[Guest]

What are your opinions about euthanasia? I have to write a persuasive essay about it, and I haven't completely decided whether I'm for or against it, but I'm leaning towards against. Do you think it should be legalized? Why or why not? I'm not asking this just because I have to write a report; I am genuinely interested in what you have to say.

[Guest]

Hmmm...

2 words:

Dr. Kevorkian

[Guest]

Hmmm...

2 words:

Dr. Kevorkian

And that's why you need a second opion, bring it into the open and deal with it instead of letting one man/doc to rationalise it and inform the family. Otherwise you have farming for organs and early life termination request for cryogenic stasis (or what ever the proper name is)

[Guest]

This is probably not really the topic to go into the authenticity of the bible or of Jesus. If you want to talk about that, I would suggest starting another form, to which I would be more than happy to reply to. More to the topic at hand, my personal opinion is that euthanasia should not be allowed. Apart from all the things so far mentioned, in other countries where euthanasia is legal, it is often abused, people are killed who did not really want to die. Also, sometimes in a moment of pain the patient thinks he wants to die, but later, he is glad that the others around did not listen to him pleading for death. You shouldn't allow someone to make a big decision when they are suffering severely, because then momentary emotions play a large part in the decision.

Hmmm.... ever think a person is TERMANILY ill??? Hell thats even why we are considering doing it in the first place! If the person is sick and is in terrible pain... uh i think the last option would be death! Unless of course he just dies before hand. But if it's cancer and there is nothing better to do besides wait and twidle your thumbs.... dont you think you can put that person out of their misery????

Blade has it down good Although bocinki raises a good point too - which is why, as Blade suggested, someone else should be involved in the decision

*bows to the audience* I would like to thank the acadamy for this award, oh and of course Unreality.

[Guest]

Since when did I become the authority on Christianity for this forum? However, I am very pleased that many of you acknowledge my faith in Christ...that means I must be doing a decent job evangelizing!

Anyhow, about euthenasia. I can see several benefits in it, depending on the case; but I do not think it should be legalized. However, I do not see a DNR form as suicide. I worked in the medical profession for years - as the Administrator for an assisted living center - and I think that when people are old and in ill health that they should have to choice to allow GOD to take them in their time. Plus, the DNR form can be written any number of ways. Say a person codes, they can specifiy that life-saving measures be taken to resuscitate them, but that if they are brain dead then they do not want any measures taken. They can be as specific as they want.

Does God frown on suicide? I don't have any scripture memorized to support my theory; but from what I know of God's character I would think that it is not the killing of oneself that grieves God the most as much as it is the fact that his child does not trust him enough to want to endure (I am not talking about the sick elderly) and that they essentially spit on the blessing of life that GOd has given them. Suicide is a selfish act, an unloving act - it hurts the survivors more than the deceased. And, of course, God does not smile on any form of sin.

Also, someone said earlier that the reason suicide is condemned in the BIble (I'll have to find that passage becuase for the life of me I am not sure that it actually says anything specifically about it) is so that Christians wouldn't choose death as a chance to be with God sooner. The apostle Paul says: "To live is Christ; and to die is gain." Meaning that while he is alive, it is his purpose (as it is for all of us) to love and serve others as Christ did for us; but when we die it's gonna be one heck of a party!

Anyhow, my battery's about to die. I'll revisit this topic later when I have some scripture in hand.

Edited November 24, 2008 by puzzlegirl

[andromeda]

Since when did I become the authority on Christianity for this forum? However, I am very pleased that many of you acknowledge my faith in Christ...that means I must be doing a decent job evangelizing!

Nah... thank God I'm immune!!

Hahahahaha... I just wanted to hear your perspective, because you're God's public relations spokesman around here!

Edited November 24, 2008 by andromeda

[Guest]

Anyhow, my battery's about to die. I'll revisit this topic later when I have some scripture in hand.

Was that a DNR on the battery ??

GOd or no god .. its my choice when my battery is giving out, not suicide, just natures way pls - if that means letting me go with an overdose to save the 'suffering' then here is where I admit to being afraid of pain.. but I'm not afraid to die

Old one of mine - I'll take an overdose of furniture polish - horrible way to go, but a beautiful finnish!

[Guest]

Was that a DNR on the battery ??

GOd or no god .. its my choice when my battery is giving out, not suicide, just natures way pls - if that means letting me go with an overdose to save the 'suffering' then here is where I admit to being afraid of pain.. but I'm not afraid to die

Old one of mine - I'll take an overdose of furniture polish - horrible way to go, but a beautiful finnish!

hahahahaha!!!....... wait, i dont get it o.O

[Guest]

Euthanasia huh?

For or against? Absolutely FOR! With provisos of course. I jave writtem a fair amount on it in the past (even a Philosophy paper or two.)

So here is something I prepared earlier:

The first thing to do is define the word.

Basically I see that 2 Criteria must be met for an act of killing (of self or an other):

1: It must be the best thing for the 'patient'

2: it must be preformed for the good of the patient.

To explain:

1: This means to my mind that the patient's condition must be that of having a 'Quality of Life' below what is tolerable, and no hope of it becoming so.

In other words their life must "be not worth living" or "Cessation of life would be preferable to continuing in this state", AND it is "beyond reasonable doubt" (to use legal jargon) that is ever likely to become so.

2: Whoever preforms the act of euthanising the patient must be doing it for, and only for patient's benefit, or at least would still do it even without any other existing reasons that may be present (e.g. insurance, cost of continued care).

I realise that my explanation aims at explaining why someone (e.g. you as their doctor should or should not do it), but it can be extended beyond this. If this were the rule of law the point would be that only the needs etc. of the patient should be considered in judging for or against euthanasia.

In my opinion, the slippery slope arguments, the questions of what specific cases would count as such and so on are irrelevant to the general point that Euthanasia (as I specify it to mean) should be legal.

More strongly, Euthanasia is not immoral (the only true reason for illegal status), nor is it amoral (neither moral or immoral), but the moral thing to do.

I've heard arguments, that some people may kill 'patients' too readily (for their life insurance or whatever) and claim that it was actually for their own good, therefore Euthanasia should not be legal. Rubbish, it simply becomes the courts job to judge if each case was actually euthanasia or murder. I freely admit that this would often be a difficult task, but something should not be made illegal because it is difficult to differentiate from evil acts, especially if it is a morally right one.

I am reminded of a recent case that reveals some of the absurdity I see:

A young woman had been in a coma for some years, kept alive by a feeding tube down her throat (not requiring ventilators etc.). It was finally mostly agreed that she would never recover, had no quality of life, and 'ending it' would be for the best for her (I.E. meets my criteria as an euthanasia candidate).

It hit the media. But strangely the only arguments/solutions on offer seemed to be:

1: Remove her feeding tube, and let her starve to death

2: Keep her in her current state indefinitely, mostly because the starving thing seemed too cruel.

The absurdity is that the obvious best solution (assuming the case was exactly as I described) would seem to be to end her life quickly, that is euthanasia. This would be better for everyone - no added or prolonging of her suffering (if she had any - coma remember), let family finally grieve and move on and the like.

BUT it never once came up, due I suspect to an unquestioning/unthinking assumption that euthanasia is wrong.

I also find it strange that we 'Put down' our cherished pets purely for their own good, and see this as a good thing, as it ends their suffering. Even though the decision can be hard to face, most come to agree that it is the best for all involved. Yet these same people can't see that this extends to humans as well.

Quite frankly this is beyond me, it makes no sense at all. Perhaps it is tied in with the same irrational fears of death that lead us to wish for and come to believe so fully in life after death, anything to avoid thoughts of our own mortality.

By the way that post was in a thread with a poll, the results of which were:

Euthanasia, current law notwithstanding - yes or no?

Yes - given the correct circumstances (e.g. as outlined below) and if someone is of sound mind_____95%___[ 79 ]

No - it's never right to take someone's life, not even in these extraordinary circumstances__________4%___[ _4 ]

No - but only because I don't want to be the one to do it - I'd ask someone else to do it for me______0%___[ _0 ]

[Guest]

Im Pro-euthanasia.

It's just a battle of natural death and artificial life --choose!

[Guest]

Im Pro-euthanasia.

It's just a battle of natural death and artificial life --choose!

That is also a battle of semantics and I am sure the circumstances and nature of the problem will have an effect.

A thought....

If you are well enough to choose- that in three months time you will be dead after a step by step rise in pain and loosing faculties, at what time are you capable or incapable of a 'compos mentis' decision... you can decide now if it is happening soon, but what if it is going to be longer - a span of 6-18mths, maybe a break through in medicine comes just after you decided and just after you had real and full understanding of the breakthrough due to your painfully mentally worsening condition allowed you too or the law says you are allowed to change your mind

Interesting scenario if someone wants to get their hands on your money, you have passed the point of legally deciding for yourself and your previous decision stands coz you had all/enough of your senses and mental faculties at the time -Tough one! Requires the help of 'sensible and best medical practice' (for the patient)

Good luck on this - there are so many scenarios that are hard to cater for with a 'catch all' law/decision

edit - noticing i duplicate some of ADP's notes, but stand back from the beloved pets issue as this is not a fare comparison; on the basis that pets/animals have long been accepted as a release from unneccessary and unnatural suffering - well you all know the issues I am sure - plus its pretty much accepted as not illegal or inhuman or the cause of death other than for what it is. Though I am sure that there are a consideral amount that are decided on cost an care giving issues to animals

Personally I dont care if I am eating by worms/fungus/animal or even humans once I'm on my natural way as opposed to unatural and artificially unnecessary sustaing of existance

LIS out

Edited November 27, 2008 by Lost in space