That poor woman

why is it ok to kill an aniamal that had somthing like that but make humans suffer through it. i'm sure she lived a good life let her die if she wants to.

It is also ok to kill an animal for food, and sell it's family members..

Just sayin.

Indeed. What could possibly be gained by ANYONE from making her suffer so horribly? Her family would be GLAD for her that it would finally be over. SHE would be happy. But no, some asshat politician knows what is better for her.

And yet, we gleefully go off an blow people who WANT to live to little pieces...I just cannot understand it.

Nothing could be gained, but they would be opening a Pandora's box that could have very undesirable consequences. And they are too chickens**t to open themselves up to the finger pointing that would result should anything bad happen in the near future involving euthanasia.

So this woman has to either

A) live with this unimaginable suffering
B) somehow manage to kill herself (successfully) while blind and in extreme pain
C) open up a kind person to potential legal action if they help her

...because some politician doesn't have the balls to do the right thing. If it were their mother, you can bet your ass this wouldn't be an issue.

This make me ill.

I've never understood why people feel that they have the right to deny someone the ability to end their own life. To me, the right to do with your life as you wish is an individual's ultimate sovereignty. To force someone to suffer physically or emotionally because you don't feel they should be allowed to end their own life is almost unimaginably selfish in my view.

It's ridiculous that this woman has to ask her president for the right to end her life.

grr.

gammerus in your reply to me.



i undersand what your saying. but i'm refering to the suffering. i'm NOT looking to sell people stakes. i have had close family members die of cancer and seeing there pain i wished for there death so that thay could be at piece. death comes to us all. don't faer it. only the living morn the dead. the dead rejoice at there reunoin. hhmm.... i went off topic a little here.

Ah yes, the infamous apples and oranges.

On the one hand, we're comparing something that saves suffering animals a lot of pain, while human beings are being denied that same right. We call it the "humane" thing to do, rather than let the poor critter suffer further. Yet humans just have to suffer through it.
Apple = extending a right animals have to humans

On the other hand, you start about killing an animal for food and selling its family members. If you remember, there is such a thing as slavery where family members are sold. There is also such a thing as cannibalism. Both these practices are outlawed in most of the world. It's a right humans earned, even fought for (remember the US Civil war?)
Orange = retracting a right humans have because animals don't have it.

Personally I think that most people who oppose euthanasia change their minds when they find themselves suffering like this woman. It's just too bad that some politicians seem unable to see that.

How much suffering is the limit where suicide is an option? Is the person suffering from cancerous tumors any different than the person with a debilitating mental illness? What about when your entire family dies and you simply don't wish to live?

They are all horrid, and I'm (almost embarassed) happy to say that I'm glad that none of them have ever happened to me or put me in such a position. How can a politician decide whose suffering is enough to have euthanasia?

They can't. It's all or nothing. If you say it's allowed, it's allowed. I do feel sorry for her situation, and I hope there is something that can be done for her, but this is the wrong method. You can't go to someone and ask to die, they don't have the empathy to understand your condition.

But then again, this may not be what this is about. A martyr for the cause would give this poor woman something to 'exist' for. She can go and talk about her pain and be a driving force for change. I hope she does. People NEED causes to get behind. To be part of something bigger than yourself.

It's something worth living for.

What the hell are you talking about? Seriously? She's lost all her senses and is in constant agony, and you're saying she should go and give talks to people about her pain? Are YOU mentally debilitated?

I beg to differ. Several countries have laws that allow euthanasia (including mine: Belgium). These laws don't just say: "If you want to die, just take this pill".

In reality, there are very strict criteria you have to follow if you want to die.
For example, in the Netherlands, euthanasia is still a criminal offence. However, a doctor isn't prosecuted for it if all these conditions are met:

• the patient's suffering is unbearable with no prospect of improvement
  
• the patient's request for euthanasia must be voluntary and persist over time (the request can not be granted when under the influence of others, psychological illness or drugs)
  
• the patient must be fully aware of his/her condition, prospects and options
  
• there must be consultation with at least one other independent doctor who needs to confirm the conditions mentioned above
  
• the death must be carried out in a medically appropriate fashion by the doctor or patient, in which case the doctor must be present
  
• the patient is at least 12 years old (patients between 12 and 16 years of age require the consent of their parents)
  

(source: Wikipedia)

To quote your example: if someone's family dies the first criterium isn't met. There *is* a prospect of improvement, even if the patient can't see it now.

Euthanasia isn't meant for people who just want to die. It's for people like this woman: people who suffer from an illness that can't be cured and causes them incredible pain.

EVERYONE in EVERY country deserves to go out on THEIR terms if possible.

I don't mean that 90 Day chick or a 16 year old emo kid that doesn't get how insignificant highschool really is. I mean the 87 year old man who is living the nightmare of constant dimensia, coming clear only for brief moments. Or the woman with a long, painful, untreatable cancer that wants to go before she has to suffer and wilt away. Or THIS woman.

It's OUR f-ing lives.

No one can deny our RIGHT to determine our own lives, this just becomes a religious, moral and legal issue that is taken over by perfectly healthy politicians courting one side or another.

In the states, we all remember THIS case:

So what is the point of prolonging her life? Does she have a quality of life? Does this disease have hope of being cured? If she continues to live will her pain only get worse to the point that when her body finally gives up on it's own she has lost all semblance of what we now take for granted as humans?

Sheesh, let her go in peace.

Just to show you that there is no 'black and white' I'm going to challenge your criteria point by point. Frankly I'm discusted with the ease at which everyone just says "Yeah, Kill her!" when they don't even KNOW her or the situation she is going through. It's easy for you to just agree when you've read a single article isn't it? Sheep. Freakin Sheep. Heaven forbid someone suggest (as I did above) that it's not that easy for a politician to grant this decision.

A. "No prospect for improvement".. Like Cancer? There are any number of terminal illnesses which are being worked on and nobody knows when or if they will be cured today, tomorrow, or next year. Cancer stories are filled with recessions and people who live for 3-5-10 years after their doctors said to pack up their things.

B. "Request must persist over time and not under the influence of drugs".. So we'd have to take Tumor-girl off her pain medication, then have her request over a period of time?!

C. "Fully aware of their condition and prospects" How is this criteria determined? Is the mentally challenged person unable to choose euthanasia because they don't understand why they are under extreme pain?

D. "Two doctors, not one." For every quack out there there is another quack who will agree. Even if 100 other doctors don't. Keep shopping around, I'm sure you'll get a second doctor out there who shares an opinion on how bottled water is better than tap. Heck, I can point you in the direction of two doctors who will tell you that there is no danger in plastic surgury as long as they're paid well enough. The US has a 'doctor' named Kevokian who is famous for his support for Euthanasia. Find one more like him and you'd have your two thumbs up no matter what the reason.

E. "Medically appropriate fashion" Now we get into the whole 'Is lethal injection proper' debate. I imagine this is the easiest of the criteria to meet as there is very little debate over the outcome but the methods imployed are quite unresearched.

F. "At least 12." Ok, this is a kicker. Tasics (Tasiks?) qualifies for each of the above except for this last criteria. Pain, no prospects, doctors agree.. but you can't kill a kid because THAT would be wrong. Where do you get off qualifying a life by their age? Who came up with '12' as being OK while '11' was "Sorry, gotta wait another year to off yourself" At 15 you have to ask your parents, but at 16 you can just do it without their permission.

It's an Ugly, Horrible Debate and this post is just to show you that there is no 'perfect solution' for Euthanasia.

My previous post offered hope that her life had meaning now that she was a spokesperson for this cause. Obviously the Plime community felt that message was a harsh comment. Fine. Let her die in pain, without hope, and let her life be meaningless.

True, research is being done into cancer. But that's not the case. There *may* be a cure coming for that specific form of cancer, but when? And perhaps even more important, how long will it take to go through all the required forms of approval? Your argument is like the person who's going to buy a computer. But not now, because in 6 months he'll be able to buy a better one for the same dollar amount.

I think you misunderstood. This doesn't mean that the patient can't be taking any kind of medication. It means that the request has to be done when the patient has a clear mind.

That depends on how you define 'mentally challenged'. Someone who has the IQ of a 4-year-old is considered incapable of asking for euthanasia, just like a 4-year-old is. In practice, this is decided on a case by case basis. Remember, 2 doctors have to agree that the patient is fully aware of his/her condition and prospects. If you read the article, you'll see it says:

"A regional review committee assesses whether a case of termination of life on request or assisted suicide complies with the due care criteria. Depending on its findings, the case will either be closed or, if the conditions are not met brought to the attention of the Public Prosecutor."

So a doctor doesn't just make a decision like this lightly.

Read above. Even if you find 2 quacks who are willing to just go along with you, there's still the assessment committee. If they find those doctors in the wrong, the case is sent to the Public Prosecutor.

Obviously you didn't read the article. First a sedative (Sodium thiopental) is used to induce a coma. This same sedative is used for general anesthesia, so I'm quite sure that the patients don't feel a thing from this. After that, Pancuronium is administered to stop breathing.

A lot of things in life have an arbitrary age limit. How about voting? If your birthday is the day after the election, you're not allowed to vote. Does this mean that you're not capable of voting?

I suggest you take a look at this brochure from the Dutch ministry of health, welfare and sports.

I find that thought to be quite cynical. All she's asking for is not dieing in pain. Euthanasia is painless, living is far more painful for her and there is no hope of the pain going away. And her life is far from meaningless. She has 3 children, she used to be a school teacher, I think she had a very meaningful life. Let her end it in dignity.

I don't care WHAT the issues are. It's MY existence, and *I* should be allowed to end it if I want.
You can't FORCE me to live if I don't want to.

well said