• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should American adopt the right to Doctor Assisted Suicide?

Should Doctor assisted suicide be legal?

  • yes

    Votes: 42 70.0%
  • Depends on the regulation put in place and circumstances

    Votes: 11 18.3%
  • no

    Votes: 7 11.7%

  • Total voters
    60

Zinthaniel

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
1,112
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
People should have the right to die with dignity.

Period.

This does need heavy regulation however to ensure the 15 grandchildren aren't pressuring grandma into going early for inheritance as an over the top example but I have absolutely no problem with this.
 
The answer is yes, an individual should have the ownership of and the decision making ability for themselves... up to and including the right to die with dignity.
 
Everyone should have the right to decide what they want to do with their bodies, including to die with dignity and NOT be forced to live as a vegetable.
 
Canada legalized gay marriage 12 years ago and now they have legalized doctor assisted suicide. God they are ahead of us.
 
You have a right to kill yourself, not to have others do killing for you.

Paying someone to kill a human in aggression is impermissible and any government that allows such a thing is backwards and barbaric.
 
You have a right to kill yourself, not to have others do killing for you.

Paying someone to kill a human in aggression is impermissible and any government that allows such a thing is backwards and barbaric.

some people, such as the bedridden, can not kill themselves and need assistance. That is what the new legislation is mainly tailored for. Those who are not going to die anytime soon, but our living what is left of their lives in pain.
 
You have a right to kill yourself, not to have others do killing for you.

Paying someone to kill a human in aggression is impermissible and any government that allows such a thing is backwards and barbaric.
Actually, the more advanced countries have legalized euthanasia. And stay out of other people's business. If you want to live like a vegetable, then make that clear to your family. But for those who want to die, let them. Mind your own business.
 
some people, such as the bedridden, can not kill themselves and need assistance. That is what the new legislation is mainly tailored for. Those who are not going to die anytime soon, but our living what is left of their lives in pain.

So refuse treatment, refuse food, and refuse water.

You will die soon enough and no one else will be responsible for that death but you.
 
So refuse treatment, refuse food, and refuse water.

You will die soon enough and no one else will be responsible for that death but you.

And that would be a long stretched out painful death. What here are you missing?

Doctor assisted deaths are peaceful. The patient dies without suffering your alternative is that they suffer.

I'm sorry but who is the barbarian again?
 
So refuse treatment, refuse food, and refuse water.

You will die soon enough and no one else will be responsible for that death but you.

Yeah because knowingly starving someone to death is not barbaric :roll:
 
So refuse treatment, refuse food, and refuse water.

You will die soon enough and no one else will be responsible for that death but you.
Why should someone have to suffer just because you're a religious nut?
 
And that would be a long stretched out painful death.

Bull****. The human body doesn't last long without water. Doesn't take much by way of palliation to relieve any negative symptoms associated with dehydration, and then you lose consciousness, and then you die.

Doctor assisted deaths are peaceful. The patient dies without suffering your alternative is that they suffer.

I'm sorry but who is the barbarian again?

Aggressive violence against another human being is not peaceful.

There is a moral difference between inflicting lethal harm on someone and allowing them to die because that is their wish.

That line is very important. Palliation is mercy. Killing is something you can only justify in self-defense.
 
Last edited:
Bull****. The human body doesn't last long without water. Doesn't take much by way of palliation to relieve any negative symptoms associated with dehydration, and then you lose consciousness, and then you die.

http://compassionwa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/VSED-packet-2013-1.pdf

Dying from lack of food alone can be more prolonged and uncomfortable than dying from dehydration. If a person stops eating and drinking, death may come as early as a few days but more commonly one to three weeks. If the patient continues to drink, the process may take even longer.

Again your alternative is one of suffering. Prolonged suffering.

So you are ok with someone helping with alleviating the pain associated with suicide just not ok with someone, a professional, just out right doing it for the said individuals. I'm not understanding where your line is drawn.


Aggressive violence against another human being is not peaceful.

What is aggressive about stopping someone's painful demise and giving them peace?
 
Last edited:
So then why is he against euthanasia?

You know, there is more than one way to come to a conclusion, and if you actually read his posts in this thread you would KNOW why he thinks the way he does.
 
You already answered the question. Just take out the word religious from your last post

Your trolling is noted, sir, as is your lack of rebuttal.
 
Thank God it's legal in Oregon.
 
What is aggressive about stop someone's painful demise and giving them peace?

Probably the part where you are killing them. :roll:
 
I support this ruling, but it's specious reasoning to say those who die by assisted suicide don't suffer, just like it's specious to say that people who die in their sleep don't suffer. On the outside it might look peaceful but we don't know what their experience is. That said, assisted suicide for the terminally ill sure beats the long and drawn out suffering that usually happens before they die, not to mention the medical cost. There are good moral and practical reasons for this ruling.

To play devil's advocate, the part of the debate that I find really fascinating is the "do no harm" edict of medicine, which is pretty much a global phenomenon in all cultures. With assisted suicide you're basically killing them... can a therapeutic value be argued for that?

There's also a classism argument to be made here. Assisted suicide may still be expensive, prohibiting the poor from ending a disease of protracted suffering. At the same time, it would be cheaper than long term care, so if someone can't afford palliative care would we just refer them to a death doctor?
 
Back
Top Bottom