Opinion on euthanasia

I support assisted suicide for seriously illness, once the patient & doctor decides the time. not the gov't or church. Good topic

 

Euthanasia for the general public is called suicide when it's self-inflicted, or murder when done by another.

Doctor assisted suicide for the terminally ill is a no-brainer for me. I have a number of family members who are nurses and in health care, and have had family members go through terminal diseases. The desire to die with dignity and become pain-free I believe is a human right which should be up to the patient, their family, and health care establishment. I've been a part of a family member's conversation about wanting to end their life and it was an emotionally trying experience. But I also haven't been in their shoes. I don't know what it's like to be in excruciating pain constantly with no hope of it getting better. Who are we as people to take away their right to want to end such a torture? Again, it's an incredibly messy subject, but as a general rule I always try and fall on the side of freedom whenever reasonably able to do so.

The issue gets much harrier when someone wants to bring about their own death when they are physically healthy, and I'm not entirely sure where I stand on that, except to say I really hope that person seeks help.

 

In principle I believe that the right to life includes also the right to die. We are not government property and government should not stop people who have made the decision to end their lives.

Having said that the other aspect is that sometimes people think they want to die perhaps because of severe depression or some other treatable condition. It would feel irresponsible to let those people commit suicide.

Perhaps as a middle of the road option there could be requirement that person must be mentally sound and healthy to make the decision to die. If they were not they would have to subject themselves to psychiatric treatment before they would be allowed to petition for suicide again.

 

Couldn't have said it better.

 

In the case of terminally ill people I'm 110% for it under medical care and approval. It:

1.) Saves pain and suffering
2.) Saves on medical costs and resources
3.) Is someone's choice.

The question then is are people who are getting old yet are still viable health wise able to legitimately seek death?
One might say old age is the ultimate infermity. I don't know on this one...

 

The problem I have with euthanasia is its oversight. I am no ogre who wants to see life stretched beyond its limits. It is the seemingly countless opportunities for abuse that concerns me.

It is not merely the collusion between doctor and relatives who may stand to benefit financially or emotionally. It is the abuse by government that is of greatest concern. Nazi Germany in the name of kindness and economy "euthanized" hundreds of mentally and emotionally challenged individuals. It is easy to that extended to the drain the elderly have on our health care. You may say it won't happen, but where are the protections that it won't.

We all want a death with dignity, without pain for our loved ones and ourselves. We provide such for our pets, but taking steps in this direction require some very stringent guidelines. There will be those in the medical profession who will opt out of anything to do with euthanasia. We need to explore more greatly the field of palliative care. this could ethically be one of the biggest issuses mankind has ever faced.

 

I'm all for it. People should have the right to take charge of their lives and this includes ending it.

 

If someone is terminally ill and has no chance of recovery, I'm for it.

 

I'm all for it, for all the reasons others have said. Nobody should have to suffer.

 

I agree. I think if someone gets to a point where they genuinely feel like they'd be better off dying, whether due to physical or psychological illnesses, that's legitimate and they're in their right to do so. Of course that when it comes to mental illnesses like depression, people should seek help and treatment like it happens with physical illnesses, but that doesn't guarantee that they'll be cured. And ultimately, it's up to each person what they want to do with their life. I don't think it's fair to deny anyone the right to end it.

 

If it's done without consent of the person, then it's murder
If the person actually wanted to die and said that, then sure i guess.
The idea of taking someones life just like that because they are ill makes me cringe, though.
There's just something that...just doesn't...feel right about...it... Or is that just me?

 

I think that if someone wants to die, and if they know that they're going to die anyways (especially in a horrible way, like brain cancer), then yes, it should absolutely be permissible. If it is the wish of the dying person, and they are able to make that decision on their own, it should absolutely be legal and I think it's almost immoral to say that somebody has to suffer and that they're not given the option to die with dignity because someone else says it's wrong.

 

After watching my grandfather die of ALS, I support assisted suicide. He suffered for about 8 years after he confided in my grandmother that he wanted to be out of his misery.

 

I'm for it as long as it is well regulated, especially if it helps the terminally/chronically ill end their suffering as they wish.

 

Accidentally voted against, but I'm all for it, especially for those who are terminally ill

 

There must always be a strict understanding of consent. I've done advocacy for euthanasia rights before and I find many people support it until they actually realise what it must entail. I only support it for the terminally ill and exclude mental illness from what I regard as acceptable reasons to end one's life, but I'll get to why I think mental illness is a sticky point later.

The problem with demand for extreme oversight is that it often imposes so much red tape that the person wishing to die may very well be incapacitated or dead by the time they have approval. If someone is given a year to live and the rules stipulate a two-year approval period, then that person is completely helpless and will either have to suffer or commit suicide. They're left at the mercy of the pre-euthanasia era, put into palliative care which very often involves a very discreet alternative to formal euthanasia. Dying patients are gently starved or given just enough of an overdose to end their fragile lives very regularly in jurisdictions where euthanasia is not permitted. The Economist even went so far last year as to estimate that de facto euthanasia levels lowered slightly in the Netherlands in the years after euthanasia became legal.

Simply put, legalising it with relatively few regulations, save clear and legally verifiable consent at the time or an agreement stipulating which circumstances following becoming incapacitated would warrant euthanasia, only brings the law into line with informal practices. And under law, the process would be far more transparent, humane and would involve even more explicit consent. It's a win-win for morally conflicted doctors, patients who suffer longer than they would wish and a general public uncertain about the realities of euthanasia.

Regarding mental illness, I think it's very important that whatever legislation might be introduced only exclude mental illness as the grounds for euthanasia, rather than denying euthanasia because of the mere presence of mental illness. The latter is unacceptably restrictive; of course someone with a terminal illness is likely to show signs of depression. That doesn't mean they are seeking euthanasia because of their depression; situational depression doesn't preclude rational decision-making. Consultations with one's doctors, family, psychologist and solicitor are fairly likely to clarify all the relevant issues and make that person's consent very reasonable even with a mental illness brought on by the knowledge of the severity of the physical illness. A severely debilitated person who could possibly regain meaning in life might have to go through a strong series of tests and a long waiting period, but someone terminally ill with a short timeframe might suffer if mental requirements are too stringent. Mental illness cannot be a reason for euthanasia, but legislators must be very careful not to carve out a large chunk of terminally-ill patients very capable of consent, just because they have mental illness.

When it comes to euthanasia for children, I think the process of consent must be very stringent. The child and the parents both must be on board. I would normally be wary about introducing others' approval into the equation but, because a child lacks autonomy, it is necessary. People might be concerned about making a child choose to die, given how hard a decision that is. But, tragically, every decision regarding a terminally ill child is incredibly difficult and emotionally fraught. The child and the parents will have already made so many sacrifices and gone through so much emotional pain before they would reach the ultimate decision. The voluntary and less agonising death of a child is probably not the worst decision to be made in those circumstances.

And palliative care must not suffer as a result. I doubt it would, but for the sake of public perception it would probably be wise for a government to guarantee funding and basic standards for palliative care. But I know quite a number of workers in palliative care who are deeply in favour of legalising euthanasia because they experience patients' deaths so often. Euthanasia is a perfect accompaniment to noncurative care, not its antithesis.

Ultimately, euthanasia is about the freedom to choose a dignified death if one so wishes. It occurs as a matter of course in every country regardless of whether it is legal or not. Euthanasia virtually always occurs where death is impending anyway, so any squeamishness is an unnecessary hindrance that's more about the happy conscience of the healthy than about the wishes of the dying. Legalising it not only saves a great deal of suffering, it also brings into light what is murky for many and allows end-of-life decisions to be made openly, without shame and with sufficient planning.

So talk about death. Remove the fear and the stigma from its name. Let others make their decisions and be prepared for that time in the future when you will need to make yours. If you don't like it, as few of us do, talk about it. We should all at least be as open as possible about our common fate and how we as societies, families and individuals should be prepared to meet it.

 

Open to general public. Pro euthanasia. =) I think some conditions (consent for one) should apply as others have described perfectly well. =)

 

As someone who has had severe mental illness, I'd say it's wrong to let people take their lives because of it. There's always hope for a better future.

 

For. People can do what they like: it doesn't affect me.