Nakharar Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 Of course there will be. The fact that you know your child is in great pain and is suffering has a big psychological toll. Personally, I agree with euthanasia because I believe life with torture and pain and without dignity is not worth living. style_images/master/snapback.png I also have no problem with euthanasia unless it isn't assisted as it is the case in Switzerland. Or if there are no infants, children or mentally disabled involved. If not it falls into murder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 Of course there will be. The fact that you know your child is in great pain and is suffering has a big psychological toll. Sure it's hard, but psychological toll means something else to me. Personally, I agree with euthanasia because I believe life with torture and pain and without dignity is not worth living. style_images/master/snapback.png Sorry, but who cares what you think? You are not the child that's going to be killed. If it was your life I would understand why your opinion could matter. As far as somebody else's life is concerned nobody's opinion counts except that person's. And since the child can't speak then nobody should dare to take his life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anoushik Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 I also have no problem with euthanasia unless it isn't assisted as it is the case in Switzerland. Or if there are no infants, children or mentally disabled involved. If not it falls into murder. style_images/master/snapback.png Only mentally disabled or physically disabled too? As I understand it the only time euthanasia is done is when the person is very, very sick and it is understood that he will die. By very, very sick I mean that the person is also in a lot of pain and no matter how much painkillers he takes he is still in a lot of torture. Isn't it more human to let the person free from his suffering much earlier than when he'll eventually die a couple of months later anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anoushik Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 Sure it's hard, but psychological toll means something else to me. style_images/master/snapback.png What does it mean to you? Sorry, but who cares what you think? You are not the child that's going to be killed. If it was your life I would understand why your opinion could matter. As far as somebody else's life is concerned nobody's opinion counts except that person's. And since the child can't speak then nobody should dare to take his life. I think in extreme circumstances, like in the case when the baby is so sick that he'll die, it is the parents responsibility to make that decision for him. If it wasn't for modern medicine these kind of babies wouldn't have been born in the first place, or wouldn't have survived childbirth. Why should we allow for technology to prolonge someone's life in such a horrible way when it wasn't meant to be? These babies are on life support. Their tiny hands feel every needle that is inserted in them. They feel pain. That is torture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nakharar Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 Only mentally disabled or physically disabled too? As I understand it the only time euthanasia is done is when the person is very, very sick and it is understood that he will die. By very, very sick I mean that the person is also in a lot of pain and no matter how much painkillers he takes he is still in a lot of torture. Isn't it more human to let the person free from his suffering much earlier than when he'll eventually die a couple of months later anyway? style_images/master/snapback.png The story was about putting to death those terminally-ill who are infants or mentally disabled. I'm not arguing against euthanasia, but in this case we are talking killing people (not euthanasia) who have no means to decide for themselves. That's the issue here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 Sure it's hard, but psychological toll means something else to me. Sorry, but who cares what you think? You are not the child that's going to be killed. If it was your life I would understand why your opinion could matter. As far as somebody else's life is concerned nobody's opinion counts except that person's. And since the child can't speak then nobody should dare to take his life. Anoushik, no matter what that meany Sasun says, I care what you think About the child, maybe nobody dare takes its life but don't ask me to support it either. Let it just sit there with his or her own "right to live" and we'll see how long it will survive. If the child has a right to decide whether it wants to continue to live or die, then the child should also have the ability to act on that right and not expect everyone else to go out of their way just that it can have this supposed right to live. I want to reword what Anoushik said in her post ... maybe she'll agree/maybe not ... I'm not saying this is what she said: ... Life for the sake of life is not a valid argument agaist euthanasia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anoushik Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 Anoushik, no matter what that meany Sasun says, I care what you think style_images/master/snapback.png Thank you I want to reword what Anoushik said in her post ... maybe she'll agree/maybe not ... I'm not saying this is what she said: ... Life for the sake of life is not a valid argument agaist euthanasia. Yes, I agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nakharar Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 I want to reword what Anoushik said in her post ... maybe she'll agree/maybe not ... I'm not saying this is what she said: ... Life for the sake of life is not a valid argument agaist euthanasia. style_images/master/snapback.png True if it is a personal choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 What does it mean to you? It means some kind of a psychological disorder due to the sick baby. I am not saying it is impossible, but it is not at all a guaranteed outcome. One can have a sick child and still be psychologically healthy. At any rate, it is less important than life. I think in extreme circumstances, like in the case when the baby is so sick that he'll die, it is the parents responsibility to make that decision for him. I am finding it hard to understand how it is parent's business to end a child's life. It doesn't matter whose child it is. It is a human being, not anybody's property or slave. And by the way, parent means life giver, not life taker. If it wasn't for modern medicine these kind of babies wouldn't have been born in the first place, or wouldn't have survived childbirth. If it wasn't for medicine (modern or not) many babies would die. Even if you leave a perfectly healthy baby without care it will not survive in most cases. So the question is in quantity of medical attention, not quality. How much resources is right to put in a baby's health? How much resources is right to spend to make a successful birth? To my mind there is no objective way to assess it, so I would say there is no limit to that, as much as possible. Why should we allow for technology to prolonge someone's life in such a horrible way when it wasn't meant to be? Often a medical care is necessary when a baby is about to be born. How can you tell if it was meant to be or not? For example, is a Ceasarian cut OK? Is it meant that a baby be born with such an unnatural method? Should it be allowed? Again, the question is in quantity of that care, and if one is to decide the quantity it will be subjective. Therefore life should not be determined by subjective decisions. These babies are on life support. Their tiny hands feel every needle that is inserted in them. They feel pain. That is torture. style_images/master/snapback.png I happen to disagree. It is painful but not torture, nobody is trying to torture them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 Anoushik, no matter what that meany Sasun says, I care what you think And who cares what Sip thinks? BTW, Anoushik, I hope you understood that I was making a point that applies to all that have an opinion that children (whatever the conditions might be) can be killed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 About the child, maybe nobody dare takes its life but don't ask me to support it either. style_images/master/snapback.png Actually you would have to support the baby if you were the parent or a doctor, and if you lived in a moral society it would be nice (although not required) that you somehow did help that child (like part of your taxes were used, etc.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 I said this before, if the parents can financially support it and want to do it, then by all means, more power to them. I have a problem when people want to legislate against Euthanization for whatever reasons when the burden is going to fall on society to care for them (as in rising HMO, medical insurance, etc costs) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 I have a problem when people want to legislate against Euthanization for whatever reasons when the burden is going to fall on society to care for them (as in rising HMO, medical insurance, etc costs) style_images/master/snapback.png I think any normal, humane society should do that, like caring for the elderly, setting up privileges for disabled people, etc... that's what I mean by a moral society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azat Posted December 7, 2004 Report Share Posted December 7, 2004 Sasun, based on your comment to Anoushik I have a question. If I were brain dead and was on a machine, you think the hospital and the family should never pull the plug? The reason I ask is because I cant speak to tell them to do it or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted December 7, 2004 Report Share Posted December 7, 2004 http://bau2.uibk.ac.at/sg/python/Scripts/HolyGrail/jpgs/02-oldmn.jpg Bring out your dead! [clang] Bring out your dead! [clang] Bring out your dead! [clang] Bring out your dead! Ninepence. CUSTOMER: Here's one. CART MASTER: Ninepence. DEAD PERSON: I'm not dead! CART MASTER: What? CUSTOMER: Nothing. Here's your ninepence. DEAD PERSON: I'm not dead! CART MASTER: 'Ere. He says he's not dead! CUSTOMER: Yes, he is. DEAD PERSON: I'm not! CART MASTER: He isn't? CUSTOMER: Well, he will be soon. He's very ill. DEAD PERSON: I'm getting better! CUSTOMER: No, you're not. You'll be stone dead in a moment. CART MASTER: Oh, I can't take him like that. It's against regulations. DEAD PERSON: I don't want to go on the cart! CUSTOMER: Oh, don't be such a baby. CART MASTER: I can't take him. DEAD PERSON: I feel fine! CUSTOMER: Well, do us a favour. CART MASTER: I can't. CUSTOMER: Well, can you hang around a couple of minutes? He won't be long. CART MASTER: No, I've got to go to the Robinsons'. They've lost nine today. CUSTOMER: Well, when's your next round? CART MASTER: Thursday. DEAD PERSON: I think I'll go for a walk. CUSTOMER: You're not fooling anyone, you know. Look. Isn't there something you can do? DEAD PERSON: [singing] I feel happy. I feel happy. [whop] CUSTOMER: Ah, thanks very much. CART MASTER: Not at all. See you on Thursday. CUSTOMER: Right. All right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted December 7, 2004 Report Share Posted December 7, 2004 If I were brain dead and was on a machine, you think the hospital and the family should never pull the plug? The reason I ask is because I cant speak to tell them to do it or not. style_images/master/snapback.png That's right, how can they know that's what you would want? Unless you have written in your will. And when it comes to a newborn, he doesn't even have a chance to write a will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azat Posted December 7, 2004 Report Share Posted December 7, 2004 Sasun jan, It would mean millions and millions and millions of people on machines bud. that would bring the medical system to its knees. Sometimes families have to make very hard decisions. I am sure you don't think that it is an easy decision for anyone and much more with babies. I just don't know. I just think is the child, person, elderly can live without the help of any machine they should, but if they are brain dead and cant do anything then euthanasia is something that should be considered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anoushik Posted December 7, 2004 Report Share Posted December 7, 2004 BTW, Anoushik, I hope you understood that I was making a point that applies to all that have an opinion that children (whatever the conditions might be) can be killed. style_images/master/snapback.png Of course, Sasun. No need for explanations Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anoushik Posted December 7, 2004 Report Share Posted December 7, 2004 Often a medical care is necessary when a baby is about to be born. How can you tell if it was meant to be or not? For example, is a Ceasarian cut OK? Is it meant that a baby be born with such an unnatural method? Should it be allowed? Again, the question is in quantity of that care, and if one is to decide the quantity it will be subjective. Therefore life should not be determined by subjective decisions. style_images/master/snapback.png Sasun, I wasn't clear. What I meant by it wasn't meant to be is that the child wasn't meant to live, no matter how many technological interventions there are. That's life, unfortunately. No matter how much they try the doctors can't save everyone. It's not right to artificially prolonge someone's life when you know for sure he'll still die. (It would be OK if there was some chance of survival>) Not to mention the quality of his life in that condition. He'll just eventually become living meat. I happen to disagree. It is painful but not torture, nobody is trying to torture them. Yes, nobody is trying to torture them but they still end up being tortured. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted December 7, 2004 Report Share Posted December 7, 2004 How is it an easy way out? I thought it is the more difficult but right way. style_images/master/snapback.png So wrong. "Life is tough, deal with it" is a classic. How is it an easy way out? I thought it is the more difficult but right way. How do you know that there is a psychological toll? A loving parent will care for his/her child no matter what, and there won't be any psychological effect. style_images/master/snapback.png There won't be any psychological effect? What are they, vegetables? For the record, I'm not approving of the practice, thinking of the parents. That dwarves in comparison with the pain of the child itself, but I think they have a right to include this in their considerations when making their choices. The parents' pain part is in empathy for their own kid's suffering. We all die sooner or later but do not weep. style_images/master/snapback.png Are you judging the baby for crying from its pain? Just what are you trying to say, other than some euphemism? How about empathising with the child that barely had any life and is being killed by those who are supposed to nourish him? I know one way of empathising - if you really care about the parents who are unfortunate enough to have a very sick child then try to help them out by sharing their burden. Killing the child is not a solution. A doctor is not supposed to kill, a doctor is supposed to heal. That is a very simple truth to me. However, certain complications are added to this truth and it becomes twisted and reversed. Now a doctor kills and gains the praise of certain parts of society, and the act of killing is considered a progressive act. If that is the right thing, then why not invade the "evil" parts of the world and kill all problematic people? Why try to educate and civilize them? Why treat them as worthy human beings? Surely they are a burden for the "good" parts of the world. style_images/master/snapback.png "If you care about the parents" - I don't really. And moreover you make it sound like a parent has a very ill baby and I come along, wrench it away, and give it to the doctor to kill when he should be pumping morphine into the veins of the "evil" baby which is as problematic as "evil Iraq" which is and was not evil in the way your administration put it and on top of that praise the act, Good boy, good doctor. Get a grip and stop putting people in the "wrong camp"... We are not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted December 7, 2004 Report Share Posted December 7, 2004 I am finding it hard to understand how it is parent's business to end a child's life. It doesn't matter whose child it is. It is a human being, not anybody's property or slave. And by the way, parent means life giver, not life taker. style_images/master/snapback.png "Business"? So then by your take a parent shouldn't be given the authority to decide on whether to give in their child, who is currently healthy but is likely to have problems later on in life (say, incomplete septum or any other heart problem) if they do not undergo a risky operation, into that risky operation? The question here is that parents try to make the best choices for their children, not just fold their arms and recite lines they heard off of the media. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nakharar Posted December 7, 2004 Report Share Posted December 7, 2004 I said this before, if the parents can financially support it and want to do it, then by all means, more power to them. I have a problem when people want to legislate against Euthanization for whatever reasons when the burden is going to fall on society to care for them (as in rising HMO, medical insurance, etc costs) style_images/master/snapback.png People who can afford to take care of their child should be able to do so. What about the rest? Is your wallet all you think about? Or the tax hike? That's the burden you are complaining about? In the old country, wherever your old country was, they would have considered you as a liability too. Better dead than alive I presume, because minorities are just seen like that. Try to think before you come up with something intelligent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted December 7, 2004 Report Share Posted December 7, 2004 In the old country, wherever your old country was, they would have considered you as a liability too. Old country was Iran ... and you don't see me there, now do you? Why do you think that is? Again, you are asking me to support a child that is terminally ill by forcing it to stay alive. And you are asking ME to think? The answer is obvious here dude. You consider life in and of itself worth something. I don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted December 7, 2004 Report Share Posted December 7, 2004 Sasun jan, It would mean millions and millions and millions of people on machines bud. that would bring the medical system to its knees. Sometimes families have to make very hard decisions. I am sure you don't think that it is an easy decision for anyone and much more with babies. I just don't know. I just think is the child, person, elderly can live without the help of any machine they should, but if they are brain dead and cant do anything then euthanasia is something that should be considered. style_images/master/snapback.png Azat jan, I don't think that there are millions of brain dead people, but maybe there are. Assuming there are and it would imply so much financial burden then be it, why not spend money on trying to keep them alive and cure them? What better use of money? Certainly it is a better use than fighting wrong wars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted December 7, 2004 Report Share Posted December 7, 2004 No matter how much they try the doctors can't save everyone. It's not right to artificially prolonge someone's life when you know for sure he'll still die. (It would be OK if there was some chance of survival>) style_images/master/snapback.png Anoushik jan, it is my understanding that doctors never know for 100%, there is always some chance of survival. I mean, there are cases where a person is diagnosed to die from cancer in a short period of time, but he doesn't die. As for children, that happens too. Everyone thinks that a child is very sick and will die soon, but then for some unenderstandable reason the child doesn't die and becomes more or less healthy and survives to live many years after. In a lot of circumstances it is perfectly fine to work under 99%, 90%, 80% assumptions. But when it comes to life and death, then one should not act even with 99.9 % certainty that a child will die and kill it for whatever reasaon. As long as there is a 0.1% chance the child should be helped as much as medicine can do. If the child dies in the end then you can be sure that you tried all you could, too bad you could not do more. If the child survives then consider that you acted very wisely not to kill a person. This seems quite clear to me, and I really don't think that there are so many children like that and huge amounts of money are necessary. I believe it's just a matter of the mindset of people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.