On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 07:22:44 -0500, Stephen Harding
wrote:

Cub Driver wrote:

Isn't that sodium pentathol? (I'm not sure about the spelling.) We
once put down a St Bernard who weighed almost as much as I do, and at
the time I marveled what an easy death that was.

I've done the "final visit to the vet" on several occasions. It's
the downside of the wonderful experience of owning a pet [dog].

The end comes so quickly and quietly, it really makes me wonder.
Is it "inhumane" to apply on humans? Would it really be "unethical"?

As opposed to often months of watching someone you care for die
with the aid of "advanced medicine".

Sometimes "ethical" and "humane" seem antagonistic.


SMH

I have problems with actual termination of humans-- it opens so many
cans of worms, legal and ethical alike.
But...
I've seen friends and family kept alive long past the point where
they woudl naturally die. Long past the point where there was any
hope that they would get better-- in extreme cases where you just had
a mindless husk being kept alive by machines.
I think the problem is that the idea that the doctor will do
everything to keep you alive has ignored the fact that we *are* going
to die at some point, and that as medical technology gets more
advanced that point that be delayed long past where it should happen.
But on the other hand, that's a terrible decision to make-- and there
have been cases of criminal or ethical charges being brought against
doctors who have done so, even with the cooperation of the family.
Dr. Kevorkians antics didn't help the debate any either, of cousre.