Euthanasia – what do you think?

[macjakob]

I'm preparing for my English exam, and my subject is Euthanasia, and I'd like to have some inputs from various points of view.

What do you think about euthanasia? Is it OK? Should it be illegal? Are there certain circumstances where you think it's allright – elderly, incurably ill, handicapped?

What is your opinion?

Reluctance to euthanasia usually (not always, of course), has its roots in religion. Could you please, if you don't have anything against it, also state whether you are religious or not? Could possibly help me quite a lot, if I could see if there more or less of a connection.

Thank you very much.

Jakob

[Gray-Wolf]

Personal opinion, it should be limited to pets and animal with injuries that prevent them from living pain free.It should NEVER be considered for people. Other wise, it becomes a Mercy Killing. Assisted suicide and so forth. I come from the biblical point of view, that God decides when we die. And Life is precious.

[redAPPLE]

i am on the (open) pro choice side of things. "open" meaning, everything should be considered.

so i would be open to euthanasia. meaning, personally, if i cannot live to a standard, that i personally have planned or envisioned, i would strongly consider it.

[Abstract]

Yeah, I'm "pro choice". If the person who's dying thinks it's OK, and the doctor who's taking care of him is willing to participate with the patient's consent, then it's OK. I don't think there are any moral issues if the person who's dying consents to it.

[BillyBobBongo]

I'm all for euthanasia myself.

I always think about how I'd like to treated if I was terminally ill. Lying in a bed watching the clock whilst my family sit around me waiting for me to die......no thanks! Let's all say our goodbyes and someone jab me with way too much morphine and let's call it a day!

Obviously rules need to be in place about when this would be allowed to implemented. I think it's this grey area that's going to prove the time factor in when and if euthanasia will ever be allowed. Certainly some sort of psychological examination would need to be required to determine that you totally understood your options and that this wasn't a assisted suicided. To me there's a great difference between euthanasia and assisted suicide. Suicide something that I feel is decided on purely based on emotion. The decision to end your life since the quality of it has become so low is something totally different.....and I choice I feel I should be allowed to make, for the benefit of myself and others around me.

[jonbravo77]

I'm for the choice. God has given us our life to make our own choices, our own path. I would not want to live with the assistance of a machine, to me that is not much of a life.

Peace:cool:

[Queso]

I don't see how anybody should have the right to prolong the life of somebody who no longer wishes to live. Permitting euthanasia, especially for those who live in daily agony through illness, is a sign of a mature and healthy society.

I also note with interest that those that oppose euthanasia tend to also support the death penalty. Hypocrisy of the highest order that one.

[Jaffa Cake]

There should certainly be provisions in place to ensure it can be proven beyond doubt that it's the free choice of the individual concerned. With such safeguards, I'd be in favour.

I'm not religious, by the way.

[R.Youden]

Personal opinion, it should be limited to pets and animal with injuries that prevent them from living pain free.It should NEVER be considered for people. Other wise, it becomes a Mercy Killing. Assisted suicide and so forth. I come from the biblical point of view, that God decides when we die. And Life is precious.

So are you saying that the life of an animal is not precious? Does God (or whoever you may believe in) not have a say over when animals die, is God not the creator of all life?

Take this as an example. A child is born severely handicapped and in their life their emotions and feelings will not be as complex as those of a gorilla (animals which exhibit extremely complex emotions and behaviours, for example they mourn the loss of another gorilla within a group). Now are you saying that under correct circumstances it is correct to euthanize the gorilla but not the child?

I am not attacking you or your beliefs, but I find your statement a major contradiction.

[bamaworks]

I think there are many cases in which mercy killing is completely necessary. In war time soldiers practice such activity when prolonging life will only result in a long, painful torture before death. Much like some individuals with extremely critical conditions which result in unbearable pain or zero possibility of recovery. Not to mention I believe it's a person's right to do as they please with their body.

[.Andy]

Yep all for it. I'm calling when it's over for me.

[irmongoose]

If I don't want to live as a vegetable, I think I have the right to make that decision.


irmongoose

[miloblithe]

I think in the end they're not that much different than the youth in Europe, or the Americas, or Africa.

[iJohnHenry]

I am not attacking you or your beliefs, but I find your statement a major contradiction.

Please bare in mind the the OP wants opinions, and positions on religion, not open debate.

For me, I favour choice as well, and I choose to call myself agnostic.

If the person is incapable of making the decision for him/herself, then an Official Guardian could be assigned. The family should be removed from the process, due to legal implications regarding estate.

No quality of life = no life.

[Gray-Wolf]

So are you saying that the life of an animal is not precious? Does God (or whoever you may believe in) not have a say over when animals die, is God not the creator of all life?

Just to answer your question, we use animals for food, therefore we kill them.

And as JH said, this isn't the place for debate. Just opinions ;)

Edit - Both sides of the coin

Reasons given for voluntary euthanasia:

Choice: Proponents of VE emphasize that choice is a fundamental principle for liberal democracies and free market systems.[5]
Quality of Life: The pain and suffering a person feels during a disease, even with pain relievers, can be incomprehensible to a person who has not gone through it. Even without considering the physical pain, it is often difficult for patients to overcome the emotional pain of losing their independence. [5] Moreover, despite modern painkillers, there is little available to deal with the problem of 'breathlessness', which makes many ailing patients feel they will suffocate.

Economic costs and human resources: Today in many countries there is a shortage of hospital space. The energy of doctors and hospital beds could be used for people whose lives could be saved instead of continuing the life of those who want to die which increases the general quality of care and shortens hospital waiting lists. It is a burden to keep people alive past the point they can contribute to society, especially if the resources used could be spent on a curable ailment.

Reasons given against voluntary euthanasia:

Professional role: Critics argue that voluntary euthanasia could unduly compromise the professional roles of health care employees, especially doctors. They point out that European physicians of previous centuries traditionally swore some variation of the Hippocratic Oath, which in its ancient form excluded euthanasia: "To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death.." However, since the 1970s, this oath has largely fallen out of use.

Moral: Some people consider euthanasia of some or all types to be morally unacceptable. This view usually treats euthanasia to be a type of murder and voluntary euthanasia as a type of suicide, the morality of which is the subject of active debate.
Theological: Voluntary euthanasia has often been rejected as a violation of the sanctity of human life. Specifically, some Christians argue that human life ultimately belongs to God, so that humans should not be the ones to make the choice to end life. Orthodox Judaism takes basically the same approach, however, it is more open minded, and does, given certain circumstances, allow for euthanasia to be exercised under passive or non-aggressive means. Accordingly, some theologians and other religious thinkers consider voluntary euthanasia (and suicide generally) as sinful acts, i.e. unjustified killings.

Feasibility of implementation: Euthanasia can only be considered "voluntary" if a patient is mentally competent to make the decision, i.e., has a rational understanding of options and consequences. Competence can be difficult to determine or even define.

Necessity: If there is some reason to believe the cause of a patient's illness or suffering is or will soon be curable, the correct action is sometimes considered to attempt to bring about a cure or engage in palliative care.

Wishes of Family: Family members often desire to spend as much time with their loved ones as possible before they die.

Consent under pressure: Given the economic grounds for voluntary euthanasia (VE), critics of VE are concerned that patients may experience psychological pressure to consent to voluntary euthanasia rather than be a financial burden on their families. Even where health costs are mostly covered by public money, as in various European countries, VE critics are concerned that hospital personnel would have an economic incentive to advise or pressure people toward euthanasia consent.

[Much Ado]

Voluntary, sure.

Involuntary seems a bit sinister. Or do I mean non-voluntary?

[juanster]

It s your body do what pleases you with it.

[Dagless]

It s your body do what pleases you with it.

But that's the problem. Someone has to do it for you otherwise it's just plain old suicide.


I can see this problem from both sides so I can't decide if I'm for or against it.

[.Andy]

I think in the end they're not that much different than the youth in Europe, or the Americas, or Africa.
It had to be done. It just had to.

[scotthayes]

I'm all for it.

If I had an illness that meant I would die a horrible painful death or spend years in a vegetative state then I want to have the right to end it.

Oh and I'm an atheist.

[skunk]

It is truly surreal that the only person definitely against euthanasia is the one who looks forward to the Rapture, the euthanasia of billions.

I'm all for it, with suitable controls.

[Sun Baked]

Don't like the idea of increased haste, though a medical version of a DNR practiced before that usual time would be OK.

As in just letting somebody say, enough is enough, give be meds to make me comfortable and do nothing else to prolong life.

[Virgil-TB2]

There should certainly be provisions in place to ensure it can be proven beyond doubt that it's the free choice of the individual concerned. With such safeguards, I'd be in favour.

I'm not religious, by the way.Indeed. I think the OP is not being clear enough with the question.

I support the right to die without equivocation. A person's, body and mind is their own and I don't see any moral basis for saying that an individual does not have the absolute right to destroy themselves if they so wish. I would go further and say that it should be a basic right, just like life and liberty, and not only should laws against suicide should be struck down completely, but that it can't be done soon enough.

On the other hand, euthanasia as it is commonly practised today in some European countries, is more about the family's "rights" to give old Nan the needle because she hasn't spoken in years and they are tired of washing and changing her. It's more about convenience for the family, than the rights of the dying.

When we say "euthanasia" it's proper and important to separate euthanasia on an unconscious, likely terminal patient by a doctor at the family's request, from the right to take matters into your own hands if being of sound mind, you decide you want to. They aren't the same thing at all.

.

[glocke12]

Barring someone from being mentally ill, I think that in cases where someone will suffer if kept alive artifically, or given meds to alleviate chronic suffering, I think it should be allowed.

[skunk]

On the other hand, euthanasia as it is commonly practised today in some European countries, is more about the family's "rights" to give old Nan the needle because she hasn't spoken in years and they are tired of washing and changing her. It's more about convenience for the family, than the rights of the dying.Which European countries would those be?

[Queso]

Which European countries would those be?
Anecdotia and Bouleshytia I believe they're called ;)

[Much Ado]

^ The capital of which is Azzif, in the province of Nobbeldy Likely.

[mpw]

...suitable controls.
What? A switch or something?

[iJohnHenry]

Oh no, not another switch!!

Virgil-TB2 that's why the family should be removed from the decision process. Let a knowledgeable and compassionate disinterested party make the decision.

[eyemacg5]

Which European countries would those be?

The Netherlands, Switzerland, Luxembourg and Belgium.
Out of Europe, it is legal in Thailand and The US State of Oregon.

[skunk]

What? A switch or something?A lever would do just as well.

The Netherlands, Switzerland, Luxembourg and Belgium.
Out of Europe, it is legal in Thailand and The US State of Oregon.Oh, I see. It's legal for a family to have their ancient and perfectly healthy rich relatives put to death in order to speed up the inheritance, is it? Any chance of a link to this Brave New World of extreme liberal stereotypes?

[Mord]

involuntary euthanasia should be strictly enforced!

In all seriousness, I'm pro.

[Ugg]

Absolutely for it.

Actually, I believe that in the US, in order for a person to start receiving retirement benefits, they should have written up a legally binding, end of life directive.

Medical ethics have not kept pace with medical technology. Just because we can keep someone alive, should we?

While the Terri Schiavos of the world get all the attention, we have nursing homes filled to overflowing with elderly who are no longer sentient and given the choice may not want to continue on in the state they are in. However, we're not giving them that choice.

The doctors meanwhile have no choice but to sustain the body even though the mind may no longer exist.

[.Andy]

Any chance of a link to this Brave New World of extreme liberal stereotypes?
www.conservapedia.com

[SMM]

There was a story, which ran for quite sometime, about a girl from New Jersey, Karen Ann Quinlan, who had been living in a constant comatose state for many years. She could not continue life, without artificial assistance. When it became obvious, her condition would never improve, the family wanted to (with great reluctance), take her off life support. Many religious groups fought against the families right to so. It became a major international news story. It dragged on for months. Finally, life support was stopped, and she quickly expired.

In this case, the poor young lady was clinically dead. But with the advances in medicine, basic life functions could, and were, maintained for a very long period of time. In this instance, we were the ones who were maintaing life (of sorts). We had interfered with the natural progression of life-death. I am sure this made sense early on. However, when weeks turned into months, and then into years, with no reasonable chance for recovery, no one was benefitting at all. The family was living through mental anguish and torment (especially after the media circus began).

For me, this is a clear case in support of euthanasia. I loathed what the media did to that poor family. I guess I am in support of euthanasia, but not in every and all cases. This is a very personal decision, and not 'one size fits all'. Every single case would have to be judged on its own merits. What the criteria would be, I do not have an opinion. I have never thought about it in any great depth. The case I mentioned above, seems pretty clear to me. But, I would never want to be the person sitting in judgement of another.

My religious beliefs are still being formed. I started out as a conservative catholic, catholic school, alterboy, etc. I graduated to atheist by high school. Now, I am really not sure where I would fit in. In a traditional sense of the word, I would not call myself 'religious'.

[skunk]

www.conservapedia.comThanks for answering my rhetorical question... ;)

[SMM]

www.conservapedia.com

Conservapedia is FOX in writing. Surely you are not seriously using this site as a source for facts? It has even less credibility than the 'weekly standard' and the John Birch Society.

[blackfox]

The Netherlands, Switzerland, Luxembourg and Belgium.
Out of Europe, it is legal in Thailand and The US State of Oregon.

While I can't comment on the other locales you listed - the State of Oregon does NOT allow euthanasia. It is illegal in all 50 states.

The Oregon Law - the Death with Dignity Act - allows terminally ill patients to voluntarily end their own life. While this is done in coordination with a physician, it is a self-administered procedure. Euthanasia would have the doctor (or perhaps another 3rd party) perform the action.

I am a resident of Oregon btw...

As for the general topic - I am in favor of the approach used here in Oregon, but could be open to Euthanasia under certain arguments.

[skunk]

Conservapedia is FOX in writing. Surely you are not seriously using this site as a source for facts? It has even less credibility than the 'weekly standard' and the John Birch Society.Surely you are not taking .Andy's suggestion seriously?

[cycocelica]

I think in the end they're not that much different than the youth in Europe, or the Americas, or Africa.

I LOL'ed

In all seriousness though, I am all for allowing people to do what they want to do in most cases (you know, the whole freedom thing). So if you want to die, then by all means enthanize(?) away.

[Badandy]

I also note with interest that those that oppose euthanasia tend to also support the death penalty. Hypocrisy of the highest order that one.


I support the death penalty and I sure as hell think euthanasia should be legal. I know you used the word "tend", but I'd bet it's more common than you think.

[obeygiant]

Conservapedia is FOX in writing. Surely you are not seriously using this site as a source for facts? It has even less credibility than the 'weekly standard' and the John Birch Society.

LOL, and The Huffington Post or the Daily KOS. :rolleyes:
Conservapedia is way out there with the likes of the creation museum.

Srsly, euthanasia should be a family issue. If the family or individual wishes it then its perfectly alright with me. I don't think government should force anyone to do it, but they should allow it. They already put criminals to death. Although if the state does allow something like that I am not sure how they would handle people who wish to jump off buildings or swallow pills or cut their wrists. AFAIK suicide in that manner is illegal.

[SMM]

Surely you are not taking .Andy's suggestion seriously?

Skunk and .Andy - that is why I said, "Surely you are not seriously using this site as a source for facts?". I have never read any posts by him, which would really lead me to believe he was serious here.

[katielb]

We focused on this topic a great deal in my Philosophy class. I'm for euthanasia if it's what the person wants, is suffering, is incurably ill, whatever. I'm all for the person having the right to choose. Also, I'm not religious by any means.

[obeygiant]

This, probably, takes it a little too far:

The most vociferous and outspoken of the socialist eugenicists was the novelist H. G. Wells, author of The Time Machine, The War of the Worlds and The Invisible Man. …
A strict social order would be formed. At the bottom of it were the base. These were “people who had given evidence of a strong anti-social disposition”, including “the black, the brown, the swarthy, the yellow.” Christians would also “have to go” as well as the handicapped. Wells devoted entire pamphlets to the need of “preventing the birth, preventing the procreation or preventing the existence” of the mentally and physically handicapped. “This thing, this euthanasia of the weak and the sensual is possible. I have little or no doubt that in the future it will be planned and achieved.”
The people of Africa and Asia, he said, simply could never find a place in a modern world controlled by science. Better to do away with the lot….
Population would be rigidly controlled, with forced abortion for those who were not of the right class and race.link (http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=592291)

[.Andy]

Skunk and .Andy - that is why I said, "Surely you are not seriously using this site as a source for facts?". I have never read any posts by him, which would really lead me to believe he was serious here.
You have no idea what you've been missing out on.

[obeygiant]

You have no idea what you've been missing out on.

Missing out on a lot of useless drivel IMO. Thats not your homepage is it? ;)

[66217]

Keeping someone alive for the sake of it, meaning that you are using machines to keep the body functioning all around, I think is incorrect. But asking for people to let you die when you have possibilities to get well, I am against it.

BTW, I am religious guy.

[.Andy]

Missing out on a lot of useless drivel IMO.
You sure smacked that underarm ball out of the park OG :).

Thats not your homepage is it? ;)
I swap between conservapedia and the onion. Sometimes it's hard to tell which is which.

[Don't panic]

I swap between conservapedia and the onion. Sometimes it's hard to tell which is which.

tsk.tsk. This dissing of America's finest news source was unnecessary and totally uncalled for

[maestro55]

A person has a right to choose if they want to live or die. It is morbid I know but if I ever ended up getting cancer or some such disease that would cause me great pain I would certainly choose suicide. I guess part of my belief stems from the fact that I am not a religious man, I will not know that I am dead and so for me death is nothing to be afraid of. Now I am not saying that I would choose euthanasia today if given the option but if I got cancer I would want that option.

[iJohnHenry]

A person has a right to choose if they want to live or die.

Except this Society thinks it owns your ass, not unlike the old Soviet regime.

It is morbid I know but if I ever ended up getting cancer, or some such disease that would cause me great pain, I would certainly choose suicide.

And those that deny you that relief would be crushed by that same pain.

I guess part of my belief stems from the fact that I am not a religious man, I will not know that I am dead and so for me death is nothing to be afraid of.

And even if you (and I) are wrong, if you have lived your life in an exemplary manner, what have you to fear? You will not be "rejected".

Now I am not saying that I would choose euthanasia today if given the option, but if I got cancer I would want that option.

And I would add ALS/MND to that. When the body dies, what good is a mind on full life-support?? (Stephen William Hawking excepted, but there are those that argue that he does not have ALS/MND, but something else.)


