|
If a person is suffering enough to have to make the decision that they no longer want to live, then
we shouldn't criticise this.
It's cruel to keep someone alive against their wishes, although I do think that their should be some
guidelines in place so euthanasia isn't taken for granted.
It should be taken seriously. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
If the person is mentally capable of making these decisions I think it should be. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
These are our brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, wives and husbands and we collude in taking
away the power to decide their own destiny. We force our most cherished loved ones to suffer untold
indignities, horrors, and crippling pain because we are too weak to be a part of their death.
Through most of human history our sick and our old were with us in our homes and we understood the
realities of death and did what we could to ease and comfort them in their last time. It is evidence
of our selfishness and stagnation that we warehouse our loved when they come to be a burden. We
allow them to die with strangers far away from our site so we can be saved the bother. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The lie/ignorance of those "against" euthanasia (e.g. Mark) is that all instances of it are murder
of people who didn't want to die.
The fact of the matter is, euthanasia is usually the last resort of willing participants whose
quality of life is so low that death is an option: Disease, injury, cancer, old age, mental
deficiency like Alzheimers, etc. Of course euthanasia should not involve people who cannot make
informed consent, but then, it never is despite lies told to the contrary.
Just as bad is the hypocrisy. Those claiming to be against euthanasia are usually (if not always)
pro-murder when done by the government. And considering how many hundreds of "death penalty" cases
have shown themselves to be miscarriages of justice, the murder committed with approval of the
anti-euthanasia brigade is astoundingly hypocritical.
If people are so against euthanasia, then why was Sun Hudson so readily murdered by the state of
Texas? Because he was black and his mother was poor? Sun Hudson was murdered by Texas politicians
in March 2005, the same time Florida politicians wanted to keep a ventilator connected to a corpse
named Schiavo. It was all about money and votes, not morals or ethics. |
| |
 K9  23 Jun 2008 21:30
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Of course it should be accepted,
is life worth living when you are strapped to a bed, with a machine breathing for you.
Or when your mind is not altered, but your whole body is paralysed.
It should be ones own choice whether to live or to die, and who is anyone else to decide for them. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
If I was suffering severe pain or was effectively a cabbage with no hope of improvement I would like
to be put out of my misery in a dignified manner. This is my choice and my choice alone.
People who think the same and instruct their loved ones to end their life should be free to do so.
If a loved one keeps to the wishes of the terminally ill and takes that very difficult choice who is
anyone to condemn or even jail them? |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I don't see why the hell anyone should deny a terminally ill person to die with dignity just to make
themselves feel better, because that's all it is about at the end of the day.
I'll be interested to see the arguments of those who oppose Euthanasia. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Accepted.
I feel that people should have the right to actively select when they die, that is of course if time
doesn't catch up with them first.
The terminally sick surely should have the decision to end their own lives, as opposed to only
having the option to suffer.
I just feel that if someone wants out, it's their choice, and no one else.
If some people think euthanasia should be condemned , it's their personal opinion, but shouldn't
prevent others who do wish to be euthanised from proceeding. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
I don't know, what if there is a state where you only look like you are suffering, but not?
How can one determine then? |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I could be mistaken, but I think it is wrong to take an innocent life, including one's own life.
These are my reasons:
1. It relativizes the human being. By defining conditions where a human life is no longer worth
living and, it is up to the individual to decide, this assumes the view that the individual has
absolute moral autonomy and freedom to make such a decision. This moral perspective is radical
self-autonomy which ultimately is not wise or true.
2. When one talks about quality of life, it places an emphasis on the "functionality" of one's
life. That is, it redefines what a human life is. For eons, a human life has been defined as
having ultimate intrinsic value and dignity by itself. When one defines it in functional terms, it
starts creating "classes" of human life. This is a significant redefinition and will certainly have
major consequences.
3. Slippery slope is also a concern. There is certainly the possibility that there could develop
major abuses of this issue--pandora's box, such as who can decide when a life is not worth living or
keeping--one's next of kin or the community or the state?? |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I don't think so. I think they should put them under until responsible family members make a
decision (consulting the person once so they know what they'd want) such as signing a DNR (do not
resuscitate). However, the decision regarding euthanasia should be made by the person on whether or
not they want to die.
Yes, I said that they should be consulted (see above). |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Euthanasia is still killing, no matter what you call it. |
| |
 Mark 29 Apr 2008 23:56
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
