Home More advice Politics & Law
I have had two relatives in the past 2 years that it was kinder to let them go naturally then to keep them alive on a machine. Most recently was my grandmother (dad's mother) who had stated she wanted quality of life over quantity. And if it came down to needing a machine to keep her alive not to even hook her up and let her slip away naturally. It was 100% her decision 4 or 5 years ago when she was still lucid.
On the other hand my mother passed away a bit over 2 years ago after battling cancer for over 10 years. She was in incredible amounts of pain and this was her 3rd or 4th vist to the ICU in as many months. She had a peg tube in her stomach for feeding that had become infected and only had about 20% of her lung function left do to many bouts of pneumonia. She was on so much pain that the stuff they where giving her to take just the edge off made morphine look like children's Tylenol. So as a family (my dad, me, my siblings, her siblings and her parents) decided to take her off life support because she had almost no chance of recovery this time. I'm just glad we where there with her when she went.
In both cases I don't see anything wrong with it. There was no quality of life left. They were both in pain, with almost no chance of getting better.
By someone elses hand or decision making no. By there own hand yes. I have known friends who have worked Hospice and hospital staff and I worked for a hospital as well and dealt with the terminally ill. There are worse things then being kept alive, at a point of futility. Dr Kavorkian was devil/saint depending on what side of the fence you were on. Myself and those I know who've seen first hand the deterioration tend to side with his being a saint that opened the doors to a taboo subject. It is soooo very important "The end of Life, Advance Directives be signed by every individual of consent who can do so. I've been witness to those who haven't, on life support and seen families torn completely apart (coming to blows in the hospital) because the decision to keep or take someone off life support was left up to the families. I believe it is the single cruelest thing you can do to your family or loved ones to leave your life up to them to decide.
I'm not 100% sure about it in regards to humans, because all humans will have a different opinion on it and I guess it comes down to what the individual and their close family want and believe. But with animals, I am completely for it. Why make an animal suffer just for the sake of being alive slightly longer? They are dying, don't prolong the process while they're in pain! They don't understand! It also annoys me slightly when people keep their pets alive longer than they should be. Like 'Oh yes, Lucky is 24 years old now, arthritis in every joint, riddled with bone cancer, can't eat without a tube, on 12 different medications, has to take this pill every 3 hours to keep breathing... but we love her so we keep her alive <3<3<3' Like... OMG if you loved her you would have let her gone when she was supposed to! Ugh.. I understand obviously people love their pets, but they have to wake up and realise they're causing them pain!
Agreed with Corrupt Soul, if a person is in so much pain or if a machine is keeping them alive, euthanasia should be legal. If someone stipulates in advance, they do not want to be saved or keep alive if their condition deteriorates, their wishes should be met..... Euthanasia is legal for animals, eg: dogs that have genetic problems that makes life difficult for the little dogs and they are put down to end their suffering, so I do not see why the same compassion cannot be given to humans beings, if they wish to die.
People who are emotionally overwhelmed with ties to loved ones aren't, nor do they think in terms of logic. I've seen behaviors that would floor people from absolute denial, incapable of acceptence, to complete devastation. It is the absolute worst time to expect a family to come together and rationalize anything.
It's not anybody's decision to kill another life. It's like playing God..... I know they're suffering but who gave rights for some random guy to "kill". If the person themselves wish to be then by all means go ahead- that's a diff. story.
This is called Euthanasia. When someone is in unbearable pain with no hope of recovery it is cruel to make them live. I don't see how anyone with any compassion would want someone to suffer needlessly.
If it needs to be done, then what can you do? A mercy killing sounds better than suffering through something that could be so intense that you imagine it worse than death.
I agree with Vic if pain is worse than death and that is what the person honestly wants they should be allowed it.
I'm not a fan of it. I never really agreed with it and I doubt I ever will.
How Much Money Can I Expect to Recover in My Personal Injury Case?
What to Do for a DUI Probation Violation?
When Is It Okay for Private Investigators to Breach Confidentiality?
What to Look For in A Criminal Defense Attorney