Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Mad Poster
Original Poster
#1 Old 20th Aug 2007 at 12:57 AM
Default Euthanasia- Right or Wrong?
The abortion thread briefly declined into euthanasia, which has made me curious about how others feel about this subject. Euthanasia, also known as mercy killing, has two forms. Active euthanasia is when a doctor knowingly administers a lethal cocktail of drugs to an agreeable patient who has a debilitating disease and wishes to die, whereas passive euthanasia is when the family of a comatose patient requests that they be pulled off life support and allowed to die. Do you think this is right?

Personally, I think everyone should have the right to legal euthanasia. Until we've walked a mile in the shoes of a cancer patient or someone else with a terminal illness, I think we are in no position to judge whether they are suffering enough to request euthanasia. I've often heard people say that suicide and euthanasia are selfish, but I don't think so. What's selfish are the people who ask a sick person to decline euthanasia and put them though more suffering just so they can have a few more moments of their precious time. No one should have to suffer through a painful disease if it's not what they want. If we have a right to choose how we live, we certainly should have the right to choose how we die.

What is your perspective on this subject? Is euthanasia right or wrong? Should it be legal or illegal? And, if you think it should be legal, what requirements must an ill person meet to be eligible for euthanasia, if any?

Do I dare disturb the universe?
.
| tumblr | My TS3 Photos |
Advertisement
#2 Old 20th Aug 2007 at 1:42 AM
I think if we can be so compassionate to put an animal down that's suffering, why shouldn't we be able to do it for a human as well. It's cruel to let someone suffer if they don't have to.

I do think there should be strict guidelines surrounding it though.
Theorist
#3 Old 20th Aug 2007 at 2:20 AM
Passive only. The lethal cocktail variation is better known by another name: Physician Assisted Suicide, and is illegal. Residents in Michigan, such as I am, have been dealing with this issue for a long time, thanks to Dr. Death, Jack Kevorkian. The problem lies in the differences between actively causing and passively allowing. Actively causing, as the lethal cocktail version is, is the intentional termination of a human life, while passively allowing, like unplugging a life support machine, is simply allowing nature to take its course. There is a big difference between killing someone and allowing someone to die. When you unplug a life support machine, all you are doing is allowing the body to resume its pre-machine state. Life support artificially extends the individual's life beyond what it is capable of doing on its own. When you unplug the machine, you are merely allowing nature to resume its course. When you administer a drug or some other method to actively kill someone, even with their permission and blessing, you are still taking an active role in the termination of a human life, and that should only be done with absolute discrimination. With a cancer patient, if they were miraculously cured from their cancer, would they still want you to kill them? I bet not. With a person in a vegetative state, their body cannot recover, and should have died already. If they were cured from whatever caused them to be under life support, they wouldn't need the machine anymore. The cancer patient or whoever only wants to die because of a condition they have, if they want to die, let them commit suicide...you don't need to help.

From Batman Begins:
"I won't kill you...but I don't have to save you!"

such is the difference between active and passive euthanasia.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
Scholar
#4 Old 20th Aug 2007 at 4:15 AM
I think it's fine, especially if passively 'allowing nature to take its course' will be a long and painful process.
Test Subject
#5 Old 20th Aug 2007 at 4:31 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Doddibot
I think it's fine, especially if passively 'allowing nature to take its course' will be a long and painful process.

I agree.Seeing people die after a long time battling cancer isn't pretty and most of them can't even really enjoy their last few months of earth .Also, with brain-dead people, I don't see the point of having them hooked to machines when they will never come back.They have already died in a way.
Test Subject
#6 Old 20th Aug 2007 at 4:41 AM
Yes well, I do not think we can exclude active euthanasia. In the very modern times that we live in, it has been most undoubtedly the first time in human history that we are required by law to suffer if we are dying a slow and painful death.

Just as we say 'man does not not have the right to take life', why do we not say, 'man does not have the right to take death'? (or rather, to deny death)

since people arent walking around saying that, I will be a little more clear. If someone is recognizably dying, in the obvious ways that we would start trying to justify euthanasia, then what right do we have to deny that person? I am not suggesting that depressed, sickly people be permitted to commit assisted suicide, but rather, the truely incurable and afflicted individuals be reviewed for the euthanasia.
Forum Resident
#7 Old 22nd Aug 2007 at 8:18 PM
I think if a person is in such pain they should be allowed to be euthenized.
Forum Resident
#8 Old 22nd Aug 2007 at 8:31 PM
I think that passive euthanasia should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes there's just no hope. Active euthanasia shouldn't even really be an issue; it's that person's right.
Test Subject
#9 Old 31st Aug 2007 at 3:05 PM
Look at it this way - who's life is it anyway?

Exactly
Inventor
#10 Old 3rd Sep 2007 at 2:23 PM
It's an awfully hard call to make- I agree wholeheartedly with euthanasia in theory, but I'd imagine the legislation necessary to make sure that the terminally ill are protected is at least one of the major obstacles. How many different opinions do you need to seek to determine whether or not a condition is terminal or incurable? How long should the process be drawn out for- you need to make it long enough that the person (if considering active) or the next of kin (if considering passive) are sure that this is the decision they want to take, but not so long that you're prolonging their suffering unnecessarily.

The other big issue is, what about terminal vs. incurable. Not that I want to die, but I'll use my own perspective here. I suffer from an incredibly painful disease- I can't walk and I'm on the sort of drugs that wouldn't be out of place in palliation of a terminal cancer patient. There is no cure, and treatment is often not successful, but it is not a terminal illness. Compared to many other people with this disease, I'm lucky- I have a very severe manifestation of the disease but only one leg affected. I have wonderful support on all sides and except for days when I am seriously ill, I get through life...it's a struggle, but I'm not ready to give up- I have almost finished my degree, and hopefully will be able to do some part-time work once I graduate. There are however those that have involvement of their whole body, who have lost every vestige of normality from their lives. There is a relatively high suicide rate associated with this- should people in this sort of situation have the right to euthanasia also?

The ultimate point for me: as a soon-to-be vet, I'd be hauled up in front of the practitioners' board for negligence/cruelty if I left an animal suffering the way so many terminally ill people are left to suffer. I feel privileged to be able to end suffering as quickly and easily as I can, and I think the same opportunity should be there for the medical profession when circumstances are appropriate.

Please call me Laura
"The gene pool needs more chlorine."
My Site
 
Back to top