What is your opinion on euthanasia?

[proudfather]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

One is actually taking a life while another is just withdrawing medical intervention. IMO big difference.

95 yr old grandma has a stroke that leaves her totally wiped out, most would not intubate her or put tubes and such. Just keep her comfertable.

95 year old that is alert but slowing losing her health request someone kill her is not the same as above.

I agree, but for the sake of debate, consider the following:

Technically, there is no difference in a feeding tube and putting an IV in someone that is dehydrated. The feeding tube was invented by medical minds, just as well as the IV. What is the difference between these two? If you're okay with pulling the feeding tube, but not the IV, then isn't that hypocritical?

[Twisp]

I once heard the saying that we treat our old pets better than we do our elderly people. We put them out of the misery and pain while we try to keep our elders with us as long as possible.

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by proudfather

I agree, but for the sake of debate, consider the following:

Technically, there is no difference in a feeding tube and putting an IV in someone that is dehydrated. The feeding tube was invented by medical minds, just as well as the IV. What is the difference between these two? If you're okay with pulling the feeding tube, but not the IV, then isn't that hypocritical?

I'm ok with pulling all medical intervention.

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by Twisp

I once heard the saying that we treat our old pets better than we do our elderly people. We put them out of the misery and pain while we try to keep our elders with us as long as possible.

I'm a nurse and have seen elders put through much suffering due to prolonging the avoidable.

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by Timmy

And think about this: if someone was temporarily on a life support device of some kind, but the outlook for recovery was good, and someone sneaked in at night and disconnected it and the patient died, wouldn't there be a good case for a murder conviction?

yep

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by Rose

"Thou shalt not kill" is pretty plain to me.

Didn't seem that clear to the Israelites when they conquered Canaan.

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by Twisp

Didn't seem that clear to the Israelites when they conquered Canaan.

or killing them baby amalekites.

[Twisp]

On the subject itself, I think it is a personal decision that a competent person should be able to decide for themselves. If they can make peace with it and want to, they should be able to.

I can't foresee it ever being an option for me, primarily because of the way I was raised, but who knows what one will do until the situation arises.

[proudfather]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

I'm ok with pulling all medical intervention.

Okay, but consider this: let's say a young boy is brought into the emergency room because he passed out. Through examination, you discover that he is extremely dehydrated. Would you refuse to give him the IV?

[RandyWayne]

I am glad I am seeing some pretty sane thoughts on this. My feelings are somewhat different depending on what type of medical intervention your talking about. Now I realize that there are probably billions and trillions of possible scenarios one could find oneself in so each case would need to be handled individually but I tend to put intervention such as most things considered "life support" in one catagory and things like feeding tubes and IV's in another. In cases where a person is basically stable but cannot eat for themselves I would consider withholding food murder, plain and simple. If this person was a vegetable but survived being off basic life support then removing the feeding tube may be..... well, again I guess each case truly is unique.