PDA

View Full Version : quality of life Vs Sanctity of life


Bex
22-09-2003, 13:52
this kind of stems from the euthanasia debate but it also stands up itself as a discussion.....so let us know what you think

downquark1
22-09-2003, 14:00
I think everyone will put the 'bit of both', perhaps it would be better to give an example of a situation and let people vote on that.

danielf
22-09-2003, 14:04
Yes, I'll second that. Why not take the example of the woman that went to the european court for her right to die? That's a well published example.

Bex
22-09-2003, 14:05
ok well the specific link goes back to the euthanasia thread

http://www.nthellworld.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2811&perpage=15&pagenumber=1

but i guess one could also include debates around abortion

edit: the case you were referring too was leah betts............

so lets use that as an example, she had a terminal diease (can't remember specifically which one it was) and she would have deteriorated terribly so she eventually woiuldn;t be able to breath, talk, move etc..............would you say that the courts should have thought about her quality of life or that her life was sacred?

timewarrior2001
22-09-2003, 14:06
quality of life means more, If I had to suffer agonising pain everyday of my life, I would want to end it all.
Or as I have just seen my cousin go through, If I was bed ridden with cancer and dying anyway I wouldnt want to suffer like she had to.
Euthanasia should be legalised in the UK and stringent rules applied.

Graham
22-09-2003, 14:11
I agree with Timewarrior. I'd pick quality of life over "sanctity" any time.

This doesn't mean I think that there should be "Suicide Booths" on every corner a la Futurama, the process should have a whole lot of safeguards built in, but one person shouldn't be forced to suffer for another person's beliefs.

Bex
22-09-2003, 14:13
Originally posted by Graham
I agree with Timewarrior. I'd pick quality of life over "sanctity" any time.

This doesn't mean I think that there should be "Suicide Booths" on every corner a la Futurama, the process should have a whole lot of safeguards built in, but one person shouldn't be forced to suffer for another person's beliefs.

that's fair enough but how would the medical and legal profession come up with totally strict guidelines to stop people doing it before they find out that they are terminally ill? and how would one define terminally ill?

danielf
22-09-2003, 14:14
Originally posted by bexy
ok well the specific link goes back to the euthanasia thread

http://www.nthellworld.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2811&perpage=15&pagenumber=1

but i guess one could also include debates around abortion

edit: the case you were referring too was leah betts............

so lets use that as an example, she had a terminal diease (can't remember specifically which one it was) and she would have deteriorated terribly so she eventually woiuldn;t be able to breath, talk, move etc..............would you say that the courts should have thought about her quality of life or that her life was sacred?

To me, this was a very clear case where the patient was clearly able to take an informed decision, and willing to fight over her right, and her propsects were indeed very gloomy. I think the judges should have granted her the right to quality of life.

Bex
22-09-2003, 14:17
Originally posted by danielf
To me, this was a very clear case where the patient was clearly able to take an informed decision, and willing to fight over her right, and her propsects were indeed very gloomy. I think the judges should have granted her the right to quality of life.

indeed i agree, unfortunately she was not able, even at that point, to end her own life so she was fighting for her husband to help her.....................which the courts refused...and he ended up watching her die horribly.............

yet the courts are willing to seperate siemise twins (excuse spelling) and surely that is partly to do with their quality of life?????

danielf
22-09-2003, 14:18
Originally posted by bexy
that's fair enough but how would the medical and legal profession come up with totally strict guidelines to stop people doing it before they find out that they are terminally ill? and how would one define terminally ill?

For starters, I would say that the person would have to be deemed terminally ill, and face 'unbearable suffering' by a least two doctors. The person must also be considered capable of making a decision, and request (and argue for) the procedure on at least two occasions.

danielf
22-09-2003, 14:20
Originally posted by bexy
indeed i agree, unfortunately she was not able, even at that point, to end her own life so she was fighting for her husband to help her.....................which the courts refused...and he ended up watching her die horribly.............

yet the courts are willing to seperate siemise twins (excuse spelling) and surely that is partly to do with their quality of life?????

I suspect you are (partly) referring to the Iranian siamese twins. While that was a very risky operation, I think the intent there was to save lifes, rather than end lifes.

Bex
22-09-2003, 14:22
Originally posted by danielf
I suspect you are (partly) referring to the Iranian siamese twins. While that was a very risky operation, I think the intent there was to save lifes, rather than end lifes.

actually i was not referring to a specific case........but in many cases one twin is likely to die, in order for the other to live.....so would that really be to do with sanctity of life?

danielf
22-09-2003, 14:27
Originally posted by bexy
actually i was not referring to a specific case........but in many cases one twin is likely to die, in order for the other to live.....so would that really be to do with sanctity of life?

I guess it depends. If both are likely to die when not separated, it seems clear to me what the decision should be. But I think we're muddying the waters somewhat here by moving away from a relatively clear example.

Graham
22-09-2003, 14:31
Originally posted by bexy
how would the medical and legal profession come up with totally strict guidelines to stop people doing it before they find out that they are terminally ill? and how would one define terminally ill?

Firstly I think "terminally ill" is too restrictive. It's possible for people with debilitating diseases to still be alive long after their mental faculties have totally deteriorated. It's also possible for people with extremely painful conditions to be kept alive even though they have no hope of remission or relief from the pain.

Secondly it would take a lot of discussion by medial ethics committees to come up with a set I'of criteria under which euthanasia would or would not be allowed and as I'm not a doctor nor a lawyer it's a bit difficult for me to say more about that.

However at present there seems a reticence to even *consider* such a possibility and that IMO is the first hurdle we need to get over.

Bex
22-09-2003, 14:40
Originally posted by Graham
Firstly I think "terminally ill" is too restrictive. It's possible for people with debilitating diseases to still be alive long after their mental faculties have totally deteriorated. It's also possible for people with extremely painful conditions to be kept alive even though they have no hope of remission or relief from the pain.

Secondly it would take a lot of discussion by medial ethics committees to come up with a set I'of criteria under which euthanasia would or would not be allowed and as I'm not a doctor nor a lawyer it's a bit difficult for me to say more about that.

However at present there seems a reticence to even *consider* such a possibility and that IMO is the first hurdle we need to get over.

yes i think once they start to consider it....however the BMA (afaik) have been discussing the issues surrounding euthanasia for years...............see the problem would be in defining who exactly was eligible for euthanasia to be practiced...................and i dont think there will ever be total agreement

Chris
22-09-2003, 14:51
For me sanctity is very important indeed, but like some of the other threads that are about at the moment my reasoning is faith-based so while I have no problem believing what I do, I am nervous about advocating legislation that forces people who believe otherwise to do as I believe.

Ultimately you can't stop someone committing suicide, but my best argument against legalised euthanasia is that I am not convinced by any of the proposals I have heard to protect vulnerable people.

timewarrior2001
22-09-2003, 15:38
Originally posted by Graham
Firstly I think "terminally ill" is too restrictive. It's possible for people with debilitating diseases to still be alive long after their mental faculties have totally deteriorated. It's also possible for people with extremely painful conditions to be kept alive even though they have no hope of remission or relief from the pain.

Secondly it would take a lot of discussion by medial ethics committees to come up with a set I'of criteria under which euthanasia would or would not be allowed and as I'm not a doctor nor a lawyer it's a bit difficult for me to say more about that.

However at present there seems a reticence to even *consider* such a possibility and that IMO is the first hurdle we need to get over.

I agree with the fact they can be alive, but I have to ask whats the point?
Having seen a ex footballer (willie Maddren) die from MND, its safe to say that MND does leave the faculties intact but you cannot move, cannot speak cannot care for yourself and you will die from it. As I mentioned earlier and as most of you will know my cousin recently lost her battle against cancer, she suffered, her death wasnt peacefull it was horrific. Had euthansia been allowed in the UK then she could have avoided all that sufffering.

Chris
22-09-2003, 15:55
Originally posted by timewarrior2001
I agree with the fact they can be alive, but I have to ask whats the point?
Having seen a ex footballer (willie Maddren) die from MND, its safe to say that MND does leave the faculties intact but you cannot move, cannot speak cannot care for yourself and you will die from it. As I mentioned earlier and as most of you will know my cousin recently lost her battle against cancer, she suffered, her death wasnt peacefull it was horrific. Had euthansia been allowed in the UK then she could have avoided all that sufffering.

It's real-world cases like this that bring it all into focus. :( If it's not too hard a thing for you to talk about, did she ever indicate that she might take that option if it were available?

timewarrior2001
22-09-2003, 16:10
Originally posted by towny
It's real-world cases like this that bring it all into focus. :( If it's not too hard a thing for you to talk about, did she ever indicate that she might take that option if it were available?

I'm ok talking about it now, managed to pull myself together after it happened.

I always thought that she would, I never once thought that she would have seen it through to the end. Maybe its because of the morphine that kept her drugged up to the eyeballs that she didnt, maybe she didnt want to go in the end.

We will probably never know, when I say it was an horrific death, Emma chose to die at home. She fought physically all that day, kicking, twitching moaning etc. When she finally died, she threw her head back and went, eyes wide open her mouth wide open and a look of pain on her face.
I think it was obvious she didnt want to go, I doubt highly she wanted to die like this. The girl had such a tremendous sense of ....... I dont know the word I'm looking for, but at 21 she arranged her own funeral, she was fully aware that she was going to die, and die young. She understood it was months rather than years, and towards the end she knew it would be weeks and then days.

I think under these circumstances especially as she arranged her own funeral that Euthanasia shoud be seen as a dignified way top end your suffering. After all what is it? Its an immunity from prosecution anyone that helps you in committing suicide.

I dont wish to argue that its right, but simply state that from my experiences especially the recent one that I feel it deserves more recognition and more understanding.

danielf
22-09-2003, 16:13
I'm really sorry to hear that story Timewarrior. It must have been a testing period for all involved...

timewarrior2001
22-09-2003, 16:16
thanks, we had all been able to say our goodbyes with Emma beforehand. Although we knew, it did come as a shock, I for one never thought I would cry, but I did and I couldnt stop.


Ok I dont mind answering questions about My cousin and or my experiences, I also dont want to sound Narky, but can we please keep this on the topic of Quality v Sanctity please.

:)

timewarrior2001
23-09-2003, 15:35
come on please dont let me be a dsicussion stopper, whats everyone else think?

Someone please post some more, I'm really interested in this topic.

danielf
23-09-2003, 16:02
Originally posted by timewarrior2001
come on please dont let me be a dsicussion stopper, whats everyone else think?

Someone please post some more, I'm really interested in this topic.

Let me just say that I feel your story is a strong point for favouring quality of life.

Chris
23-09-2003, 16:08
It's difficult to toss theory about when reality makes its presence felt ... I've been thinking about your cousin's story a lot since you posted.

That said, I think my concern with this issue is mainly with the 'assisted' nature of euthanasia. It just seems to be wide, wide open to abuse. If it's not too extreme a parallel, a psycho like Harold Shipman could conceivably use such a defence in a murder trial.

I do hold life to be absolutely sacred - hence my postings on abortion in the 'I Believe' thread - but the faith-based conviction that leads me to this belief also leads me to respect the choices made by each individual. In case of abortion, one person forfeits their life without any say in the matter; in the case of euthanasia you might at least say that the one who dies has chosen it for themselves.

danielf
23-09-2003, 16:19
I share your concerns about abuse, and I think everyone does. That is why I feel there should be stringent checks in place. For instance, two (or more) doctors should approve, and the patient should request the procedure on (at least) two occasions. (Not saying these should be the only checks, just a minimum).

Nemesis
23-09-2003, 17:30
I personally agree with the idea of euthansia. I have no experience of painful death, my relatives have either died from strokes or DVT based illness.

However, I believe strongly in the quality of life argument. I as an individual would agree with it as long as there were strict guidelines contolling the criteria.

timewarrior2001
23-09-2003, 17:34
Originally posted by towny
It's difficult to toss theory about when reality makes its presence felt ... I've been thinking about your cousin's story a lot since you posted.

That said, I think my concern with this issue is mainly with the 'assisted' nature of euthanasia. It just seems to be wide, wide open to abuse. If it's not too extreme a parallel, a psycho like Harold Shipman could conceivably use such a defence in a murder trial.

I do hold life to be absolutely sacred - hence my postings on abortion in the 'I Believe' thread - but the faith-based conviction that leads me to this belief also leads me to respect the choices made by each individual. In case of abortion, one person forfeits their life without any say in the matter; in the case of euthanasia you might at least say that the one who dies has chosen it for themselves.

the way I see it is that we describe ourselves as a caring nation, yet we are willing to see loved ones go through pain and suffering that we wouldnt see an animal go through.

Like I said, I neither think Euthanasia is right nor wrong, I still havent had time to weigh up how I truelly feel. Maybe had Emma been allowed to take her life (with assistance) I may feel anti Euthanasia purely because it was that which took my cousin away.

Watching Willie Maddren go downhill was painfull and sad, although I didnt have the connection other than I knew him by association when he was diagnosed, I later got to know him and found out he knew my dad very well.
As I said the emotional attachment wasnt really there with willie and I can safely say that I feel he should have been allowed to take his life, whether he would have wanted to or not is another matter. I think he wouldnt have because of his children and family.

I think the quality of Willies life was dramatically reduced and I find it hard to say that his suffering was Ok as it allowed him to carry on with his life. The man was an ex pro footballer who eventually found he couldnt even swallow, move his head or any part of his body. Yet his mental faculties were unchanged. That must in my oppinion be horrendous.