All things Philosophical. discussion

A few years ago, I watched my mother suffer for weeks during the final stages of cancer. If it had been my dog going through the same agony, it would have been considered inhumane NOT to end his suffering.

Why do we not have the right to choose when to end our own lives?

I worked in a hospital for several years. The reason is the same as why there isn't a cure for AIDS. It is an opportunity for evil people to get rich. There are very good doctors in the world, but there are also an even share of vile and embittered doctors who see dying people as 'Cash Cows.' I've seen doctors who've never set foot in a dying patients room max out the number of blood tests, call it a STAT so said doctor could jack up the bill on that patient for another couple thousand dollars. If the patient survived the night, he'll be back in the morning to order another series of STAT blood tests.

That is on the ground level, now imagine the company with the contract to do blood dialysis, or the manufacturer of saline bags, and let's not forget the pharmaceutical corporations who make the steroids that keep a dead heart beating.

That is why the medical field exists, it is to make money--and dying people are big money. (This is what I observed in my three years as an ICU Cardiac Monitor Tech. My job was to be there and watch, and I did, until I felt sick with what I was participating in. Then I quit.)

Excellent point, Jake. I think you hit the nail right on the head.

Even though it was acknowledged that my mother had only days to live, her doctor wanted her to have several scans and dialysis - as if it would have made any difference.

In Deer Hunting with Jesus: Dispatches from America's Class War, the author talks about the case of one elderly man, who died on the way to have an MRI, but was given defibrillation, then shoved into the scanner, just so his insurance company could be billed for one more test.

That is repugnant. Disgusting.

People should have the "right to choose" as the pro-abortion side likes to chant. When a person is actually capable of making such a decision there should be a system set up for people to end their own lives.

I often think about how much money certain types of people would lose if the world ran as though choice was an issue.

In Canada it is slowly moving toward option... In the next 5 years I think it might.

As long as there is money to be made by keeping dying patients alive, euthanasia will never be legal.

One thing that should be considered if we where to allow the "right to choose" is should there be any limits on choice. Age, mental health, social status. Can just anyone choose to die, or should there be limits?

My fiancé and I (him being without any philosophical education at all) started discussing this topic and focusing mainly on whether people should have the choice or not. We both agreed that relatives to patients who are in a irreversible sickness, only to be alive through a machine, should have the right to relieve their loved ones from pain. It also allows the patients relatives to move on, since the hope of recovery would always be there while the patients is still alive. The question of what living is, and what being is pops up in my head when I think of this. Is it definable when it comes to determining terminally ill people's choice for euthanasia?

Btw, Love the topics

The sticky point of most of the Ethics of life problems is the issue of personhood as hinted at by Chris. First off consider birth and the process of development after or even before respectively. That is to say that the issue is at what point does a human become a person and at what point the title of person can be removed. The point is that being a non-person negates most of the legal problems as persons have rights and not other humans. However, are we even going to accept that almost arbitrary and debatable line from an ethical standpoint? If so where do any of you draw the line?

Mark wrote: "The sticky point of most of the Ethics of life problems is the issue of personhood as hinted at by Chris. First off consider birth and the process of development after or even before respectively. ..."

That's how I see it too. The big challenge lies in the answer to the questions which remain unanswered: who has the right to control life and death and when do they have the right to? Is there a set law or order that determines such things? And yes where do we draw a line?