What are your thoughts on euthenasia?

I actually didn't know whether it was legal or not. I just looked it up and apparently passive euthanasia is legal, which iswhen life support can be withdrawn when the person is in a persistent vegetative state.

I think euthanasia makes sense on a theoretical level. However I don't think it's feasible for my country at this point; with the kind of population and poverty levels here, it just wouldn't make sense. Wikipedia says "Some members of India's medical establishment [are] skeptical about euthanasia due to the country's weak rule of law and the large gap between the rich and the poor, which might lead to the exploitation of the elderly by their families" which is also true. I've heard euthanasia is legal in places like Switzerland and some scandinavian countries, but there's a heaven-and-hell difference between the kind of population, infrastructure, and resources available here and in such developed countries. So while I support the concept, I realise it's not practically applicable to my country.

Active euthanasia probably will never be legalised here, it would face way too much opposition.

 

I think there are medical situations that could warrant it, but all the questionable situations are worrisome. In every case did the person really give informed consent and was in a state of mind to really make that decision - or was it pushed forward by someone else who benefits from it. If anything, hopefully this will make people discuss their end of life wishes with close family a bit more, because it's really unfair to make people have to guess what you'd want (especially when family members can't agree).

add:
it's now legal here within certain parameters
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_Canada

 

It's legal in a few states but not where I live.

I think as much as it pains me to say it, I approve of euthanasia when done by a person of competent mental mind and with a terrible condition. It should require countersignature by (a) physician(s) and it should be without stigma. I always wonder if maybe it'd be best to just die off when we reach an age where we no longer have any pleasure in life due to the onset of old age and disease.

While rejection of treatment is enshrined in our country, even if it may lead to death (e.g. Rejecting dialysis), actual euthanasia through a painless medical manner should be available to all. The ethics behind it would really be in a few categories: will patients without adequate resources or insurance be tacitly pointed towards euthanasia (obviously unethical); what of people who chose euthanasia but lack a competent mind (but did give instructions in a medical durable power of attorney (e.g. dementia), perhaps a separate document for that should be available to give instructions to a person who wouldn't benefit from the estate to give approval in certain situations; what of children?; would euthanasia cover people who have a chronic illness that won't lead to death?

 

It's not legal in the UK and I'm very much opposed to any change in the law. I know it's a sensitive subject and I find myself at odds with people who I greatly respect about it, but after listening with compassion to the arguments for changing the law, to allow euthanasia/assisted dying, I have to say that I am not persuaded. I doubt I ever will be.

 

Not legal in Australia, as far as I know.

It should be legal with oversight. As much I respect the right of the individual to end their life when they choose, I feel we must limit it to those with terminal illnesses as I would hate to see mentally ill people ending their lives when their emotional distress can be treated.

 

I am passionately in favour of certain models of euthanasia and I've raised money for euthanasia advocacy groups before.

I'm banking on Victoria being the first Australian jurisdiction to successfully legislate it. The Commonwealth blocked an Act of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly in 1997, but that's not constitutionally possible for state legislation.

I have three simple reasons for supporting euthanasia, which I do not believe should occur outside contexts of terminal illness and/or extremely debilitating and incurable pain. I think mental illness should not be a reason to seek euthanasia, but that its presence must not be an exclusionary factor (not many people with terminal illness or debilitating, injury-induced disabilities are happy). I also believe in swift processes - having over a year of check-ups and documentation prior to being allowed to die doesn't work for someone with seven months to live.

1) Euthanasia happens within palliative care contexts anyway, so it's better to regulate the practice.

This is just a reality of how hospitals function. Patients refuse dialysis, doctors up doses knowing what the outcome will be, patients are starved. This all occurs without a clear legal framework under which medical staff, patients and their families can operate. That makes decisions incredibly difficult and often leaves them in very murky water - many a palliative care nurse has a story of patients' partners asking for one of those methods to be administered without clear authority. Allowing and encouraging people to leave legally valid end-of-life instructions or making decisions themselves if they are still capable at the time clears up what's an even messier practice than legal euthanasia. I'm too lazy to link it, but The Economist estimated that Dutch euthanasia rates actually went down by a small but statistically significant number (admittedly, data prior to legalisation were shaky) in the first few years after euthanasia was permitted.

Simply put, if you oppose the use of euthanasia, you'll either have to come up with a much more effective method of catching out those who practice it under the status quo or you should acknowledge it as a reality to be regulated.

2) Voluntary euthanasia respects the dignity of the dying. Opposing it is ultimately about avoiding queasiness for the healthy.

When you are in severe pain, when the prognosis is unquestionably awful, when you know your autonomy and capacity to enjoy life are minimal to non-existent, dying is a better option to many people. The reasons we enjoy life - the freedoms, the sensations and the mere act of being conscious often are replaced by bodily restriction, pain instead of pleasure and an incapacity to think for those near the end of a terminal illness or who have been horrifically injured.

If the capacity to enjoy life is gone, then denying any choice about dying is ultimately not a question of respecting that person's life. It's about making everyone around that person feel better about themselves. It's about avoiding culpability for their loss of life and feeling a sense of respect for them. This is despite the fact that, for so many people, life is not worth drawing out aimlessly and despite the reality that continued existence in those last years or months of life is torture.

It's understandable not to want to take part in someone's death before it becomes necessary. But if that comes at the cost of debilitation, agony and the stripping of a person's autonomy, I cannot sympathise. The cost for those who want to die is far too great to let those who will live to feel just that little bit better about the circumstances of others' deaths.

3) Modern medicine has fundamentally changed the nature of dying. We need to adapt our moral codes to reflect that.

Until the 20th century, most deaths were rapid in nature. Infectious diseases, internal haemorrhages heart failure, dietary problems and the like killed rather quickly. One rarely lived past one's 50s or 60s and death rarely took more than days, or weeks at a stretch. What were then incurables are now minor ailments - a middle-aged person can overcome pneumonia, heart problems can be addressed early, appendicitis is uncomfortable rather than fatal and proper diet and surgery keep us alive well into our 80s.

That sort of wondrous medical advancement comes at a cost, however. Rather than dying swiftly at what we now regard as a young age of those once-deadly but now-minor causes, we are truly in an era of horrendous causes of death. Dementia, cancer (which obviously becomes increasingly prevalent with age) and other such diseases take months if not years to kill. Life support systems can keep someone who has been irreparably injured alive in ways unthinkable less than a century ago.

This sort of pain is historically unprecedented on such a large scale. People simply couldn't survive long enough for this sort of pain to exist in so many people for so long.

So we need to adjust our standards accordingly. If modern medicine has brought about the lifespans and support systems to keep people in such pain for so long, perhaps it has a duty to take them out of that pain. Having extended life so long and opening up a pandora's box of illnesses that hurt like never before for periods of time once immeasurably rare, it might be a good idea to acknowledge when it's too much to bear and allow people to cut their lives short.

Medical practitioners historically didn't have to balance length of life with quality of life as they do now. Few people would have faced that choice not too long ago. Now, in the developed world, enormous numbers of people do. The western medical tradition that began in ancient times had no concept of how long lives would be, or how many deaths would be so painful for so prolonged a period of time.

Where once the Hippocratic Oath's prohibition of assisting death would have avoided unnecessary suicide or medical misconduct, its strict observance now enforces suffering.

 

Not legal here, no. I feel it should be under circumstances. They stand firmly against it.

Case 1:
A person is suffering daily from an irreversible flaw, like a brain tumor or possibly organ failure or strong held cancer. It pains them to wake up every day, each minute is a grueling punishment and they've tried to butcher themselves multiple times in rather painful and makeshift methods. They should have a choice, forcing them to live is just dragging out their suffering. You know how they say a long and drawn out death is the worst kind? Some people like this are dying day by day. It should only be OK if they give consent however, no family or so should have the final word without their approval.

Case 2:
A violent felon has been in and out of jail their entire lifetime, wreaking havoc on the innocent and spending little time out of jail before going right back in. They've killed and abused, likely sold others into slavery. They're now in a lifetime sentence from merely the few acts they were caught doing, the majority were left concealed or unnoticed. They will spend the rest of their life in jail until they make an escape or have some sort of bail, and start the cycle again. This one individual has taken about 30 innocents down already and they will never get to experience their lives. I'd say take this one life away from the undeserving, before they take more away from others. Why save one subhuman individual when you can save 30 innocents instead, including children?

 

There's a difference between euthanasia and assisted suicide. Assisted suicide is when a patient asks for and a doctor prescribes a fatal dose of drugs. Euthanasia is when the doctors simply put the person out. I've always supported assisted suicide after my grandfather spent the last seven years of his life in a godawful nursing home, and it wasn't until recently that I've thought about euthanasia. My grandmother has had six strokes and has Lewy Body Dementia. I wish Dr. Kevorkian (a distinguished Michigander too) were still around. For her own sake and for our sake, she needs to die.

Her existence is nothing but unnecessary suffering and the worst part: there's a part of her brain that knows that what she talks about all day are just delusions.

 

It's okay. Sometimes there's just no point in dragging out a person's misery if they're going to die soon anyway.

 

To put it very shortly, I'd say it's acceptable. Why make someone suffer?

 

I'm fine with it in the case of a very old or terminally ill person that has no hope left. It's cruel to allow these people to suffer for no other reason than just to have them there. We put animals down, why not people?

We as a society need to learn to accept death. It's a natural phase of life, and the more we condemn it, the more we harm ourselves. Especially when it comes to population. More people are being born than people are dying, and that might eventually cause an even bigger strain on us.

I obviously do not support ending the life of someone who has a chance to live though.

 

It's not legal here.

I am for. It's an easy way out when the suffering from a terminal illness becomes too much. Other people should be in no position to decide this for the diseased, provided that the diseased in question is of legal age and able to make the decision on their own.

 

This.

 

It's a very personal choice I would not want to deny someone if they felt it necessary. Quality of life is very important. My grandfather spent the last five or so years he lived not really living, just sitting in a chair. He was relatively healthy but very, very old, and very aware of just waiting around for the inevitable. My father was in a semi-vegetative state and the doctor told us they could keep him alive for an indefinite period (they couldn't say... weeks or months, but that's about it) by using certain measures and we decided that was cruel and not what he would have wished. It's a very difficult question, but I feel there should be some way of maintaining a person's dignity and control over their lives even if it means ending them.

 

There was a cult named after euthanasia.

 

Death is a right. In some circumstances it is the best option. It isn't legal in this country but it should be.

 

Absolutely in favor of it, but there need to be safeguards in place. Sometimes there is only one way to end physical suffering. I've seen family members live with in an ordinate amount of pain, where they quality of life was severely diminished, and I don't think any good was served by them being alive longer than they wanted in such a state. But again, there need to be safeguards in place against things like depression.

I want medical and psychological professionals involved in this process, because it's the most important decision one can make. I've dealt with suicides and people with suicidal tendencies in my life, and I want to ensure this isn't a path to achieving that end.

 

I agree with you.

Euthanasia shouldn't be encouraged when there's a (reasonable) possibility that the situation will change for the better. Moreover, I think that the person should be mentally stable as well. So yeah, absolutely pro euthanasia, just with some safeguards. =]

 

I'm very much in favor of euthanasia, in certain circumstance.

If someone is terminally ill, has no chance of recovery, and knows that his/her situation will only get worse, it should be possible to end your life with medical assistance. It's inhumane to let someone suffer a terrible and (most likely) painful death.