Thread: Euthanasia: Do you support it or against it?

Originally Posted by Inferno

I think the term terminal was left out.

Not by me. I quoted your complete statement.

However, even if "terminal" were added....the question still stands.

Life is a terminal condition with a 100% mortality rate. Today, tomorrow, or some day after next year, the Grim Reaper gets us all. That is certain.

If you're going to justify ending life as a virtuous act, you need more detailed reasoning than this.

Originally Posted by Cephus

I already have a living will that says orders doctors to pull the plug if I'm ever rendered irreparably brain dead or will not recover from my injury/illness and leave the hospital. So does my wife. I've also made it clear that when I kick the bucket, I don't want any funeral, nothing that costs anyone anything, give my body to science, throw it in a ditch, whatever, I'm dead, what do I care?

Be careful with this..There are those in our nation who will try to impose their will on others......this is one of many national problems..
My mom thought it to be a good idea to donate her body to "science", I may do the same.. But first one must know for sure that "science" is a 100% willing partner...as it turned out, her body was not accepted(she died from a virus, pneumonia).
At the last minute, a funeral home got involved...and do they ever "sock it to them"..
$50 for a $0.50 box for her cremated remains, plus the high cost of cremation, plus this, plus that.
Dieing is an expensive proprosition....until Walmart gets interested..

Originally Posted by Ethereal

Assisted euthanasia should be legal but it should have stringent oversight. However, "euthanizing" a comatose or brain-dead person without their consent should be illegal; that's murder.

Yes... The brain dead definition is still to fuzzy...and there are cases where no loved ones exist....but if one is definitely brain dead for a set period of time, then the euthanasia is NOT murder....
Their "consent" is simply not always possible...but we must do the best thing....
Strange, how concerned we are with the life of those near death; but its "legal" to kill those who life is just begining...Very strange...

Originally Posted by celticlord

-- the capacity of individuals to make that choice regarding the lives of others is nonexistent --

Not quite, doctors do withhold necessary medical care if they consider it not in the best interests of the patient to have pain or suffering prolonged. There was a case in the UK recently where doctors wished to deny treatment to a very young baby - it went through court and the baby suffered on for a year and the case went against the parents.

The parents couldn't afford the necessary treatment to keep the baby alive - they wanted the NHS to pay but the NHS has limited resource and has to decide how to spend that resource to maximum effect.

Originally Posted by Jerry

The main obstical I see with any such regulation is the inherant dificulty in assessing pain --

I would agree however as stated above, I'm certain many doctors already have discretion in whether they withhold treatment or apply enough to kill without pain.

I'd rather take that kind of pressure off doctors - it becomes to easy to cover your tracks and we had one doctor here (Harold Shipman) who killed unknown elderly patients.

What we do have in Europe is some British (and other) patients travel to Switzerland for assisted suicide. Unfortunately those who accompany the patients can be held accountable (Diane Pretty case) so she stayed and eventually drowned in her own juices in an undignified way.

Euthanasia should be legal but the assessment and conditions must be very carefully thought through - and patients who demand that they be kept alive even though in huge pain should not be denied life-maintaining treatment.