Forum home The potting shed




  • KT53KT53 Posts: 4,700
    We have our priorities very twisted when you can be prosecuted for allowing an animal to suffer, but also prosecuted if you want to help stop the suffering of a person.
  • pansyfacepansyface PEAK DISTRICT DerbyshirePosts: 17,971
    It’s a funny old world, right enough.
    Apophthegm -  a big word for a small thought.
  • josusa47josusa47 Posts: 3,532
    In the circumstances described, I would probably want to end my life. But that doesn't make it right. Moral questions are about what people ought to do, which isn't always what they actually do, or what they think they would do in a hypothetical situation.  I don't think euthanasia should be legal.
  • plant pauperplant pauper Posts: 6,234
    My dad, in one of his last lucid moments asked me "will they not just let me die in peace?"
    No dad they won't. When your temperature drops they'll put you in a lilo thing and blow warm air over you. When your phosphate levels drop they'll put a drip in to supplement them.
    No matter that you're raving in agony and at your wits end, they will keep you alive. 
    No thank you. Not for me.
  • Nanny BeachNanny Beach Posts: 4,020
    Hosta, I had this "discussion" with a young religious girl at work, asked why babies are born in famine/war/drought, why would a God let inocent children be born to die in agony, die, she said it was Adam and Eves faulty because they ate the apple, so the sins of the Father are begot on the children.  Over 40 years of nursing yes, from me.  Ridiculous its YOUR life.  Course, occasionally folk do come out of vegetive state (locked in syndrome)
  • FireFire LondonPosts: 7,699
    "In the circumstances described, I would probably want to end my life. But that doesn't make it right."

    How not? If someone is suffering and in great pain and genuinely wants out, we should help them. The only reason more people don't do it, is that the logistics are currently difficult to arrange. It wouldn't be legal to inflict that pain on another person. Torture is not legal. You wouldn't allow a dog or cat to be put through that agony if you had a way to give them peace.

    Many religions have it that only god can give and take life. It's time to dump religion and superstition. Take reason on instead, as a guiding light. If ever there was a time for a New Enlightenment, it's now. The seventeenth century version clearly didn't remotely work.
  • ButtercupdaysButtercupdays Posts: 3,209
    edited July 2018
    I have already put it in writing for my daughter that I do not wish to go on living if I am no longer able to enjoy the things she knows I enjoy.

    We watched a family friend dying of cancer and saw an erudite, articulate university lecturer left unable to move or to communicate except with his eyes, which spoke volumes.

    My cats have been mercifully put to sleep in less parlous states and I do not understand how anyone can conceivably think it right that someone should be left to suffer in this way.

    I was able to consent to the Do Not Resuscitate instruction, when my mum, who had Alzheimer's, was hospitalised with pneumonia and regret neither the hours spent at her bedside, nor the decision I made.
  • plant pauperplant pauper Posts: 6,234
    Please don't make this religious thing. It's not, and the thread will descend into nastiness and be closed. 
    Let's just assume that we all have a strong moral compass and leave it at that.
    @Buttercupdays I didn't get the opportunity to consent to a DNR for my dad as the clinical decision had already been made. The way I found this out was to ask for a DNR to be put in place. No-one had mentioned it until then. As I said then...I'd do it for a dog, I'll do it for my dad. I stand by that.
    @NoraGW Can someone take a look at this thread please? It's regularly added to but isn't being brought onto the Forum home page when it is updated. Thanks.
  • plant pauperplant pauper Posts: 6,234
    更新 请
  • raisingirlraisingirl East Devon, on the Edge of Exmoor.Posts: 4,053
    When my aunt had a very severe stroke, I was called to a family meeting by the medical staff. We were told that they had exhausted all options for securing any kind of recovery and she was left to some degree aware but immobile and unable to communicate. The question we were asked was whether we would agree to allowing her to be starved to death as that was the only alternative to maintaining her life on machines indefinitely. Surely there should have been a kinder option at that point? Starving to death or living in limbo - what sort of choice is that for us to make on her behalf?

    I am eternally grateful to the GP who asked me if my dad would want 'all possible steps taken' or to be allowed to die should a crisis arise, rather than rushed into hospital. He asked me this before it happened and my decision was respected when it came to it. So although his death was far more protracted than either he or I could really bear, at least I wasn't left choosing 'starve or limbo' for him.

    I do understand the political reluctance to take the step of allowing people to chose to die. I don't believe religion is behind it. In all the countries where it has been made legal, almost straight away cases have come up testing the limits, pushing the allowable boundaries as to when it is OK and when not. But the current situation is inhumane by any definition. We need to be better and find a way.
    “It's not worth doing something unless someone, somewhere, would much rather you weren't doing it.” ― Terry Pratchett
Sign In or Register to comment.