You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Euthanizing the severely disabled?
- Thread starter Norsefire
- Start date
norsefire you see you just ran into the problem with the euthanasia debate. It can be broken down into 5 main groups
1) A person who is mentally well with a physical disability are healthy (by healthy im using the WHO's definition of health which is more than just the absance of disease and illness). They may suffer from acute depression caused by the onset of there illness but usually this passes as they ajust to there life say in a wheel chair and would concider themselves to be well or healthy.
2) people who are mentally fit but suffer a physical disability which though not terminal causes them consistant unrelived pain
3) people who are mentally fit but have a terminal illness like cancer. This group varies in its pain levels but the pain tends to massivly increase the more the pt deteriates
4) The next is the group which case euthanasia the most problems and thats those who are mental incapacitated. The degree of incapacitation depends on the stage of the illness but for most its a slow wearing away of the person they once were to the point that they end up as a child. By this point the main pain is in there families rather than themselves. However they do suffer discomfert in not being able to cognitivly funtion to a level sociaty expects (for instance dressing themselves). That being said these people tend to suffer greatly in the slide while they know there mind is wasting away and there isnt anything they can do. The problem with euthanasia for this group is that they cant make there own legal choices. They cant sign a legal document, they are compleatly dependent on others for there care
5) the last group is those who know they are going to suffer painfull deaths even if the disease hasnt become symptomatic yet. For instance people who carry the huntington gen. There distress isnt directly caused by an illness but rather the psychological stress of not knowing when they are going to start becoming symptomatic and knowing whats comming next
Further more we could discuss parents who know what is going to happen to there children like for kids with Tasacs or other conditions.
1) A person who is mentally well with a physical disability are healthy (by healthy im using the WHO's definition of health which is more than just the absance of disease and illness). They may suffer from acute depression caused by the onset of there illness but usually this passes as they ajust to there life say in a wheel chair and would concider themselves to be well or healthy.
2) people who are mentally fit but suffer a physical disability which though not terminal causes them consistant unrelived pain
3) people who are mentally fit but have a terminal illness like cancer. This group varies in its pain levels but the pain tends to massivly increase the more the pt deteriates
4) The next is the group which case euthanasia the most problems and thats those who are mental incapacitated. The degree of incapacitation depends on the stage of the illness but for most its a slow wearing away of the person they once were to the point that they end up as a child. By this point the main pain is in there families rather than themselves. However they do suffer discomfert in not being able to cognitivly funtion to a level sociaty expects (for instance dressing themselves). That being said these people tend to suffer greatly in the slide while they know there mind is wasting away and there isnt anything they can do. The problem with euthanasia for this group is that they cant make there own legal choices. They cant sign a legal document, they are compleatly dependent on others for there care
5) the last group is those who know they are going to suffer painfull deaths even if the disease hasnt become symptomatic yet. For instance people who carry the huntington gen. There distress isnt directly caused by an illness but rather the psychological stress of not knowing when they are going to start becoming symptomatic and knowing whats comming next
Further more we could discuss parents who know what is going to happen to there children like for kids with Tasacs or other conditions.
This is quite possibly the most disgusting question ever posed on a forum that I've been on. Norsefire, this puts you right up there with Adolf Hitler if you think this is a good idea. We aren't in the previous centuries, or even the early 20th century where everyone who hada mental challenge or was just a little off was thrown into an institution and sometimes sterilized. Everyone has right to live until it's their time to go. Being mentally or physically challenged is no exception to the rule. Many challenged people can live happy lives and they are capable of learning. I've taught the mentally challenged (Down's Sndrome and various degrees of autism) before academically and sometimes mentally/physically challenged people in the martial arts. They can learn, they do grow and it's just at a slower rate sometimes or one may have to try a different technique to get the concept across but there is no reason they can't learn and some can live of their own, have relationships and be happy. Without challenged people you wouldn't have Issac Newton, Albert Einstein, Nicola Tesla, Stephen Hawking, Jane Goodall and people like that. I wouldn't want to live in a world that didn't have people like that.
raven i guess that depend on the groups your talking about. If your talking about anyone who is blind is automatically euthanased i agree with you but not if your talking about someone with huntingtons having the choice of doctor assisted suicide. I concider forcing them to live in imence suffering against there OWN desires to be tandamount to torchering them.
Challenger78
Valued Senior Member
All males are severely disabled, moreso when they are Syrian Semites with delusions of grandeur.
All males ?...Thats a big generalisation, even for me..
Come on, the only thing males are disabled in are having babies, and considering all the disadvantages that come with that, It's one I'd rather not have.
This is quite possibly the most disgusting question ever posed on a forum that I've been on. Norsefire, this puts you right up there with Adolf Hitler if you think this is a good idea. We aren't in the previous centuries, or even the early 20th century where everyone who hada mental challenge or was just a little off was thrown into an institution and sometimes sterilized. Everyone has right to live until it's their time to go. Being mentally or physically challenged is no exception to the rule. Many challenged people can live happy lives and they are capable of learning. I've taught the mentally challenged (Down's Sndrome and various degrees of autism) before academically and sometimes mentally/physically challenged people in the martial arts. They can learn, they do grow and it's just at a slower rate sometimes or one may have to try a different technique to get the concept across but there is no reason they can't learn and some can live of their own, have relationships and be happy. Without challenged people you wouldn't have Issac Newton, Albert Einstein, Nicola Tesla, Stephen Hawking, Jane Goodall and people like that. I wouldn't want to live in a world that didn't have people like that.
Have you even read what I wrote? The very reason I'd support it is because I don't want such people to suffer or to live permanently dependent on others and confused.
Have you even read what I wrote? The very reason I'd support it is because I don't want such people to suffer or to live permanently dependent on others and confused.
You do understand that if you were in a car wreck and your family decided you were disabled, they could have you put to sleep like a dog. Doesn't matter what you think.
They decide your judgment was impaired in the accident. You are now too emotional to make the decision. And they don't like driving you to the doctor for your physical therapy. Its a burden.
Who decides what severely disabled is?
What matters is not if I am physically hurt but mentally. If I am physically hurt, but still sane and able to think rationally and logically, then the right is still mine as to whether or not I live. If I am indeed mentally damaged, I'd prefer death.You do understand that if you were in a car wreck and your family decided you were disabled, they could have you put to sleep like a dog. Doesn't matter what you think.
They decide your judgment was impaired in the accident. You are now too emotional to make the decision. And they don't like driving you to the doctor for your physical therapy. Its a burden.
Who decides what severely disabled is?
Severely disabled? When a twenty year old has the brain age of a three year old, I call it severely disabled.
I have no problem with that. However, that is a different matter. Someone is making a conscious decision to kill themselves in the situation you mension. They aren't just killing some one because they have something that makes them somewhat other than "normal." If someone wants to kill themselves that's their business and if they find somebody to assist them in doing that the decision is still theirs, however cowardly.raven i guess that depend on the groups your talking about. If your talking about anyone who is blind is automatically euthanased i agree with you but not if your talking about someone with huntingtons having the choice of doctor assisted suicide. I concider forcing them to live in imence suffering against there OWN desires to be tandamount to torchering them.
If you knew anything about the subject you would never have asked such a question as in the original post. Everyone that is mentally challenge is not stupid, confused and a burden to their family. Many such people are able to hold jobs and live independantly. Sometimes people that are completely parylized have very strong minds and are more mentally stable than able bodied people. If someone with an illness kills themselves that's their business if they want to be cowards. It's not to be the choice of anyone else unless it's the decision of when to pull the plug if the person is brain dead or may never emurge from a coma, which is a completly different matter.Have you even read what I wrote? The very reason I'd support it is because I don't want such people to suffer or to live permanently dependent on others and confused.
What matters is not if I am physically hurt but mentally. If I am physically hurt, but still sane and able to think rationally and logically, then the right is still mine as to whether or not I live. If I am indeed mentally damaged, I'd prefer death.
Your thinking, as far as I can gather from your posts, is that Euthanasia for mentally 'incapable' people will prevent unnecessary suffering. Can I ask a question? Why have you decided to exclude severely (see - I italicized it just like you (making it more scientific)) physically disabled individuals? For example a person with MS, or Parkinson's disease? These are soul-destroying, deteriorative conditions which I can assure you cause extreme suffering to their victims.
What you prefer personally is irrelevant. Human rights still hold despite the fact you find them negligible.
.... For example a person with MS, or Parkinson's disease? These are soul-destroying, deteriorative conditions which I can assure you cause extreme suffering to their victims......
seriously? MS and Parkinson's are soul destroying?
Again, in any case of severe suffering, I believe euthanizing the individual in question is more merciful than forcing them to live.
That is not your decision to make. They are not dogs.
In a choice between Oblivion and suffering, I would have a much harder time choosing than you obviously do.
But according to this thread (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=84241) they are a burden to their family and it is selfish of the disabled person to be kept alive.
seriously? MS and Parkinson's are soul destroying?
Eventually, yes. Like Alzheimer's the diseases will wear away everything that makes you you. But not only that, they will wear away your love for life.
However, this isn't the case for everyone.
Eventually, yes. Like Alzheimer's the diseases will wear away everything that makes you you. But not only that, they will wear away your love for life.
I disagree. STRONGLY.
I agree Alzheimer's takes away who you are, but it makes you someone else. That someone else still enjoys their life.