Should Euthanasia be legal?

Hideous Sun Demon

Yes it should be. Anyone who argues that (x) should be kept alive no matter what is SOLELY CONCERNED for HIMSELF. He's afraid that he's going to be sent to hell for ALLOWING it, CONSENTING to it, or even NOT OBJECTING to it.
If you throw religion out of the window (where it belongs) you must realise that SUFFERING is what matters, not dying--which is only going back to where you came from before birth anyway. Suffering also includes that of the RELATIVES, having to endure the interminable ache of witnessing a vegetable being assisted to breathe by a machine for no reason whatsoever. Life is CONSCIOUSNESS, and the ability to enjoy this planet. Anything less than that is just existence.

Flicka

In theory yes, but there are too many pitfalls such as the answer about relatives wanting the money. I saw a TV program about people with severe disabilities from birth, most of the subjects had similar disabilities and were asked do they wish they were killed at birth and some set yes as their whole life was pointless and miserable and others said no way.

There is an oscar winning film called Mar Adentro, itÂ´s a Spanish film but with subtitles and is about this very subject, its a brilliant film.

The Sh*t

No. Who the hell are any of us to say when someone should die and when they shouldn't? Besides, logically and in all fairness you can't have euthanasia be legal but have suicide be illegal. The only way euthanasia should even be considered is if the person that is dying is of sound mind to make the choice for themselves at the time when euthanasia would be enacted. Otherwise, you can never say whether or not that person would want to die or not. You never know and if they can't speak for themselves then we have no right to kill them off.

Ginny Jin

No it might encourage some family members to want to euthanise older relatives to get money.

Drixnot

No, there is to much potential for abuse. This was in fact Hitler's first acts of mass murder... killing off the crippled and elderly.

Not to mention the damage it would do to the doctors themselves because once you begin to devalue one human life it gets easier to devalue others..... like raising the bar bit by bit.

This does not include those requiring machines to live.... this only applies to those not on machines. I personally believe that if someone is connected to machines and isn't even conscience with no chance of coming around again then they aren't really alive to begin with. The machines just make it look that way.

Mr Abba

I believe its wrong, it should stay illegal.

Pat F

I could go with assisted suicide but not euthanasia. Too many poor and elderly would get whacked.

Ethan

I'm not really sure.

shitebird

Aye lassie it should be. its your right to live and die as you see it with dignity

secondly i think especially yes if you start with Gordon Brown and continue through his cabinet and most of New labours communist party

cheesenoodlemcspiffymeistertimmy

http://blogs.triplem.com.au/triplem/archives/2008/07/voluntary_euthanasia.html#comments

Read this blog. My comment is the last one of the page from Ellie. It should help you :)

2008alis

yes, we created artificial life so without it there wouldn't be life. People sometimes are suffering to much.

Jenpen73

Yes I think so - I think that if anyone is living their life in pain or with a terminal illness that they (or there family) should be able to make that decision for themselves, in their own best interests. I always think it is so sad to see people fighting for this when they are living in a body that is no longer their own.

IceBreaker27

It should be legal, but only if it can be done with multiple safeguards in place. I think it is morally wrong, but I also respect that people can make their own decisions.

joan k

Yes everyone has the right to die with dignity

Mike

Yes, for a terminal and paineful illness. I would add that it would have to be agreed upon by the patient, a doctor, a judge, and a legal guardian.

Lena

yes, as long as there's a very strict system where the patient has recieved the approval of a a panel of relevant doctors: at least the opinions of 2 psychiatrists to ensure the patient choosing death because he is terminally ill, rather than cos he's being pressured by family members /depressed/ financially strapped etc + the opinions of atleast 2 doctors in the relevant speciality to confirm that the patient is terminally ill. the euthanisation centre will also have to be frequently visited by lawyers & health officials to ensure the method of euthanisation is painless/humane, the premises are clean & the process isnt being abused.

Mark II

Yes.

Al Bundy

Yes. Forcing someone to live in pain is not much different than torture.

Elfin

yes

Lisette

Just to clarify, as there seems to be some confusion here: Please be clear as to whether you are speaking of Active Euthanasia or Passive Euthanasia, as there is a great difference between the two. Active Euthanasia is a deliberate ending of a life to prevent further suffering by unnatural means, in which case that is considered criminal homicide and no, it should not be legal. Passive Euthanasia is widespread and legal (in the United States), such as removing a family member from life support, not administering treatments or medications necessary to keep a person alive. In Depth: Active Euthanasia is defined as using lethal substances to end a person's life and this, whether voluntary or involuntary, should not be legal, as it opens the door for far too many abuses. To the poster who listed both family members’ 'suffering' and life being 'consciousness' as viable arguments for euthanasia (if you are in fact referring to currently illegal active euthanasia): simply because a family member finds it inconvenient or painful to watch a relative die does not mean that ending their life earlier by means of active euthanasia should be an option. Our society is far too pampered in its current distance from death. Death is a necessary part of life, and pain is a necessary part of life as well, your relatives will die, sometimes without your being able to say goodbye, and frequently with far too much suffering in between. However, choosing to make our lives easier by ending things swiftly is, quite simply, a childish desire to have the world appear absent of suffering, which it is not. As to life being 'consciousness' and the 'ability to enjoy this planet', I agree that someone being kept alive by life support should be removed from it when their family is ready, in the absence of a living will that says otherwise. However, to begin to make judgments on 'quality of life' is a very dangerous thing; at what point should a person be considered to have lost the ability to enjoy the planet? Only clear instances where they require life support to remain alive? When they're paralyzed? When they're blind? When they're over 80? 90? We need to be very careful when we begin to define quality of life beyond a fairly concrete line of simple 'removal from life support', it could lead us to a very dangerous place; whether you believe in a God/gods/goddess or not, you should never attempt to play the god, we humans have a disturbing history of our failed attempts at this. In summary: active euthanasia (administering lethal substances to a person) should never be legalized, its potential for abuse is, everyone must agree, far too great, and the ethical/legal can of worms that it opens means lawmakers will have to redefine ‘murder’. In contrast, passive euthanasia is legal and frequently practiced, in gray areas such as consciousness/limited brain function/feeding tubes, etc. a living will must be referenced, in its absence, no matter how much the family feels burdened, or believes a person would wish to be allowed to die, a reversion to current laws regarding the care of such patients must occur. Final thoughts: have a living will, I cannot emphasize this enough. If you are adamantly opposed to life as a 'vegetable', put it in writing. If you don't want to eventually have a relative in the same situation, encourage them to have one as well, hospitals will honor these, regardless of your extended or other member’s wish to keep you or your relative alive. Know that if you do not have a living will (a verbal one does not technically count and cannot offer you any assurances), a hospital will be legally obligated to keep you alive unless a relative agrees to remove life support, in which case, their own feelings, religious beliefs, emotional state, will come into play. My two cents: there is pain in this life, physical and emotional suffering, it is part of being human, part of ‘consciousness’ if you will. If you wish to end it, you certainly may do so on your own, no one will begrudge you that right. If you require assistance, relatives may offer it, but please beware they may be held responsible for a criminal act if their actions are discovered, if you are willing or so desirous of death that you would risk their imprisonment, you may request their help. Watching and allowing someone to suffer is not similar, or close, to torture, which I am fairly certain is technically defined as an intentional infliction of discomfort and/or pain.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: