Israelis to be allowed euthanasia by machine

[Thom Little]

Machines will perform euthanasia on terminally ill patients in Israel under legislation devised not to offend Jewish law, which forbids people taking human life. A special timer will be fitted to a patient's respirator which will sound an alarm 12 hours before turning it off.

Normally, carers would override the alarm and keep the respirator turned on but, if various stringent conditions are met, including the giving of consent by the patient or legal guardian, the alarm would not be overridden.

Similar timing devices, known as Sabbath clocks, are used in the homes of orthodox Jews so that light switches and electrical devices can be turned on during the Sabbath without offending religious strictures.

.......

"The point was that it is wrong, under Jewish law, for a person's life to be taken by a person but, for a machine, it is acceptable," a parliamentary spokesman said. "A man would not be able to shorten human life but a machine can."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/08/weuth08.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/12/08/ixworld.html

[Chicago Democrat]

1. Insane logic, but ok

fine I guess

[madeline_con]

2. O.K. a person can build a machine to kill you....

so that a person doesn't dirty their hands killing you.


Utter genius. :sarcasm:


EDIT: BTW, are geriatrics clogging up the kibbutzim?

[AlienGirl]

15. "Are geriatrics cluttering up the kibbutzim?" WOW...just...WOW.

I would really like to know why you think that this is about people thinking the elderly are inconvenient, rather than about people in pain being allowed to end their suffering. Do you have this same reaction to Jack Kevorkian? Are all the old people in Oregon cluttering up the vinyards, and that's why Oregon passed a death-with-dignity law?

Tucker

[madeline_con]

16. The whole thing's absurd....

We wouldn't want to "offend God" by helping end a life (let's not use the word "kill" when referring to full-term people), so we build a machine to do what we don't have the balls to stand and do in person.

Do you not see how ridiculous this sounds?

BTW, the geriatric comment was sarcasm. Here, if this helps... :sarcasm: :)

[AlienGirl]

22. What was it supposed to be sarcasm of, exactly? nt

[madeline_con]

23. I can't be blamed if you don't get it.

Sorry.

[VegasWolf]

3. Religious fanaticism. Low tech method is to just use a gun. nt

[AlienGirl]

13. And who will have to clean up the mess?

If you were dying and in pain, would you want to shoot yourself indoors where a family member would have to wipe up your blood and brains? Or should painless suicide be available only to people well enough to walk into the woods with their gun?

Tucker

[madeline_con]

17. Someone could carrry them to the woods. n/t

[VegasWolf]

4. Machine coming to a QuickeeMart near you soon! nt

[Warpy]

5. Here we call it terminal weaning

and sedate the patients before the ventilator is shut down and the tube removed. I can imagine that thing going off and nobody attending to it and a patient who may be conscious on some level dying of suffocation.

Thanks but no thanks, although I do understand the logic of not wanting to dirty one's hands by shutting machinery off so one's god can claim what is his.

[Pavulon]

6. Damn

For a progressive board..

For Example, If I am dying of bone cancer I would like the legal option available to my pets, to die by medical method. The pink stuff is a good option.

I'd prefer not to blow my brains out for my family to find.

Jesus.

edit:clarification

[GrumpyGreg]

8. I'm with you----my dogs went out easier than my mother.

[Pavulon]

9. People

Do not understand this until they live through it. I am sorry for your loss.

Every person who can make a sound end of life decision should have the choice to end their own life.

[GrumpyGreg]

14. I'm old myself and believe me I have thought a lot about this.

I have a living will and do not want to hang on,and on,and on----well,you get the point.

[sendero]

10. I'm completely for the right..

.. of a person to end their own life. However, it is the absurdist nonsense that the "machine" is doing it so there is no violation of religious strictures I find objectionable.

Sorry to hear of your illness.

[Pavulon]

21. No Prob.

I don't have an illness, thankfully. I am sorry it came off that way.
I used that illness as an example because it is a terrible way to die. Personal choice over your life is important.

Religion is touchy but any practice that doesn't cause a negative effect to others (like most religion) is ok by me.

[Poll_Blind]

7. "...for a machine, it is acceptable." How disgustingly telling. n/t

PB

[AlienGirl]

11. Telling of what, exactly?

I am in favor of people in pain, with no other options, being allowed to end their lives. This is a way to do so without the patient committing the act of suicide *or* the doctor committing the act of killing a person.

Tucker

[UncleSepp]

19. Telling of what?

What's that supposed to tell?

[rockymountaindem]

12. For all you people mocking this, Judaism gives a lot of thought to this

Try googling Judaism + euthanasia. You'll find a lot of information, a lot of it probably contradictory because there are so many branches of Judaism. Many Jews believe that once treatment has begun, it should not be stopped, but we can decline to begin treatment and let someone die. This is a compromise solution that tries to remove as much of the human component as possible.

"Blowing your brains out" is generally considered a sin in Judaism with only a few exceptions for mental disturbances. Physical pain is not considered reason enough to simply kill oneself. Thus, having a machine do it for you may make some people feel more comfortable with it. I don't see why supposed liberals would be so harsh about letting people die peacefully while still satisfying his or her ethics just to get in more digs at religion.

[madeline_con]

18. I respect your postiton, but....

I have a problem with the idea that no human hand has a part in it, when the machine is built for the sole purpose of euthanasia.

They need to face the reality of what the device is, and what it's used for. To pretend it's o.k. because the builder doesn't actually hand the person pills or a gun is ridiculous, IMO.

[AlienGirl]

20. Then, no, you don't respect rockymountaindem's position

You think his position is absurd and ridiculous. Saying, "I respect your position but it's ridiculous" is not respect; it's condescension.

Tucker

[madeline_con]

24. Perhaps, like my sarcasm, you misunderstand this poster, also.

I'm sorry if someone you know is in pain and wants to die, but pretending a machine someone builds somehow takes all human responsibility out of it is less that intelligent, IMO. I'm still entitled to one, even if you don't share it, right?

[AlienGirl]

25. You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to be unopposed

Jewish law is a complex field, and I should not have been surprised that you don't "get" it.

Tucker

[madeline_con]

26. Jewish law is not complex in this case.

Like any other religious group whose beliefs no longer provide for their desires, they go about circumventing them.

It's been going on since religion was invented. I'm surprised you don't get that.

[rockymountaindem]

28. On the contrary

This is not circumventing the law. The law, as many accept it, is that people cannot discontinue treatment. If some who wish to die think that allowing a machine (programmed by humans as it may be) to do the job provides a satisfactory level of separation from human interferance, that's up to them. Judaism allows for a lot of leeway for personal interpretation. It might not satisfy all, but if it satisfies some, that's the idea.

[madeline_con]

29. ".... as many accept it ..."

Isn't this another way of saying "as interpreted by them"?

IOW, whatever fits into a person's belief system. It's been going since someone decided there was a God.

It's still invented, built and used by humans to put humans to death. I don't think the reality should be denied, and the pretense that a God who'd be offended would find this acceptable is absurd.

It's just a rewrite of the belief to fit the circumstance.

I have no qualm with euthanasia. Denying what is being done is where the problem lies.

[AlienGirl]

30. It's not about offending God

It's a legal point regarding responsibility for the death. The machine creates a situation where no person is responsible for the death; and since a machine is not subject to the law, there is no breach of the law.

Tucker

[madeline_con]

31. From the original post...

"Similar timing devices, known as Sabbath clocks, are used in the homes of orthodox Jews so that light switches and electrical devices can be turned on during the Sabbath without offending religious strictures."

So, God has nothing to do with these supposed "religious strictures"?

[AlienGirl]

32. It's like asking if speeding offends the State Legislature. nt

[madeline_con]

33. If you need a Sabbath clock....

whose law are you worried about breaking? I seriously doubt it's the State Legislature.

For crisakes, believe humans have nothing to do with euthanising other humans if you want to. Whatever blows your skirt up.

[leesa]

27. This will screw with the heads of the pro-Israel Fundie Christians

They KNEW there was a reason they needed to slaughter all the non-converted Jews in Jerusalem prior to the Rapture!

[daleo]

34. Suppose fundamentalist Christians came up with this idea

Most of us here would say they were just kidding themselves about there being no human involvement in the death. But, I guess it leads to a humane conclusion (ending futile suffering at the end of life), and that's what is important.