Compulsory Euthanasia

joona · Post by **joona** » Sun Aug 23, 2009 6:34 am

We all know the classical discussion about euthanasia. What I find interesting though, is COMPULSORY euthanasia. Should there be compulsory euthanasia on psychiatric units? A lot of mentally unstable people are contributing less to the society than they recieve. For instance, a schizophrenic patient needs expensive medicine and in many western countries, in Europe and America, there is government subsidies to medicine. Along with that many mentally ill patients recieve disability benefits, and they need specialized educational facilities. There is no doubt about the high expenses on mentally ill people.

The question though lies in: How should we deal with it? I am imaginging the following: Psychiatric hospitals could imitate the american prison system; In America, the prisons can be low security, high security, maximum security and death row. The psychiatric hospitals could be examination units, open units, closed units and "euthanasia unit". When a mentally ill patient is confined to a psychiatric hospital, the patient is then placed in the examination unit. The patient is examined for mental illness, and how long he or she has been sick. Treatment is provided and if the patient needs life-long treatment, the patient will be judged by a special Psychiatric Court that will have the power to sentence the patient to euthanasia. The patient can appeal the sentence, and but is placed in the Euthanasia Unit, where other patients await for their euthanasia.

When the patient's appeals run out, and it is time for euthanasia, the patient is then given high doses of sedatives/anti-anxiety medince in the hours before his/her euthanasia. Then the patient is led to the euthanasia room, where he/she is strapped to the gurney, and needles are inserted into the patient's arms. A coma is first induced by intravenous administration of 20 mg/kg sodium thiopental (Nesdonal) in a small volume (10 ml physiological saline). To ensure that the patient is completely at sleep, brain monitoring is required. When a doctor confirms that the patient is sleeping, then a triple intravenous dose of a non-depolarizing neuromuscular muscle relaxant is given, such as 20 mg pancuronium bromide (Pavulon) or 20 mg vecuronium bromide (Norcuron). The muscle relaxant should preferably be given intravenously, in order to ensure optimal availability. Only for pancuronium bromide (Pavulon) are there substantial indications that the agent may also be given intramuscularly in a dosage of 40 mg.

Any thoughts?

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sun Aug 23, 2009 6:46 am

Disgusting. What's to keep a government from escallating this idea to include physically disabled people, political prisoners and finally anyone deemed undesirable? Seems like this has already been tried.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Sun Aug 23, 2009 7:24 am

Yes its disgusting and Joona, by the looks of it you've given this far too much thought than is healthy

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Aug 23, 2009 7:43 am

That was my thoughts too Snowfire.

Joona can I ask if you pull legs off spiders ?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Aug 23, 2009 8:49 am

joona;1233535 wrote: We all know the classical discussion about euthanasia. What I find interesting though, is COMPULSORY euthanasia. Should there be compulsory euthanasia on psychiatric units?
I didn't read beyond this point. Do you really find it interesting to contemplate a society that places greater or lesser value on people to the point it actually decides who has a right to live and who should die? Sorry, that's not a society I could stomach.

eta: I just checked and Joona only posts in his own threads anyway. Apparently he's a bomb thrower. Good mental exercise, imo.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Sun Aug 23, 2009 9:52 am

No. I do not live in the movie Logan's Run or Solyent Green. I live in the real world.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Aug 23, 2009 10:59 am

Accountable;1233562 wrote:

I just checked and Joona only posts in his own threads anyway. Apparently he's a bomb thrower. Good mental exercise, imo.

Apparently capitalists are parasites too.

Twizzle stick, was it you said ?

Got to agree, a good reason never to put too many of your details out on forums.

Kathy Ellen · Post by **Kathy Ellen** » Sun Aug 23, 2009 11:15 am

Bruv;1233581 wrote: Apparently capitalists are parasites too.

Twizzle stick, was it you said ?

Got to agree, a good reason never to put too many of your details out on forums.

Sorry Bruv, What does this mean...twizzle stick...What is that in reference to, may I ask. Thanks

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Sun Aug 23, 2009 11:28 am

joona;1233535 wrote: We all know the classical discussion about euthanasia. What I find interesting though, is COMPULSORY euthanasia. Should there be compulsory euthanasia on psychiatric units? A lot of mentally unstable people are contributing less to the society than they recieve. For instance, a schizophrenic patient needs expensive medicine and in many western countries, in Europe and America, there is government subsidies to medicine. Along with that many mentally ill patients recieve disability benefits, and they need specialized educational facilities. There is no doubt about the high expenses on mentally ill people.

:-2

Yea, Why not?

And while We're at it lets euthanize cancer victims, the elderly, dialysis patients, Bronchitics,

oh and let's not forget the old chestnut the obese and people that smoke! :rolleyes:

You dont happen to be related to a Nazi dictator with a funny tash by any chance?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Aug 23, 2009 11:34 am

Sorry Bruv, What does this mean...twizzle stick...What is that in reference to, may I ask. Thanks
Sorry Kathy Ellen I followed Accountable's lead and searched joona's posts.

I just checked and Joona only posts in his own threads anyway. Apparently he's a bomb thrower. Good mental exercise, imo.

I may have got it wrong, it might have been Swizzle stick or similar, Accountable's words in answer to one of joona's posts.

Hope that makes it clear, I might have confused myself though.

Kathy Ellen · Post by **Kathy Ellen** » Sun Aug 23, 2009 11:42 am

Thanks Bruv,

I think that Joona is probably the only member who is enjoying his own threads

kazalala · Post by **kazalala** » Sun Aug 23, 2009 11:54 am

chonsigirl;1233565 wrote: No. I do not live in the movie Logan's Run or Solyent Green. I live in the real world.

:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Aug 23, 2009 12:25 pm

Kathy Ellen;1233591 wrote: Sorry Bruv, What does this mean...twizzle stick...What is that in reference to, may I ask. Thanks

Bruv;1233609 wrote: Sorry Kathy Ellen I followed Accountable's lead and searched joona's posts.

I may have got it wrong, it might have been Swizzle stick or similar, Accountable's words in answer to one of joona's posts.

Hope that makes it clear, I might have confused myself though.
Yes, it's swizzle stick. It's a stick for stirring.

Kathy Ellen · Post by **Kathy Ellen** » Sun Aug 23, 2009 12:32 pm

Bruv;1233609 wrote: Sorry Kathy Ellen I followed Accountable's lead and searched joona's posts.

I may have got it wrong, it might have been Swizzle stick or similar, Accountable's words in answer to one of joona's posts.

Hope that makes it clear, I might have confused myself though.

Thanks Acct. Thought that's what you meant. He certainly is a pot stirrer, and I think everyone has his number:)

joona · Post by **joona** » Sun Aug 23, 2009 1:20 pm

Snowfire;1233546 wrote: Yes its disgusting and Joona, by the looks of it you've given this far too much thought than is healthy

Please explain.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Aug 23, 2009 1:49 pm

joona;1233631 wrote: Please explain.

Dwelling on such morbid subjects is psychologically unhealthy.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Sun Aug 23, 2009 2:22 pm

joona;1233631 wrote: Please explain.

Not only have you considered the concept of compulsory euthanasia, you explained the methods and paraphanalia that you would imagine would do the job to your satisfaction. I presume that, with that much detail, you approve, nay, relish the prospect of this barbarism becoming reality.

It makes my flesh creep that people would even consider it.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Aug 23, 2009 2:33 pm

I am profiling joona in my mind now.

Adolescent sitting at a PC screen in a darkened room.

Wearing denim and thick soled boots with a camouflage cap pulled down over his face to hide the acne.A heavy cloying odour of teen smell permeates the untidy room

Almost as frightening as his thoughts ?

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sun Aug 23, 2009 2:44 pm

I may be wrong but I believe that most of us while we have all our mental faculties would opt for the discontinuation of our own lives if we were schizophrenic and had been repeatedly imprisoned or hospitalized for crimes committed while in a schizophrenic state and requiring continual medication. I am talking about the extreme cases where there is no chance of this person being of benefit to society or themselves and requiring ongoing incarceration or hospitalization of some kind. I really don't feel that society has the responsibility to merely keep someone alive because it makes society feel better and give the illusion of humanitarianism. After all, don't we put down our animals for far less?

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Sun Aug 23, 2009 2:52 pm

Lon;1233673 wrote: I may be wrong but I believe that most of us while we have all our mental faculties would opt for the discontinuation of our own lives if we were schizophrenic and had been repeatedly imprisoned or hospitalized for crimes committed while in a schizophrenic state and requiring continual medication. I am talking about the extreme cases where there is no chance of this person being of benefit to society or themselves and requiring ongoing incarceration or hospitalization of some kind. I really don't feel that society has the responsibility to merely keep someone alive because it makes society feel better and give the illusion of humanitarianism. After all, don't we put down our animals for far less?

Two different scenarios. Those that are terminally ill, in perminant pain and choose to die for various reasons, is one thing. Putting to death those that do not conform to our perfect parameters is another.

Besides, we are surrounded by people who contribute nothing to society. That's what scrounging layabouts do best.....or dont do.

What Joona is proposing is the sort of thing Dr Mengele turned his hand to. I think someone ought to check the contents of Joona's medicine cabinet

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Aug 23, 2009 2:52 pm

Many people make 'Living Wills' so they will never have their lives sustained in the event of some catastrophic illness or accident.

But that's not the same as 'pruning' less than perfect individuals because they are troublesome.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sun Aug 23, 2009 3:58 pm

Snowfire;1233674 wrote: Two different scenarios. Those that are terminally ill, in perminant pain and choose to die for various reasons, is one thing. Putting to death those that do not conform to our perfect parameters is another.

Besides, we are surrounded by people who contribute nothing to society. That's what scrounging layabouts do best.....or dont do.

What Joona is proposing is the sort of thing Dr Mengele turned his hand to. I think someone ought to check the contents of Joona's medicine cabinet

I reread Joona's post and am not sure that I disagree with her (him). You need to read more history re: Mengele. Mengele was into medical experimentation and although many of his patients died, that was not the purpose of his actions. From a very practical and humane standpoint there are many on this planet that should be euthanized, OR, do you prefer continually seeing thousands of malnourished African children with flies swarming in and out of their mouths who you know will be dead very shortly?I still submit that we treat animals more humanely than we do human beings.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Aug 23, 2009 5:58 pm

Lon;1233673 wrote: I may be wrong but I believe that most of us while we have all our mental faculties would opt for the discontinuation of our own lives if we were schizophrenic and had been repeatedly imprisoned or hospitalized for crimes committed while in a schizophrenic state and requiring continual medication. I am talking about the extreme cases where there is no chance of this person being of benefit to society or themselves and requiring ongoing incarceration or hospitalization of some kind. I really don't feel that society has the responsibility to merely keep someone alive because it makes society feel better and give the illusion of humanitarianism. After all, don't we put down our animals for far less?
You very well may be right, but I'm not willing to guess that a person would probably want us to kill him/her if he/she were able to tell us ... and act on that guess. That's way too close to other situations such as "That retarded person would probably be suicidal if he knew what a sad case he is. We should honor that."

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sun Aug 23, 2009 7:33 pm

Accountable;1233721 wrote: You very well may be right, but I'm not willing to guess that a person would probably want us to kill him/her if he/she were able to tell us ... and act on that guess. That's way too close to other situations such as "That retarded person would probably be suicidal if he knew what a sad case he is. We should honor that."

Let me try something here ACC.-------Let's say that you and yours were part of a World Population comprising 20 % that was in jeopardy of dying due to the other 80% consisting of non functioning people that needed your resources to sustain themselves. And, let's say that the 20% had the capability to eliminate the 80%. Could you be a part in that elimination?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:54 am

Lon;1233727 wrote: Let me try something here ACC.-------Let's say that you and yours were part of a World Population comprising 20 % that was in jeopardy of dying due to the other 80% consisting of non functioning people that needed your resources to sustain themselves. And, let's say that the 20% had the capability to eliminate the 80%. Could you be a part in that elimination?
Sure. Pushed to extremes any human is capable of murder, of course. Is that what you're getting at? We're hardly there. Nobody's going to die if we don't start euthanizing those who are in situations we would hypothetically find unacceptable.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 7:08 am

Accountable;1233762 wrote: Sure. Pushed to extremes any human is capable of murder, of course. Is that what you're getting at? ..

My example of course was at the extreme, but what I am talking about is survival, and what I am getting at is that there are some that when threatened with a loss of life, less food, lower quality of life etc., are not willing to share in a reduced standard of living so that ALL may survive on a sub standard basis. Murder?? Some might see it as survival, and while realistically we are a long way from that point there are others that will want to take steps to preempt that point from ever coming about.

ZAP · Post by **ZAP** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 7:36 am

chonsigirl;1233565 wrote: No. I do not live in the movie Logan's Run or Solyent Green. I live in the real world.

Shades of Soylent Green! If we were deemed inadequate, could we someday become food for the stronger, more useful, more desirable?

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 7:53 am

Zapata;1233794 wrote: Shades of Soylent Green! If we were deemed inadequate, could we someday become food for the stronger, more useful, more desirable?

No question about it---------------just look at this century's examples of cannibalism among so called civilized people.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:10 am

I'm fine with compulsory euthanasia as long as I choose who lives and who dies. Wouldn't trust anyone else.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 1:33 pm

This is one of those subjects, isn't it. There are strong arguments for and against euthanising someone without their prior agreement. Somewhere along the way, animals come into the discussion too and I notice that their is invariably a presumption that animals are not given the same right to 'suffer'.

The simple answer, in my mind, is to allow the affected person's closest next of kin to decide. No one will know the person better than that person.

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 1:38 pm

OpenMind;1233895 wrote: This is one of those subjects, isn't it. There are strong arguments for and against euthanising someone without their prior agreement. Somewhere along the way, animals come into the discussion too and I notice that their is invariably a presumption that animals are not given the same right to 'suffer'.

The simple answer, in my mind, is to allow the affected person's closest next of kin to decide. No one will know the person better than that person.

... particularly if the soon-to-be-euthanised person is rich and you're the beneficiary...?????

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 1:46 pm

AussiePam;1233896 wrote: ... particularly if the soon-to-be-euthanised person is rich and you're the beneficiary...?????

Give me one reason why not. If the afflicted person is in no position to enjoy it, why not? If the afflicted person wasn't afflicted but died anyway, this person would get the money anyway. This is why the process has become so depressingly complicated, because someone might get some money out of it.

Or, the afflicted person might be hated by the next of kin. Then death would be a mercy.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 1:50 pm

joona;1233535 wrote: We all know the classical discussion about euthanasia. What I find interesting though, is COMPULSORY euthanasia. Should there be compulsory euthanasia on psychiatric units?

Any thoughts?

An absolute no-no.

Over and above the moral and ethical reasons Hoppy has cut to the heart of the practical problems.

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:21 pm

There are a lot of mental illnesses. Most are pretty scary particularly for the sufferer. Most of them do not involve criminality. Some improve to the point where a sufferer is able to resume a relatively normal life. Some seem to get worse. Research and treatment, like with other medical conditions, are progressing. In other words, someone you euthanise today, may have become a contributing citizen tomorrow.

Why single out mental illness? Why not physical illness too? It may be a bit less threatening - but a long term cancer patient who is stubbornly clinging to life - should he or she be compulsorily euthanised?

The elderly - past contributing to society - say everyone over 70, should they too be compulsorily euthanised?

I think that there have been times when those who slowed down the tribe were jettisoned, so that the others could survive. Are we suggesting a return to this?

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:24 pm

The elderly are those who retain knowledge that need to be passed down to future generations. Without them, many things would be forgotten. Everything is not contained within a stainless steel world.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:31 pm

I think that there have been times when those who slowed down the tribe were jettisoned, so that the others could survive. Are we suggesting a return to this?

If climate change works out as predicted, it's going to happen. And worse.

I don't "approve" of it, but as Accountable said somewhere, most of us can be pushed to murder if the situation is right (or wrong) enough.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 3:21 pm

I think that there have been times when those who slowed down the tribe were jettisoned, so that the others could survive. Are we suggesting a return to this?

Why not? The idea that if some suffer, all should suffer does not make sense to me.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 3:35 pm

There are many ways that individuals contribute to society for the good of all and paying taxes is just one of them. There are some that drain societies resources and when they become disproportionate to the total, the contributors will seek their elimination rather than see their quality of life deteriorate.

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 3:45 pm

People have always managed to find some justification for killing other people who are somehow in the way of their agendas. This troll type thread is, I suppose only suggesting making such killing a bit more respectable, and therefore acceptable. And yet the need for this justification presupposes some inner human distaste for killing our own species.

It's easy to enter the survivalist fantasy beloved of many FGers - alone in the world gun in hand, protectingt ourselves and our families against governments we disapprove of, other people, aliens... etc etc..

But this OP isn't about that. It's about giving someone - ???the Government??? - the right to terminate any of us, if we're considered liabilities - by them. It's about extending institutionalised murder - though that loaded word would of course be sanitised and euthanased into 'gifting sleep' or 'granting peace' etc.

Consider this: The American Government decides that smoking is not only socially evil and a health hazard to the pure, but is costing the country vast sums in health care, lost productivity etc etc - so the American Euthanasia Authority (AEA) is given the go ahead to permanently clear the air.

If not the Government... then WHO decides whether Accountable, Lon, Pam lives or dies??????????? Note, that we have no say in this. It's involuntary!!! And fairly final.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 3:48 pm

Lon;1233941 wrote: I think that there have been times when those who slowed down the tribe were jettisoned, so that the others could survive. Are we suggesting a return to this?

Why not? The idea that if some suffer, all should suffer does not make sense to me.

You have been fortunate then, Lon. Under these ideas, my husband would be first in line to the Killing Field.

I know you must have seen varying examples during your years as a doctor. Has there not been a time when that extra time and effort paid off, and the patient recovered against all odds?

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 3:50 pm

joona;1233535 wrote: We all know the classical discussion about euthanasia. What I find interesting though, is COMPULSORY euthanasia. Should there be compulsory euthanasia on psychiatric units? A lot of mentally unstable people are contributing less to the society than they recieve. For instance, a schizophrenic patient needs expensive medicine and in many western countries, in Europe and America, there is government subsidies to medicine. Along with that many mentally ill patients recieve disability benefits, and they need specialized educational facilities. There is no doubt about the high expenses on mentally ill people.

The question though lies in: How should we deal with it? I am imaginging the following: Psychiatric hospitals could imitate the american prison system; In America, the prisons can be low security, high security, maximum security and death row. The psychiatric hospitals could be examination units, open units, closed units and "euthanasia unit". When a mentally ill patient is confined to a psychiatric hospital, the patient is then placed in the examination unit. The patient is examined for mental illness, and how long he or she has been sick. Treatment is provided and if the patient needs life-long treatment, the patient will be judged by a special Psychiatric Court that will have the power to sentence the patient to euthanasia. The patient can appeal the sentence, and but is placed in the Euthanasia Unit, where other patients await for their euthanasia.

When the patient's appeals run out, and it is time for euthanasia, the patient is then given high doses of sedatives/anti-anxiety medince in the hours before his/her euthanasia. Then the patient is led to the euthanasia room, where he/she is strapped to the gurney, and needles are inserted into the patient's arms. A coma is first induced by intravenous administration of 20 mg/kg sodium thiopental (Nesdonal) in a small volume (10 ml physiological saline). To ensure that the patient is completely at sleep, brain monitoring is required. When a doctor confirms that the patient is sleeping, then a triple intravenous dose of a non-depolarizing neuromuscular muscle relaxant is given, such as 20 mg pancuronium bromide (Pavulon) or 20 mg vecuronium bromide (Norcuron). The muscle relaxant should preferably be given intravenously, in order to ensure optimal availability. Only for pancuronium bromide (Pavulon) are there substantial indications that the agent may also be given intramuscularly in a dosage of 40 mg.

Any thoughts?

so you've described the American system of Justice ..well done Hoorah ....next.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 3:51 pm

Have some Champers on me, my dear Pammie.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 4:39 pm

chonsigirl;1233961 wrote: Why not? The idea that if some suffer, all should suffer does not make sense to me.

You have been fortunate then, Lon. Under these ideas, my husband would be first in line to the Killing Field.

I know you must have seen varying examples during your years as a doctor. Has there not been a time when that extra time and effort paid off, and the patient recovered against all odds?

Umm--I am not and never have been a doctor (costume party pic?) I am however a Prostate Cancer Survivor (18 Years ago) and in 2007 was diagnosed with a rare blood cancer (Waldenstrom's Disease). I am fortunate that at my present age of 75 I am physically fit, very active and continue to contribute to society in a number of very specific ways. I would no more condone governmental euthanization by age or particular health conditions than I would the bombing of mental hospitals. The discussion in this thread is theoretical but some have taken and given extreme examples. The film "Soylent Green" though fictional is a good example of how to survive a potential future scenario. I could and would eat the crackers (Soylent Green) if it mean't my survival, in fact, I would help bake them.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 4:44 pm

Oh, I thought you were an MD.

Soylent Green, I think I would not eat them if I knew what they were. It is just not how I am. I would just slowly fade away, not turn myself in like Edward G. to be made into them.

Survival of the Fittest, Totally Darwin, but where does the human concept of ethic come into play?

If there is no ethics, then the Donner Party did the right thing.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 4:54 pm

very active and continue to contribute to society in a number of very specific ways.

Everyone can be replaced.

Soylent green gives me the shudders

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 4:58 pm

AussiePam;1233963 wrote: Exactly Chonsi. And one of my kids!!!

These threads show an ignorance and an arrogance I find totally distasteful. Going out for fresh air now.

Now aren't you the knowledgeable one.:wah:

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 5:00 pm

chonsigirl;1233998 wrote: Oh, I thought you were an MD.

If there is no ethics, then the Donner Party did the right thing.

They sure did----and had I been there, I would have partaken as well.

el guapo · Post by **el guapo** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 1:28 pm

i think Compulsory Euthanasia is one of the best ideas i have heard for a long time may i suggest we start with the author of this thread :sneaky::sneaky::sneaky::sneaky::sneaky:

luciferjohn · Post by **luciferjohn** » Thu Sep 03, 2009 6:42 pm

yhis was a far calmer post then the others ive seen, but it still shows his ignorance on the topic , the government would have a killing licence as if they needed one but the physical,mentally handicapped the homeless they created, the people who disagree with thier policies, need i go on the slope here is steep and long,besides what did the youth in asia ever do to him ???

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Fri Sep 04, 2009 4:58 am

I am all for compulsory youth ernasia, jooÃ±a.