Deaf Twins Going Blind Euthanized

Thirty Bills Unpaid

catefrances wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

I am missing something here. Birth control is a bad thing?

I was thinking more about all the laws about women's reproductive rights.

i was thinking contraception and abortion.

Imagine a movement to ignore contraceptive measures. People are sexual: you won't see abstinence being practiced- you would see a population explosion. The earth can't even sustain the current population let alone this happening.

I can't see this being a good thing.

Then toss in our youth sector all young, stupid and horny: becoming parents at 13/14/15. You think we have problems now with the lack of parenting we have experienced... just wait until this scenario unfolded and reflect on the state of society.

Contraception is a really, really good thing. I can't fathom why someone would think differently?

Last-12-Exit

Good for them. They went out when/how they wanted.

USARAY

"Death is no more than passing from one room into another. But there's a difference for me, you know. Because in that other room I shall be able to see."

Helen Keller

Hugh Freaking Dillon

how awful for their parents.

JonnyPistachio

What an unusual case. Makes me wonder - If they were determined to die, would they have done it themselves if the doctor option wasnt available?

Zoso

unless someone is seriously ill/sick with a disease to something that is terminal or something that seriously hinder's their life I'm not in favor of this.. if it can be proven someone's quality of life is SO POOR they can barely function then I'm in favor.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Zoso wrote:

unless someone is seriously ill/sick with a disease to something that is terminal or something that seriously hinder's their life I'm not in favor of this.. if it can be proven someone's quality of life is SO POOR they can barely function then I'm in favor.

that's too subjective to be proven by anyone. my wife's two aunts are blind and extremely sickly from malaria, have been for years, both nuns in africa. they couldn't be happier with the choices they made (being that religious helps I'm sure).

hedonist

Zoso wrote:

unless someone is seriously ill/sick with a disease to something that is terminal or something that seriously hinder's their life I'm not in favor of this.. if it can be proven someone's quality of life is SO POOR they can barely function then I'm in favor.

I think quality of life is subjective, though. And it sort of ties in to JP's question up there as well...

I wonder...we treat our our animals with kindness and humaneness by determining their life has become more painful than pleasurable for them, and then do what we feel is right for them.

How can we not afford OURSELVES that option, by our own choice? Even if not by our own hand?

Jeanwah

hedonist wrote:

Zoso wrote:

unless someone is seriously ill/sick with a disease to something that is terminal or something that seriously hinder's their life I'm not in favor of this.. if it can be proven someone's quality of life is SO POOR they can barely function then I'm in favor.

I think quality of life is subjective, though. And it sort of ties in to JP's question up there as well...

I wonder...we treat our our animals with kindness and humaneness by determining their life has become more painful than pleasurable for them, and then do what we feel is right for them.

How can we not afford OURSELVES that option, by our own choice? Even if not by our own hand?

But these guys weren't blind yet. They weren't suffering. And who knows what their health was like. They could have had no other health problems. I don't know, but it seems unethical.

We also put our beloved animals down for a final rest when they are sick or badly injured. My grandparents actually had a dog that was blind and deaf and continued to live for 2 years before dying.

Last-12-Exit

Zoso wrote:

unless someone is seriously ill/sick with a disease to something that is terminal or something that seriously hinder's their life I'm not in favor of this.. if it can be proven someone's quality of life is SO POOR they can barely function then I'm in favor.

Nobody should have to prove that they are miserable or suffering. To anyone. I understand suicide is a horrific tragedy that can be avoided in many cases. I know the pain it brings to the family and friends left behind. But ultimately, its an individuals choice to die if he/she feels they can't live thru whatever it is they are dealing with.

Jeanwah

Last-12-Exit wrote:

Zoso wrote:

unless someone is seriously ill/sick with a disease to something that is terminal or something that seriously hinder's their life I'm not in favor of this.. if it can be proven someone's quality of life is SO POOR they can barely function then I'm in favor.

Nobody should have to prove that they are miserable or suffering. To anyone. I understand suicide is a horrific tragedy that can be avoided in many cases. I know the pain it brings to the family and friends left behind. But ultimately, its an individuals choice to die if he/she feels they can't live thru whatever it is they are dealing with.

Cowardly move, in my opinion, sorry. I don't feel sorry for anyone who commits suicide if they are not sick.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Jeanwah wrote:

Cowardly move, in my opinion, sorry. I don't feel sorry for anyone who commits suicide if they are not sick.

this deaf/blind situation aside, being mentally ill IS sick.

Jeanwah

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

Cowardly move, in my opinion, sorry. I don't feel sorry for anyone who commits suicide if they are not sick.

this deaf/blind situation aside, being mentally ill IS sick.

True. But I was thinking more terminal. Those who are suicidal from mental illness can be helped.

hedonist

Jeanwah wrote:

hedonist wrote:

I think quality of life is subjective, though. And it sort of ties in to JP's question up there as well...

I wonder...we treat our our animals with kindness and humaneness by determining their life has become more painful than pleasurable for them, and then do what we feel is right for them.

How can we not afford OURSELVES that option, by our own choice? Even if not by our own hand?

But these guys weren't blind yet. They weren't suffering. And who knows what their health was like. They could have had no other health problems. I don't know, but it seems unethical.

We also put our beloved animals down for a final rest when they are sick or badly injured. My grandparents actually had a dog that was blind and deaf and continued to live for 2 years before dying.

Maybe this is a bad analogy, but a family member of mine is going in for a double-mastectomy later this month due to her family history and a recent doctor's visit. Some might say she should wait to see what happens further before taking such a drastic step, but it's her prerogative to not take that chance.

Again, not the best comparison, but maybe these men didn't want to wait until they were fully blind (I too don't know what their health was like or how far along their sight failure was). If I were diagnosed with ALS or Alzheimers, I wouldn't want to reach a certain point on that awful road; I would want the ability to choose not to live that way.

(that said, I've seen through your posts & your experiences how you value life )

Hugh Freaking Dillon

hedonist wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

hedonist wrote:

I think quality of life is subjective, though. And it sort of ties in to JP's question up there as well...

I wonder...we treat our our animals with kindness and humaneness by determining their life has become more painful than pleasurable for them, and then do what we feel is right for them.

How can we not afford OURSELVES that option, by our own choice? Even if not by our own hand?

But these guys weren't blind yet. They weren't suffering. And who knows what their health was like. They could have had no other health problems. I don't know, but it seems unethical.

We also put our beloved animals down for a final rest when they are sick or badly injured. My grandparents actually had a dog that was blind and deaf and continued to live for 2 years before dying.

Maybe this is a bad analogy, but a family member of mine is going in for a double-mastectomy later this month due to her family history and a recent doctor's visit. Some might say she should wait to see what happens further before taking such a drastic step, but it's her prerogative to not take that chance.

Again, not the best comparison, but maybe these men didn't want to wait until they were fully blind (I too don't know what their health was like or how far along their sight failure was). If I were diagnosed with ALS or Alzheimers, I wouldn't want to reach a certain point on that awful road; I would want the ability to choose not to live that way.

(that said, I've seen through your posts & your experiences how you value life )

but these two aren't in any physical pain or discomfort. there are many people out there that are deaf and blind.

JonnyPistachio

You guys that are against this, are you more upset with the doctor involved or the patient's decision?

Reason I ask is a reflection on my earlier post:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

What an unusual case. Makes me wonder - If they were determined to die, would they have done it themselves if the doctor option wasnt available?

If they are set on ending their lives, (If I were a friend or family member) i'd rather they had the option to do it medically as opposed to a gun, noose, pills, or bridge. (Im not saying I agree with it, btw, just trying to imagine if it had a more immediate impact on me how I'd react)

hedonist

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

but these two aren't in any physical pain or discomfort. there are many people out there that are deaf and blind.

And I'd say kudos to those people if they're happy in their lives. Who knows what kind of discomfort these two would live with upon losing their sight?

I just think it's their right to make that choice for themselves.

Last-12-Exit

hedonist wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

but these two aren't in any physical pain or discomfort. there are many people out there that are deaf and blind.

And I'd say kudos to those people if they're happy in their lives. Who knows what kind of discomfort these two would live with upon losing their sight?

I just think it's their right to make that choice for themselves.

+1

Jeanwah

hedonist wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

hedonist wrote:

I think quality of life is subjective, though. And it sort of ties in to JP's question up there as well...

I wonder...we treat our our animals with kindness and humaneness by determining their life has become more painful than pleasurable for them, and then do what we feel is right for them.

How can we not afford OURSELVES that option, by our own choice? Even if not by our own hand?

But these guys weren't blind yet. They weren't suffering. And who knows what their health was like. They could have had no other health problems. I don't know, but it seems unethical.

We also put our beloved animals down for a final rest when they are sick or badly injured. My grandparents actually had a dog that was blind and deaf and continued to live for 2 years before dying.

Maybe this is a bad analogy, but a family member of mine is going in for a double-mastectomy later this month due to her family history and a recent doctor's visit. Some might say she should wait to see what happens further before taking such a drastic step, but it's her prerogative to not take that chance.

Again, not the best comparison, but maybe these men didn't want to wait until they were fully blind (I too don't know what their health was like or how far along their sight failure was). If I were diagnosed with ALS or Alzheimers, I wouldn't want to reach a certain point on that awful road; I would want the ability to choose not to live that way.

(that said, I've seen through your posts & your experiences how you value life )

A double mastectomy isn't ending her life though. It's just such a concrete end, the idea to choose euthanasia. I just think that using it as a way out, it should be used when there are no other hopeful options. I had a friend who lived for 5 years after getting a stage 4 breast cancer diagnosis. Wouldn't you know that she used that sad news to live it up while she could, knowing that time was limited.

Although yes, I do value life more than ever since I almost lost it, I also am not afraid of death because I dealt with coming so close to it. Still, to choose death over life, when one's healthy enough to live, it just doesn't make any sense to me.

Jeanwah

hedonist wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

but these two aren't in any physical pain or discomfort. there are many people out there that are deaf and blind.

And I'd say kudos to those people if they're happy in their lives. Who knows what kind of discomfort these two would live with upon losing their sight?

I just think it's their right to make that choice for themselves.

Because they have no idea what kind of discomfort they would have experienced, makes it all the more strange and somewhat of an easy way out. They didn't have a death sentence. For all of those who are in endless pain and are terminal, and don't have the option of euthanasia, this story just seems all the more ridiculous.