Euthanasia, Where Do You Stand?

[Zyklop]

This whole arguing about the "immorality" of euthanasia only reflects the evasion of anything that makes people aware of their own mortality. No surprise this only happens in extremely hedonistic societies.

[Oskorei]

Yes, please do! I'd be very interested.

At this point, we shall briefly turn our attention to a particular problem, the right over one's own life, understood as the freedom to accept it or to put an end to it voluntarily.

Suicide, condemned by most moralities with social and religious foundations, has in fact been permitted by two doctrines whose norms of life are not far from those indicated for the differentiated man in the present epoch: Stoicism and Buddhism. One can refer to the ideas of Seneca regarding Stoicism, recalling above all the general background of its vision of life. I have already said that for Seneca the true man would be above the gods themselves, because they, by their very nature, do not know adversity and misfortune, whereas he is exposed to them, but has the power to triumph over them. Moreover, Seneca sees the beings that are most harshly tested as the worthiest, recalling this analogy: in war it is the most capable, sure and qualified persons that leaders entrust with the most exposed positions and the hardest tasks. Usually it is this virile and agonistic conception that applies when suicide is condemned and stigmatized as cowardice and desertion. (There is a saying attributed by Cicero to the Pythagoreans: "To leave the place that one is assigned in life is not permitted without an order from the leader, who is God") Instead Seneca reaches the opposite conclusion, and put the justification of suicide directly into the mouth of the divinity (De Providentia,. 6.7-9). He makes the divinity say that he has given the superior man, the sage, not only a force stronger than any contingency, and something more than being exempt from evils, namely the power to to triumph over them interiorly; but has also ensured that no one can hold him back against his will: the path to "exit" is open to him - patet exitus. "Wherever you do not want to fight, it is always possible to retreat. You have been given nothing easier than death."

Given the presuppostions mentioned earlier with regard to the general vision of life, there is no doubt that Seneca did not intend this decision to refer to cases in which death is sought because a given situation appears unbearable: especially then, one could not permit oneself the act.Here too it is necessary to add what is equally valid for all those who are driven to cut their life short due to emotional and impassioned motives, because this would be equivalent to recognizing one's own passivity and impoitence toward the irrational part of one's soul. The same is even true for cases in which social motives intervene. Both the ideal Stoic type and the differentiated man do not permit those motives to intimately touch them, as their dignity were injured by what binds them to social life. They would never be driven to put an end to their own existence for these motives, which are included by the Stoics in the category of "that which does not depend on me". The only exception we can consider is the case of a disgrace not before others whose judgement and contempt one cannot bear, but before oneself, because of one's own downfall. Considering all this, Senecas maxim can only have the meaning of an enhancement of the inner freedom of a superior being.It is not a matter of retreating because one does not feel strong enough before such ordeals and circumstances; rather, it is a matter of the sovereign right -that one always keeps in reserve - to either accept them or not, and even to draw the line when one no longer sees a meaning in them, and after having sufficiently demonstrated to oneself the capacity to face them.

[Siegmund]

from Evola: Seneca sees the beings that are most harshly tested as the worthiest, recalling this analogy: in war it is the most capable, sure and qualified persons that leaders entrust with the most exposed positions and the hardest tasks.

Words to ponder today, perhaps, more than ever.

[Oskorei]

My interpretation would be that Evola is saying that the differentiated man ("the man of Tradition") does not commit suicide because he is in pain, emotionally or physically.

But he may end his life voluntarily, if it is filled with constant pain, and he has proven that he can stand it, but sees no meaning in the whole ordeal anymore.

Of course, differentiated men are in the minority in our age, and I do not know what Evola's words to ordinary men would be.

[Rhydderch]

I believe euthanasia is suicide/self murder. Now, for those who believe in God, especially a merciful one with whom we can communicate, I think it is illogical for them to say that a suffering individual can be "put down". Because, if God has the power to create heaven and earth, then surely he is not unable to heal that person.

If physically suffering individuals can commit suicide, then by the same logic if anyone is feeling suicidal, then we needn't stop him from killing himself, because stopping him will only prolong his pain and despair.

but I say it is immoral to prolong the existence of something that without a machine and tons of medications would die naturally

I think euthanasia would generally be defined as actually ending the life of someone who would naturally continue to live.

[alphaknave]

This is always a sticky subject, and one that a lot of people wouldn't even dare to approach, but I feel that human euthanasia in some circumstances is a very practical and viable option that should be considered, and not shunned as being immoral or wrong.

For example, you have an 85 year old person who has lost all psychological capacity, let's say due to advance stage Alzheimer's disease, who is incompetent both physically and mentally, can no longer eat, drink or use a toilet and is basically wasting away in a nursing home bed, completely unaware of his/her own surroundings and exsistence in general. Now, what kind of life is that? Who would want to continue living in that kind of state? I feel that a person in that situation should be euthanised.... What is the point of sustaining something that is basically already dead? Why prolong the inevitable? For the benefit of a person's loved ones? I say, pull the darn plug already!

Euthanasia, in other cases, is acceptable IMO as well. People who are comatose, brain dead, physically and mentally incapacitated, etc. If the person possess no outward signs of life, besides a beating heart and functioning lungs... It's time to put it to an end.

I feel that feeding tubes, breathing tubes, iron lungs, etc., (when used to sustain those who have no hope of recovery), are inhumane and barbaric. People speak of morality and God and right and wrong when it comes to the termination of human life, but I say it is immoral to prolong the existence of something that without a machine and tons of medications would die naturally. In life, one can always expect that death is the end... So in this day and age of knowledge, science and enlightenment, what makes us think that we can 'cure' old age, a terminal illness or failing organs?

Euthanasia, in some cases, is a very humane way to end the un-needed suffering of a human being... Because to live in a state of complete mental/physical degradation is not living at all... It's slow death.

Is lying in bed drooling, urinating and defacting on yourself honourable???

My remark ment if dieing under NATURAL CAUSES. I don't consider anything unnatural that keeps you alive to be right. The woman in the vegetative state should have starved herself to death if she did not have doctors try to "save" her life, which was only prolonging her death. To take a feeding tube out is not Euthanasia, since it was not natural in the first place!

My remark ment someone who was dieing naturally, that they should not receive easing-of-the-pain.

[Agrippa]

I'm definitely for active Euthanasia, people should have the right to chose in desperate situations.

In cases were the patient isnt able to speak up himself, it depends on the outlook and how probable a better health situation is + what this person said before his/her situation worsened.

Otherwise its a question of the material situation and perspective as well, if f.e. a state has starving children and 90 year old patients without consciousness arent able to live without machines, this is for me a rather a cynical situation.

In cases like those above, it depends totally on the chances for recovery since if those parts of her brain which make her a human being and give her a human personality are dead and the damage is irreparable, she's dead herself no matter if her heart is still beating.

Furthermore if people moan about her starvation, they shouldnt be hypocritical and allow active Euthanasia to give her a fast and human end.

I for myself would definitely not like to vegetate in such a condition and I'm saying that after being in a critical health situation two times of my life.

I dont want to die, I like to live, but not under all circumstances and not for "just living" and for sure not because of any sort of superstition.
If you ever saw such people, practically dead but suffering horrible, without any reason and chance to get up again, which makes absolutely no sense you can't be against Euthanasia in my opinion. If they want to die, they should be able to decide it.

The "funny" thing about this is, that in the US the health care for many people is not the best and many otherwise healthy people dying because of the lack of it.
Now to arse around because if this extreme case is just hypocritical and a clear sign of the state of the "rational mind" of the average American in "Christian" movements.

As I said, if they are sorry for her starving, they should allow active Euthanasia and her husband should do the injection.
If god really doesnt like this, her husband will have to pay for it in his "other life", if not he just helped his wife, himself and finally the whole family which seems to be too much influenced by her ill member which practically died many years ago.

Of course there are single cases of people waking up, but should people kept alive until they are just a living corpse on machines with 80?

That just makes no sense.

Without all the technical stuff she would be dead long ago anyway and she is actually brain dead from what I know.

Patients of coma vigil have usually bad chances to wake up and if, they have most of the time HEAVY harms and will never be the same.

Partly this question is influenced by what you would want for yourself in a similar condition. I said what I want.

As for people who would like to live on in such a situation they should make an insurance and a living will/advance directive or speaking with as much people as possible about her will so that they can testify it later.
If somebody wants to live on in such miserable condition, yes, no problem with that, but not for me and nobody else should be forced to as well.


If its about me I prefer dying fast than living on like this...a living corpse, a vegetative condition, like a helpless plant. Thats no life, thats an insult to life.
I dont even want that my relatives, friends, comrades, partner etc would see me in such a miserable condition.
If it would be for a short time and there is a good chance to recover, really recover, not just seeing some eye movements which means nothing, I would say ok, we must go through, but if the chances are so low, well, we all have to die anyway, I dont want to vegetate like this for nothing. I wouldnt help anybody by doing so except those people which get the money for the supply of my living corpse.
Useless, nothing, no. Me not.
If somebody else wants, he should make his advance directive-living will and having fun being a living machine with all this plugs, artificial openings and lying around like a dead fish, a caricature of the former self.
I dont want that and every honourable person shouldnt want that either. Whats that for a way of living? For a death?

Die fast and if possible on your feet, thats what I want. If suffering continues long enough, most people just lose the rest of their sanity. Thats like constant torture which doesnt stop as long as you are dead and whereas torture sometimes lead to something, in such cases it just leads to something which is inevitable anyway. Thats the problem, death is inevitable anyway, its the time in between which counts and such a time, which is in no way a human life anymore, I can pass that on. Most people which keep their sanity dont want to live on plugged on machines without a chance to get back on their feets too I' say.
Sometimes your instincts are stronger and you get a terrible fear which just gets worse if you have conditions of heavy pains or breathlessness.

Now there might be situations were suffering can help you, your family, your group etc. But thats not the case in our modern hospitals if our life ends and that for sure or your corpse just lying around and huge machines keep the heart pumping, just making illusions for your relatives which should accept you're death.
Because we are our healthy brain, we are our personality. If thats destroyed whats left? Just a shell less human than an ape.

[Torn_Humana]

I'm definitely for active Euthanasia, people should have the right to chose in desperate situations.

In cases were the patient isnt able to speak up himself, it depends on the outlook and how probable a better health situation is + what this person said before his/her situation worsened.

Otherwise its a question of the material situation and perspective as well, if f.e. a state has starving children and 90 year old patients without consciousness arent able to live without machines, this is for me a rather a cynical situation.

In cases like those above, it depends totally on the chances for recovery since if those parts of her brain which make her a human being and give her a human personality are dead and the damage is irreparable, she's dead herself no matter if her heart is still beating.

Furthermore if people moan about her starvation, they shouldnt be hypocritical and allow active Euthanasia to give her a fast and human end.

I for myself would definitely not like to vegetate in such a condition and I'm saying that after being in a critical health situation two times of my life.

I dont want to die, I like to live, but not under all circumstances and not for "just living" and for sure not because of any sort of superstition.
If you ever saw such people, practically dead but suffering horrible, without any reason and chance to get up again, which makes absolutely no sense you can't be against Euthanasia in my opinion. If they want to die, they should be able to decide it.

The "funny" thing about this is, that in the US the health care for many people is not the best and many otherwise healthy people dying because of the lack of it.
Now to arse around because if this extreme case is just hypocritical and a clear sign of the state of the "rational mind" of the average American in "Christian" movements.

As I said, if they are sorry for her starving, they should allow active Euthanasia and her husband should do the injection.
If god really doesnt like this, her husband will have to pay for it in his "other life", if not he just helped his wife, himself and finally the whole family which seems to be too much influenced by her ill member which practically died many years ago.

Of course there are single cases of people waking up, but should people kept alive until they are just a living corpse on machines with 80?

That just makes no sense.

Without all the technical stuff she would be dead long ago anyway and she is actually brain dead from what I know.

Patients of coma vigil have usually bad chances to wake up and if, they have most of the time HEAVY harms and will never be the same.

Partly this question is influenced by what you would want for yourself in a similar condition. I said what I want.

As for people who would like to live on in such a situation they should make an insurance and a living will/advance directive or speaking with as much people as possible about her will so that they can testify it later.
If somebody wants to live on in such miserable condition, yes, no problem with that, but not for me and nobody else should be forced to as well.


If its about me I prefer dying fast than living on like this...a living corpse, a vegetative condition, like a helpless plant. Thats no life, thats an insult to life.
I dont even want that my relatives, friends, comrades, partner etc would see me in such a miserable condition.
If it would be for a short time and there is a good chance to recover, really recover, not just seeing some eye movements which means nothing, I would say ok, we must go through, but if the chances are so low, well, we all have to die anyway, I dont want to vegetate like this for nothing. I wouldnt help anybody by doing so except those people which get the money for the supply of my living corpse.
Useless, nothing, no. Me not.
If somebody else wants, he should make his advance directive-living will and having fun being a living machine with all this plugs, artificial openings and lying around like a dead fish, a caricature of the former self.
I dont want that and every honourable person shouldnt want that either. Whats that for a way of living? For a death?

Die fast and if possible on your feet, thats what I want. If suffering continues long enough, most people just lose the rest of their sanity. Thats like constant torture which doesnt stop as long as you are dead and whereas torture sometimes lead to something, in such cases it just leads to something which is inevitable anyway. Thats the problem, death is inevitable anyway, its the time in between which counts and such a time, which is in no way a human life anymore, I can pass that on. Most people which keep their sanity dont want to live on plugged on machines without a chance to get back on their feets too I' say.
Sometimes your instincts are stronger and you get a terrible fear which just gets worse if you have conditions of heavy pains or breathlessness.

Now there might be situations were suffering can help you, your family, your group etc. But thats not the case in our modern hospitals if our life ends and that for sure or your corpse just lying around and huge machines keep the heart pumping, just making illusions for your relatives which should accept you're death.
Because we are our healthy brain, we are our personality. If thats destroyed whats left? Just a shell less human than an ape.

I agree with you totally, especially the part about not wanting my family to see me in that condition.

[Rhydderch]

Without all the technical stuff she would be dead long ago anyway and she is actually brain dead from what I know.

There are conflicting opinions on that; her father's family say she is aware of her surroundings and has attempted to communicate with them, but her husband has disallowed anything that could further stimulate her senses.
The whole surrounding circumstances are very suspicious, and her friend has claimed that she said things earlier in life which would very much indicate that she wouldn't want to be killed if ever in such a situation.

There is not even any degree of certainty over whether she could recover, there is evidence that she could greatly improve if rehabilitated.

[alphaknave]

There are conflicting opinions on that; her father's family say she is aware of her surroundings and has attempted to communicate with them, but her husband has disallowed anything that could further stimulate her senses.
The whole surrounding circumstances are very suspicious, and her friend has claimed that she said things earlier in life which would very much indicate that she wouldn't want to be killed if ever in such a situation.

There is not even any degree of certainty over whether she could recover, there is evidence that she could greatly improve if rehabilitated.

Why would someone NOT want to die in a situation like that?