Kevin's Watch

Allright, here's another interesting moral conundrum. You're probably not aware of this, since it's an internal Italian matter, but in any case:

A couple of months ago, in Italy, a man named Piergiorgio Welby, affected by muscular dystrophy to the point he cannot move or talk, and is kept alive by artificial breathing machines and so on, sent a video message to the Italian President, asking to die. The video showed a typical day in his life, and ended with his appeal, delivered through a computer synthetizer:

"I love life, president - life is a woman loving you, wind in your hair, sun on your face, a moonlight walk with a friend. Life is a woman leaving you, too, a rainy day, a friend disappointing you. I'm neither mlncholy nor depressed and dying horrifies me, but what I have left is no longer life, just a stubborn, senseless intent in keeping biological functions active."

Euthanasia is illegal in Italy, so the Presigent obviously was forced to deny the plea, but he hoped politicians would discuss the issue. Mr. Welby also asked his own doctor to pull the plug, but the doctor refused to "take part in a murder". His situation hasn't changed, and politicians are still discussing him, although it's very unlikely they'll ever come up with any sort of position, given their general uselessness; in the meantime, a survey among Italian people has discovered that 64% agree that he should be given what he asks for, and interestingly enough, 55% of practicing Catholics are among these people.

So what do you think should be done, and above all, why do you think that should be the way to go?

I'm always up for this discussion.

I'm totally in favour of Euthanasia, both active and passive, as long as there is prior expression of the wish, or even a reasonable belief that the person would have wanted it.

The life of every person on earth is, must be, their own property, with all rights to maintain or dispose of it.

Anything less, the denial by the state of the right to self-determination, equates to nothing less than slavery.

The state does not own my body or my mind. Only I do. And if I have a right to life, that must also mean an equal and opposite right to death.

Give the poor man his own wish. It's his life.

--A

if you define murder as "the intentional taking of someone's life", and choose to define "life" as Piergiorgio Welby has, then the doctors who put him on those machines and keep him on those machines are already guilty of murder, if only in those strict senses.

But this brings us to to Mr. Welby's personal view that his life isn't worth living, that it isn't "life" at all, yet he cannot himself act to end it, but would he? Does he seek to avoid a potential hell for suiciders by convincing someone else to risk salvation by murder? This requires someone acting in a capacity to carry out his wish that shares his ideal defintion of life, mercy, and/or murder/suicide, themselves. The doctor chooses to believe that any intentional taking of a life is a capital offense, and the laws of the land support this as well, so anyone carrying out Mr Welby's wish would not only perhaps feel as a murderer, but indeed be prosecuted as such. So.....

Can he get another doctor who more closely shares his views to assist him? Does it boil down to who will risk their freedom and/or conscience, even religious salvation to comply with this mans wishes? After this national appeal, is there no one willing to take the risk that the politicians will withold a severe punishment for the one who acts out of a sense of mercy and decency?

There are way too many unanswered, even unanswerable questions for me to attempt a solution here, but this goes beyond a man's right to choose his own life and hence death to a matter of forcing that choice or act upon another...

But one thing I do know, many people have died simply by not having the will to live. Perhaps Mr Welby is not so convinced as he thinks he is.....

But loss of will isn't going to stop the machine that keeps your lungs inflating or our heart beating...he's beyond the point where merely giving up "bodily" as it were would kill him.

What it really comes down to is the state saying, "we own you."

--A

I would argue that there is a "mind" that leaves the body when it truly wishes to, irrelevant of the mechanics of oxygen and blood. He can leave that "shell" anytime he wishes, he just obviously doesn't know how to believe that, or is as i say actually truly frightened of the finality and consequence of this act.

But in the course of normal daily affairs we find ourselves in here, I'm forced to somewhat agree with you Av.

Perhaps, in the normal course of things I would agree with you that it is possible, but the possibility does not grant either ability or faith in it.

--A

to steal a line from our fair Lucimay: do you see why I love this guy?

well played....

*bows*

--A

I agree with you, Av. A right to life should go hand in hand with a right to death. If the person can ask for it or has previously requested it, then it should be granted.

same here.

My wife's uncle was in a very similar dilemma (but without presidential involvement). A motorcycle accident paralyzed him from the chest down, and eventually a machine was needed to help him breathe. After several months and doctor opinions, when it became certain that he would never regain use of his limbs, he lost hope and would state to anyone who'd listen that if he had the ability to do so he would take his own life. He obviously hated his condition - he hated his complete loss of independence, with everything needing to be done for him, and having to drink nutritionals from a straw. In fact, since that was the only thing he could control, he all but stopped 'eating' except when threatened by his wife and daughter.

He died almost two years after the accident, and I think it was from despair. Before the accident, he rarely stopped moving (he was a self-made multi-millionaire). Very sad.

DW

so we should allow depressives to die because what they think life should be isn't? how far will you carry this? if someone loses their legs and doesn't want to live anymore? if someone is really fat? or if someone has a bad case of acne? when you allow for slef murder you open the flood gates. so how bad off does someone have to be? is your level the same as my level? do we go the strictest level or allow for full access? is it right to tell the quad he can die, but not the depressive? is the quad suffering from depression that effects his judgement?

Responsible adults have the right to do as they wish with their life. I'm no fan of euthanasia, but I agree with Caam and Av.

and me.

No, I agree with Caam and Av.

Not you.

My sis and I have a "no machines" agreement.

is this man's desire to die a by product of his injury? would he want to die if he was injury-free? isn't his death wish a condition of circumstance? I would argue that he isn't in a place to judge this issue. he should get therapy and see if there is an underlying depression, proving that he isn't in the right frame to make this decision.

What about the one in your nightstand with all the batteries?

Sorry, that was just too easy.

Ok Cail, let me rephrase that....no life support machines....and what were you doing snooping through my nightstand?

sgtnull wrote:is this man's desire to die a by product of his injury? would he want to die if he was injury-free? isn't his death wish a condition of circumstance? I would argue that he isn't in a place to judge this issue. he should get therapy and see if there is an underlying depression, proving that he isn't in the right frame to make this decision.

Sarge, you are making the assumption that the Italian man must be out of his gourd to want to die because he perceives he has no quality of life. On one hand, I agree that an objective determination of soundness of mind needs to be made before such a serious thing is allowed to happen. But I don't want that same excuse used as a means to shackle someone to a life that they don't want, because you can assume that they are batty because they are considering something you feel to be wrong.

I am Catholic, btw, but I believe that after a certain amount of time to contemplate it and with many alternatives presented, one should be able to choose to end their own life. I do think it is a sin to take your own life, but sin exists because we have free will. If you take away the free will of someone objectively proven to be of sound mind, even for their own protection, you are sinning against them, no matter how pure your intentions. Which sin is worse? I don't know - I'm not a good enough Catholic to crack that nut.

DW