Goodbye charlie

[motherengine]

this may be a tired question for these threads but i have not personally seen it addressed so i will post and let nature take its course: the only television series i have ever found truly engaging was chris carter's 'millenium' and one episode i found particularly interesting was one dealing with a man who kills people (with their consent) whose sufferance he feels outweighs the quality of their lives. because he believes god has abandoned them he thinks of himself as a kind of angel acting in god's stead and the show ends proposing the question was this character 'from heaven or from hell'. i am unsure how i feel about euthanasia but there does seem a relevance to me concerning inevitable painful death and the medical establishments exploitation of a moral law preventing such acts. thoughts?

[vijun]

The only television series that you have found engaging is Millenium. Have you ever watched some of the amazing programs on HBO? As for euthanasia, I believe that all human beings should have the right to end their lives whenever they want to. With or without the help of someone. No one should be forced to live with physical or mental pain if they don't want to live.

[motherengine]

The only television series that you have found engaging is Millenium. Have you ever watched some of the amazing programs on HBO? As for euthanasia, I believe that all human beings should have the right to end their lives whenever they want to. With or without the help of someone. No one should be forced to live with physical or mental pain if they don't want to live.

 

thanks for the views. sorry but i don't find anything on hbo even mildly interesting.

[maddog]

I also like Millenium. I was sad to see it go. In addition I liked the actor Heinrickson

even before that. I have seen other good stuff on TV (just not much on broadcast TV). :cup:

 

As for HBO - I like it, just couldn't afford keeping it at the moment. :)

 

Maddog

[maddog]

BTW, who's Charlie ?

 

Maddog

[Fishteacher73]

One of the main blocks against this is part of the medical community. Some believe that medice should only be used in a positive direction and not have a net harm on the individual. (Hippocratic Oath excerpt, " I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art." That is the original form in translation. The current Oath states, "But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.")

 

Others view the oath as archaic and useless in terms of modern medicine and issues. Just as I feel the Gov't should not interfere with any consensual act no matter what it is. If two people want to do it and it does not harm another...let them do it. We have no problems putting down Fluffy the cat when he's 19 and dying. To put him out of his misery...wouldn't you want the same courtesy for your grandmother? (Or is this just a front to make us not feel guilty by ending the cat's life to put US out of our inconvienence?)

[motherengine]

BTW, who's Charlie ?

 

Maddog

 

sorry, goodbye charlie is a bobby darin tune used to nice effect in the episode i was referring to, aptly titled 'goodbye charlie'.

[motherengine]

Just as I feel the Gov't should not interfere with any consensual act no matter what it is. If two people want to do it and it does not harm another...let them do it. We have no problems putting down Fluffy the cat when he's 19 and dying. To put him out of his misery...wouldn't you want the same courtesy for your grandmother? (Or is this just a front to make us not feel guilty by ending the cat's life to put US out of our inconvienence?)

 

thing is it could be argued that because people in severe pain may not be of a consensual mind and because people sometimes change their minds concerning suicide that a crime may be taking place when assisting.

[IrishEyes]

Frethinker has posted some awesome links to Death With Dignity sites, and we have had some very interesting discussions. However, as those have been a while ago, I think this discussion deserves another chance.

 

I think the main objection is the idea of palying God. That seems to be what most people have a hard time with. However, I don't think putting someone on artificial life support is any less 'playing God' than euthanasia is. Both of them go against the natural course of a person's life, don't they? So why is it ok to keep someone alive on machines and drugs, but wrong for them to choose to stop taking the meds or stay on the machines, even if that leads to their deaths? I think it's rather ridiculous to keep people alive if they don't want to be alive.

 

Good thread, thanks ME!

[Fishteacher73]

I believe that the best way to go about it is to have a living will, or advance directives. Basically they are written forms of your decisions on life support/resusitaion/etc. that are used in the event that you are physically incapable of making your wishes known.

 

Dr. Jack Kevorkian always used a system that had the individual complete the process. As for the current situation,ie massive pain, extreme fatigue, etc., prevented you from directly expressing your wishes verbally (Which many states and hsopitals require for a decline of treatment), do you really think you would want to continue withing in a mute pain until you finaly died of something?

 

Well, let's take what people think is a dignified death. Christ was that a dignified death? Do you think it's dignified to hang from wood with nails through your hands and feet bleeding, hang for three or four days slowly dying, with people jabbing spears into your side, and people jeering you? Do you think that's dignified? Not by a long shot. Had Christ died in my van with people around Him who loved Him, the way it was, it would be far more dignified. In my rusty van.

 

Jack Kevorkian - National Press Club - July 29, 1996

[motherengine]

there are some interesting arguments on this issue concerning 'assisted suicide' being used as a cop out avoidance to the more complex problem of inefficient health care (in america anyway). personally i find something inherently creepy about the whole thing that runs deeper than the superficial aspect of death as a way out. but if it turns kevorkian on to photograph the eyes of dying people i guess i should give a fellow artist his due.

[Fishteacher73]

I guess I can conciede that pehaps the NEED for assisted suicide can stem from poor healthcare, but not always.

 

I just cannot see why on one hand it is ok to euthanize your dog if it is in pain and not going to recover (the US probably has the best animal health care in the world) but not do the same to a loved one.

 

Is the dog more special ?

[motherengine]

I just cannot see why on one hand it is ok to euthanize your dog if it is in pain and not going to recover (the US probably has the best animal health care in the world) but not do the same to a loved one.

 

Is the dog more special ?

 

generally dogs are seen as 'lesser' creatures and so their lives are deemed more readily disposable. it comes down to the animals vs human beings argument which, valid or not, still has legal weight. i think it makes perfect sense concidering that any species would consider itself the most important one, especially if it is more actively aware than any other animal. why should the human animal give equal measure to any other unless doing so prevents problems for the human group? the harsh reality is that animals will be animals regardless of how aware they are.