The Troubled Euthanasia

One of the things I dislike about my job is when a client comes into my office and discovers that their pet has an illness, or their pet is really old and treatment would cost a fortune. Said client then must make a decision as to whether or not to pay for treatment (which may cost thousands over a period of time) or to put their beloved pet to "sleep".

Now, if you were to come into my office and simply say, "I'd like to euthanise my pet." We wouldn't just simply say "OK". The doctor would first consult with you to see if there were another way to prolong the life of your pet. But, if the dog or cat is suffering in pain and any treatment would force a hardship on the client, euthanasia might be an option.

OK, so animals aren't people. Although many of you would argue that point based on sentiment, we wouldn't just take little Tommy, who has cancer into the doctor's office and say, "Could you please euthanise my son, I can't afford treatment, and he is suffering." However, we do euthanise people that society deems dangerous sitting on Death Row.

I know I'm covering a broad spectrum here, but bear with me:

It's OK to euthanise a suffering pet. It's OK to euthanise a pet, in some cases, if treatment would force financial hardship on the owner.

It's not OK to euthanise a child even if the child is suffering and would force financial hardship on the parents (that includes any charities that might help a little). It's not OK to euthanise a human adult. Yes, people who pull the "plug" may be considered to be euthanising a loved one, but that person is on life support, and some think no longer aware.

But wait! It is Ok to euthanise an adult! If that adult happens to be a criminal, is not suffering and is creating financial hardship on the state.

Do you think it's OK to euthanise a pet? How about a human being? A criminal?

__________________
I have been formatted to fit this screen.

r66-The member who always asks WHY?

The death penalty is societies means to an end when it comes to the "undesirable" members of society. Those where reforming the behaviour would never work...those who can't be saved in theory. However, does the person administering the lethal dose for the injection or otherwise become classed as a murderer also? Taking a human life without consent is still murder, even if the person is a criminal-however, I still do agree with the death penalty (even though Britain will only enforce it for treason-and only in extreme cases, eg/ threatening the queen's life). It doesn't deter others from killing as such, but it obviously stops the convicted-prison sentences could mean release, an opportunity for another criminal act-death offers no opportunity.

As far as animals go, if the pain and suffering is too much for it and NOTHING can be done to help-then I guess there is justification.

When it comes to humans there is the problem of the thin line between euthanasia and murder. Differentiating could be difficult. However, if I was in unbearable pain and nothing could be done-I'd want to die. I think really, if informed consent can be given and the person is mentally sound, then euthanasia should be an option...the problems arise when it comes to those who cannot give consent. And also, what counts as consent? Signing a form? Verbal agreement?

The whole aspect of euthanasia is taboo.

That's a really good observation, I think, Tim.

I'm mixed on the death penalty issue. On one hand, it hardly seems necessary these days. My old man takes the view that its real value was in dealing with dangerous criminals in past societies for whom a massive, advanced prison system just wasn't plausible. Back then, you couldn't just lock away anyone who did anything, and it was better to kill them to release them.

These days, our wealth has evolved to the point at which we, as a society, can afford to keep these people alive and simply imprison them. In that sense, you could make the case that the death penalty's use (which was perfectly sensible in the past), isn't really necessary anymore.

On the other hand, I can't imagine what it must be like to watch someone kill a family member, or a spouse, or a child, and then have to know that some of your tax dollars are going to feed the individual who did that to you. I know they say that execution is more expensive than imprisonment (I haven't looked into it for myself, however), but that, at least, can give the victim's family some closure. I'd hate the thought of helping to feed (even if only a little bit) someone who had caused me so much pain.

I think that if we even want to think about keeping the death penalty, we need to take a long, hard look at reforming the system and weeding out both mistakes and prejudice, two things that will always exist, but must be minimized as much as possible in such serious matters.

The only logical, non-emotional argument in favor of the death penalty, I'd say, is simply one of justice, but naturally reasonable people can disagree on such a subjective measure.

To summarize a fairly long post: I don't know what I support, but I wouldn't feel particularly uncomfortable on either side of the issue.

God is a believer of euthanasia, so if it’s good enough for Him, it’s good enough for me.

Seriously though, there are so many variables to consider that an absolute answer is really quite out of reach. Say the animal cannot be fixed or cured even though the owner has scads of money to invest? Then what’s the point of trying? What if the animal can be fixed or cured but the owner cannot afford it? Well, if there was an abundance of animal shelters available, then house it at taxpayer’s expense, I suppose. But what if the taxpayers voted against such a plan? Make the doctor pay for it? We already know that taxpayers don’t want another expense, especially when we routinely see that most taxpayers would rather have a kicker check instead of investing in education. Plus, shelters for humans can barely get by, if taxpayers allow such a miniscule portion of their taxes for them, then what can we expect for the animals?
There’s only one other solution; destroy it. We all know that there is not one city anywhere that has enough animal shelters for even their own basic needs, so what choice do people have? Maybe if we forced neutering and spaying for all animals other than licensed breeders, then there would be more shelters available for these kinds of exigencies. Who knows? Right now, allowing it is the only feasible solution.

Being allowed to use euthanasia as an alternative for terminal children is an impossibility as long as religion is still in the world. It’s terribly sad, not only for the poor child who is dying, but for the family that often collapses due to the financial responsibilities forced on them during their crisis. The only real alternative to such travesties is to find a leader that will put an emphasis on universal health care that can alleviate such burdens. Adults, on the other hand, should be able to choose whether they want to live or die when they are terminal, but here we have the religious faction again that won’t allow such a thing.

I’m pretty much in Yoda’s court when it comes to capital punishment; I’m straddling the fence. There’s part of me who would like to have the job of choking the **** out of some of these murderous bastards, but then I would always fear whether they had the right person. If capital punishment, which the religious faction has no problem with, is to continue, then the courts need to make some more laws to protect the people who are facing it. For example, a person can only be sentenced to death if there is irrefutable DNA evidence against him. Then have a non-profit agency due an in-depth investigation on the validity of the evidence. Plus a whole lot more that my simple mind can’t even begin to contemplate. Perhaps it would be best just to keep building more and more prisons to house the overpopulated prison system. Maybe force prisoners who are convicted of a capital offence to live in isolation for the rest of his life with no television or books. Let him go mad…and also allow him to keep his shoestrings.

__________________
"Today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."

One other point I'd like to make though, perhaps thwarting the topic a bit, is that there seems to be no difference in the sense of loss when it comes to pet owners. I've seen "MEN", big and strong, leave my office reduced to tears--in horrible grief over a dog or cat they have had for 12-13 years. Some of these animals were gifts to their owners children and have been in the family that long or longer.

My point being, there seems to be no difference in the amount of grief one suffers from losing, euthanising a pet compared to losing a child. I know, I know, a child is not a dog, and the grief for a child may last a lifetime, while the loss of a pet may be less, still the 5 stages of grief remain intact. I guess I never really thought about it until I witnessed it.

Anyway back to the regular discussion....

The level of grief has no bearing on the discussion at hand though. We are all capable of loving just about anything. Say for example, the family home that burns down. I know, I know, a house isn't a dog...

the mere thought of losing them grieves me to no end ~ I rue the day when 'the day' comes ...

they're family, and such an integral part of 'life'

__________________
"Count where man's glory most begins and ends, and say that my glory was I had such friends." - Yeats

I could be persuaded to love even you

In answer to the debate of euthanasia,

I do not believe in the death penalty, but I do understand how a family may feel, who has suffered due to another persons violence and cruelty.
Australia has been having a huge debate about euthanasia and-if it should be legalised.

My sister and I discussed this very issue when my mother was dying of cancer, my sister was quite for it if Mum was in too much pain, but she wanted me to do it, which I refused to do. What I did do was, I always gave her a larger than prescribed dose of medication, on the day she passed away I gave her a lot of morphine as I couldn't stand to see her in pain, The morphine helped her to have a very peaceful death, it wasn't the morphine that killed her, it was the cancer. I would do the same for an animal that was in pain also.

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

I know a lot of people sit on the fence pertaining to Capitol Punishment, and at times, I do too… but when someone thinks they have a right to do something like this....



...to other human beings… I tend to reduce them to something less then an animal and fall off that fence… things like that have lost their right to life…

__________________

I think that these people shouldn't die, I think they should live a life of isolation and suffering.

... which taking daily medication can remedy ... thank goodness

she seems to have more pep already ...

Your observation I think can not be more true.

Truth is everyone's circumstances are different if we determine that all murderers deserve to be euthanized then the ones who kill in cold blood are treated no differently than those who kill for revenge of a murdered loved one.

My posistion is with you... in some cases asking for the death penalty seems nothing short of the "fair" punishment. In others maybe not so...

__________________
And like that .... he's gone