Reyginus: I don't understand. Is this the same thing as Euthanasia. As in, what role does it play in this argument?

Lol, do you not see? The anaesthetic patient is akin to a dead man. Feeling neither pain nor pleasure. Surely it is better than feeling pain while undergoing surgery, no?

I think I understand now when you speak of dignity. But there is still a problem. The problem is, murdering him will not restore his dignity.

bros, it will spare him and his intimate family the indignity of such state. It is called relief, not restoration. How can you be this dubious rey? There is no restoration possible in cases like that. The humane thing will be relief from such a pathetic state. This is what we have been shouting here since. Sheesh!


Btw, it is not murder. See the extract I posted. You have not made a coherent rebuttal of it, just needless rigmarole.

^^

Thank you so much Mr Troll for the effort at pointing the obvious to Reyginus. Regynius' objections to euthanasia are purely conscientious and religious.

Murder is illegal unlawful killing, in so far as euthanasia is legislated as an exemption. The main purpose of this thread is see the usefulness and not cast moral aspersions on euthanasia.

Mr Troll:
Lol, do you not see? The anaesthetic patient is akin to a dead man. Feeling neither pain nor pleasure. Surely it is better than feeling pain while undergoing surgery, no?

Lol. There is nothing to see, bro. You have already concluded that the anaesthetic patient is similar to a dead person. How you allowed such an error to infiltrate your statement, I do not know.

Your problem started when you likened the patient to a dead person and still go ahead to treat him exactly the same way. A seeming thing can never be the same thing it is seeming to be. A patient under anesthesia have the luxury of dismissing pain. He cannot feel pain anymore. A dead patient does not have the luxury of any of the options of pain and death.

Mr Troll:

bros, it will spare him and his intimate family the indignity of such state. It is called relief, not restoration. How can you be this dubious rey? There is no restoration possible in cases like that. The humane thing will be relief from such a pathetic state. This is what we have been shouting here since. Sheesh!

You are not getting my point. For anyone to be relieved of pain he must first be alive to experience the relieve. You cannot be speaking of relieve with respect to a person who doesn't exist.

Mr Troll:
Btw, it is not murder. See the extract I posted. You have not made a coherent rebuttal of it, just needless rigmarole.

Lol. Like this is the new atheist mantra. You can say it again. Even an unobstrusive observer knows better.

Good debate so far,.... while its proponents have noble ideals, It is easy for Euthanasia to be abused

In Belgium which is one of the most forward countries on this, there are massive allegations that people were euthanised to get access to their organs for donation purposes

If a person has lost the will to live, he should live out his days in reduced pain rather than life support, some measure of succour, preparing his home rather than pushed over the brink


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2525563/Right-die-My-husband-begged-help-die-Thank-God-I-didnt.html

Euthanasia laws in Belgium were introduced ten years ago to allow doctors to give a lethal injection to those who clearly request it and are deemed to be incurably ill or in unbearable pain. But these rules have been abused.

In the past decade the country has seen a 500 per cent increase in voluntary euthanasia cases.

However, analysis of death certificates shows that the true numbers may be higher because an estimated half of cases go unreported.

Euthanasia has been allowed for those suffering from the distress caused by blindness, deafness, anorexia and even botched sex-change operations.
The example of Belgium, says Dr Peter Saunders of the campaign group Care Not Killing, which opposes euthanasia, provides evidence of ‘incremental extension, mission creep or slippery slope’.

His concerns are justified. What might be called ‘organ-donation euthanasia’ is already practised in Belgium.

A 2009 study contained accounts from doctors describing cases of the euthanising of disabled patients, followed by the harvesting of their organs.
This has led to fears that patients might be pressured into agreeing to be euthanised so their organs can be given to those on transplant waiting lists.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1288217/Dutch-euthanasia-cases-surge-13-cent-year--prompting-inquiry-law.html

pickabeau1: Good debate so far,.... while its proponents have noble ideals, It is easy for Euthanasia to be abused

In Belgium which is one of the most forward countries on this, there are massive allegations that people were euthanised to get access to their organs for donation purposes

If a person has lost the will to live, he should live out his days in reduced pain rather than life support, some measure of succour, preparing his home rather than pushed over the brink


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2525563/Right-die-My-husband-begged-help-die-Thank-God-I-didnt.html





http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1288217/Dutch-euthanasia-cases-surge-13-cent-year--prompting-inquiry-law.html

Welcome bro.

Reyginus: Welcome bro.

im enjoyinh the discourse so far... good job guys!

pickabeau1:

im enjoyinh the discourse so far... good job guys!

yes yes. As humans, we are liable to abuse privileges and bend laws but that is nit the thrust of the argument.


@Rey, how is an unconscious anaesthesized patient not similar to a dead person?

Mr Troll: yes yes. As humans, we are liable to abuse privileges and bend laws but that is nit the thrust of the argument.


@Rey, how is an unconscious anaesthesized patient not similar to a dead person?

Ah my friend but that is the matter...abuse or misuse is inherent and that had led to the massive euthanasia cases in Belgium for things like blindness?!

I believe in succour and ease of pain till the final moments but deliberate suicide...hmmmmm

^^^

The thrust of the matter is, should euthanasia be considered under any circumstance?

Mr Troll:
@Rey, how is an unconscious anaesthesized patient not similar to a dead person?

Hmmm. I hope you know the implication of this statement.

No. The patient is similar to a dead person but he is not a dead person. It is similar only in the sense of the physical expression. But not in the mechanism of their respective physiologies.

It is similar to having a facial resemblance with your dad but exhibiting different characters and not being the same person. You two can never be the same no matter what.
Not only because you exhibit different character but also and most importantly, the person is distinct.

On another note, I don't know between the both of us who has a flawed or patterned understanding of how anaesthesia works. When I did my second year I.T in gwagwalada specialist hospital abuja, UNIBUJA T.H, there were times when patients were administered anaesthesia and they will still remained awake. They literally witness the surgical procedure. The only thing they seem not to feel is pain. Correct me if you have a better explanation.

In cases like this, can you still compare it to death?

Reyginus: Hmmm. I hope you know the implication of this statement.

No. The patient is similar to a dead person but he is not a dead person. It is similar only in the sense of the physical expression. But not in the mechanism of their respective physiologies.

It is similar to having a facial resemblance with your dad but exhibiting different characters and not being the same person. You two can never be the same no matter what.
Not only because you exhibit different character but also and most importantly, the person is distinct.

now, did you see where I wrote 'unconscious'? Do you think the patient in such a state is being relieved from pain although he is not conscious to witness it?

On another note, I don't know between the both of us who has a flawed or patterned understanding of how anaesthesia works. When I did my second year I.T in gwagwalada specialist hospital abuja, UNIBUJA T.H, there were times when patients were administered anaesthesia and they will still remained awake. They literally witness the surgical procedure. The only thing they seem not to feel is pain. Correct me if you have a better explanation.

In cases like this, can you still compare it to death?

there's something called local and general anaesthesia. Do read up on the differences.

Reyginus: Hmmm. I hope you know the implication of this statement.

No. The patient is similar to a dead person but he is not a dead person. It is similar only in the sense of the physical expression. But not in the mechanism of their respective physiologies.

It is similar to having a facial resemblance with your dad but exhibiting different characters and not being the same person. You two can never be the same no matter what.
Not only because you exhibit different character but also and most importantly, the person is distinct.

now, did you see where I wrote 'unconscious'? Do you think the patient in such a state is being relieved from pai?

On another note, I don't know between the both of us who has a flawed or patterned understanding of how anaesthesia works. When I did my second year I.T in gwagwalahere were times when patients were administered anaesthesia and they will still remained awake. They literally witness the surgical procedure. The only thing they seem not to feel is pain. Correct me if you have a better explanation.

In cases like this, can you still compare it to death?

there's something called local and general anaesthesia. Do read up on the differences.

Reyginus: Hmmm. I hope you know the implication of this statement.

No. The patient is similar to a dead person but he is not a dead person. It is similar only in the sense of the physical expression. But not in the mechanism of their respective physiologies.

It is similar to having a facial resemblance with your dad but exhibiting different characters and not being the same person. You two can never be the same no matter what.
Not only because you exhibit different character but also and most importantly, the person is distinct.

now, did you see where I wrote 'unconscious'? Do you think the patient in such a state is being relieved from pain although he is not conscious to witness it?

On another note, I don't know between the both of us who has a flawed or patterned understanding of how anaesthesia works. When I did my second year I.T in gwagwalada specialist hospital abuja, UNIBUJA T.H, there were times when patients were administered anaesthesia and they will still remained awake. They literally witness the surgical procedure. The only thing they seem not to feel is pain. Correct me if you have a better explanation.

In cases like this, can you still compare it to death?

there's something called local and general anaesthesia. Do read up on the differences.

..

Mr Troll: now, did you see where I wrote 'unconscious'? Do you think the patient in such a state is being relieved from pain although he is not conscious to witness it?

Lol. Let's deal with your first statement. Are you saying you didn't call the patient under anaesthesia unconscious?
Your response will determine how I react to your second sentence.

Mr Troll:
there's something called local and general anaesthesia. Do read up on the differences.

Why didnt you recognize this before asking the previous question.

Reyginus: Lol. Let's deal with your first statement. Are you saying you didn't call the patient under anaesthesia unconscious?
Your response will determine how I react to your second sentence.
Why didnt you recognize this before asking the previous question.

Mr Troll:

@Rey, how is an unconscious anaesthesized patient not similar to a dead person?

see the previous question. I clearly mentioned unconscious there.

Now answer me.

Mr Troll:

see the previous question. I clearly mentioned unconscious there.

Now answer me.

Okay. Seen. I misinterpreted your question as you didn't use the word. But your further question still fails.

You know why? Because in my previous post I have already distinguished a dead man from a patient under anaesthesia. I also made mention of anaesthesia not always implying the loss of consciousness but pain. Use my
experience.

What has local anaesthetics got to do with what you are saying, remember we have speaking of anaesthesia without respect to any?

Reyginus: Okay. Seen. I misinterpreted your question as you didn't use the word. But your further question still fails.

You know why? Because in my previous post I have already distinguished a dead man from a patient under anaesthesia. I also made mention of anaesthesia not always implying the loss of consciousness but pain. Use my
experience.

What has local anaesthetics got to do with what you are saying, remember we have speaking of anaesthesia without respect to any?

gosh! You're trying so hard to obfuscate and its getting irritating.

I clearly said UNCONSCIOUS anaesthetic patient. To the medically inclined, that simply means a patient under general anaesthesia. Pls show how the question fails.

Nobody here is talking about local anaesthesia, I only mentioned it when you gave the example of a patient under anaesthesia being awake.


Now, to the question again... How is an unconscious anaesthetic patient not similar to a dead man?

Mr Troll: gosh! You're trying so hard to obfuscate and its getting irritating.

I clearly said UNCONSCIOUS anaesthetic patient. To the medically inclined, that simply means a patient under general anaesthesia. Pls show how the question fails.

Nobody here is talking about local anaesthesia, I only mentioned it when you gave the example of a patient under anaesthesia being awake.


Now, to the question again... How is an unconscious anaesthetic patient not similar to a dead man?

Lololol. Please don't learn the bad attitude of some of your brothers. I've tried to politely make you see the error of this question to save you some embarrassment but you have refused to yield. You are in trouble now.

Just point out any wrong distinction I make.
1. Unconscious Anaesthetic Patient(UAP): Existence of a functional anatomic mechanism.
1. Dead Person(DP): No functional anatomic mechanism.

2. UAP: Still in existence
2. DP: No longer in existence

3. UAP: Temporary loss of consciousness.
3. DP: Permanent loss of consciousness

4. UAP: Usually has a complete animate morphology.
4. DP: Loss of normal morphology from decay.

5. UAP: Capable of Electrical Conductivity.
5. DP: Incapable of Electrical Conductivity.

6. UAP: Has a body temperature defined by his internal condition.
6. DP: Body temperature is defined by the temperature of the environment.

How do you respond?

^^^
While your distinctions are correct, it is irrelevant in the context of this discussion. Nobody ever said that an unconscious patient is exactly like a dead man but where my question still stands is in the aspect of feelings and in this case, pain. If it is acceptable to render a patient unconscious in order to prevent pain in surgery why is it now wicked to do same to a terminally ill patient under severe pain? What in your opinion will be the best line of action?

Mr Troll: ^^^
Nobody ever said that an unconscious patient is exactly like a dead man but where my question still stands is in the aspect of feelings and in this case, pain.

Lolololol. Dude, what is actually happening?
Then why were you laying emphasis on the difference between a dead person and an unconscious anaesthetisized patient?
If all you've been speaking of all along is their similarity in the lack of pain why didn't you indicate it in any way?

It is like somebody asking the similarity between a sick man and a healthy man. After providing him with 6 similarities he goes on to say that all he expected was a single similarity. You must agree with me that such a person even have to be made to understand his question.

Please let's have a honest discussion, Mr Troll.

Mr Troll:

If it is acceptable to render a patient unconscious in order to prevent pain in surgery why is it now wicked to do same to a terminally ill patient under severe pain? What in your opinion will be the best line of action?

Lol. How you ask a question with only one of the options necessary to make it meaningful. Your question is highly misplaced.

One reason is that, we are talking about Euthanasia and an unconscious patient and not an unconscious patient and a terminally ill person. And don't tell me again that unconsciousness is the same as death or Euthanasia.



Ask the right questions if you want to get the right answers.

Reyginus: Lolololol. Dude, what is actually happening?
Then why were you laying emphasis on the difference between a dead person and an unconscious anaesthetisized patient?
If all you've been speaking of all along is their similarity in the lack of pain why didn't you indicate it in any way?

It is like somebody asking the similarity between a sick man and a healthy man. After providing him with 6 similarities he goes on to say that all he expected was a single similarity. You must agree with me that such a person even have to be made to understand his question.

Please let's have a honest discussion, Mr Troll.

dude, seriously I think you're trolling me now. If after so many pages of discussing euthanasia and somebody gives an analogy of a case of general anaesthesia, I expect that an averagely intelligent person would get the point that was being passed across but no, you say I didnt indicate it in any way. Really? After trying so many times to explain the pain relief connection?

Lol. How you ask a question with only one of the options necessary to make it meaningful. Your question is highly misplaced.

One reason is that, we are talking about Euthanasia and an unconscious patient and not an unconscious patient and a terminally ill person. And don't tell me again that unconsciousness is the same as death or Euthanasia.

did I ever say they were the same? We are talking about euthanasia of a terminally ill person, not so? Guy na wa o!

And you have still not answered the question...

Mr Troll: dude, seriously I think you're trolling me now. If after so many pages of discussing euthanasia and somebody gives an analogy of a case of general anaesthesia, I expect that an averagely intelligent person would get the point that was being passed across but no, you say I didnt indicate it in any way. Really? After trying so many times to explain the pain relief connection?

Lol. Mr Troll, don't flatter yourself.
I expected you to tackle my question and not provide an unworthy reason why you are not supposed to tackle them.

I beg you to please tackle my post, prove it irrelevant, wrong or irrational. Please.

Mr Troll:
did I ever say they were the same? We are talking about euthanasia of a terminally ill person, not so? Guy na wa o!

And you have still not answered the question...

Lolololol. I have still not answered the question. Dude please. I'm begging you. You see, I only respond to a question by questioning only when relevant. What you are doing now is not good.

Are you telling me that when you asked for the difference between the two you expecting nothing. More like a rhetoric question. Make me understand.