quote:

Originally posted by occrider No I'm fairly certain that arbiter would be for voluntary euthanasia. The difference between involuntary and non voluntary is that non-voluntary is when the patient cannot express their opinion of whether they wish to die. This whole thread would be an example of that. Involuntary is when the patient expresses the desire to live yet they are put down ... similarly to how a person establishes a living will asking to live, yet their wishes are ignored.

Ahhh I see.

I still think the two words are synonymous.

But if that is what you meant at least we got a clarification

MrS

___________________
Click the sig to see MrSquirrel

-"Reality" is the only word in the language that should always be used in quotes.

quote:

Originally posted by MrSquirrel Ahhh I see. I still think the two words are synonymous. But if that is what you meant at least we got a clarification MrS

Not my definition ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethic...e/euthdef.shtml

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Not my definition ... http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethic...e/euthdef.shtml

Ahh I see.....thanks for the link.

I will read it when I get back in town and this thread is on page 4.


MrS

___________________
Click the sig to see MrSquirrel

-"Reality" is the only word in the language that should always be used in quotes.

NeoPhono, how can you say your medical system is drowning in debts when it is one of the most expensive systems in the world to pay for? It sort of doesn't make sense. Besides, her parents are paying for her to stay alive. As long as they're willing to do that, I don't see how keeping her alive causes any harm.

___________________
1+1=10

The reason for the high cost of American health care is multi-faceted. I believe at the root of the problem are corrupt HMOs and incredible malpractice rates by insurance companies. HMOs routinely deny to pay for services for patients, which by law, a hospital must provide. Every year billions of dollars are lost by hospitals as they must pay, out of their own pocket, for services HMO's will not pay for. To fight this trend, hospitals can do two things. First they can charge more for services, so each patient that does pay not only pays for themselves, but for the others that do not pay. This in turn generally leads to high HMO rates to the consumer. The second is to be more selective on the services the hospital provides. This is limited by two things. First, the government requires a standard level of care (a good thing) that cannot be crossed, even in fear of not being finacially compensated by the patient. Secondly, it leads to malpractice suits. A very popular and many times precidented practice is to sue if every possible test, now matter how irrelevant, is not performed on a patient. This in turn leads to more court awards and in turn higher malpractice rates. These higher rates are again passed onto the consumer and again rates are increased. Keeping someone on even basic life support costs hundreds of dollars a day. Unless an individual comes from an extremely wealthy family, this money either comes from their health insurance, or from the hospital. Either way it again causes an increase in premium rates, it's just simple economics. Imagine the raise in premiums if we begin to mandate indefinite life support...it would be astronomical.

I posted a while ago a long congressional report on why health costs are so high ... I'll see if I can find it after lunch.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Ok well given the rights we possess in society as it is, should the determination of your fate reside upon a third party or you? And in general, what are your opinions on involuntary/non-voluntary euthanasia?

The determination of your fate should obviously reside upon you. The problem, of course, arises when you are unable to communicate your desires. It's a rather complex issue because there are so many variables. The most pertinent variables seem to me to be the following:

A. Patient has cognitive ability to receive sensory data. (True/False)
B. Patient is capable of understanding his/her situation. (True/False)
C. Patient can communicate coherently. (True/False)
D. Patient has prior documentation demonstrating their desire to be euthanized. (True/False)
E. Patient would prefer to die. (True/False)
F. Patient has the ability to pay or privately raise funds to cover the costs of his/her treatment. (True/False)
G. Chance of recovery. (0-100%)

The problem is, of course, that our medical technology is not sufficiently developed to ascertain (A), (B), and (G) with the degree of precision that would be desirable in life/death situations.

(F) is also an important consideration, for while I support the right of an individual to choose to pursue a (futile) struggle against death, I don't support them having the ability to pass the costs of treatment along to the public via socialized medicine, insurance programs, or as NeoPhono mentioned onto the hospital required to treat them. With rights come responsibilities, and with the right to choose life or death comes the responsibility to shoulder the disadvantages of whatever decision you make. If your family can and will pay, great, if they want to start a fund that people can donate to, that's fine. But no one's resources should be used who doesn't approve.

From a theoretical standpoint, ignoring the reality of our limited ability to determine the value of (A), (B), and (G), I believe my stance on euthanasia could be described as follows:

If (G) > 1, euthanasia is not appropriate unless (B) AND (C) AND (E).
Else (the following scenarios assume G <= 1)
If [(B) AND (C)] OR (D) then we must know the value of (E).
__If (E), then euthanasia is appropriate.
__Else (E is false)
____If (F), euthanasia is not appropriate.
____Else (F is false) then treatment should be withheld.
Else (the value of (E) is uncertain, (D) must be false, and (B) OR (C) is false)
If (A) is false then
__If (F), euthanasia is not appropriate.
__Else (F is false) then treatment should be withheld.
Else ((A) is true) then (below)

At this point, we reach a dilemma. We have to consider the possibility that the patient may wish to pursue life and have the ability to pay. If this is the case, then it would be wrong to end their life. However, we also must consider the possibility that the patient is in constant pain but is unable to communicate this fact. Maintaining the life of someone in constant pain for weeks, months, or even years - someone who might want nothing more than to simply be allowed to die - would obviously be a disaster as well. Unfortunately, our ability to distinguish between these two situations is very limited, at best. Ultimately, it seems to me that we take a chance either way. But when I ask myself, "Which is the greater harm?", I can only answer that it is to keep someone in constant pain. It is one thing to kill someone, but torture seems to me to be the greater crime. So, hesitantly, I must say that in this situation euthanasia is appropriate.

Regards,

Arbiter

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter If (G) > 1, euthanasia is not appropriate unless (B) AND (C) AND (E). Else (the following scenarios assume G <= 1) If [(B) AND (C)] OR (D) then we must know the value of (E). __If (E), then euthanasia is appropriate. __Else (E is false) ____If (F), euthanasia is not appropriate. ____Else (F is false) then treatment should be withheld. Else (the value of (E) is uncertain, (D) must be false, and (B) OR (C) is false) If (A) is false then __If (F), euthanasia is not appropriate. __Else (F is false) then treatment should be withheld. Else ((A) is true) then (below)

I see someone here is a total logic/programming nerd

___________________
1+1=10