Remove this ad
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Right to Die
Posted 5/2/10

Northboundsnow wrote:



On an unrelated note, nowadays, the doctors' profession doesn't seem to be a profession of sacrifice and care for the patient but rather an advancement of one's prestige and means of getting richer. Even research medical doctors in teaching institutions have links to and paid largely by private companies.

Honesty and transparency and doctor-patient confidentiality is important and to some extend I agree to your above post, (you can see such an example from the manga link from past post), there is a potential for abuse by doctors on their patient under the guise of doctor-patient confidentiality. Perhaps an option would be to provide information for both the patient and loved ones as well as allowing other patients under similar conditions together with advice from various doctor so that patients with loved ones can make an informed choice.

The doctor-patient only confidentiality is stretched but it may act as a means to prevent abuse. Ultimately its up to the patient, some patients prefer to keep their health problems between themselves and their doctors only.
Who are Dr. Arnold Klein and Dr. Conrad Murray, the late Michael Jackson's dermatologist(from being black to white just because he can) and personal doctor(death by drug overdose just because he asked) respectively. I mean just who can say no to the King of Pop, when everyone just <3 MJ.

I think peer support group can be of great help when it comes to internal care, which was the process you've mentioned with information group session helping both the patients and love ones making informed choice. However in the case when the doctors themselves are corrupted due to a lack of regulation, I just don't think peer support is going to be enough where experience counts.

Furthermore, when the patients themselves can just keep switching different doctors until them find the ones that will do what they wanted. I think the real problem lies in a lack of understanding by the public just what it takes for them to be healthy, when there isn't a unified standard of practice due to health care being privatized.
1288 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
A small place in...
Offline
Posted 5/3/10

DomFortress wrote:


Northboundsnow wrote:



On an unrelated note, nowadays, the doctors' profession doesn't seem to be a profession of sacrifice and care for the patient but rather an advancement of one's prestige and means of getting richer. Even research medical doctors in teaching institutions have links to and paid largely by private companies.

Honesty and transparency and doctor-patient confidentiality is important and to some extend I agree to your above post, (you can see such an example from the manga link from past post), there is a potential for abuse by doctors on their patient under the guise of doctor-patient confidentiality. Perhaps an option would be to provide information for both the patient and loved ones as well as allowing other patients under similar conditions together with advice from various doctor so that patients with loved ones can make an informed choice.

The doctor-patient only confidentiality is stretched but it may act as a means to prevent abuse. Ultimately its up to the patient, some patients prefer to keep their health problems between themselves and their doctors only.
Who are Dr. Arnold Klein and Dr. Conrad Murray, the late Michael Jackson's dermatologist(from being black to white just because he can) and personal doctor(death by drug overdose just because he asked) respectively. I mean just who can say no to the King of Pop, when everyone just <3 MJ.

I think peer support group can be of great help when it comes to internal care, which was the process you've mentioned with information group session helping both the patients and love ones making informed choice. However in the case when the doctors themselves are corrupted due to a lack of regulation, I just don't think peer support is going to be enough where experience counts.

Furthermore, when the patients themselves can just keep switching different doctors until them find the ones that will do what they wanted. I think the real problem lies in a lack of understanding by the public just what it takes for them to be healthy, when there isn't a unified standard of practice due to health care being privatized.


I didn't really follow the MJ saga so can't comment too much on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVJVRywgmYM

It work both way, patients should be able to switch doctors to ones whom they are familiar with and understand any differences in customs such as pregnant woman may prefer a woman doctor as their gynecologist. It works both ways that patient can pick any doctor whom will just follow whatever the patient wanted regardless of circumstances. No matter how much the public is informed, there are some things in health which is beyond the knowledge of ordinary citizens or found in books and require doctor experience. Also I am harsher on doctors because of their profession and because of a few bad doctors, doctors have the knowledge and represent a cut above the rest, the ones whom we put our lives and the lives of our loved ones and patients usually don't know any better.

I don't think there is a lack of unified standard of practice due to health care being privatized, I think its because there are too many private firms, with short term goals of growing bigger and gaining profits but neglecting long term goals investment of a unified standard of practice which can actually help gain more profits. Government can certainly establish a unified standard of practice but will have problems in terms of bureaucracy and lack of funds to allocate, how much to allocate on research? How much to allocate on improving current medical practices? Both private firms and government need one another to provide a unified standard of practice for health care, private firms which can spearhead research and provide funds and government to keep private firms honest and focused.
maffoo 
62799 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / England
Offline
Posted 5/3/10
I've always found it silly that if I had a dog that was in agony with an incurable illness it would be considered reasonable (and indeed the morally right thing) for me to take it to the vet to be put down, while if I had a relative in the same position the law says it would be wrong for me to ask a doctor to do the same thing.

That said, I can see the moral difficulties, in that the right to die could become an "obligation" to die, eg. an elderly relative being pressured to end it sooner rather than later so their children can get their hands on the inheritance. IMHO the only way a "right to die" could work fairly is through a "living will" where someone signs a document when in good physical and mental health authorising euthanasia in the event that they are critically ill and in pain.
299 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Samsara
Offline
Posted 5/5/10
A man can live too long. Everyone has the right to take their own life, Sartre believed that a persons ability to commit suicide was evidence of free will. The idea that everything is transient and temporal is extremely unpopular in Western thought and philosophy. In other cultures around the world, especially in the East, it's an acceptable method for exiting the the world.

I remember a story of a woman who studied under the last Guru of the Adinath, Mahendranath while she was in India. A couple of years after she left Mahendranath tried to commit suicide, believing that a man can live too long and no longer wishing for this sordid existence, with a combination of rat poisoning and slitting of the wrists. But he survived, as the bleeding counteracted the rat poison and the rat poison counteracted the bleeding. He tried again several years later by throwing himself down a flight of stairs, the fall broke his hip and he was rushed to the hospital, where he died the next morning at the age of 80. She said that the sidda of the Naths never want to die by natural causes with all their energy's spent and played out, they believed that death should be faced with energy and power. The spirit travels like a shooting star to free itself from earth's limitations. It's not uncommon for any Nath of standing and power to be buried alive in small crypts when they believe that their time in this world is done.
Posted 5/5/10

Hawker wrote:

A man can live too long. Everyone has the right to take their own life, Sartre believed that a persons ability to commit suicide was evidence of free will. The idea that everything is transient and temporal is extremely unpopular in Western thought and philosophy. In other cultures around the world, especially in the East, it's an acceptable method for exiting the the world.

I remember a story of a woman who studied under the last Guru of the Adinath, Mahendranath while she was in India. A couple of years after she left Mahendranath tried to commit suicide, believing that a man can live too long and no longer wishing for this sordid existence, with a combination of rat poisoning and slitting of the wrists. But he survived, as the bleeding counteracted the rat poison and the rat poison counteracted the bleeding. He tried again several years later by throwing himself down a flight of stairs, the fall broke his hip and he was rushed to the hospital, where he died the next morning at the age of 80. She said that the sidda of the Naths never want to die by natural causes with all their energy's spent and played out, they believed that death should be faced with energy and power. The spirit travels like a shooting star to free itself from earth's limitations. It's not uncommon for any Nath of standing and power to be buried alive in small crypts when they believe that their time in this world is done.
How can anyone know that one's time has come to an end with certainty? When some animal species in nature will leave the pack, in order to die alone with dignity only if it's too old to recreate itself. Why shouldn't the Naths just let their infants to die on their own, for the first cry made by a human infant is the most powerful form of energy an individual could ever make unassisted. Wouldn't that be the ultimate form of "live free, die young" according to their philosophy?
299 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Samsara
Offline
Posted 5/6/10

DomFortress wrote:


Hawker wrote:

A man can live too long. Everyone has the right to take their own life, Sartre believed that a persons ability to commit suicide was evidence of free will. The idea that everything is transient and temporal is extremely unpopular in Western thought and philosophy. In other cultures around the world, especially in the East, it's an acceptable method for exiting the the world.

I remember a story of a woman who studied under the last Guru of the Adinath, Mahendranath while she was in India. A couple of years after she left Mahendranath tried to commit suicide, believing that a man can live too long and no longer wishing for this sordid existence, with a combination of rat poisoning and slitting of the wrists. But he survived, as the bleeding counteracted the rat poison and the rat poison counteracted the bleeding. He tried again several years later by throwing himself down a flight of stairs, the fall broke his hip and he was rushed to the hospital, where he died the next morning at the age of 80. She said that the sidda of the Naths never want to die by natural causes with all their energy's spent and played out, they believed that death should be faced with energy and power. The spirit travels like a shooting star to free itself from earth's limitations. It's not uncommon for any Nath of standing and power to be buried alive in small crypts when they believe that their time in this world is done.
How can anyone know that one's time has come to an end with certainty? When some animal species in nature will leave the pack, in order to die alone with dignity only if it's too old to recreate itself. Why shouldn't the Naths just let their infants to die on their own, for the first cry made by a human infant is the most powerful form of energy an individual could ever make unassisted. Wouldn't that be the ultimate form of "live free, die young" according to their philosophy?


One of the greatest barriers to Enlightenment is Clinging to Life. The sect teaches it's students to be above the finite thinking of mortality and our so called "reality". With Enlightenment comes with the realization of the Divine-Self, that we are everything and we are nothing. Each person is a God in their own right, and if they choose to end their existence in this reality then that is their prerogative.
Posted 5/6/10

Hawker wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


Hawker wrote:

A man can live too long. Everyone has the right to take their own life, Sartre believed that a persons ability to commit suicide was evidence of free will. The idea that everything is transient and temporal is extremely unpopular in Western thought and philosophy. In other cultures around the world, especially in the East, it's an acceptable method for exiting the the world.

I remember a story of a woman who studied under the last Guru of the Adinath, Mahendranath while she was in India. A couple of years after she left Mahendranath tried to commit suicide, believing that a man can live too long and no longer wishing for this sordid existence, with a combination of rat poisoning and slitting of the wrists. But he survived, as the bleeding counteracted the rat poison and the rat poison counteracted the bleeding. He tried again several years later by throwing himself down a flight of stairs, the fall broke his hip and he was rushed to the hospital, where he died the next morning at the age of 80. She said that the sidda of the Naths never want to die by natural causes with all their energy's spent and played out, they believed that death should be faced with energy and power. The spirit travels like a shooting star to free itself from earth's limitations. It's not uncommon for any Nath of standing and power to be buried alive in small crypts when they believe that their time in this world is done.
How can anyone know that one's time has come to an end with certainty? When some animal species in nature will leave the pack, in order to die alone with dignity only if it's too old to recreate itself. Why shouldn't the Naths just let their infants to die on their own, for the first cry made by a human infant is the most powerful form of energy an individual could ever make unassisted. Wouldn't that be the ultimate form of "live free, die young" according to their philosophy?


One of the greatest barriers to Enlightenment is Clinging to Life. The sect teaches it's students to be above the finite thinking of mortality and our so called "reality". With Enlightenment comes with the realization of the Divine-Self, that we are everything and we are nothing. Each person is a God in their own right, and if they choose to end their existence in this reality then that is their prerogative.
There goes the monolithic faith, which I often find its definition of the human nature to be negatively bias. At least individual enlightenment will have to come before completing one's own cycle, and I can respect that.

Now the question comes to just how can one tell that one has reach enlightenment within one's own lifetime, but that would be a different topic.
10521 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 5/6/10
I think everyone should have the right to be euthanized if they want to. Its their life they should be able to do whatever they want to with it, including ending it. Besides if they really wanted to die, they could just use a gun or something. Assuming they didn't screw up and fire the bullet into an area of the brain that can take heavy damage like that without any problem to the host, its over in less time then it took to squeeze the trigger. But euthanasia i believe puts you into a deep sleep, so I suppose that's more humane. If animals like dogs and cats can be euthanized cause their in lots of pain, then so should humans. Again its their life, let them do what they want with it in peace.
Posted 5/6/10

Allhailodin wrote:

I think everyone should have the right to be euthanized if they want to. Its their life they should be able to do whatever they want to with it, including ending it. Besides if they really wanted to die, they could just use a gun or something. Assuming they didn't screw up and fire the bullet into an area of the brain that can take heavy damage like that without any problem to the host, its over in less time then it took to squeeze the trigger. But euthanasia i believe puts you into a deep sleep, so I suppose that's more humane. If animals like dogs and cats can be euthanized cause their in lots of pain, then so should humans. Again its their life, let them do what they want with it in peace.
Then can we consider capital punishment as a form of us euthanize ourselves, without us regarding our own state of hopelessness being justified?

Also, not all animal control centers have the ideal resources to euthanize all of their animals individually and peacefully. While in some cases animals were processed in inhumane ways for the sake of economic productivity and efficiency, what's not to say that humans didn't ended up treating their own kinds for the exact same reason?
10521 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 5/6/10

DomFortress wrote:


Then can we consider capital punishment as a form of us euthanize ourselves, without us regarding our own state of hopelessness being justified?


Capital punishment is a punishment. for murder generally, its already justified. A life for a life. Call it even.


Also, not all animal control centers have the ideal resources to euthanize all of their animals individually and peacefully. While in some cases animals were processed in inhumane ways for the sake of economic productivity and efficiency, what's not to say that humans didn't ended up treating their own kinds for the exact same reason?


That's kinda messed up, but it was probably instant death, so meh. It happens. Oh well.

As for the japanese suicide rate, that's for them to deal with, not us. If they don't solve it, they'll go extinct. Its not up to us to protect them. That's the law of nature. Hell the japanese have already said, that their going to die japanese, and that they don't want any immigrants. So leave them be.
Posted 5/6/10 , edited 5/6/10
I thought of something. Maybe it can be of use to you fine people.

Suppose you had to chose between dying for a loved one through slow torture or allowing that loved one to die quickly and painlessly, which would it be? I think that first is the most viable choice, but your loved one might not want you to suffer for their sake. So many factors are to be considered, especially Right to Die.
1288 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
A small place in...
Offline
Posted 5/7/10

Glock45 wrote:

I thought of something. Maybe it can be of use to you fine people.

Suppose you had to chose between dying for a loved one through slow torture or allowing that loved one to die quickly and painlessly, which would it be? I think that first is the most viable choice, but your loved one might not want you to suffer for their sake. So many factors are to be considered, especially Right to Die.


I am not sure how much my post will relate to topic. Try reading this and tell me what you think. Any1 else can too. Does this relate? Isn't this the reversal, the right to live or am I reading too much into this?

Posted 5/7/10

Allhailodin wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


Then can we consider capital punishment as a form of us euthanize ourselves, without us regarding our own state of hopelessness being justified?


Capital punishment is a punishment. for murder generally, its already justified. A life for a life. Call it even.


Also, not all animal control centers have the ideal resources to euthanize all of their animals individually and peacefully. While in some cases animals were processed in inhumane ways for the sake of economic productivity and efficiency, what's not to say that humans didn't ended up treating their own kinds for the exact same reason?


That's kinda messed up, but it was probably instant death, so meh. It happens. Oh well.

As for the japanese suicide rate, that's for them to deal with, not us. If they don't solve it, they'll go extinct. Its not up to us to protect them. That's the law of nature. Hell the japanese have already said, that their going to die japanese, and that they don't want any immigrants. So leave them be.
Ah, but you neglected the fact that the Japanese people are humans too.

Not only that, you also didn't detect the similarities between the Japanese seniors' suicides and inhumane animal euthanasia: both cases were result of depression, hopelessness, and negligence of individual dignity.

In the animal kingdom, there are species that have a culture of forming an execution squad in order to kill off certain antisocial individuals within their community. Let's assume that being the proof of the capital punishment is a natural order towards individuals with extremely antisocial behavior. But when the majority of the Japanese populace are antisocial due to their collectivist culture, aren't they thereby punishing themselves with their very own antisocial culture of sameness? It's no wonder the Japanese culture of pride and honor in death somehow seems very humanly enthusiastic for the Japanese individuals.

Only in Japan.


Glock45 wrote:

I thought of something. Maybe it can be of use to you fine people.

Suppose you had to chose between dying for a loved one through slow torture or allowing that loved one to die quickly and painlessly, which would it be? I think that first is the most viable choice, but your loved one might not want you to suffer for their sake. So many factors are to be considered, especially Right to Die.

Northboundsnow wrote:

I am not sure how much my post will relate to topic. Try reading this and tell me what you think. Any1 else can too. Does this relate? Isn't this the reversal, the right to live or am I reading too much into this?

In that case I would also like to submit a hypothetical case known as "The Lottery". A classical case of a collectivist culture of traditional value clashed with individual expectation of standard.

As for myself, suppose that through my personal suffering I can save the life of my loved one, then I'll go through with the process because I can make a difference. My loved one can object all she wants, but only after she gets to live and tell about it.
1288 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
A small place in...
Offline
Posted 5/7/10

DomFortress wrote:

In that case I would also like to submit a hypothetical case known as "The Lottery". A classical case of a collectivist culture of traditional value clashed with individual expectation of standard.

As for myself, suppose that through my personal suffering I can save the life of my loved one, then I'll go through with the process because I can make a difference. My loved one can object all she wants, but only after she gets to live and tell about it.


"The Lottery" by Shirley Jackson is a short story by itself yet portrays so many insights into the human psych. I won't spoil it for any1 but to encourage you to read it if you haven't.

Also go to this link to read the short story - http://www.americanliterature.com/Jackson/SS/TheLottery.html
b4 going for DomFortress "The Lottery" link, as his link provide a literary analysis, read the story and form your opinion and how it relate to this topic. Its a great read.
10521 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 5/7/10

DomFortress wrote:



Ah, but you neglected the fact that the Japanese people are humans too.


Well of course the japanese are humans, but they have the right to do things their own way if they choose to. Its their country, they can run it however they want to, when you have your own country, you get to run it however you want to. Just like if I had my own country, I could run it however i damn well please.

My country, my rules, your country, your rules, their country, their rules, if they choose to be anti-social people who have a high suicide rate, that's their right.


Not only that, you also didn't detect the similarities between the Japanese seniors' suicides and inhumane animal euthanasia: both cases were result of depression, hopelessness, and negligence of individual dignity.


What similarities ? The suicide rate is given by many factors, such as grades, low self esteem, probably not getting the job in robots he / she wanted, the japanese really love their robots.

The cruel animal put downs were just cause of some fucked up retard deciding to do things his own way.

Wheres the similarities ?


In the animal kingdom, there are species that have a culture of forming an execution squad in order to kill off certain antisocial individuals within their community. Let's assume that being the proof of the capital punishment is a natural order towards individuals with extremely antisocial behavior. But when the majority of the Japanese populace are antisocial due to their collectivist culture, aren't they thereby punishing themselves with their very own antisocial culture of sameness? It's no wonder the Japanese culture of pride and honor in death somehow seems very humanly enthusiastic for the Japanese individuals.

Only in Japan.


You forgot that humans are in the animal kingdom too, were in the same family (tribe actually) as chimpanzees. Hominini, tribe of the family Hominidae aka "Great Apes".

Capital Punishment is a punishment for committing an extreme crime(like premeditated murder perhaps), its not a crime to be anti-social. So you can't get executed for being anti-social. Theres nothing wrong with being anti-social.

There's nothing wrong with finding honor in death, you can die an honorable death, if you for instance died saving someone or something. Or stopped some terror plot or something heroic like that.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.