It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Euthanasia, The right to die.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Euthanasia is a hot political topic. Websters states that euthanasia is "the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy." Does the government have the right to tell you how you will die?
"[""more""]"

It is estimated that over 500,000 Americans die each year, or 1,500 per day, from Cancer. This can be a long, painful and expensive experience. This is just one of many diseases that can drag on for an extended period of time that increases the torment for the individual and the family. If a person should decide that they would like a more peaceful dignified passing, should the government have any say in this matter? How do the parties look at Euthanasia?

www.cancure.org...


[edit on 25-8-2004 by intrepid]

[edit on 8-26-2004 by Valhall]




posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Euthanasia is a hot political topic. Websters states that euthanasia is "the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy." Does the government have the right to tell you how you will die?


While some of my Republican team members will no doubt disagree, having worked in an ICU for 10+ years, I can testify to the emense pain that my patients have suffered thanks to the Life at ALL COSTS attitude that some people have. The opposition will point to "Miracles" but those are really few and far between.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 10:08 AM
link   
My body is still mine, isn't it? To do with as I will unless it physicaly harms another? I guess not. The government wants you alive so it can collect as much money as possible from you. Just look at how much they benefit from cigarette and alcohol taxes, CIA and the drug trade, etc. You can't tell me that they actually care about the everyday man/woman.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 11:50 AM
link   
I'm often amazed at how we have no problem euthanizing pets when they are suffering, yet fail to show the same humanity to our own flesh and blood....


Living wills people....not fullproof, but a good idea....



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 02:45 PM
link   
I think there should be a probationary time period that a person should live thru before being given the right to choose to die. This would ensure that it is not an impulsive decision.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 02:51 PM
link   
This is similar to the discussion at www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here's where a lot of the controversy lies:

Active euthanasia: Actually providing the means by which someone dies - being the direct cause.
Passive euthanasia: Passively 'allowing' someone to die by not providing means of support and the disease or starvation becomes the direct cause of death.

Active euthanasia upsets a lot of folks for religious and moral reasons, but everyone seems to accept passive euthanasia. However, isn't the ACT of withholding treatment an action in itself? Doesn't passive euthanasia automatically become active?

Once the decision is made for someone to be "allowed" to die, why not do the humane thing and end the suffering right then and there? It is certain that the person will die - its only a matter of how fast, and how painfully. Why let the organs consume themselves as the body starves? THAT is cruel - not ending someones life because they lead an empty or excruciating existance.

By now allowing euthanasia, we force people to stay alive while their organs are regurgitated, suffer immesurable pain, and also put their family and friends through the emotional trauma of watching it all happen powerlessly.

Doesn't Oregon have laws allowing euthanasia? I remember something about it - will look for facts and sources. If my memory serves, they allowed it, and only 4 people in the first year went through with it. It hardly becomes a death free-for-all that some opponents suggest.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 02:58 AM
link   
I definitely believe in euthanasia & the right to die with dignity to escape intolerable suffering. I think the definition of euthanasia is important here - so I'm referring to "assisted suicide" for those in great irremedfiable pain - to end their suffering.

It's a hot potato all right - the Commonwealth of Australia intervened to overturn the passing of such an Act by Northern Territory around 1996. And I will go one step further with my belief - and this is from my personal point of view.

Were I totally incapicitated in the hypothetical situation of being rendered quadriplegic following say, a car crash, I( would not want to continue living - & that is an opinion I have held since my teenage years. BHuit I would have no way of ending my life due to the obvious restrictions of quadriplegia. I would pray for death, & the sooner the better.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 04:05 AM
link   
It's a great theory on paper but there would have to be major limitation, because every good concept eventually deteriorates quickly into a mess of chaos. People will be trying to kill themselves on day 1 of finding out they have cancer or aids and not caring about the wife and 3 kids they would be leaving behind to fend for themselves.

My fear is that for every one legitimate case of suffering there will be ten improper cases.

There are so many problems when society starts deciding who lives and who dies. Who gets to decide the patient, the family, a judge, a doctor? Is there a time period, if so how long? Do we burden an already buckling court system with thousands of more cases and years of lawsuits?

I also have a fear that once society starts down this path that it will become a slippery slope of unnecessary reasons to kill others. Maybe there will be some parents that will argue it is their right to end the life of their newborn child who was just born with some type of disease or mental illness. After all, the parents would be saving the dignity of the child and saving their child from a long hard life of pain, embarrassment and needless suffering.

Im also not confident that mistakes will not be made and when euthanasia is the final decision that is one mistake that cannot be taken back. Its a dangerous game to play.

Its not that I want people to suffer. It is that I do not trust the process.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 04:18 AM
link   
I know where you're coming from, zerotime. That is exactly why I said the definition of euthanasia is important.

You may also notice that I qualified it further by using the term "assisted suicide" - suicide meaning bringing death to one's self voluntarily. I would include certain guidelines that I also mentioned in my post - irremediable pain & total physical incapacity.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 06:54 AM
link   
You are a human resource to be exploited by the state and its enterprizes, thats why even suicide is illegal, never mind euthanasia.
You don't have the right to determine your own fate. You never know when your country is going to draft you to die in a foreign country.

Same with abortion, do you think its really about the rights of the foetus?!? NO WAY! Its about the right of the foetus to grow up join the army and die serving the powerful.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 07:01 AM
link   
I am an extreme animal lover. I like animals better than I like most people, I make my living working with animals......and, we treat our animals with more dignity and respect than our fellows humans. I for one do not want to lay in some bed being cleaned up and cared for while suffer to death.....it's inhuman treatment. Should anyone be allowed to commit suicide? NO! It's a permanent solution to temporary problems...but when you are old and suffering, or suffering from an incurable disease, you should have the right to die



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 07:13 AM
link   
It's tough to say. When it comes down to it, no one has possession of another person's life. Your life is your's and your's alone. If you want to die, that is your choice. So I would be in favor of legalized euthanasia. I'm sure it would be tricky to implement though, and filled with problems.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyV
I am an extreme animal lover. I like animals better than I like most people, I make my living working with animals......and, we treat our animals with more dignity and respect than our fellows humans. I for one do not want to lay in some bed being cleaned up and cared for while suffer to death.....it's inhuman treatment. Should anyone be allowed to commit suicide? NO! It's a permanent solution to temporary problems...but when you are old and suffering, or suffering from an incurable disease, you should have the right to die


What are you doing telling me if i can kill myself, or telling me how lasting my problems are!

In japan its considered a priviledge to be allowed to kill your self. Oh and i bet they have temporary problems too?
Some advice: get off this western/christian bad trip about death! Only because the church used it as a means of "persuasion" (terror), do we have this big bad bogey grim reaper. In other cultures they have no problem with it, some believing you come back (reincarnation)



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 07:48 AM
link   
I think this subject is just a matter of religiosity, and wether you believe or not in a supreme being that can coordinate us, humans. When you say `I belong to god` ( no matter what god is that ) it`s clearly not your right to take your or somebody else`s life, if that person required you to.

But this depends on each one of us. I , for instance, don`t believe in nothing beyond human conscience. It is the only limit to morality, to good/evil, etc. So , I would say that in my opinion, if I come to the conclusion that I can`t do anything more on the face of this planet, if I come to the conclusion that my days here have ended, and I cannot be useful to no one, not even to myself, I believe I should have the right to die. It`s my decision.

What is suicide, if not a violent way of ending your life, therefore euthanasia ?



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Maybe we're not so backward in Australia after all.

We did - briefly - have the right to "assisted suicide", at least in Northern Territory - until the Commonwealth Government intervened. And suicide - death by own's own hand - is not illegal here.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 08:15 AM
link   
People should be able to die if they want to. Why should we have to stay on this hell hole if we dont want to. We have or human rights dang it. We do not need to be protected from our selves.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 08:17 AM
link   
How can suicide be `illegal`.. ? What can they do, put your corpse in jail, in a refrigerator, for 3 to 5 years .. ? Let`s be honest, euthanasia is not truly forbidden by law.
But if you want to do it in a septic facility, to `go down clean`, without pain or blood spilled everywhere, if you want to have your loved ones close to you, if you don`t want to shock your neighbours, etc, then it is illegal.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Active euthanasia: Actually providing the means by which someone dies - being the direct cause.
Passive euthanasia: Passively 'allowing' someone to die by not providing means of support and the disease or starvation becomes the direct cause of death.


Personally, to me, there is no difference. If you allow someone to die when you can prevent it...it is "active"....

Thing is though, your life is your own, and if it's your wish to die, then so be it. And if you can't end it on your own, and you've stated your intentions as legally as can be....then nobody else should be making that decision for you.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 08:24 AM
link   
Noticed the topic and i did this just the other year while i was at college, anyway heres what i wrote to explain my feelings etc on the topic. If its too big (its between 500 - 600 words mods, i can edit it to make it smaller)

One argument for assisted suicide to be legalised is that every human being has the right to life, probably the most basic of our rights, bearing in mind all rights come with a choice. The right to vote brings with it the right to abstain; the right to speech does not mean you have to stay silent and in the same way the right to choose to die is implicit in the right to life. However, there is an argument against this case. It is recognised that there is no comparison between the right to life and other rights. An example of what I mean is choosing to remain silent, but being able to change back to talking or making some sort of noise. But if you die you will have no option to change back. If you take part in assisting with suicide you are depriving the individual the ability to make choices in the future, making it immoral.

Another argument for assisted suicide to be legalised is that the people who are in the later stages of a terminal illness do not have a bright future ahead of them. Their body will gradually decline; some of their organs may fail which may require them to have artificial support. Other situations may result in the illness destroying their minds. Due to this, surely these people should decide the manner of their own end, and die with dignity. However there is an argument against this. Modern care tries to preserve quality of life as far as possible. The future that lies ahead for these people will be hard but societys role is to help them live their lives aswell as they can.

My final argument for Euthanasia to be legalised is that suicide is seen as a lonely, desperate act and is often seen a cry for help. By making attempted suicide legal, the process can be brought out into the open, a process, which is often secret. In some cases, families may have been unaware of the true feelings of their loved one and by being forced to confront the issue of their illness may do good, maybe allowing the family to change the patients mind about suicide. On the other side, the family could understand the reasons for it and perhaps assist. Yet demanding that the family participate in such a decision can be a terrible burden, many may resent the decision and could leave them emotionally scared. Assisted suicide also introduces a new threat, that the terminally ill may be pressured into ending their own lives, perhaps by others who are not prepared to help them through their ordeal. Not even the most regulated system could prevent this from happening.

After examing the pros and cons for assisted suicide to be legalised I think it should be. If one of my family members wanted to end their life because of a terminal illness I feel I would help, as long as that is what he/she wants. However, I believe I should not be done immediately but considered with professionals dealing in such a topic, which would help if you are unsure what to do. I believe it is a great credit that there is counselling services which exist that could help with trauma. If I where to develop a terminal illness however, I feel I would like to decide for myself. Yet, if it were to be legalised there would need to be certain boundaries made such as whom commences the act.

Rynaldo



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 11:29 AM
link   
I think most of us can agree on the point that people who have a terminal disease should be able to decide at what point they want to end it, instead of suffering greatly before dieing.
There are however quite a few solid points that stand against it;

1. Drugs to reduce and even eliminate pain are getting better and better, up to what point will it be needed to end a life instead of stretching it by using these drugs?

2. Where is the limit? What about people who have "mental pain" that's unbearable? What about people who are not yet dieing, but still want to die because of their pain? Should there be an age limit?

3. You can't "measure" someones pain. Laws regarding this subject are very very hard to create because a lot of abuses are possible in this area. (killing someone and making it look like euthanasia)

I am not against euthanasia, but I think it should only be allowed in very rare cases, where there is absolutely no solution in the form of new drugs or operations, and where a patient is 100% terminal.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join