes:
So because they are unbalanced its OK for A+A to be the same? Sorry but the excuse "Well at least we are better than those guys" doesn't cut it.i'm not sure how you can use the phrase witch hunt with a straight face. in face i'm actually not sure that anyone of a religious disposition should ever be allowed to use the phrase given that the phrase wouldn't even exist were it not for the church persecuting, torturing and viciously murdering thousands of innocent women.
Well done, you got another dig in, but you may address the question in your own time.0 -
It could have merit? It should be as clear as day he should have been allowed to end his life. You are correct in your pre-emptive defence of the church, the courts made the decision based on the law of the land. The question arises as to why the law is the law. And as for going to Holland or Switzerland I'm flabergasted at how cold you can be. These people are in pain and should be allowed to end their life surrounded by their loved ones not making a death trek accompanied by someone they could be getting in trouble for helping them.
The Law is like that I suppose because humans regardless of race, religion or creed generally value human life and are probably very uncomfortable with laws which allow people to kill other people even if it is voluntary. China for example doesn't allow it, I don't think the USSR ever did but then again they are not good example of human rights or human life.
Taking it further when we allow children die, adults or parents are making a decision for them. The same could be said for severely handicapped people. That would be classified by some as involuntary or murder by others as humane.I wonder how much thought you gave this subject or did you just set out to clarify that it wasn't the church's doing?
Unfortunately, that was a clarification that had to be made as plan untruths were written in this thread. I am sure you want clarity and transparency when discussing a topic such as this?It's complex yes as I've already said. We need to have the right safeguards in place but it's doable. This leaves "emotive". In what way? I have yet to see one argument other than the slippery slope (the same technique the religious use against gay marriage) offered online or off. I can imagine such a poll on this forum anyway would be hugely one sided but am willing to put that to the test.
Doable in what way? When you break it down, everything is doable on paper. What might be acceptable to you may not be acceptable best practice and so on. The devil is always in the detail. Legislation like this would be a nightmare to implement, no one would touch it. Ireland will never take any lead on this until there is a clear prescient made in the UK.
What euthanasia program would you implement? What would be unacceptable in your view.0 -
The Law is like that I suppose because humans regardless of race, religion or creed generally value human life and are probably very uncomfortable with laws which allow people to kill other people even if it is voluntary. China for example doesn't allow it, I don't think the USSR ever did but then again they are not good example of human rights or human life.
Why would we look to China or the USSR for guidance on this :eek:Taking it further when we allow children die, adults or parents are making a decision for them. The same could be said for severely handicapped people. That would be classified by some as involuntary or murder by others as humane.
Those are issues that need discussion.Unfortunately, that was a clarification that had to be made as plan untruths were written in this thread. I am sure you want clarity and transparency when discussing a topic such as this?
Yet you felt no need to clarify your opinion that it's ok to make people travel to kill themselves?Doable in what way? When you break it down, everything is doable on paper. What might be acceptable to you may not be acceptable best practice and so on. The devil is always in the detail. Legislation like this would be a nightmare to implement, no one would touch it. Ireland will never take any lead on this until there is a clear prescient made in the UK.
And that won't change if we don't make some noise and try and change it. How defeatist.What euthanasia program would you implement? What would be unacceptable in your view.
Now we're at the meat of it, ok. To start I suggest we'd legislate for the assisted suicide of mentally capable adults as this seems the easiest case. They would need to consult with a doctor (or preferably more than one) and the doctor would have to sign off on it. They would need to see that the patient was mentally capable of making such a decision, that the patient had little or no chance of recovery and that the illness was affecting their quality of life. The options of how they are assisted then varies from a physician administering it at the patients home allowing them comfort of surroundings and family or if in hospital (similar to Oregon I believe) the patient could given a vile to consume when they felt they were at breaking point. This option would allow you to make the arrangement ahead of time.
After that is legislated for we then can look at giving other people power to euthanise such as a family member or such. This decision could be made while mentally healthy out of concern of a sharp change in said circumstances. Again a consultation woth a doctor and a written request on what grounds the family member is to have this decision would be needed. This I imagine would take along time to iron out before we could look to bring it in to law but would be comparable to dnr orders.
Alongside that we'd have to look at children and the mentally ill (Just to be clear here we're talking mentally ill people who go on to develop terminal painful illnesses not euthanising people because of mental illness). This would be the hardest area. I'd still look to legislate for it in some fashion even if highly restricted so that we could at least help some suffering. Perhaps at the request of a guardian a group of doctors could weigh up the suffering against any hope of recovery and where no hope is found allow said guardian to make the decision.
I'm open to discussion of any concerns here but that would be my initial approach. Also, what I typed above is what I meant so no need to imagine wildly different scenarios and then accuse me of supporting them and if you are going to just offer more difficult what if's could you acknowledge these points first, thanks.
Oh and as a side pointer, something I came across on wiki while googling assisted suicide in oregon:
"Opinion by religious affiliation
In one recent study dealing primarily with Christians, Southern Baptists, Pentecostals, and Evangelicals and Catholics tended to be opposed to euthanasia. Moderate Protestants, (e.g., Lutherans and Methodists) showed mixed views concerning end of life decisions in general. Both of these groups showed less support than non-affiliates, but were less opposed to it than conservative Protestants. Respondents that did not affiliate with a religion were found to support euthanasia more than those who did. The liberal Protestants (including some Presbyterians and Episcopalians) were the most supportive. In general, liberal Protestants affiliate more loosely with religious institutions and their views were not similar to those of non-affiliates. Within all groups, religiosity (i.e., self-evaluation and frequency of church attendance) also correlated to opinions on euthanasia. Individuals who attended church regularly and more frequently and considered themselves more religious were found to be more opposed to euthanasia than to those who had a lower level of religiosity.[6]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_the_United_States#Oregon0 -
Advertisement
-
I have little issue with allowing mentally competent patients to make the decision to be assisted in death.
I don't think I could sanction this if the patient is not mentally capable, but there are two scenarios that immediately spring to mind; patient alive and awake but unable to make an informed decision (lets say, Alzheimers) and patient comatose on a life support machine (lets say, car crash).
In the case of Alzheimers, even if the patient has previously, while in a mentally capable state, indicated their wishes to be assisted in death, I'm not sure I am confident enough that people might not change their minds. Who knows how you might feel if your mental health deteriorates?
For a car crash patient on life support with little sign of life, I'd be more happy to act on their previous wishes (if they were documented on a medical card/in their wallet/etc).
The really tricky bit in my thinking is where you have a patient who is not able to make a decision (even if they have previously indicated their wishes) but is suffering in physical pain.0 -
Yeah, this is the easy one. I think it is a disgrace that there is no accommodation for this type of patient.doctoremma wrote: »I have little issue with allowing mentally competent patients to make the decision to be assisted in death.
But the point is, your mental state has deteriorated to the point where you are not mentally competent, therefore any change of mind that you might have would not, therefore, be valid... Perhaps this is a legal cop out, but it is still relevant. The law already allows for this type of thing, drunken consent, where the person is too drunk to fully appreciate what they are doing, is not considered valid. Similarly, if someone decides to carry out a criminal act when they are really drunk, and I mean really drunk, this can he held to indicate that the mens rea, for specific intent crimes, was not present.doctoremma wrote: »I don't think I could sanction this if the patient is not mentally capable, but there are two scenarios that immediately spring to mind; patient alive and awake but unable to make an informed decision (lets say, Alzheimers) and patient comatose on a life support machine (lets say, car crash).
In the case of Alzheimers, even if the patient has previously, while in a mentally capable state, indicated their wishes to be assisted in death, I'm not sure I am confident enough that people might not change their minds. Who knows how you might feel if your mental health deteriorates?
So the law is already geared for this type of thing. So is there a difference morally? I don't think so. It is very likely my mother will suffer from alzheimers. She watched her grandmother and her mother suffer. She has made the decision that she does not want to go out that way. She has decided that once her standard of living drops and she starts to lose her dignity she wants it to end. Now, I am fully supportive of this, though I don't know how we will manage it. But the thing is, as she deteriorates mentally she probably won't realise how bad she is. This is one of the things that makes this disease so horrible. Her standard of life will drop. She will lose her dignity. But she will be too far gone to know or care. Has she changed her mind? Does she actually want to live now? No. The disease is merely running its course.
To me the fact that the person is no longer asking to die, because they are so far gone, does not cancel the previous wish for a quick, merciful and dignified (if there is such a thing) death. It is, in fact, the very thing they were trying to protect themselves from by making people aware of their wishes in the first place.
Again, this is an easy one, though I personally see no real difference between it and the alzheimers case.doctoremma wrote: »For a car crash patient on life support with little sign of life, I'd be more happy to act on their previous wishes (if they were documented on a medical card/in their wallet/etc).
Well, how about this. We already allow, in the UK anyway, next of kin to authorise doctors to carry out no heroic measures and withdraw sustenance from patients, in certain conditions, to allow them to die. This is, effectively, euthanasia just with a little bit of cruelty thrown in.doctoremma wrote: »The really tricky bit in my thinking is where you have a patient who is not able to make a decision (even if they have previously indicated their wishes) but is suffering in physical pain.
In those particular cases the doctor withdraw treatment with the express purpose of, and in full knowledge that this will speed the death of the patient. They can do this, but they can't, officially, pop in a little extra morphine into the drip...?
Should euthanasia become lawful, which I have no doubt it will, it will need to be very heavily policed. I find the slippery slope argument to be unsatisfying. It should be perfectly possible to allow euthanasia in particular circumstances without us ending up with gangs of people roving the streets dragging the old and infirm into shiny new multi-storey euthanasiaplexes (probably built beside the multi-storey abortionplexes Europe made us build) to be forcfully euthanised.
MrP0 -
jank, you are interpreting the stats "differently" to me (and probably most people)Look at the stats in the article.
There was 203 cases looked at. In 186 cases aggressive treatment was stopped at is was proving unsuccessful. There is no breakdown at all if these people were or were not religious but one can confidently assume that there is a good mix. So taking that axiom not all religious people are out there making their children suffer.....
17 cases treatment was pursed by the parents against the wishes of the medical staff. 11 out of those 17 were because of religious belief, this means 6 were not. Blows the case out of the water the ONLY religion is a factor here. What was the motive of those 6 people?.
Here's what the OP Indo article said ;
OK, so the 11 cases were "mainstream" religious who could be swayed by hospital chaplains. 1 case was swayed by a legal judgement against them.In 17 cases, the parents insisted on continuing treatment even after lengthy discussions about the probability that it would be unsuccessful. In 11 of these, religion was the main factor influencing their decision. Some of the cases were eventually resolved after religious leaders persuaded the parents to allow the child to die, and one case went to the High Court.
In the remaining cases, no agreement could be reached because the parents were awaiting a “miracle”, the authors said.
“While it is vital to support families in such difficult times, we are increasingly concerned that deeply held belief in religion can lead to children being potentially subjected to burdensome care in expectation of 'miraculous’ intervention,” the authors warned. “In many cases, the children about whom the decisions are being made are too young to subscribe to the religious beliefs held by their parents, yet we continue to respect the parents’ beliefs.”
The 5 remaining were full-on wacko nutjobs who were waiting for "miraculous intervention" and the words "deeply held belief in religion" are also used in the same sentence. They were immune to the pleas of the mainstream hospital chaplains, and presumably their kids went on to die an agonisingly slow and painful death.
Yet in your version of the stats, you confidently assess these 6 as "not religious." Your whole argument is based upon this.
To me it looks like 100% of them were religious. We may have to find the original source documents to be sure, but that's how the facts were presented in the Indo article as linked to in the OP.0 -
Why would we look to China or the USSR for guidance on this :eek:
Em, because these were/are states that had very little or no religious influence on policy or law? Yet even these states never legalised euthanasia. It is easy to say that because most western countries don't allow voluntary euthanaisa its the fault of the religious lobby but its clear to see it is not quite that black and white.Yet you felt no need to clarify your opinion that it's ok to make people travel to kill themselves?
Lets not descend into hysteria now.And that won't change if we don't make some noise and try and change it. How defeatist.
No just realistic and pragmatic. For example in Ireland is there ANY party that has as part of their manifesto a "right to die" policy? I don't think even the SWP party do. Maybe in 20 years or so. We live in a free country so by all means lobby your local TD's.Now we're at the meat of it, ok. To start I suggest we'd legislate for the assisted suicide of mentally capable adults as this seems the easiest case. They would need to consult with a doctor (or preferably more than one) and the doctor would have to sign off on it. They would need to see that the patient was mentally capable of making such a decision, that the patient had little or no chance of recovery and that the illness was affecting their quality of life. The options of how they are assisted then varies from a physician administering it at the patients home allowing them comfort of surroundings and family or if in hospital (similar to Oregon I believe) the patient could given a vile to consume when they felt they were at breaking point. This option would allow you to make the arrangement ahead of time.
After that is legislated for we then can look at giving other people power to euthanise such as a family member or such. This decision could be made while mentally healthy out of concern of a sharp change in said circumstances. Again a consultation woth a doctor and a written request on what grounds the family member is to have this decision would be needed. This I imagine would take along time to iron out before we could look to bring it in to law but would be comparable to dnr orders.
Alongside that we'd have to look at children and the mentally ill (Just to be clear here we're talking mentally ill people who go on to develop terminal painful illnesses not euthanising people because of mental illness). This would be the hardest area. I'd still look to legislate for it in some fashion even if highly restricted so that we could at least help some suffering. Perhaps at the request of a guardian a group of doctors could weigh up the suffering against any hope of recovery and where no hope is found allow said guardian to make the decision.
I'm open to discussion of any concerns here but that would be my initial approach. Also, what I typed above is what I meant so no need to imagine wildly different scenarios and then accuse me of supporting them and if you are going to just offer more difficult what if's could you acknowledge these points first, thanks.
Thanks for offering up an opinion and am grateful that we are actually discussing this rather than a "rar rar relgion sucks, rar.." dialogue.
The devil of course is in the detail.
For example what kind of illness would this be permitted for. An argument could be made for everything from terminal bowel cancer to acute headaches.
Would the doctor have a conflict of interest, remember the Dr. Shipman case?
Should the doctor or doctor's be from an independent panel or a local GP?
Of course who would pay for this. Should the government fund this or should be it a private decision paid for privately to prevent any government interest or meddling.
Regarding family, there could also be a conflict of interest there, unfortunately. No doubt an aggrieved son or daughter could try and lay claim that their brother/sister has persuaded their parent to take their own life to get their hand on some inheritance.
Limits will be put in place and for some people those limits will be either too lenient or too harsh, thus there could be endless talk and posturing by both sides.
There are virtually a limitless number of scenarios that could play out in relation to these questions.
Voluntary euthanasia is one thing but when we start talking about involuntary euthanasia then serous serious questions have to be answered and a massive can of worms could be opened. Mentally ill patients may want to die or they may want to live yet parents/guardians will start making those decisions for them? Would the power of life and death thus pass to a doctor or some government board to form some kind of legal approval?
Would you think that it would be OK for parents to euthanize children with mental or physical handicaps?
There is often an argument made about the death penalty where the risk is too great that an innocent person is put to death if wrongly convicted. Would the same argument be valid in the case of voluntary or in-voluntary euthanasia, someone is legally killed that shouldn't be.0 -
jank, you are interpreting the stats "differently" to me (and probably most people)
Here's what the OP Indo article said ;
OK, so the 11 cases were "mainstream" religious who could be swayed by hospital chaplains. 1 case was swayed by a legal judgement against them.
The 6 remaining were full-on wacko nutjobs who were waiting for "miraculous intervention" and the words "deeply held belief in religion" are also used in the same sentence.They were immune to the pleas of the mainstream hospital chaplains, and presumably their kids went on to die an agonisingly slow and painful death.
Yet in your version of the stats, you confidently assess these 6 as "not religious." Your whole argument is based upon this.
To me it looks like 100% of them were religious. We may have to find the original source documents to be sure, but that's how the facts were presented in the Indo article as linked to in the OP.
Read the same article.In 17 cases, the parents insisted on continuing treatment even after lengthy discussions about the probability that it would be unsuccessful. In 11 of these, religion was the main factor influencing their decision
I look at this that there was 6 cases where religion was not the main factor influencing the decision. 11 are highlighted the other 6 are not. You are reading it incorrectly although the article doesn't make it very clear. It would be good if we could get a link on the original research to see for ourselves.0 -
Read the same article.
I look at this that there was 6 cases where religion was not the main factor influencing the decision. 11 are highlighted the other 6 are not. You are reading it incorrectly although the article doesn't make it very clear. It would be good if we could get a link on the original research to see for ourselves.
While the article from the independent is perhaps not as clear as it should be (even I misread it the first time) the study itself does make it clear what happened in the 17 cases which initially refused treatment. They break down as follows:
6 cases were resolved after multiple lenghty discussions with parents and medical staff (These are the 6 cases you mention above)
"Of these 17 initial cases, 6 were resolved by considering the best interest of the child, further time for the families and ongoing multidisciplinary discussions."
This leaves the 11 cases mentioned in the Independent article. These breakdown thusly:
5 cases resulted in treatment being stopped only after the intervention of local religious leaders:
"In five cases, Muslim, Jewish and Roman Catholic, local resolution was ultimately achieved with the help and support of hospital and local religious leaders, who attended the hospital to support the families and discuss the children's care with the clinical team."
1 case was the subject of a High Court order:
"Only one case required referral to the High Court, where medical care was ordered to be withdrawn."
In the remaining 5 cases no resolution was possible due to resistance from the parents hoping for a "miracle."
"and in the remaining five, all Christian, no resolution was possible due to expressed expectations that a ‘miracle’ would happen."
Furthermore the study also comments:
"In the Christian groups who held fervent or fundamentalist views, the parents did not engage in exploration of their religious beliefs with hospital chaplains and no religious community leaders were available to attend meetings to help discuss or reconcile the differences. The parents had their own views or interpretation of their religion and were not prepared to discuss these tenets. Fundamentalism is defined here as the expectation that specific theological doctrines will be maintained."
"In cases in which religion was not a fundamentalist factor all ultimately had successful local resolution."
"Of those in which resolution was not possible, Christian fundamentalist churches with African evangelical origins featured most frequently, though other religions also featured. All these families were explicit in their expectation of a ‘miraculous cure’ for their child, and as such all felt the medical scientific information was of limited use. Although ongoing daily dialogue continued between the family and the teams there was no change in the family's view that aggressive support must always be continued waiting for God to intervene. These children continued to deteriorate despite continued intensive care, with four eventually dying on leaving PICU, or shortly after, and one surviving with profound neurodisability."
You can read the study for yourself here:
Should religious beliefs be allowed to stonewall a secular approach to withdrawing and withholding treatment in children?
Personally, I find the idea of religious beliefs being allowed to interfere with medical decisions like these disturbing and repulsive and the fact that one child (the case in bold) was left with a profound disability is sickening. What kind of loving parent is willing to risk suffering and disability for the sake of keeping their child alive? It's abhorrent.0 -
Advertisement
-
I would be very interested to find some more information on the exact nature of the disability this child was left with, although I'm certain that will be impossible. It's a somewhat vague statement, a subjective one, which, for lack of clarity, I'm not sure should be used to illustrate the following point:These children continued to deteriorate despite continued intensive care, with four eventually dying on leaving PICU, or shortly after, and one surviving with profound neurodisability.the fact that one child (the case in bold) was left with a profound disability is sickening. What kind of loving parent is willing to risk suffering and disability for the sake of keeping their child alive? It's abhorrent.
I agree with you in all other aspects, just a little cautious with this point.0 -
doctoremma wrote: »I would be very interested to find some more information on the exact nature of the disability this child was left with, although I'm certain that will be impossible. It's a somewhat vague statement, a subjective one, which, for lack of clarity, I'm not sure should be used to illustrate the following point:
I agree with you in all other aspects, just a little cautious with this point.
Thank you for pointing that out. That was my interpretation of the point raised in the article but I defer to your expertise in the field. Point cheerfully withdrawn.0 -
Deference inappropriate and unnecessary (I'm a scientist, not a medic). But I study a variety of disabilities and, having read far too many differential descriptions of clinical presentations, the subjectiveness of "profound" coupled with the vagueness of "neurodisability" doesn't really give away very much.Thank you for pointing that out. That was my interpretation of the point raised in the article but I defer to your expertise in the field. Point cheerfully withdrawn.
IMO, your point is entirely reasonable in the case of a patient left in a vegetative state or unable to move/communicate/perform basic bodily functions. It just becomes a little tricky when you have a medic who blithely describes something like a standard case of cerebral palsy (she says blithely
) as a "profound neurodisability", when in this context, that type of outcome is something approaching the "miracle" that these parents were waiting on.
Anyway, I appear to be arming the "opposition" so I'll stop.0 -
OK the medical journal abstract is clearer than the newspaper article. There are indeed 6 cases "unresolved" after the first stage of talks with doctors where the parents are not explicitly giving religion as their reason. If we compare to "the remaining cases awaiting a miracle" which turns out to be only a sub-group of the religious cases, comprising 5 cases, then in the end the "not explicitly religious" cases actually form a majority of those holding out against medical opinion.
However, I'm not sure that we can definitely say religious beliefs were not a factor in the 6, just because they did not explicitly claim they were expecting divine intervention. For example, they could have had relatives fervently praying for them, and putting emotional pressure on them to give the child "a reprieve". There is no info given at all for their reasons.0 -
I'm going to get down to the important part of the post here. Sorry for breaking up your post but I want to cover everything I can.The devil of course is in the detail.
For example what kind of illness would this be permitted for. An argument could be made for everything from terminal bowel cancer to acute headaches.
Illnesses that are highly unlikely to be reversed and that cause a reduction in quality of life to make it unbearable that is not going away and may worsen. Remember if a person is still able to get around by themselves chances are they can just kill themselves. It's people who need assistance that seek this, assistance that does not see their accomplice done for murder; So headaches are unlikely to come into it but if it could fit the list above so be it. No point arbitrarily making a list of illnesses.Would the doctor have a conflict of interest, remember the Dr. Shipman case?
Should the doctor or doctor's be from an independent panel or a local GP?
I can't say it could never happen but given that the patient would need to approach the doctor first it's less likely than say in Shipman's case. However requiring the patient to meet with say 2 doctors could be an option here.Of course who would pay for this. Should the government fund this or should be it a private decision paid for privately to prevent any government interest or meddling.
Leaving aside the emotional idea that a state does it's best to help the vulnerable in society, a logical cold argument could be made for it saving costs (pension and medical) and freeing up space (wow that was hard to type). Gonna step away from the keyboard for a second!Regarding family, there could also be a conflict of interest there, unfortunately. No doubt an aggrieved son or daughter could try and lay claim that their brother/sister has persuaded their parent to take their own life to get their hand on some inheritance.
Indeed it could get messy but then aggrieved siblings happen now (from personal experience) when it comes to wills and deaths and all that. A sad part of life. Actually stopping heartless offspring would require judgement by the patients doctors with maybe a touch of hope for humanity.Limits will be put in place and for some people those limits will be either too lenient or too harsh, thus there could be endless talk and posturing by both sides.
There are virtually a limitless number of scenarios that could play out in relation to these questions.
Yes I suppose they could but in my opinion putting even the safest options into law now will end at least some needless suffering while we iron out the grey areas.Voluntary euthanasia is one thing but when we start talking about involuntary euthanasia then serous serious questions have to be answered and a massive can of worms could be opened. Mentally ill patients may want to die or they may want to live yet parents/guardians will start making those decisions for them? Would the power of life and death thus pass to a doctor or some government board to form some kind of legal approval?
Would you think that it would be OK for parents to euthanize children with mental or physical handicaps?
Again I can only assume you mean people with mental disabilities that then go on to develop illnesses that make their lives too hard to continue? Because no one should be euthanised because of something like autism or such. And yes it's a very difficult subject and I outlined already how I personally feel it should be legislated for but again I imagine it would come in well after the easier areas to agree on.There is often an argument made about the death penalty where the risk is too great that an innocent person is put to death if wrongly convicted. Would the same argument be valid in the case of voluntary or in-voluntary euthanasia, someone is legally killed that shouldn't be.
I can's see how with voluntary but perhaps involuntary, even with the strictest safeguards human error can not be completely eradicated but we simply try our best. Unlike the death penalty though, not making euthanasia legal causes suffering daily. We legalise motor vehicles that cause 100s of deaths every year and if we banned them all it would do is inconvenience us and save many lives. Here we're talking about ending suffering not inconvenience and while every precaution would be taken, the fear that someone may mistakenly loose their life is not acceptable enough to stop us in our tracks, we simply realise the risk and try our best to make sure it doesn't happen.0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement