Community > General Discussion

Previous 1 2 Next

Topic: euthanasia
debbie1980 Joined Sun 09/09/07 Posts: 20487	Mon 03/03/08 07:26 AM
i know ive spelt that wrong lol do you think its right or wrong?? i think if someone is suffering so bad,for example they had cancer,and was in agony, and they cant bare to live anymore, and there going to die anyway in a short amount of time, why make them suffer anymore.why not let them die in dignity. i know if someone i knew only had a short time left to live,with no cure, and she was in so much pain, i would want her suffering to end and for her to pass with dignity. BUT the person must be able to make that decision thereself, no one else. AND the person who wants to die with dignity must be dieing and theres NO cure for them. what are your opinions on this?? euthanasia is illegal in the uk, is it legal in your country??

kkKen Joined Mon 11/12/07 Posts: 11228	Mon 03/03/08 07:29 AM
Why not.If they can kill people in jails,wars on the streets and the victims have no choice in that.Then a person suffering so badly that they can't take it anymore and no hope of being cured should have that choice

Winx Joined Fri 08/31/07 Posts: 39051	Mon 03/03/08 07:31 AM
It is not legal in the U.S.

shoes4rhon Joined Sat 02/02/08 Posts: 3411	Mon 03/03/08 07:34 AM
I am from Missouri and we actually had the original case law ,, her name was nancy curzan .. please remember her she was a great person and brave person.. her family won the right to die case ..

Winx Joined Fri 08/31/07 Posts: 39051	Mon 03/03/08 07:40 AM
I am from Missouri and we actually had the original case law ,, her name was nancy curzan .. please remember her she was a great person and brave person.. her family won the right to die case .. I didn't consider her as a case of euthanasia. Do you?

debbie1980 Joined Sun 09/09/07 Posts: 20487	Mon 03/03/08 07:42 AM
Why not.If they can kill people in jails,wars on the streets and the victims have no choice in that.Then a person suffering so badly that they can't take it anymore and no hope of being cured should have that choice i totally agree with you

debbie1980 Joined Sun 09/09/07 Posts: 20487	Mon 03/03/08 07:42 AM
I am from Missouri and we actually had the original case law ,, her name was nancy curzan .. please remember her she was a great person and brave person.. her family won the right to die case .. whats that about???

shoes4rhon Joined Sat 02/02/08 Posts: 3411	Mon 03/03/08 07:42 AM
I am from Missouri and we actually had the original case law ,, her name was nancy curzan .. please remember her she was a great person and brave person.. her family won the right to die case .. I didn't consider her as a case of euthanasia. Do you? Yes , her quality of life was nothing and she won the right to die .. I consider that a form or euthanasia .. She was a very brave person and kudos to her family ...

debbie1980 Joined Sun 09/09/07 Posts: 20487	Mon 03/03/08 07:44 AM
I am from Missouri and we actually had the original case law ,, her name was nancy curzan .. please remember her she was a great person and brave person.. her family won the right to die case .. I didn't consider her as a case of euthanasia. Do you? Yes , her quality of life was nothing and she won the right to die .. I consider that a form or euthanasia .. She was a very brave person and kudos to her family ... what was wrong with her??? that she had no quality of life??

shoes4rhon Joined Sat 02/02/08 Posts: 3411	Mon 03/03/08 07:48 AM Edited by shoes4rhon on Mon 03/03/08 07:50 AM
I am from Missouri and we actually had the original case law ,, her name was nancy curzan .. please remember her she was a great person and brave person.. her family won the right to die case .. I didn't consider her as a case of euthanasia. Do you? Yes , her quality of life was nothing and she won the right to die .. I consider that a form or euthanasia .. She was a very brave person and kudos to her family ... what was wrong with her??? that she had no quality of life?? Sorry Debbie I forget you are not in the US ,, Nancy was in a horrible car accident she could not feed herself , no communication , and laid in a nursing home with a feeding tube no chance to come out of it ,, On January 11, 1983, she lost control of her old car that had no seat belts, was thrown from it and landed face down in a water-filled ditch. Paramedics found her with no vital signs, but they resuscitated her. After a couple weeks of remaining dormant within a coma, she was diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). Surgeons inserted a feeding tube for her long-term care. Her husband and parents waited for a more substantial recovery, but eventually, after four years, accepted that there was no hope. In 1987 her parents asked to have Cruzan's feeding tube removed, but the hospital demanded a court order to that effect.The opinion of the Court states "for purposes of this case, we assume that the United States Constitution would grant a competent person a constitutionally protected right to refuse lifesaving hydration and nutrition" (497 US at 279). (The Court noted that "most state courts have based a right to refuse treatment on the common law right to informed consent ... or on both that right and a constitutional privacy right" 497 US at 262). The Court also held that Missouri was able to require a standard of "clear and convincing evidence" with regard to a person's wishes, and that "the State may properly decline to make judgments about the 'quality' of a particular individual's life and simply assert an unqualified interest in the preservation of human life to be weighed against the constitutionally protected interests of the individual" (497 US at 283). After the US Supreme Court ruling, three close friends of Cruzan came forward with evidence that her wishes expressed when she was competent were that she would want the tube removed. The lower court then ruled this was clear and convincing evidence, and the decision was appealed.

lizardking19 Joined Wed 08/15/07 Posts: 1278	Mon 03/03/08 07:50 AM
youthinasia? what do i know about them? they live in asia and im in the USA durrrr, silly person seriously, euthanasia is illegal in the usa (see the kevorkian trial) BUT it is legal for a patients family to decide 2 pull the plug or for the patient 2 order a DNR (do not resucitate)

shoes4rhon Joined Sat 02/02/08 Posts: 3411	Mon 03/03/08 07:51 AM
The cruzans are from my area and some of the bravest and wonderful people I have ever had the pleasure of knowing ..

MyrtleBeachDude Joined Tue 12/18/07 Posts: 4028	Mon 03/03/08 07:51 AM
i know ive spelt that wrong lol do you think its right or wrong?? i think if someone is suffering so bad,for example they had cancer,and was in agony, and they cant bare to live anymore, and there going to die anyway in a short amount of time, why make them suffer anymore.why not let them die in dignity. i know if someone i knew only had a short time left to live,with no cure, and she was in so much pain, i would want her suffering to end and for her to pass with dignity. BUT the person must be able to make that decision thereself, no one else. AND the person who wants to die with dignity must be dieing and theres NO cure for them. what are your opinions on this?? euthanasia is illegal in the uk, is it legal in your country?? Totally agree

debbie1980 Joined Sun 09/09/07 Posts: 20487	Mon 03/03/08 08:11 AM
I am from Missouri and we actually had the original case law ,, her name was nancy curzan .. please remember her she was a great person and brave person.. her family won the right to die case .. I didn't consider her as a case of euthanasia. Do you? Yes , her quality of life was nothing and she won the right to die .. I consider that a form or euthanasia .. She was a very brave person and kudos to her family ... what was wrong with her??? that she had no quality of life?? Sorry Debbie I forget you are not in the US ,, Nancy was in a horrible car accident she could not feed herself , no communication , and laid in a nursing home with a feeding tube no chance to come out of it ,, On January 11, 1983, she lost control of her old car that had no seat belts, was thrown from it and landed face down in a water-filled ditch. Paramedics found her with no vital signs, but they resuscitated her. After a couple weeks of remaining dormant within a coma, she was diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). Surgeons inserted a feeding tube for her long-term care. Her husband and parents waited for a more substantial recovery, but eventually, after four years, accepted that there was no hope. In 1987 her parents asked to have Cruzan's feeding tube removed, but the hospital demanded a court order to that effect.The opinion of the Court states "for purposes of this case, we assume that the United States Constitution would grant a competent person a constitutionally protected right to refuse lifesaving hydration and nutrition" (497 US at 279). (The Court noted that "most state courts have based a right to refuse treatment on the common law right to informed consent ... or on both that right and a constitutional privacy right" 497 US at 262). The Court also held that Missouri was able to require a standard of "clear and convincing evidence" with regard to a person's wishes, and that "the State may properly decline to make judgments about the 'quality' of a particular individual's life and simply assert an unqualified interest in the preservation of human life to be weighed against the constitutionally protected interests of the individual" (497 US at 283). After the US Supreme Court ruling, three close friends of Cruzan came forward with evidence that her wishes expressed when she was competent were that she would want the tube removed. The lower court then ruled this was clear and convincing evidence, and the decision was appealed. so did she die having her feeding tube removed?? or did they end her life??

debbie1980 Joined Sun 09/09/07 Posts: 20487	Mon 03/03/08 08:12 AM
i know ive spelt that wrong lol do you think its right or wrong?? i think if someone is suffering so bad,for example they had cancer,and was in agony, and they cant bare to live anymore, and there going to die anyway in a short amount of time, why make them suffer anymore.why not let them die in dignity. i know if someone i knew only had a short time left to live,with no cure, and she was in so much pain, i would want her suffering to end and for her to pass with dignity. BUT the person must be able to make that decision thereself, no one else. AND the person who wants to die with dignity must be dieing and theres NO cure for them. what are your opinions on this?? euthanasia is illegal in the uk, is it legal in your country?? Totally agree thankyou.

shoes4rhon Joined Sat 02/02/08 Posts: 3411	Mon 03/03/08 08:12 AM
I am from Missouri and we actually had the original case law ,, her name was nancy curzan .. please remember her she was a great person and brave person.. her family won the right to die case .. I didn't consider her as a case of euthanasia. Do you? Yes , her quality of life was nothing and she won the right to die .. I consider that a form or euthanasia .. She was a very brave person and kudos to her family ... what was wrong with her??? that she had no quality of life?? Sorry Debbie I forget you are not in the US ,, Nancy was in a horrible car accident she could not feed herself , no communication , and laid in a nursing home with a feeding tube no chance to come out of it ,, On January 11, 1983, she lost control of her old car that had no seat belts, was thrown from it and landed face down in a water-filled ditch. Paramedics found her with no vital signs, but they resuscitated her. After a couple weeks of remaining dormant within a coma, she was diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). Surgeons inserted a feeding tube for her long-term care. Her husband and parents waited for a more substantial recovery, but eventually, after four years, accepted that there was no hope. In 1987 her parents asked to have Cruzan's feeding tube removed, but the hospital demanded a court order to that effect.The opinion of the Court states "for purposes of this case, we assume that the United States Constitution would grant a competent person a constitutionally protected right to refuse lifesaving hydration and nutrition" (497 US at 279). (The Court noted that "most state courts have based a right to refuse treatment on the common law right to informed consent ... or on both that right and a constitutional privacy right" 497 US at 262). The Court also held that Missouri was able to require a standard of "clear and convincing evidence" with regard to a person's wishes, and that "the State may properly decline to make judgments about the 'quality' of a particular individual's life and simply assert an unqualified interest in the preservation of human life to be weighed against the constitutionally protected interests of the individual" (497 US at 283). After the US Supreme Court ruling, three close friends of Cruzan came forward with evidence that her wishes expressed when she was competent were that she would want the tube removed. The lower court then ruled this was clear and convincing evidence, and the decision was appealed. so did she die having her feeding tube removed?? or did they end her life?? Cruzan's feeding tube was taken out in December 1990. 15 members of Operation Rescue, including a nurse, appeared at the hospital to re-insert the feeding tube, but they were arrested. Cruzan died 11 days later on December 26, 1990. Her father committed suicide in 1996 and her mother died in 1999. Nancy Cruzan had two sisters, Chris and Donna; Chris Cruzan White ran the Cruzan Foundation, a program that assisted others with end-of-life decisions, but closed it in 2004

debbie1980 Joined Sun 09/09/07 Posts: 20487	Mon 03/03/08 08:14 AM
youthinasia? what do i know about them? they live in asia and im in the USA durrrr, silly person seriously, euthanasia is illegal in the usa (see the kevorkian trial) BUT it is legal for a patients family to decide 2 pull the plug or for the patient 2 order a DNR (do not resucitate) so if the person was poorly, and he had a chance of his heart stopping again, and he said he wanted to be resusitated, his family can go against that, and they dont resusciate him.

debbie1980 Joined Sun 09/09/07 Posts: 20487	Mon 03/03/08 08:15 AM
I am from Missouri and we actually had the original case law ,, her name was nancy curzan .. please remember her she was a great person and brave person.. her family won the right to die case .. I didn't consider her as a case of euthanasia. Do you? Yes , her quality of life was nothing and she won the right to die .. I consider that a form or euthanasia .. She was a very brave person and kudos to her family ... what was wrong with her??? that she had no quality of life?? Sorry Debbie I forget you are not in the US ,, Nancy was in a horrible car accident she could not feed herself , no communication , and laid in a nursing home with a feeding tube no chance to come out of it ,, On January 11, 1983, she lost control of her old car that had no seat belts, was thrown from it and landed face down in a water-filled ditch. Paramedics found her with no vital signs, but they resuscitated her. After a couple weeks of remaining dormant within a coma, she was diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). Surgeons inserted a feeding tube for her long-term care. Her husband and parents waited for a more substantial recovery, but eventually, after four years, accepted that there was no hope. In 1987 her parents asked to have Cruzan's feeding tube removed, but the hospital demanded a court order to that effect.The opinion of the Court states "for purposes of this case, we assume that the United States Constitution would grant a competent person a constitutionally protected right to refuse lifesaving hydration and nutrition" (497 US at 279). (The Court noted that "most state courts have based a right to refuse treatment on the common law right to informed consent ... or on both that right and a constitutional privacy right" 497 US at 262). The Court also held that Missouri was able to require a standard of "clear and convincing evidence" with regard to a person's wishes, and that "the State may properly decline to make judgments about the 'quality' of a particular individual's life and simply assert an unqualified interest in the preservation of human life to be weighed against the constitutionally protected interests of the individual" (497 US at 283). After the US Supreme Court ruling, three close friends of Cruzan came forward with evidence that her wishes expressed when she was competent were that she would want the tube removed. The lower court then ruled this was clear and convincing evidence, and the decision was appealed. so did she die having her feeding tube removed?? or did they end her life?? Cruzan's feeding tube was taken out in December 1990. 15 members of Operation Rescue, including a nurse, appeared at the hospital to re-insert the feeding tube, but they were arrested. Cruzan died 11 days later on December 26, 1990. Her father committed suicide in 1996 and her mother died in 1999. Nancy Cruzan had two sisters, Chris and Donna; Chris Cruzan White ran the Cruzan Foundation, a program that assisted others with end-of-life decisions, but closed it in 2004 very sad, but at least she wasnt suffering anymore.

shoes4rhon Joined Sat 02/02/08 Posts: 3411	Mon 03/03/08 08:17 AM
Not only was she suffering , but so was her family .. her father ended up killing himself .. to have a child of the undead must be torturous ..

debbie1980 Joined Sun 09/09/07 Posts: 20487	Mon 03/03/08 08:39 AM
Not only was she suffering , but so was her family .. her father ended up killing himself .. to have a child of the undead must be torturous .. yes your right,