FOLYKAZE:

Euthanasia is termed as 'assisted suicide'. The person assisting or aiding the suicide is a murderer.

No emotion here

is suicide evil in all and every scenario or case?

P.S. I did not insult your intelligence but I see you insisting it is murder when we have not come to that conclusion yet. Insisting something without showing how does not make for good debate.

As for your previous reply, when I said the patient will eventually die, I was sure you knew what I meant. Sure, we all will eventually die but in this case we are talking about a person who is terminally ill and is in constant excruciating pain. There will be no need to consider euthanasia if there is any hope for a cure.

Reyginus: Babe, you don't know me. I don't use the bible when the question is not asking for proof from the bible.

Do you agree that this God created man or you agree that man is as a result of Evolutionary Natural Selection?

I told ya I'm evolutionist...

FOLYKAZE:

Euthanasia is termed as 'assisted suicide'. The person assisting or aiding the suicide is a murderer.

No emotion here

you did the exact opposite of what I warned against. What do you think is Murder, then distinguish it from self defence, defence of property, manslaughter, suicide.

Mr Troll: is suicide evil in all and every scenario or case?

P.S. I did not insult your intelligence but I see you insisting it is murder when we have not come to that conclusion yet. Insisting something without showing how does not make for good debate.

As for your previous reply, when I said the patient will eventually die, I was sure you knew what I meant. Sure, we all will eventually die but in this case we are talking about a person who is terminally ill and is in constant excruciating pain. There will be no need to consider euthanasia if there is any hope for a cure.

Note....you are not addressing any of questions directly or indirectly. And I'm sorry, you not helping this discussion.

We are all ill. Just in different degrees. Does that mean we should kill each others?

What euthanasia act is trying to dodge is the pain and suffering. And I asked if we can work on educating pain management as a subject in the clinics. Death option is not ceasing pain, it cease life.

Get me straight mr. I am not saying euthanasia is murder. I said the decision should come from the patient and not from family member. When it from family member, it is murder because no one has right to decide on another person's life. And if it the patient making this decision, there should be critical psychological examination and aids.

Kay 17: you did the exact opposite of what I warned against. What do you think is Murder, then distinguish it from self defence, defence of property, manslaughter, suicide.

Murder is the termination of life.

Self defence is a win-win murdering game of the swift one. You dont kill yourself on self defence....you do the opponent.

Defence of property.... sorry I dont know.

Manslaughter....killing of human being without malice aforethought.

Suicide is the action of killing oneself intentionally

So they are all murders?! They are all termination of life?!

@foly, I told you before, the patient has the first say on his life except in cases where he is unable.

What do you expect a family of an unconscious brain dead man to do? Continue on life support indefinitely? At what cost to living relatives?

Saying we are all ill but in different degrees is just a red herring. Euthanasia is considered in a terminally ill person. Someone who has no hope of a cure anymore. How can you compare that to a walking healthy person?

Kay 17: So they are all murders?! They are all termination of life?!

Different measures for different state... I mean social culture and law.

My argument on Euthanasia is that the person should be the one making the decision....not intimate family.

And secondly, there should be help through pain management instead of killing an individual.

Mr Troll: @foly, I told you before, the patient has the first say on his life except in cases where he is unable.

Try to understand me Mr. I agreed with you if the patient give this condition. But since euthanasia is employed to escape pains and suffering, we should firstly check if the person is psychologically balance. Reason for this is that no rational person at any point wants to die. Human are built with the instinct to fit and survive. If it psychological imbalance problem, we can help balancing that.

And in the case when the pain is unbearable, the option should not be death. That was the reason I said we should work for greater education in pain management.

And lastly when the patient cant make decision, you have no right to do for... Death is irreversable. What if the patient is not considering euthanasia?

Mr Troll: What do you expect a family of an unconscious brain dead man to do? Continue on life support indefinitely? At what cost to living relatives?

And in this sense the family should kill others around because they cant cater for them?

You ignored the life insurance gain and inheritance case where people can hide behind euthanasia to terminate others.

Mr Troll: Saying we are all ill but in different degrees is just a red herring. Euthanasia is considered in a terminally ill person. Someone who has no hope of a cure anymore. How can you compare that to a walking healthy person?

Why do you think those sentence to death are protected from taking their life themselves? Afterall they will still die.

What if there is cure tomorrow?

Kay 17:

I doubt if you really meant to say "restore life", cos we are not talking about Jesus.

My bad. I should have used the word 'rehabilitate' to avoid a misrepresentation in meaning.

Kay 17:

You fail to see the diverse nature of medicin. Take a look at amputation, it seems destructive, yet it is a curative procedure, so also placebos. They don't cure anything actually, rather have a profound psychological effect.

I like the analogy you employed here. It is my field of operation.

You see, in amputation, the removal of the limb for a greater good functions to prevent the complete termination of an individual's existence. It preservation of life is the difference and its superiority above Euthanasia.

As destructive as it seems, there must always be a life to experience the improvement afterwards.
But if you claim it is for a good effect on the patient, even when there is none to experience it, you cannot say that the destruction was a good thing. If something is good for somebody he has to first be alive to experience it.

Kay 17:


Euthanasia as a medicine is applicable only in cases of hopelessness, terminally and destructive diseases, wherein the sufferer loses human dignity and an appreciation for self. For them the disease has done its worst, and the sufferer is in an irredeemable state. He might have possibly lost his cognitive faculty.

This is true, but it doesn't automatically make termination of his life a good thing. And the problem with the above is that it emphasized on what I never for a second assumed to be the problem.

We know there are moments in life when we feel like giving up, when it seems all hope is lost, when we face life-threatening obstacles. If we had given up we wouldn't be here today. It is more like saying that because the life of a particular animal is dependent on water, when water is absent, instead of allowing the animal to live life to its conclusion she is better dead.

Kay 17:


Ordinarily everyone has a right to life, so as right to die. The right to die is so much so a natural right, because it is reaily at his instance. Euthanasia is an extension of this natural right in an irrdeemable diseased state.

I disagree that we should base our jugdement of right and wrong solely on written constitutions. When we do so, we neglect the capacity of men who wrote penned down the constitution.

On another note, a medical practitioner's duty is the preservation of life. He cannot be doing that by terminating it. When such happens, he is no longer playing the role of a medical practitioner but a murderer's.

Do you agree that our life is a product of a creator or a product of Evolution?

Mr Troll: sometimes it is not as clear cut as that. In most cases of euthanasia, the doctor provides all the possible options and it is left to you to make the choice. So, a medicine man not only prescribes medicine but also renders medical services like drug information, medical advice etc

Hmm. This is getting interesting. Can any good profession be for and against itself?

As in, can something like a good buying and selling be something entirely different from a good buying and selling?

Mr Troll:
Ideally, whatever medical course is taken is usually with the full consent of the patient and the patient can and do go against medical advice.

We know this to be true. But that's not our problem for now. Or is the thing good because it has the consent of the person suffering it? No. so let's leave this one for now.

Mr Troll:
A medicine man should aim to cure diseases but if that is not possible then he should aim to reduce suffering as much as possible but the final decision on euthanasia rests on the patient or his family.

Nice one. But you cannot be speaking of reducing suffering when the life whose suffering you are trying to reduce is no longer in existence.

Imagine that you were asked to reduce the rusting in a mechanical engine. After some effort you came out defeated. The only option left was to discard it. Which you did.

Have you reduced the rust in any way?

quivah:
I told ya I'm evolutionist...

Exactly what I am asking. So, do you agree that the Evolution of life was the work of man or you agree that Man's life is the work of Evolution?

Reyginus: Exactly what I am asking. So, do you agree that the Evolution of life was the work of man or you agree that Man's life is the work of Evolution?

ABeg no twist my brain... lol
Go to the main point haha

Anyways, I no know which one to pick o...coz I don't get 'em..
Well sha,I agree with the latter..

Men dint create evolution, they studied it..

quivah:
ABeg no twist my brain... lol
Go to the main point haha

Anyways, I no know which one to pick o...coz I don't get 'em..
Well sha,I agree with the latter..

Men dint create evolution, they studied it..

Very good. Patience please. I informed you of this in post 1and 2.

Next question.
Do you agree that Evolution is a morally good phenomenon or you agree that Evolution is morally a bad phenomenon?

FOLYKAZE:

Try to understand me Mr. I agreed with you if the patient give this condition. But since euthanasia is employed to escape pains and suffering, we should firstly check if the person is psychologically balance. Reason for this is that no rational person at any point wants to die. Human are built with the instinct to fit and survive. If it psychological imbalance problem, we can help balancing that.

And in the case when the pain is unbearable, the option should not be death. That was the reason I said we should work for greater education in pain management.

of course we should aim for better health practice in general but the reality on ground is that we are not there yet. now, what do you suggest in a case where the pain is unbearable in a terminally ill patient?

And lastly when the patient cant make decision, you have no right to do for... Death is irreversable. What if the patient is not considering euthanasia?


And in this sense the family should kill others around because they cant cater for them?

here we go again. we are talking about a TERMINALLY ILL person! the patient is sick. there is no available treatment for him. he is going to die soon but meanwhile, it is taking considerable emotional and financial cost to keep the patient alive, not because they are waiting for treatment but just because they can't bear to see the person die. this exerts considerable toll on the emotional and financial capacity of the surviving relatives while at the time, the patient is in excruciating physical pain while waiting to die. what exactly is your best option?

You ignored the life insurance gain and inheritance case where people can hide behind euthanasia to terminate others.

Why do you think those sentence to death are protected from taking their life themselves? Afterall they will still die.

What if there is cure tomorrow?

tomorrow as in, the next day...or future indefinite time?

Reyginus: Hmm. This is getting interesting. Can any good profession be for and against itself?

As in, can something like a good buying and selling be something entirely different from a good buying and selling?

did you glean this your conclusion from my post?

But you cannot be speaking of reducing suffering when the life whose suffering you are trying to reduce is no longer in existence.

Imagine that you were asked to reduce the rusting in a mechanical engine. After some effort you came out defeated. The only option left was to discard it. Which you did.

Have you reduced the rust in any way?

your analogy is flawed. a better analogy is this... imagine that the rusted engine has no possible means of reducing the rust and in so far as the rust is in the engine, it won't work. what would be the best solution? keep it for sentimental purposes?

the suffering being reduced here is not only of the patient but also of the immediate family members.

imagine a medical case where the patient is brain dead and it takes about $2000 per day to keep the patient alive. what do you suggest the family do in such a case?

@Regyinus

You still didn't talk about placebos.

But not all diseases are life threatening, yet doctors treat those; so also not all diseases are curable, yet doctors treat those. Hence it doesn't go well with your life preservation theory. Althought doctors do preserve life but above all, they care.

In the 18th century, most of their patients died, and they even made their deaths likelier, yet the doctors still cared.

Mr Troll: of course we should aim for better health practice in general but the reality on ground is that we are not there yet. now, what do you suggest in a case where the pain is unbearable in a terminally ill patient?

here we go again. we are talking about a TERMINALLY ILL person! the patient is sick. there is no available treatment for him. he is going to die soon but meanwhile, it is taking considerable emotional and financial cost to keep the patient alive, not because they are waiting for treatment but just because they can't bear to see the person die. this exerts considerable toll on the emotional and financial capacity of the surviving relatives while at the time, the patient is in excruciating physical pain while waiting to die. what exactly is your best option?






tomorrow as in, the next day...or future indefinite time?

I give up.

Try to understand this. I respect and so much love your perspective on this argument. You right on some points and I cant agree on some points too.

I believe people should help patient from taking euthanasia as next option. We should build up on pain management and others.

Nice to have you around for this. Catch ya another time. Cheers

FOLYKAZE:

I give up.

Try to understand this. I respect and so much love your perspective on this argument. You right on some points and I cant agree on some points too.

I believe people should help patient from taking euthanasia as next option. We should build up on pain management and others.

Nice to have you around for this. Catch ya another time. Cheers

ok. cheers.
note though, euthanasia is never an easy decision to undertake. sometimes we all want to have hope that somehow somewhere a miracle cure will come, just in time, if we just hold on for longer. but the reality is that some illnesses are incurable and as such the best possible way is to make sure the patient dies as painlessly as possible.

Mr Troll: ok. cheers.
note though, euthanasia is never an easy decision to undertake. sometimes we all want to have hope that somehow somewhere a miracle cure will come, just in time, if we just hold on for longer. but the reality is that some illnesses are incurable and as such the best possible way is to make sure the patient dies as painlessly as possible.

Erm... Since you appear to be in the medical line, what's the name of the drug given to patients for euthanasia?

Or is it classified information?

rationalmind:

Erm... Since you appear to be in the medical line, what's the name of the drug given to patients for euthanasia?

Or is it classified information?

THis guy.

Who you wan kill? talk true.

aManFromMars:
THis guy.

Who you wan kill? talk true.

Hehehe, I'm not yahweh

Reyginus: Do you mind to indulge in my dialectics or you'd like me to approach it from a new angle?

i mind.

FOLYKAZE:

Different measures for different state... I mean social culture and law.

My argument on Euthanasia is that the person should be the one making the decision....not intimate family.

And secondly, there should be help through pain management instead of killing an individual.

wat about one's dignity?how do you manage that?

Mr troll has said it all...i don't think i have any else to contribute.

rationalmind:

Erm... Since you appear to be in the medical line, what's the name of the drug given to patients for euthanasia?

Or is it classified information?

Otapiapia.

Mr Troll: did you glean this your conclusion from my post?

Soley from it. You are of the opinion that medicine is not clear cut. That it can heal and also destroy. You can correct me if this is not what you mean.

The question still stands. Can any good profession be for and against itself?

As in, can something like a good buying and selling be something entirely different from a good buying and selling?

Mr Troll:
your analogy is flawed. a better analogy is this... imagine that the rusted engine has no possible means of reducing the rust and in so far as the rust is in the engine, it won't work. what would be the best solution? keep it for sentimental purposes?

I think you still did not get the point I am making. You know it all began with suffering and the alleviation of it. You spoke about reducing pain by destroying the person experience the pain.

This is I what I want you to understand. You cannot claim to have released pain from a patient if he is not alive to experience it. Once a person is dead his consciousness follows suit. We can only speak of reducing pain if he is still existing. You don't reduce pain by destroying the whole completely. That's the reason the abalogy works.

Mr Troll:
the suffering being reduced here is not only of the patient but also of the immediate family members.

What sort of pain are all about here? Secondly, a person needs to be alive before he can experience the reduction of pain. Pain is the unwanted sensation informing the body that something is wrong. How does it now inform the person that something is better when he is no longer capable of feeling?

Mr Troll:
imagine a medical case where the patient is brain dead and it takes about $2000 per day to keep the patient alive. what do you suggest the family do in such a case?

If they cannot afford it, he should be allowed to die.
You have to consider what Euthanasia takes from people.

The period when a patient has been marked for death is a one of total reflection. He weighs the good and bad decisions he has taken in life and cease the moment to correct his thoughts by showing real remorse.

Within this period, even with the pain, he can still lecture the living by drawing from his past mistakes and encouraging them to avoid to making them. The words of a dying man is one almost everyone listens raptly to.

Reyginus:
This is I what I want you to understand. You cannot claim to have released pain from a patient if he is not alive to experience it. Once a person is dead his consciousness follows suit. We can only speak of reducing pain if he is still existing. You don't reduce pain by destroying the whole completely. That's the reason the abalogy works.
What sort of pain are all about here? Secondly, a person needs to be alive before he can experience the reduction of pain. Pain is the unwanted sensation informing the body that something is wrong. How does it now inform the person that something is better when he is no longer capable of feeling?

Wrong.


The dead feel no pain. Once a person is dead, he or she is relieved from pain.....permanently

Pain is worse than death......dont you guys watch zombie flicks? If 30 zombies are feeding on you from your leg upwards, what is the rational choice between

-dying painfully by being eaten slowly by rotting corpses
-shooting yourself in the brain to die with as little pain as possible

There is no redemption. You will die.



Euthanasia is usually a choice between painful death and death. Terminally ill people will die for certain- euthanasia is just to make it quick and pain free

Kay 17: @Regyinus

You still didn't talk about placebos.

I did but you didn't react to when I expected you to.
This was my response: 'please what do you mean by placebos are not the immediate solition/cure to the particular disease?'

Kay 17:

But not all diseases are life threatening, yet doctors treat those; so also not all diseases are curable, yet doctors treat those. Hence it doesn't go well with your life preservation theory. Althought doctors do preserve life but above all, they care.

C'mon! You are not considering the reason for treatment anymore once you thread that line.
You are sounding like diseases are not treated for the purpose of restoring individuals to homeostasis but for the fun involved in it. Inhomeostasis throws life out of balance.

So long as this homeostasis promotes survival, directly life-threatening or not, an ailment is always treated to preserve life. It is not only preserving when the patient is on his death bed

Kay 17:

In the 18th century, most of their patients died, and they even made their deaths likelier, yet the doctors still cared.

Likelier as in similar to Euthansia? If affirmative then the many doctors who treated the patients committed murder by doing so. You cannot reduce a patients pain by destroying him because once he is annihilated there will be no one to experience the reduction. You didn't help him at all.

Ranchhoddas: i mind.

Then you are saying you don't want to use it as a method. I hope you know this.

Ranchhoddas: Mr troll has said it all...i don't think i have any else to contribute.

I will amputate that leg if you leave this room

Logicboy03:


Wrong.


The dead feel no pain. Once a person is dead, he or she is relieved from pain.....permanently

You also forget to add, they feel no pleasure either.

The question you should now ask yourself is how can a person who feels neither pain nor pleasure, a person whose these terms are incapable of describing, be releived of either of the two that he is not capable of experiencing?

Like saying that by demolishing an ugly house you have made the house a good looking house, even when you know that the house one demolished is no longer a house in the first place.

Logicboy03:



Pain is worse than death......dont you guys watch zombie flicks? If 30 zombies are feeding on you from your leg upwards, what is the rational choice between

You also fail to add, the majority, once we are in life it brings cherish more than being out of it.
If thirty zombies are after you, which I know only happens in movies, the rational thing to do is to run. You don't and proclaim yourself dead already.

Logicboy03:



-dying painfully by being eaten slowly by rotting corpses
-shooting yourself in the brain to die with as little pain as possible

None of the above. Since we are talking about zombies here.
Do you also know that you can mimick their steps and go unharmed?

Logicboy03:


There is no redemption. You will die.

Not by my hands if need be. I am a spartan. I will figh to my last blood drops.

Logicboy03:


Euthanasia is usually a choice between painful death and death. Terminally ill people will die for certain- euthanasia is just to make it quick and pain free

And you don't think that anything contrary to the medical profession, the preservation of life, cannot be handled by a good medical practitioner.

Can a good docter kill and still retain the hippocratic oath, can a good businessman steal and still retain his title, or will a good politician fail to deliver to the masses?