Euthanaisa

[Guest Julius Quasar]

...by that, I don't mean "Children in Japan" *rimshot* 

No...I obviously mean assisted suicide.  If a person was sick, or old, or both, and in a lot of pain, do you think that person has the legal right to die if they want to? (assisted suicide)

I'm in favor of it, personally.  If someone is sick, and/or in serious pain, they should be allowed to move on.

[CrypticQuery]

Sure, if the want to die, they should be able to, without suffering serious pain (i.e. attempted suicide such as poisoning, falls, stabbings, etc)

[Guest Julius Quasar]

Sometimes life gets too unbearable for someone, especially in their later years in  life...that's why I want my family to put a bullet in my head when I turn 30.  :lol:

[Sabre]

I dont see the point of suicide, but sure, why not.

[Redeemer]

If I were in constant pain, young or old, and I knew I wasn't going to get any better, I would want assisted suicide. However, if my family were in the same postitioon, I'd be like "No, I love you, don't go!". It's a double edged sword.

[Guest DRL]

Part yes, part no.

First of all: Suicide becuase 'you want to'?

DEFINETLY NO.

Second: If you are in considerable pain,

            and there is no way to stop it, well,

            there it could be allowed. BUT, on

            the condition that the person's body

            is given to science. Whatever was causing

            the pain in that person, will probably still

            be there after the peson dies. Furthemore,

            I am against this, because nothing prevents

            science from discovering a cure to the illness

            you currently have (we all know how gravity

            was discovered... By 'accident'. Plus, there

            is usually considerable research going on.)

            However, on the condition that the body

            is given to science, well, maybe.

Third: What if you have to endure some pain but

          your illness/pain IS NOT permanent? Then

          no. Sure, you maybe in great pain now, BUT,

          it is not permanent. Eventually it will subside,

          or the cure will take effect, so no.

[Guest Julius Quasar]

If someone has found out they have a terminal illness, and they won't recover from that illness, and just run up huge medical bills, and just die anyways, and they want to avoid all that (especially because they don't want their family to go broke keeping them in the hospital), I think they have a right to choose to end their life.

[Guest DRL]

If someone has found out they have a terminal illness, and they won't recover from that illness, and just run up huge medical bills, and just die anyways, and they want to avoid all that (especially because they don't want their family to go broke keeping them in the hospital), I think they have a right to choose to end their life.

Well, in that case it would find themselves

in the 'case 2]'. Given that they give their

body to science, I think it is fine.

[Guest Julius Quasar]

Well, in that case it would find themselves

in the 'case 2]'. Given that they give their

body to science, I think it is fine.

Ahh, yes!

[Sarita]

Actually, they KINDA have that when you go in to a hospital. You sign a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate), and if you go in to cardiac arrest or something due to complications of your illness, they can't do anything, and have to let you die. But in order to get their medical licences, doctors have to sign something that says they cannot do anything that would knowingly cause death to a patient if there is no other option. (That was not put very well, but I hope SOMEONE understands it)

[Fana McCloud]

A person's life is their own, let them do what they want with it. Does it really need to be said? XD

I don't believe in stipulating some narrow set of conditions either - if somebody at some point in their lives feels that continuing on isn't an option, give them a way out that has some dignity and is as painless as possible. The end.

[Guest Julius Quasar]

A person's life is their own, let them do what they want with it. Does it really need to be said? XD

I don't believe in stipulating some narrow set of conditions either - if somebody at some point in their lives feels that continuing on isn't an option, give them a way out that has some dignity and is as painless as possible. The end.

Exactly.  10 years ago, when I was finishing High School, this was a bigger issue back then.

[Guest DRL]

A person's life is their own, let them do what they want with it. Does it really need to be said? XD

I think I already explained my views

on this isse. Sure, if a person is in pain...

But research is allways going on; you just

can not stop it. Thus, by giving his/her/it's

body to research, the person is actually helping

out.

I don't believe in stipulating some narrow set of conditions either - if somebody at some point in their lives feels that continuing on isn't an option, give them a way out that has some dignity and is as painless as possible. The end.

Beware that such phrase CAN be interpretted

in many ways.

Depressed man: "I lost my job, my wife, and

now am losing my wealth drinking this. Why

can not I ask to be put to sleep in an hospital?"

Me: "Because you are not ill, nor in physical

pain. Furthermore, if you have the courage

to ask for that in an hospital, have the courage

to jump off the top of a building. There are other,

non-legal ways too."

[Fira-Astrali]

I know this will seem brash and black and white, but to me this seems like a very clear issue

I have seen people waste away from a termial illness. The idea of forcing a person to live and be remembered in that state, and to be forced to live through so much pain, is cruel. And the point somebody made about not letting there loved ones go because they would miss them, I think that's cruel too. I completely understand the pain that comes with the idea of losing a loved one but its unfair to force someone you love to continue on a painful existance just so you can stave of the enevitable greiving.

Now, my feelings toward this does not extend to things like depression and suicide. A dark place like that can be defeated with courage and support, and that person can go on to live a healthy life. My opinion goes out to the people who have little time left, and will spend that time in extreme, constant pain, and not in full control of their bodies.

I know the main debate with this is that euthenasia is a blow to the sanctity of human life. But is it not more cruel to force a person to continue living a compromised quality of life in a compromised body, than to allow that person to gracefully go with dignity, and allow there family memories of their time as healthy?

As for the idea of asking those people to give their bodies to science, its an interesting prostpect. Depending on how euthenasia is dealt with, that might be impossible however. I assume whatever chemical would be used to administer euthenasia could possibly affect whether that person's body could be helpful for science?

[Fana McCloud]

Beware that such phrase CAN be interpretted

in many ways.

Depressed man: "I lost my job, my wife, and

now am losing my wealth drinking this. Why

can not I ask to be put to sleep in an hospital?"

Me: "Because you are not ill, nor in physical

pain. Furthermore, if you have the courage

to ask for that in an hospital, have the courage

to jump off the top of a building. There are other,

non-legal ways too."

That's EXACTLY how I intended it to be interpreted. I don't have this hangup over death. Most people wouldn't actually kill themselves - they just say they wanna die or fake suicide attempts because they want attention drawn to the fact that they're emotionally suffering. Anyone who's serious enough to actually go through with it probably has good enough reason, and even if they don't it's not my business to tell them what to do with themselves. I REALLY dislike the fact that people treat emotional pain as somehow lesser than or always fleeting in the face of physical pain. Sometimes it just ISN'T.

Also, jumping off a building might be a REALLY painful way to go. Imagine if you were laying conscious on concrete with an internally shattered body because you didn't jump from high enough to go unconscious or something. NOT pleasant. But I don't know enough to know if that scenario is medically plausible, that's just my best guess.

[Guest Julius Quasar]

Also, jumping off a building might be a REALLY painful way to go. Imagine if you were laying conscious on concrete with an internally shattered body because you didn't jump from high enough to go unconscious or something. NOT pleasant.

Happened to a friend of mine once when he tried to kill himself that way...

[Asper Sarnoff]

I know this will seem brash and black and white, but to me this seems like a very clear issue

I have seen people waste away from a termial illness. The idea of forcing a person to live and be remembered in that state, and to be forced to live through so much pain, is cruel. And the point somebody made about not letting there loved ones go because they would miss them, I think that's cruel too. I completely understand the pain that comes with the idea of losing a loved one but its unfair to force someone you love to continue on a painful existance just so you can stave of the enevitable greiving.

Now, my feelings toward this does not extend to things like depression and suicide. A dark place like that can be defeated with courage and support, and that person can go on to live a healthy life. My opinion goes out to the people who have little time left, and will spend that time in extreme, constant pain, and not in full control of their bodies.

I know the main debate with this is that euthenasia is a blow to the sanctity of human life. But is it not more cruel to force a person to continue living a compromised quality of life in a compromised body, than to allow that person to gracefully go with dignity, and allow there family memories of their time as healthy?

As for the idea of asking those people to give their bodies to science, its an interesting prostpect. Depending on how euthenasia is dealt with, that might be impossible however. I assume whatever chemical would be used to administer euthenasia could possibly affect whether that person's body could be helpful for science?

Well said, and I fully agree with you. I don't have any problems imaging situations where I personally would prefer my loved ones to pull out the plug holding me alive, and if I'm unfortunate enough to ever come into a situation like that, I hope someone would grant that wish.

[Guest DRL]

That's EXACTLY how I intended it to be interpreted. I don't have this hangup over death. Most people wouldn't actually kill themselves - they just say they wanna die or fake suicide attempts because they want attention drawn to the fact that they're emotionally suffering. Anyone who's serious enough to actually go through with it probably has good enough reason, and even if they don't it's not my business to tell them what to do with themselves. I REALLY dislike the fact that people treat emotional pain as somehow lesser than or always fleeting in the face of physical pain. Sometimes it just ISN'T.

But Emotionall pain is just that, 'on the mind',

as some people would say. I AM NOT saying

'it is less', because it is not allways true.

I am saying that there have been people who

have overcome it. Sure, they will still be scarred

for life, as the unfortunate even in which they

lost their loved one(s) happened and they can

not turn back time now.

And if they want to suicide, well, there is a risk.

Of course jumping high from a building will have

a small chance that you do not die, but either you

will die too soon, OR, you can recover.

Also, jumping off a building might be a REALLY painful way to go. Imagine if you were laying conscious on concrete with an internally shattered body because you didn't jump from high enough to go unconscious or something. NOT pleasant. But I don't know enough to know if that scenario is medically plausible, that's just my best guess.

Well, nobody would last much in that

state for long. Furthermore, if you did not

jump high enought and did not die, then it

can happen that A] You probably broke only

a localized area of the body, B] Whatever you

broke can be healed. (Note that B] can encompass

A], too.)

I know this will seem brash and black and white, but to me this seems like a very clear issue

I have seen people waste away from a termial illness. The idea of forcing a person to live and be remembered in that state, and to be forced to live through so much pain, is cruel. And the point somebody made about not letting there loved ones go because they would miss them, I think that's cruel too. I completely understand the pain that comes with the idea of losing a loved one but its unfair to force someone you love to continue on a painful existance just so you can stave of the enevitable greiving.

Now, my feelings toward this does not extend to things like depression and suicide. A dark place like that can be defeated with courage and support, and that person can go on to live a healthy life. My opinion goes out to the people who have little time left, and will spend that time in extreme, constant pain, and not in full control of their bodies.

I know the main debate with this is that euthenasia is a blow to the sanctity of human life. But is it not more cruel to force a person to continue living a compromised quality of life in a compromised body, than to allow that person to gracefully go with dignity, and allow there family memories of their time as healthy?

That is fine, I said.

When there is no turning back,

or cure, then I do not see the point

in keeping on living if there is pain.

As for the idea of asking those people to give their bodies to science, its an interesting prostpect. Depending on how euthenasia is dealt with, that might be impossible however. I assume whatever chemical would be used to administer euthenasia could possibly affect whether that person's body could be helpful for science?

My idea of it is 'whatever made you feel

that pain, is still inside you after death'.

Therefore, it 'could' (there have been cases,

such as some types of cancer, where the

virus degrades after the person's death occurs).

be used for research. That way, you speed up

considerably the process of finding a cure.

I do not think it is asking too much after all.

The person know that he or she will never

recover. Okay, you can ask to be put to

sleep permanently. But by giving the body

for research, you are helping the process

of finding a cure/recovery process. This is

how, for example, many cures were found.

Sometimes extracting the virus from a dead

body is definetly not as dangerous as doing so

from a living organism, addtionally.

[Robert Monroe]

As a man who aspires to work in the medical field, I am all for euthanasia. Keeping people "barely alive" for as long as possible is a waste of resources, money, staff, and to be honest I find it much less ethical to keep someone onto a machine for months on end than to give them a damn dose of morphine and let them sleep the big sleep.

Nursing homes depress me.

[Guest DRL]

As a man who aspires to work in the medical field, I am all for euthanasia. Keeping people "barely alive" for as long as possible is a waste of resources, money, staff, and to be honest I find it much less ethical to keep someone onto a machine for months on end than to give them a damn dose of morphine and let them sleep the big sleep.

Nursing homes depress me.

When you put it that way, yeah.

Of course we are talking of 'barely alive'

people who will never get better, right?

If so, then it is perfectly fine.

[TheRedFox8]

Yeah, if I were kept alive only by machines, my final request would be to pull the plug if I ever got in that situation.

I don't care what to do with the body. Just throw it off a cliff. I'll be too dead to care.

[Robert Monroe]

When you put it that way, yeah.

Of course we are talking of 'barely alive'

people who will never get better, right?

If so, then it is perfectly fine.

Well, in the USA anyway, healthcare is entirely dependent on what the patient wants. Hospitals are not allowed to hold anyone against their will or treat them if they don't want to be treated, ect ect. I think this should apply to euthanasia too. If someone feels they would be better off dead than alive, they have the right to make that choice.

Admittedly, there is room for abuse here (the mentally unstable), but psych evaluations and personal caretakers can help work with that (currently, if a patient is unfit to make their own judgement calls on treatment, the responsibility falls onto a parent/spouse or something. Building on that could help circumvent emos tryng to get hospitals to off themselves).

[Guest DRL]

Well, in the USA anyway, healthcare is entirely dependent on what the patient wants. Hospitals are not allowed to hold anyone against their will or treat them if they don't want to be treated, ect ect. I think this should apply to euthanasia too. If someone feels they would be better off dead than alive, they have the right to make that choice.

Agreed on most, but again, if it is

a curable dissease/illness or other

solvable situation which only requires

some time of pain (and not any 'extra'

stuff such as limb removal, ect.) then I

say you have to have some strengh and

endure it. After all, you ARE going to get

better eventually.

If we talk about the other case, were we

can only 'slow down' death, then keeping

a person alive will pretty much be useless.

Admittedly, there is room for abuse here (the mentally unstable), but psych evaluations and personal caretakers can help work with that (currently, if a patient is unfit to make their own judgement calls on treatment, the responsibility falls onto a parent/spouse or something. Building on that could help circumvent emos tryng to get hospitals to off themselves).

Agreed.

[Robert Monroe]

Agreed on most, but again, if it is

a curable dissease/illness or other

solvable situation which only requires

some time of pain (and not any 'extra'

stuff such as limb removal, ect.) then I

say you have to have some strengh and

endure it. After all, you ARE going to get

better eventually.

If we talk about the other case, were we

can only 'slow down' death, then keeping

a person alive will pretty much be useless.Agreed.

The problem is some people don't want to be cured. I feel if they are in sound mind and do not desire to be cured, they have a right to death.

Key word here: sound mind. This would be a rarity of a case.

[Guest DRL]

The problem is some people don't want to be cured. I feel if they are in sound mind and do not desire to be cured, they have a right to death.

Key word here: sound mind. This would be a rarity of a case.

But well, if they choose not to be cured,

right, but then do not ask for an easy

route. I hate when people want it to be

everything easy. Sure, you are in great

pain, and you can not be cured? Okay,

we can put you to sleep if you wish.

If you CAN be cured and do not want to,

well, it is okay, but then do not ask to

be put to sleep.