[jesse]

It is my opinion that keeping someone alive who has no chance of recovering into a fruitful life is not too far-fetched from flogging an already-dead horse. Hey, there must be hope if the carcass winced after being hit with all you've got.

If we look at the issue from the current mainstream views on death, ethics, legal issues and morality itself, then yes, they will unilaterally come back as condemning even these thoughts to the seventh circle of hell because they are frequently viewed as vile to the bone.

Despite my views that it is called living in la la land when you keep someone alive although they were a complete vegetable, I'm not overly big on pulling anyone's plug without consent. There should be a certain level where keeping someone artificially alive should be ruled out.

I agree with Metti on the principle that the will to either live or die should be left to the individual instead of some crazed form of collective bargaining because "we know what's better than you yourself do". No one who wishes to exit this reality and onto the next one (whatever that may be, if it even exists) should be interfered with if that is their will.

It really sickens me more that the will of an individual is dismissed and replaced with something else due to traditions, superstitions influenced by dogma and culture.

I don't look at the OP as being immoral and besides, what is moral in one culture may be acceptable elsewhere and these just as well can change at any point in time.

[Architectonic]

	Originally Posted by PunkinA To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If the law allowed for assisted suicide, then I believe power of attorney could be interpreted so as to allow someone else to make those decisions on behalf of the suffering patient. I think this may cause us to re-evaluate how one obtains power of attorney over another, as well as when does this power override expressed desires of the individual.

It depends on how the law is written. The power of attorney may be specifically ignored in some laws.

[Nightsun]

Against their will is called omicide. With their will is called euthanasy. Euthanasy has nothing to do with me or anybody else. It must be a people right to decide when to die, it's something like abort, divorce, gay marriage, etc.. that don't need talking because everybody must be free in their personal area.

[PunkinA]

	Originally Posted by Nightsun To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Against their will is called omicide. With their will is called euthanasy.

What about situations where someone's will cannot be determined? Or how about situations where the person may never regain consciousness, or ever be said to possess of a will whatsoever? Do the Greeks have a name for that?

[zibber]

	Originally Posted by PunkinA To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What about situations where someone's will cannot be determined? Or how about situations where the person may never regain consciousness, or ever be said to possess of a will whatsoever? Do the Greeks have a name for that?

The following is of the utmost essence:

It is already a conscious decision to keep that person alive. That takes an immense amount of continuous intent and effort.

If you were apathetic, the person would simply pass away. This isn't about "do you kill person X?", it's about "do you not keep person X alive?"

[Zsych]

I'm having my usual automatic objection to the concept that people have rights at all. There is no universal law giving us any rights.

If its decided that the will of individuals be considered important, even when their will costs other people and provides no real benefit to anyone, then that is a choice that society makes. A different society might make a different choice and believe it to be as right.

I can imagine a society where old people happily went off to their eternal rest, knowing that they had made their contribution to society and not choosing to be a burden to anyone anymore, or experience the considerably greater pain that they are likely to experience if they experience a natural death <-- just a belief that could exist in societies.

Whether or not people want to hang onto life when there is nothing left is also a matter of training. A person could for example, not want it because his religion says so. The choice in this case is not exactly what he wants - or rather, his wants are dictated by what he was taught to believe and not some great inner truth and amazing free will that he has that must be respected.

[Sk8ordude]

Yes, if they want to live their last 6 months in whatever horrible pain that may mean, then that is their right.

If a person wants to die they should also be allowed to. There is no really good way to put this in law because just terminally ill does not include everyone that should be allowed to be euthanized. If I were to be paralized from the neck down with no realistic chance of recovery, I would want to be euthanized for mysake and also my families. The same for a coma. You should be able to sign a contract that says if in the event of... I wish to be euthanized. This gets murky with depressed (or other mental conditions)people and suicide though. However I'm all for freedom, what you chose to do with yours as long as it does not violate anothers should be allowed.

[Squirelznflight]

It would still be immoral if they had only six seconds left to live (from the time their life was terminated). If the person consciously decides that they want to live, it is wrong to kill them, but in some cases it may be the lesser of the two wrongs.

New situation.

A disaster strikes, and thousands are critically injured. All hospitals are overwhelmed. There are, of course, already patients in the hospitals not from the disaster, some of whom have less than 6 months to live and require hospitalized life support.

A nurse approaches one of the people on life support and says, "We need the bed." The nurse asks the person if they will accept a painless death. The person refuses despite knowing they will die in six months. If the nurse ignores the person's wishes and euthanizes them, the disaster victim who takes the bed will have the chance to survive and live a full life.

The nurse, troubled, takes his/her problem to the hospital's authority figure. This supervisor communicates clearly that, in light of the circumstances, the nurse's judgement in the matter will be respected, and there will be no consequences either way.

What should the nurse do?

[hubcap]

	Originally Posted by Zsych To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm having my usual automatic objection to the concept that people have rights at all. There is no universal law giving us any rights.

Whether individuals have any rights may be debated, but even by your definition, YOU have no right to end another individual's life against their will. Neither does society for that matter. Society or individuals may have the power to force their will on others in this instance, but they certainly don't have the right.

[Aronnax]

	Originally Posted by hubcap To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Whether individuals have any rights may be debated, but even by your definition, YOU have no right to end another individual's life against their will. Neither does society for that matter. Society or individuals may have the power to force their will on others in this instance, but they certainly don't have the right.

Hubcap, have you changed your stance on the death penalty?

[gwilendiel]

I say one should be reasonably aware before life saving measures are taken.
Or at least likely to become aware soon.

Yeah, it would be arbitrary to quantify it, but so would everything else we quantify in our rulings.

Personally, I'd say if you aren't conscious within at most a year, efforts are stopped. The time frame may not be a year of course, it'd be up to society to decide.

If the person is going to die anyway, and they can't tell you if they want to be saved, and don't have it written down in advance, then well... I guess they die, as horrible as it may sound.

Would solve both problems.

---------- Post added 11-27-2009 at 01:57 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Squirelznflight To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It would still be immoral if they had only six seconds left to live (from the time their life was terminated). If the person consciously decides that they want to live, it is wrong to kill them, but in some cases it may be the lesser of the two wrongs. New situation. A disaster strikes, and thousands are critically injured. All hospitals are overwhelmed. There are, of course, already patients in the hospitals not from the disaster, some of whom have less than 6 months to live and require hospitalized life support. A nurse approaches one of the people on life support and says, "We need the bed." The nurse asks the person if they will accept a painless death. The person refuses despite knowing they will die in six months. If the nurse ignores the person's wishes and euthanizes them, the disaster victim who takes the bed will have the chance to survive and live a full life. The nurse, troubled, takes his/her problem to the hospital's authority figure. This supervisor communicates clearly that, in light of the circumstances, the nurse's judgement in the matter will be respected, and there will be no consequences either way. What should the nurse do?

Do the sensible thing and prioritize injuries/health risks. If somebody gets to live 6 months, then they do. If you can move them, you move them, maybe even outside, or onto the floor if truly necessary.

If the terminal patient is killed intentionally, and the trauma patient dies anyway in spite of best efforts, then two people still have died anyway. If the trauma patient isn't in danger of dying immediately, then they don't need the bed that much, something could be improvised.

Also, people who are completely immobilized and tethered to life support which can't be moved or lived without for an amount of time are pretty rare I think.