• 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!

Assisted suicide - How far can it go?

Which of these models do you support?

  • Holland

    Votes: 4 25.0%

  • Belgium

    Votes: 1 6.3%

  • Canada

    Votes: 3 18.8%

  • Switzerland

    Votes: 4 25.0%

  • None

    Votes: 4 25.0%
  • Total voters
    16
LowDown said:
All right:

Herbert Hendin, “The Dutch Experience,” in Kathleen Foley and Herbert Hendin, eds., The Case Against Assisted Suicide (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002), p. 109.

McHugh, “Dr. Death Makes a Comeback.”
Click to expand...

Link(s), please.
 
It's considered inhumane to keep a dying animal alive. Why do we force humans to endure painful deaths? I think it's inhumane. People should have the choice!

Also, I would pick "other" if it was a choice. We should be able to pick the terms that make sense here.
 
I'm fine with it under any circumstnaces as long as the person making the decision can be proven to be legally capable of doing so.

Where it gets tricky is children or people who aren't legally competent and someone else has medical power of attorney.

In those cases, I think you need far stricter criteria. Like there has to be a terminal disease or condition already affecting the person and if the person is capable of any form of communication they need to agree with what's going to happen as best as they can understand it.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I don't know how anyone that has ever watched a loved one die of cancer, particularly an abdominal region cancer, could be against assisted suicide in the final weeks of their life.

For example, let's say that God forbid a loved one gets terminal uterine or ovarian cancer. You know how they will die? They will slowly starve to death. They will reach a point in their cancer where their abdomen swells full of cancerous fluid, they are in constant pain, and they throw up every think they try to eat. In fact, they throw up a cancerous fluid literally dozens of times a day. No amount of morphine helps, and that is the state they are in as they slowly die an excruciating death over the last few weeks of their life.
Click to expand...
exactly right and accurate
 
I support it for adults (freely with no restrictions) and children who are terminal and wish it.

With that said, I think there are times individuals suffer great mental stress, isolation and sadness. Therefore I would like to see such individuals assisted through those times to begin with.

Bottom line: it's an individual choice.

No one should make someone else be responsible for their death however unless that other has chosen to be involved. For that reason I see jumping in front of trains or smashing into others cars as cruel, selfish and irresponsible. Also care should be given to those who will find the body such as a warning note.
 
I'm all for assisted suicide if a person is terminal, in pain, and if their quality of life is demonstrably-horrible.

I personally will never allow myself the indignity (at some advance age) of having others wipe up my drool and/or change my diaper.
I simply won't do it.

And I won't tolerate it at the end of the life of one of my loved ones.


And if I end up in a vegetative state following a motorcycle accident (for instance), my Living Will says "no feed, no extraordinary measures".

:(
 
Peter King said:
Normal abortion is allowed but in cases where the severity of the handicap/suffering of the child is only found out after week 24 (when all abortions are a crime), there are cases in which late abortion is not punished by law:

Late-term abortions may be performed only in exceptional circumstances. The following due care criteria apply:

- The unborn child must have a disorder so serious that medical experts believe that medical treatment following the birth will be futile. There must be no doubt about the diagnosis and prognosis;
- The unborn child must be suffering, or must be likely to suffer following its birth, with no prospect of improvement;
- The mother must make an explicit request for the pregnancy to be terminated on the grounds of the physical or mental suffering the situation is causing her;
- The physician must have given the parents a full explanation of the diagnosis and prognosis. This means that both the physician and the parents must be convinced that there is no reasonable alternative solution given the child’s situation;
- At least one other, independent physician must have examined the child and given a written opinion on compliance with the due care criteria listed above;
- The pregnancy must be terminated with all due care.

This to prevent that the child and the parents have to go through a euthanasia after birth.
Click to expand...

What is interesting is that it would appear that we are developing in the direction we would have and I did expect. Abortions are becoming permissible at increasingly later dates albeit with more ritual attached. In some more progressive countries the killings are now crossing the barrier that birth was supposed to have been as euthanasia of persons without a voice in it starts to be possible. When I would point to the latest termination date as a slippery slope, that would very much anger the pro abortion people that complained that it was not slippery at all. Of course, that is only natural. When you try to get your foot in the door, you have to sweet talk. Then you push.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
It's considered inhumane to keep a dying animal alive. Why do we force humans to endure painful deaths? I think it's inhumane. People should have the choice!

Also, I would pick "other" if it was a choice. We should be able to pick the terms that make sense here.
Click to expand...

Yeah but an animal's ability to be physically active is seen as intrinsic to its quality of life. Same with humans to a large extent, but (unless in a coma) even when doped on painkillers in a hospital bed, grandma can still have moments of clarity, still have a story read to her or conversation. Of course, it should still be their choice, but i think it's revealing that so few of the terminally ill ever make use of legal assisted suicide. It seems to me humans are unique both in being able to enjoy at least moments of inactive living, and in knowing there will be no more of those moments when the plug is pulled

I think the real reason, though, to answer your question is 1) religion (few holy texts or preachers ever say "don't kill animals") and 2) it's relatively harder to pull the plug on your parents or children than on your pet and 3) long-term sickness is very profitable for hospitals, nursing homes, hospices etc. This last is the same reason the UK is coming up with cures to disease, while the US love affair with big pharma produces only symptom management
 
Last edited:
chromium said:
Yeah but an animal's ability to be physically active is seen as intrinsic to its quality of life. Same with humans to a large extent, but (unless in a coma) even when doped on painkillers in a hospital bed, grandma can still have moments of clarity, still have a story read to her or conversation. Of course, it should still be their choice, but i think it's revealing that so few of the terminally ill ever make use of legal assisted suicide. It seems to me humans are unique both in being able to enjoy at least moments of inactive living, and in knowing there will be no more of those moments when the plug is pulled

I think the real reason, though, to answer your question is 1) religion (few holy texts or preachers ever say "don't kill animals") and 2) it's relatively harder to pull the plug on your parents or children than on your pet and 3) long-term sickness is very profitable for hospitals, nursing homes, hospices etc. This last is the same reason the UK is coming up with cures to disease, while the US love affair with big pharma produces only symptom management
Click to expand...

I'm just using my perspective. If I was in severe pain and knew I only had a short time left on earth, I would want to die with dignity. I would want to have a quality life over one that is drawn out in pain and suffering. That is just me. I feel I should be able to make that decision.
 
None.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
I'm just using my perspective. If I was in severe pain and knew I only had a short time left on earth, I would want to die with dignity. I would want to have a quality life over one that is drawn out in pain and suffering. That is just me. I feel I should be able to make that decision.
Click to expand...

Yeah but again, dignity isn't a concept animals can appreciate

Most everyone who is terminally ill and suffering can do something about it before they reach the point of being incapable of pulling a trigger or whatever. It's generally assumed, aside from rare cases like being paralyzed in an accident, that someone in a hospice is there because they knew well beforehand and turned down the option of suicide. Again, animals cannot make such choices, so we make them for our pets

What i think you mean to say is you would want others who are not so certain to have the ability to change their minds after they're in a hospital bed, or like in Holland, to have someone else pull that trigger. I think we all should have that right too, but i don't think it does the euthanasia movement any favors to pretend that most everyone with absolutely 0 hesitation couldn't just end their own life
 
chromium said:
Yeah but again, dignity isn't a concept animals can appreciate

Most everyone who is terminally ill and suffering can do something about it before they reach the point of being incapable of pulling a trigger or whatever. It's generally assumed, aside from rare cases like being paralyzed in an accident, that someone in a hospice is there because they knew well beforehand and turned down the option of suicide.
Click to expand...

A person should not be put in a position where he/she has to put a bullet to their head in order to die peacefully.
 
chromium said:
So i believe a 6th state is about to legalize assisted suicide.
Click to expand...

Personally I have absolutely no problem with assisted suicide when it comes to terminal medical reasons.

For non-terminal medical reasons, I'm of two minds about it. From a legal standpoint I think that all forms of assisted suicide should be allowed. But I would insist that it be fully documented before such can happen. By fully documented the person must have a letter signed by them, witnessed by two lawyers from different companies each or a judge and the performing doctor as the person is writing the letter. The performing doctor/hospital and lawyers must also do this willingly and without any form of payment to ensure that nothing hinkey is going on and to avoid murders.

The other side of my mind thinks that suicide without a terminal medical illness is the cowards way out and would not support anyone I know doing it.
 
In Judaism a person can kill himself/herself to avoid severe and long suffering or torture.

Most rabbis do not believe in the possibility of eternal punishment -- none believe in suicide being punished for eternity.
 
Last edited:
rabbitcaebannog said:
A person should not be put in a position where he/she has to put a bullet to their head in order to die peacefully.
Click to expand...

i do agree they should have the choice, but again, let's have more integrity than our opponents and be open and straightforward. I think statistically, a self inflicted gun is the most likely to succeed and without suffering. When it comes to Oregon, there is even debate among doctors about how much Pentobarbital is needed to put different patients of different sizes truly unconscious before the heart is stopped. If it's not enough, it can cause several minutes of agony, all while the patient looks perfectly peaceful on the outside. This is the same anesthetic used for lethal injection executions, and despite being convicted murderers, doctors refuse to participate not only due to the helplessness of the condemned, but the uncertain suffering it causes
 
Kreton said:
A person's life is there own to do as they choose. That includes ending it.
Click to expand...

Most Christians would not agree. But many Orthodox Jews do believe that suicide is OK to avoid long and severe torture.
 
SCitizen said:
Most Christians would not agree. But many Orthodox Jews do believe that suicide is OK to avoid long and severe torture.
Click to expand...

Those Christians don't have to opt for it. I wasn't attempting to imply that everyone should commit suicide regardless of their religion. Each person owns their own life. For those that are opposed to assisted suicide, they shouldn't explore that option.
 
Kreton said:
Those Christians don't have to opt for it. I wasn't attempting to imply that everyone should commit suicide regardless of their religion. Each person owns their own life. For those that are opposed to assisted suicide, they shouldn't explore that option.
Click to expand...

Sad but true. But suicide is only OK to end real long and severe suffering.
 
Kreton said:
Why? What if a person is just done? Its their life, their body, their decision. No one should be forced to live.
Click to expand...

According to Judaism they will endure many years but not eternity of suffering. According to Christianity they will suffer eternally.
 
SCitizen said:
According to Judaism they will endure many years but not eternity of suffering. According to Christianity they will suffer eternally.
Click to expand...

Right, so again they may not wish to explore that option. I am not saying Christians are wrong, or the jews are wrong, or anyone else. No one knows with any certainty what if any punishment there would be in an afterlife. In this life it should be up that individual to take that risk if they are mentally able to make that decision.

I will say that it should be illegal to coerce someone into that decision.
 
Kreton said:
Right, so again they may not wish to explore that option. I am not saying Christians are wrong, or the Jews are wrong, or anyone else. No one knows with any certainty what if any punishment there would be in an afterlife.
Click to expand...

According to Judaism, only G-d knows. Different Rabbis have different opinions on that issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom