• 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!

Euthanasia and assisted suicide

Should a person have the right to choose death?

  • Yes

    Votes: 53 94.6%

  • No

    Votes: 3 5.4%
  • Total voters
    56
ChrisL said:
If they are terminally ill and in pain, then I think they should be able to end their lives. There are still ethical questions surrounding it though. How would they go about doing it and things like that.
Click to expand...

We can give a cocktail of sedation medications that will cause a patient to fall into a deep peaceful sleep and eventually they will stop breathing (similar to an overdose of many narcotics). I think that might be the most ethical way. If their breathing does not stop we can use potassium to stop their hearts while they are in peaceful sedation.

The issue is that healthcare professionals would be facilitating this. I wouldn't support allowing any kind of method that causes extreme suffering. Although I do think that the criteria for assisted suicide/euthanasia should be that a patient is terminally ill and that they are in sound mind when making the decision (not under the influence of any mind altering drug or suffering from a suicidal mental illness).
 
Last edited:
ChrisL said:
Also, it has to be done humanely.
Click to expand...

IMO it could be done in any way that the person wants it done. IE it should be up to the person...not the public. It is kinda personal after all so I see no reason why privacy laws wouldn't apply.

ChrisL said:
I don't feel good about just letting ones who "just want to commit suicide" do it. I can't say that I could agree with that. Think of all the teens who commit suicide every year?
Click to expand...

Most prolly won't. But then I'm particularly harsh with people that attempt to commit suicide or has commited suicide. I have no respect for such people that want to take the chicken chit way out.
 
digsbe said:
We can give a cocktail of sedation medications that will cause a patient to fall into a deep peaceful sleep and eventually they will stop breathing (similar to an overdose of many narcotics). I think that might be the most ethical way. If their breathing does not stop we can use potassium to stop their hearts while they are in peaceful sedation.

The issue is that healthcare professionals would be facilitating this. I wouldn't support allowing any kind of method that causes extreme suffering. Although I do think that the criteria for assisted suicide/euthanasia should be that a patient is terminally ill and that they are in sound mind when making the decision (not under the influence of any mind altering drug or suffering from a suicidal mental illness).
Click to expand...

Okay, that cinches it. Digs, you are now my personal physician and when the time comes, I'm calling you! *hugs*
 
Kal'Stang said:
Most prolly won't. But then I'm particularly harsh with people that attempt to commit suicide or has commited suicide. I have no respect for such people that want to take the chicken chit way out.
Click to expand...

This is how I USED to feel too. If someone who was close to you committed suicide, you would feel differently . . . trust me, especially when it is a child.
 
ChrisL said:
This is how I USED to feel too. If someone who was close to you committed suicide, you would feel differently . . . trust me, especially when it is a child.
Click to expand...

You mean like my cousin who I once played games with as a kid that just recently hung himself in the garage where his youngest found him hanging? Yeah, been there done that. I am pissed at him just as much as anyone else that ever committed suicide.

Now I fully admit that I would be devestated if one of my kids did it. But I would also be pissed as hell at em for it also.
 
Wow - sorry - but I couldn't be on the jury who said 'nope - you must suffer more - you haven't suffered enough.'

That's just heinously disgusting.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Wow - sorry - but I couldn't be on the jury who said 'nope - you must suffer more - you haven't suffered enough.'

That's just heinously disgusting.
Click to expand...

Sorry I just gotta say it...that is one DANG FINE AVATAR you got there ;) ...yes i'm a guy through and through lol
 
Ive thought about this often...and it may be the older you get the closer the look you give it...personally, if I were so depressed from sickness and pain that I would want someone to end my life...to hell with the judge or anyone else...I got guns...and I wouldnt feel a thing and I can end my life on my terms and where I wanted too.
 
ChuckBerry said:
Among other inalienable rights, we are endowed by our Creator with the right to life. Can someone cede such a fundamental right?
Click to expand...

The 'right to life' implies euthanasia should absolutely be legal.

Here's how - I waive my right to life.
 
Last I checked, lots of people seem to be saying that people in general are bad for society if they require housing and meal assistance etc, why is it that the fighters who want to keep on living are considered sponges, and yet the ones who want to end it are told they don't have the right.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't, IMO.

SH1.jpg


Anyone who says this has nothing to do with abortion or gays is not thinking three dimensionally, IMO.

"When a butterfly flaps its wings in one part of the world it can cause a hurricane in another part of the world."
 
hazlnut said:
The 'right to life' implies euthanasia should absolutely be legal.

Here's how - I waive my right to life.
Click to expand...

No, it implies that suicide should be legal, which is not the same as euthanasia.
 
When it comes to ending your life, don't expect anyone to help you. Its wrong to even ask.

Just as you should have a savings account in case of emergency, you should have a suicide kit in case you need it. I suggest about 2,000 mg. of oxycodone. Take Prilosec first so you don't puke it up. Lets hope you never need it.
 
lizzie said:
No, it implies that suicide should be legal, which is not the same as euthanasia.
Click to expand...

Suicide results from untreated mental illness.

Euthanasia is compassionate treatment of incurable horrible and painful illness.

Big ****ing difference.


Libertarian, are you sure about this?
 
Utility Man said:
SH1.jpg
Click to expand...

Morality isn't about your sense of self-righteousness, and it is crass in the extreme to use the poverty of others to deflect criticism upon yourself. Shame on you.

I'll do you one better...why is it that we focus in our media so much on the rights of the people on the picture on the left, and we never ever EVER hear discussion about the rights of the people in the picture on the right? The SSM debate seems crude and astonishingly selfish when there is so much genuine suffering going on in the world, as your picture rightly points out.

There are Christian missionaries by the thousands that work ceaselessly to alleviate the suffering of desperately poor children all over the world. The same people that are despised for their concern about the souls of their homosexual brothers and sisters.
 
I believe a person should have the right to end their life on their own terms if they choose to. If they can find a medical professional willing to help them, then that should be legal too. If they are getting assistance from a doctor, there should be some requirements that they prove they are of sound mind first though
 
Kal'Stang said:
IMO it could be done in any way that the person wants it done. IE it should be up to the person...not the public. It is kinda personal after all so I see no reason why privacy laws wouldn't apply.
Click to expand...


You haven't given this much thought, have you?
 
specklebang said:
When it comes to ending your life, don't expect anyone to help you. Its wrong to even ask.

Just as you should have a savings account in case of emergency, you should have a suicide kit in case you need it. I suggest about 2,000 mg. of oxycodone.
Click to expand...

I have 230 grains of jacketed lead available.
 
It's no one's business but the individual's if they want to commit suicide or not.

The state should have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with it...unless someone is assisting someone to die, then the state should make sure that the person granting this right is of sound mind and not under coercion.

But, if i want to commit suicide, I should not have to prove I am sane, since it is my life to end if I choose. The onus must be on the state to prove I am not sane - not the other way around.
In other words, people should not need to get approval from a shrink before they are legally allowed to snuff it.
They should be legally allowed to snuff it unless the state can prove they are not of sound mind.

It is totally ridiculous that so many people actually feel the state has the moral right to force me to stay alive whether I wish to or not.
 
DA60 said:
It's no one's business but the individual's if they want to commit suicide or not.
Click to expand...

Suicide is the result of mental illness. That is our business.

Ending your life because of debilitating physical pain and illness is compassionate.

Kevorkian turned people away when their mental capacity was in question.

The state should have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with it...unless someone is assisting someone to die, then the state should make sure that the person granting this right is of sound mind and not under coercion.
Click to expand...

The state should always be involved in euthanasia.


But, if i want to commit suicide, I should not have to prove I am sane, since it is my life to end if I choose. The onus must be on the state to prove I am not sane - not the other way around.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The mere fact you want to end your life is usually evidence of mental illness -- a test should be compassionate but thorough.


In other words, people should not need to get approval from a shrink before they are legally allowed to snuff it.
They should be legally allowed to snuff it unless the state can prove they are not of sound mind.

It is totally ridiculous that so many people actually feel the state has the moral right to force me to stay alive whether I wish to or not.
Click to expand...

The state has a moral obligation to protect you from harming yourself--when you are mentally ill. You are like a driver under the influence -- your perception of reality is skewed and your emotions heightened.
 
Article in the OP: This is just disgusting.

No one has the right to tell anyone what they can and cannot do with their bodies, and their lives. They are essentially condemning this man to torture. Why, exactly?

I will never understand we why afford our pets more dignified deaths than other human beings. I'd put down my cat in a heartbeat if she were that miserable, and I love her dearly. I'd help my family and friends, if I could. It would hurt like hell, but it's not about me. It's about my concern for their happiness and livelihood, and indeed, their right to determine under what conditions they will live. No one deserves to suffer like that, and sheer audacity of making them sickens me.

I think suicide should be legal, provided a a couple of brief tests to rule out things like acute psychiatric crisis, reaction to meds, or physiological issues that can cause sudden mental illness. I don't think mental illness in and of itself should be an automatic disqualifier. We are simply not able to treat all cases, and living with severe, untreatable mental illness is like living with any other serious disease. Not every suicide of a mentally ill person is some irrational, spur of the moment decision. Many are carefully considered after years of deepening and unresponsive suffering.
 
The main objections to a person's right to euthanasia are religious but also political in our current "nanny state" way of thinking, where the State has control over every detail of life.

People who are not overawed by these religious and social sanctions should be able to chose euthanasia as a personal right.
 
hazlnut said:
Suicide is the result of mental illness. That is our business.

Ending your life because of debilitating physical pain and illness is compassionate.
Click to expand...

That's got to be in the running for the stupidest thing I've seen here in a while. Suicide, killing yourself, is the result of a mental illness, but assisted suicide, with someone else helping you, is compassionate?

The only difference is in whether or not you're capable of doing it without assistance.
 
hazlnut said:
Suicide is the result of mental illness. That is our business.

Ending your life because of debilitating physical pain and illness is compassionate.

Kevorkian turned people away when their mental capacity was in question.



The state should always be involved in euthanasia.




I disagree. The mere fact you want to end your life is usually evidence of mental illness -- a test should be compassionate but thorough.




The state has a moral obligation to protect you from harming yourself--when you are mentally ill. You are like a driver under the influence -- your perception of reality is skewed and your emotions heightened.
Click to expand...
The state should stay the 'f' out of everyone's life unless they are hurting others.

If I wish to hurt myself with addictions to drugs, booze, gambling, food, porn or anything else, that is my business and absolutely none of the governments.

The same goes for suicide. My life is my own...and providing it does not directly hurt anyone else, what I choose to do with it is my business alone.

Period.


Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom