Euthanasia

Im fine with youth in asia, why would i be against that?

Ok, yea, Greg being corny out of the way...

Like everything else thats a tricky subject, i have a "shades of grey" look at it. Not "its always wrong" or "its always right" but purely situational.

 

Hmmmm i wouldn't touch this with a 60 ft stick XD (sorry for not being helpful, i'm watching South Park as we speak, this is ridiculous lol) lol. I actually don't even know where I sit on this though. sorry.

 

If it's a choice between a quick, painless end or weeks or months of pain before the inevitable end, I know what I'd choose. If there's no chance of the person recovering, I think it's more cruel to make them drag on and suffer.

 

Actually, we tackled this subject this (or rather last lol) year in high school from a religious standpoint.

According to them, Euthanasia, or mercy killing, really does depend on the situation, but is generally accepted given the correct circumstances. Example, when you have extraordinary means of keeping someone alive (like being hooked up to a machine to breathe, or overly expensive medication), then its only optional to keep that person alive and is totally okay to let that person rest in peace too.

 

Animals or humans? Doesn't really matter to me, I have no problem with it, but just curious.

 

Um I guess im for it, in the way that, the guy i like his mum had blood and bone marrow cancer and she had so many operations and was in alot of pain and i guess i think if she was allowed to end things on her terms before she was suffering too much.
But i think it should be made that people should make a living will and say that if they became really sick that they would like that done, so not to let people i guess kill people for the sake of money and oh i know many who would

 

I agree

 

If i could be bothered ot go into more detail, I would.

But the cliff notes version; painful, long, agonising death...then yes
Comatose, low level chance of recovery...no.
A small chance is still a chance...

 

Wow lots of good debate subjects this week...cool beans.

Hey Poring, what you were talking about there is not actually euthanasia. Your post talked about the withdrawl of treatment, which is legal everywhere.....ie. if you have the capacity to refuse treatment (you understand the consequences, and can weigh up the pros and cons) then that is your human right. You are also allowed to give large doses of painkillers (which might secondarily actually kill someone), but the aim is to tackle pain.

Euthanasia is using active measures to end someone's life who otherwise would not have died at that moment in time. There are so many arguments for and against and it really is a very grey subject (as midnight angel and greg have said).

The aim of the medical profession is to give life, where possible, not death. Obviously someone in terrible pain has an awful quality of life and it seems fairer to put that person out of their misery. That is an open and close case....no-one can argue that euthanasia should be allowed for that situation. However how do you define poor quality of life..... what about someone with dementia, or a severely mentally disabled child who is fed through a tube, or a quadriplegic person.

Here's an example:
There's a story about a 20 year old boy from the UK who became paralysed from the neck down in a Rugby match. 2 years after his accident he was euthanised in the clinic in Switzerland with both his parents holding his hand. The important point to mention is that he was not in unbearable pain and he had the potential to live many more years. Why is his death justified? Obviously it was his choice, but the problem I have with this, is that he was severely depressed. Someone who is severely depressed does not have the capacity to decide whether he should die or not. People with suicidal ideations are sectioned under the mental health act to prevent them from killing themselves. How is this any different....obviously he's severely physically disabled and this had huge implications on his mental state. But what does his death say about all the other quadriplegics....what message are we giving? Life isn't worth living if you cant walk.....I think Steven Hawkings is testiment to this. How do we define pain?

 

i personaly would like to pick when i die. if i had something wrong with me where i wouldnt be the same me anymore. id rather just die.

i dont believe in putting animals down unless they are in vast amount of pain and have no hope for getting better. i once knew a girl that put down her dog becasue she couldnt keep it anymore. i smacked her with a tree branch. >_>

please get your pets fixed. shelters are too full.

 

I'm mostly for it. I mean, I think that if someone is in so much pain that keeping them alive is cruel, euthanasia is right.

People try to prolong their lives because of their fear of death - but death is natural. Anyone who would think of using euthanasia would have died a natural death if it weren't for modern medecine, so why shouldn't modern medecine be allowed to let them stop suffering?

What's more fair, keeping someone alive when they're in pain or have no chance of even living conciously again so that their family don't have to 'lose them', or letting that person die and move on?

That's my view, anyways.

 

Isn't this the definition of Catch-22 though? Only when you are in full mental health can you decide under which circumstances you want euthanasia. But if you ever decide you want euthanasia, this can be seen as an obvious sign of depression and need to be protected against yourself...

To make it more complex, the other way around happens too. My father was always very much in favour of the idea of having euthanasia as soon as his quality of life would seriously go down. In the end, though, he got a really rare and dangerous form of cancer. But at that time, he did seem to appreciate life too much after all to even consider it. However, at that time he was not in command of his mental faculties, so in case he had made a will stipulating euthanasia, it would have fallen upon us, the family, to decide whether or not to execute it (as it was, though, he didn't have a will, and even if he had, we would have respected his newfound attachment to life).

So, yeah. Difficult stuff. I'd say that if a person has asked for it when he/she was completely in command of all mental faculties, AND has gotten to a situation where the pain is unbearable, AND the situation is not going to improve in any foreseaable timeframe, all to be determined by at least two impartial witnesses, it's allowed. If anything less, it might be better to err on the side of life.

 

Personally, if i ever get to the stage where i can't take care of myself, i want to be euthanized. Die with what little dignity i have in tact. Everyone has a right to life, why not a right to death as well? I don't see it as playing god or anything. I see it as choosing when it's your time to go. Some say assisted suicide. Whatever you call it. i'm for it.

 

as long as it is the choice of the person i don't see why it should not be allowed. But than again I am from one of the few countries in the world where its legal

 

We have the Death with Dignity act here in Oregon. I believe it should be an option. Although I also went through hospice training and doctors really can do alot to make most people's dying days comfortable. There is a website that might help with your research:
www.deathwithdignity.org