Well, it's not really a new topic, but I saw a little blurb-thingumy in the paper about Kevorkian and parole - and I thought about how someone did a thesis paper on the topic, and realised I didn't really have any strong (or as you'll see, particularly interesting) views on the topic.
I know, great start - that should REALLY get people interested in discussing.
So far, I think it should be legal - but the receiving person should be in stable mental health - though suicidal thoughts by some would be considered "unstable".
Then again, I'm sure some people think ANYONE who asks for a lethal injection or something should be applicable (though a little hesitation for the mentally handicapped might be in order...) - young or old.
It just seems like those in old age - suffering from a terminal disease (...life...it gets everyone in the end...) have been around long enough to make the choice - if their quality of life is so low and it's near the end anyway. Though perhaps some would consider the disease a stress that would make them think things they normally would not.
I'm just trying to think from all angles at this point.
I would like to hear opinions from other people. It's something I don't really know about and would like to hear some different sides. :)
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Killing should NOT be legal, whether it's yourself or someone else.
Now if you're really sick and a real Doctor can see no hope, then I'm sure something can be arranged.
Now if you're really sick and a real Doctor can see no hope, then I'm sure something can be arranged.
well personally i think its wrong that they keep people barely alive (vegtables) on machines for years when god wanted them home in the first place. if there isnt viable life, or unbearable incurable suffering i think its up to them whether they want to keep going or not, and as charles said, if theyre in the state of mind or not to decide, or as i think, are functional human beings.
thats doesnt make me sound like an ass does it? :-/
thats doesnt make me sound like an ass does it? :-/
Anyone has the right to die if they wish. So, if they are either capable of making it known themselves, OR they have A WRITTEN, SIGNED DECLARATION that they wish to die should certain circumstances arrive, yes, they should be allowed to. If neither is the case, then there may be no assisted suicide.
no one has the right to take any other person's life without proper premission
There's so many things to consider when it comes to euthanasia (sic probably sorry).
For example why does this victim want to kill themselves and more importantly do they want help?
Chances are, if they want their life to end, but have asked someone to do it for them because they can't, then it's the kind of life no-one wants to live. Their have been many stories about seriously ill people who want it 'all to end.' Anyway the fact that it's illegal in some countries doesn't stop assisted suicide altogether. A few years ago an elderly man was arrested after coming back from Poland where euthanasia is legal, he'd killed his terminally ill wife, whom he said had asked him too.
If he was telling the truth personally I think that's a show of ultimate love and friendship, it's perfectly portrayed in the novel 'Of Mice and Men' when George is forced to kill Lennie and end the close friendship they have to save Lennie from a surely much worse fate. To end the suffering ofthe person you care most about, even though it causes you grief and pain, is a true display of friendship.
For example why does this victim want to kill themselves and more importantly do they want help?
Chances are, if they want their life to end, but have asked someone to do it for them because they can't, then it's the kind of life no-one wants to live. Their have been many stories about seriously ill people who want it 'all to end.' Anyway the fact that it's illegal in some countries doesn't stop assisted suicide altogether. A few years ago an elderly man was arrested after coming back from Poland where euthanasia is legal, he'd killed his terminally ill wife, whom he said had asked him too.
If he was telling the truth personally I think that's a show of ultimate love and friendship, it's perfectly portrayed in the novel 'Of Mice and Men' when George is forced to kill Lennie and end the close friendship they have to save Lennie from a surely much worse fate. To end the suffering ofthe person you care most about, even though it causes you grief and pain, is a true display of friendship.
I had a dog once. When she turned 16, she was diagnosed with lung cancer and was given 3 months to live. The first 10 weeks of that time were okay, but during the last two, she showed definite signs of decline. One day, I realized her coping had turned to suffering. As brutally painful as it was for me, I, fortunately, was able to free her from that suffering. I had to do the same thing just weeks ago for another beloved pet. I could not, however, do the same thing when my darling grandfather was suffering the agonies of stomach cancer. Instead, months went by with him moaning, crying and saying these exact words, "When will I be free of life?"
Should assisted suicide be allowed? Damn straight it should be allowed.
We should all tell our loved ones what our wishes are, write them down, get them notarized, whatever it takes should our minds/bodies ever be so compromised that euthanasia is the best option.
Should assisted suicide be allowed? Damn straight it should be allowed.
We should all tell our loved ones what our wishes are, write them down, get them notarized, whatever it takes should our minds/bodies ever be so compromised that euthanasia is the best option.
Magicalfreddiemercury... your story was very sad, and it summed up my thoughts on this matter.
If anybody suffers from an incurable and agonizing disease, why live? What's the reason in it? The person in a stable condition can easily say that there might still be hope, but then again, euthanasia wouldn't be a serious option unless the case was virtually hopeless. If it was them, would they still want to live each day in pain, waiting for a cure?
But in the case of depression, I don't think it should be permitted. Depression CAN be cured! It can be very, very difficult, but it can be cured with willpower. But the other people don't have a choice. Note: not that it can be avoided...
If anybody suffers from an incurable and agonizing disease, why live? What's the reason in it? The person in a stable condition can easily say that there might still be hope, but then again, euthanasia wouldn't be a serious option unless the case was virtually hopeless. If it was them, would they still want to live each day in pain, waiting for a cure?
But in the case of depression, I don't think it should be permitted. Depression CAN be cured! It can be very, very difficult, but it can be cured with willpower. But the other people don't have a choice. Note: not that it can be avoided...
It should definately be legal. I mean, I personally think it's the ultimate form of torture and cruelty to insist on keeping someone who is terminally ill and suffering alive. I definatly want to have that option if I ever get sick like that.
If people have a directive that says they want that if the circumstances are met, then ok. I personally think anyone who is diagnosed with any disease like cancer or Parkinsons or something like that should be asked to sign a directive in case things like that happen.
Why keep them alive if they are terminal and want to die? They are adults, they can make their own decisions. All you are doing by keeping them alive is prolonging the suffering of themselves and their families, and adding to the huge pile of medical bills that will be coming at the end when the person finally does die.
It's definatly not something that should be forced on anyone, but they should have that option.
If people have a directive that says they want that if the circumstances are met, then ok. I personally think anyone who is diagnosed with any disease like cancer or Parkinsons or something like that should be asked to sign a directive in case things like that happen.
Why keep them alive if they are terminal and want to die? They are adults, they can make their own decisions. All you are doing by keeping them alive is prolonging the suffering of themselves and their families, and adding to the huge pile of medical bills that will be coming at the end when the person finally does die.
It's definatly not something that should be forced on anyone, but they should have that option.
Here's a random thought I had:
If someone foregoes suicide in favor of euthanasia, wouldn't it mean that they still have the will to live? How many people jump off a tall building, and half way down realize they made a mistake? We may never know this, but I consider euthanasia to be a very similar matter.
As far as giving my opinion, of course euthanasia should be legal. The government has no right or duty to keep you from your own willful death. It's not a governmental matter, it's an individual one. The government should only protect your rights, not your choices - be they good or bad.
If someone foregoes suicide in favor of euthanasia, wouldn't it mean that they still have the will to live? How many people jump off a tall building, and half way down realize they made a mistake? We may never know this, but I consider euthanasia to be a very similar matter.
As far as giving my opinion, of course euthanasia should be legal. The government has no right or duty to keep you from your own willful death. It's not a governmental matter, it's an individual one. The government should only protect your rights, not your choices - be they good or bad.
Over here there was a really high profile case about a nurse who's elderly mother who was loosing the battle with cancer and who was in a lot of pain asked her daughter to up her morphine dose so she could pass away and be relieved of her pain. She did this and her mother died, just like she had asked, but the daughter was arrested. When her story got out the whole country got behind her and supported her, you could see plain as day she was not a malicious killer, she was a daughter who was upset by the fact her mother was in an incredible ammount of pain and unable to do anything execpt lie in bed. Her life had lost all quality and she only lived to be in pain. Her mother wasn't going to get any better, only increase in pain as they days went on and in a way it's cruel to make someone go through that, just delaying them from the inevitable.
I agree with Caspie on this one. I mean, if you really want to die, it's your right to do so.
Imagine watching someone you love that much in so much pain...
Still in a secondary school-style debate the 'cons' of allowing euthanasia is that, there's no victim to testify if the death was in fact euthanasia, suicide or murder.
A lot of grey areas to cover...
Still in a secondary school-style debate the 'cons' of allowing euthanasia is that, there's no victim to testify if the death was in fact euthanasia, suicide or murder.
A lot of grey areas to cover...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=BrianJM>RollingZepBowieQueen wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Still in a secondary school-style debate the 'cons' of allowing euthanasia is that, there's no victim to testify if the death was in fact euthanasia, suicide or murder.
A lot of grey areas to cover... [/QUOTE]
If a person's medical records show the extent of their illness, and it's clear they were going to die a slow and painful death (as is the case in many fatal diseases), and there has not been a case of abuse committed against the patient in the past, then there is no gray area. It's mercy killing.
We can spare our pets the agony of a slow death, but we have to watch our mother, father, or other loved one suffer needlessly? I just don't see the difference between deciding how far to take treatment when people cannot speak for themselves and carrying out their wishes to die when they ask directly.
Even lethal injections for convicted criminals (whether you're for or against the death penalty) have to be 'merciful'. A man who murdered someone is spared pain, and his dignity, as it were, remains in tact. Yet a law-abiding citizen is not permitted the same consideration. Instead, they're sentenced to die after disease has stripped them of the ability to fend for themselves. Often, they need help moving around. As the disease progresses, they need someone to feed them, wipe their chin. They can no longer bathe and so must have someone else tend to that. The disease rips away every last shred of dignity from them when, in the end, they can no longer relieve themselves or clean up after, instead, just like Freddie, they need to be assisted with that as well.
You're a woman. You're a man. Picture someone you love - your adult child, perhaps - having to care for you in this way. You both know you're going to die. It's just a matter of time - a long, drawn out, painful and humiliating time. What would you want for yourself? For them? And why should any 'law' prevent you from acquiring that?
Why?
Still in a secondary school-style debate the 'cons' of allowing euthanasia is that, there's no victim to testify if the death was in fact euthanasia, suicide or murder.
A lot of grey areas to cover... [/QUOTE]
If a person's medical records show the extent of their illness, and it's clear they were going to die a slow and painful death (as is the case in many fatal diseases), and there has not been a case of abuse committed against the patient in the past, then there is no gray area. It's mercy killing.
We can spare our pets the agony of a slow death, but we have to watch our mother, father, or other loved one suffer needlessly? I just don't see the difference between deciding how far to take treatment when people cannot speak for themselves and carrying out their wishes to die when they ask directly.
Even lethal injections for convicted criminals (whether you're for or against the death penalty) have to be 'merciful'. A man who murdered someone is spared pain, and his dignity, as it were, remains in tact. Yet a law-abiding citizen is not permitted the same consideration. Instead, they're sentenced to die after disease has stripped them of the ability to fend for themselves. Often, they need help moving around. As the disease progresses, they need someone to feed them, wipe their chin. They can no longer bathe and so must have someone else tend to that. The disease rips away every last shred of dignity from them when, in the end, they can no longer relieve themselves or clean up after, instead, just like Freddie, they need to be assisted with that as well.
You're a woman. You're a man. Picture someone you love - your adult child, perhaps - having to care for you in this way. You both know you're going to die. It's just a matter of time - a long, drawn out, painful and humiliating time. What would you want for yourself? For them? And why should any 'law' prevent you from acquiring that?
Why?
Excellent Post, MagicalFreddieMercury.
It's easy for people to sit there and say "It's murder" when it's never happend to them or to anyone they care about. My guess is that a lot of those people are the ones who will be begging for it when they are faced with that situation, or when a loved one is, they'll understand. You can't truly understand the amount of pain these people are in unless you've seen it. I know, that's all Hospice Workers deal with.
I think it's a violation of their constitutional rights against cruel and unusual punishment to make people suffer like that when they can spare themselves the pain, just because some righteous prick on the outside of the situation who has never seen it decides that it's immoral.
It's easy for people to sit there and say "It's murder" when it's never happend to them or to anyone they care about. My guess is that a lot of those people are the ones who will be begging for it when they are faced with that situation, or when a loved one is, they'll understand. You can't truly understand the amount of pain these people are in unless you've seen it. I know, that's all Hospice Workers deal with.
I think it's a violation of their constitutional rights against cruel and unusual punishment to make people suffer like that when they can spare themselves the pain, just because some righteous prick on the outside of the situation who has never seen it decides that it's immoral.