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 should be banned....

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 03:46 AM
link   
For all those people who are saying that u should have the power to take your own life....id like to shout out some thoughts.

I agree with wat u have to say when it comes down to personal free will...i understand that if someone wants to die and you know they want to die, it seems like the nice thing to do. The problem is of course something different...

How are you possibly gonna implement such an idea. TO have wat???...."assisted suicide" in a clinic somewhere...

How can you possibly distinguish a mentally ill person and a normal person from coming in and saying "i want to die"....Only one of them could actually be realizing what hes saying...

I am sure that if u walked into a psych clinic right now and told them u'd want to die; they'd say ur crazy.. DO u think they are gonna say ....."hey alright....good idea"....

Thats why we should have a ban on it!....not cuz its "unethical" but becasue we cant distinguish b/w two different people's mindsets.



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 03:52 AM
link   
There is no reason why a person should be forced to stay alive and live in pain, If they are going to pass on anyway. It's just wrong.



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 04:13 AM
link   
If you dont have the right to end your own life what rights do you have?

We have the compassion to put our pets to sleep when they get to old but grandma must suffer?



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 04:40 AM
link   
Nice point Amuk. It is certainly about compassion. Somebody who is lying in a bed wired up to machines in constant pain...why should they be forced to suffer in this way for no reason?



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 05:26 AM
link   
Yes but see, the people against euthanasia are using the most extreme example, where it is not regulated in ANY way so joe bloggs can walk in off the street, get a need and die. If it was put into effect, the above example would simply not be possible. Euthanasua will (and should) be restriced strictly to patients who have degenerative diseases in advanced stages, or are otherwise going to lead a slow and painfull death if basically forced to stay alive.



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by LordGoofus
Yes but see, the people against euthanasia are using the most extreme example, where it is not regulated in ANY way so joe bloggs can walk in off the street, get a need and die.



Why shouldnt he be able to? Can you give me ONE reason why a person should not be allowed to chose when he dies? Without bringing religion into it can you?

I cant think of a reason



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Obviously(?) no-one is going to want to allow a situation where people are coerced into giving up their lives.

In the UK we had Harold Shipman murder many many elderly people, that is nothing to do with a legal euthanasia process....well, to anyone sane that is.

Nor would one allow people with mental illness to make decisions beyond their competence.

But in many cases we wouldn't let a dog suffer the way some people have to suffer. Particularly with certain cancers when even the heroin-based pain-killers stop working.

That strikes me as horribly wrong and cruel beyond tollerance.

(and let's face it, all over the country/world good and thoroughly compassionate doctors have been known to 'help' in the most aweful cases. It goes on whatever people think and most of the individuals involved and their families are very very grateful to see them relieved of their horrific suffering.)

By the way....besides Holland where else is euthanasia not banned or illegal?



[edit on 25-10-2004 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Euthanasia is not legal in Canada. Read the Criminal Code:


14. No person is entitled to consent to have death inflicted on him, and such consent does not affect the criminal responsibility of any person by whom death may be inflicted on the person by whom consent is given.

241. Everyone who counsels a person to commit suicide or aids or abets a person to commit suicide, whether suicide ensues or not, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
somewhere...

How can you possibly distinguish a mentally ill person and a normal person .

First let me say..."Dazed and Confused"? Interesting picture under your name there...hmmmmm

I don't think I have heard anyone say it's ok for mentally ill people to take their own life
I think it has to do with people with an incurable disease living in pain....



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyV
First let me say..."Dazed and Confused"? Interesting picture under your name there...hmmmmm

I don't think I have heard anyone say it's ok for mentally ill people to take their own life
I think it has to do with people with an incurable disease living in pain....


What are we discussing here??....my lifestyle or euthanasia???...Why dont u decide.

I think uve also misunderstood the whole point here. so i am gonna say in steps for u.

(1) Euthanasia should be bannned.
(2) THis is because u cant distinguish a mentally ill person from saying "i want to die" and a normal person saying "i want to die".
(3) Someone who walks into a clinic and says "i want to die" will be considered crazy either way.
(4) How can u have euthanasia ONLY for people with painful diseases???...who's to say the limit should be there???..



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
(1) Euthanasia should be bannned.
(2) THis is because u cant distinguish a mentally ill person from saying "i want to die" and a normal person saying "i want to die".
(3) Someone who walks into a clinic and says "i want to die" will be considered crazy either way.
(4) How can u have euthanasia ONLY for people with painful diseases???...who's to say the limit should be there???..


Why not require a psychiatric evaluation? There are already ways to determine if a person is legally competent to make decisions. If you can't walk in off the street and get gender re-assignment surgery, why would you be allowed to walk in off the street and be legally euthanized.

Is your only issue with euthanasia that people who are mentally ill might request and receive it?



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 02:05 PM
link   
I'm failing to understand why euthanasia is such a bad thing, would you rather these people do it with a handgun or sleeping pills? People have been taking their own life since we had life to take, and the whole concept of euthanasia actually strikes me as an act of compassion, but folks tend to make it out to be some horrible murderous act. It's the same with abortion, if a person feels they want to end their life or their pregnancy, who in the hell are we to legislate their decision. If I was in pain and terminally ill, and people like you wouldn't allow anyone to assist me, do you honestly think I would want to sit around in pain waiting for death becase of your sense of morality? Also I believe, if I'm not mistaken, the fight against Euthanasia is financed by the medical industry who stand to make alot more money pumping you full of pain killers and fluffing your pillow for you than letting you pass on. Oddly enough the money that lobbied for euthanasia came not only from fundamental christain groups, but oddly enough from insurance companies... go figure. Follow the money.



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs

How are you possibly gonna implement such an idea. TO have wat???...."assisted suicide" in a clinic somewhere...

er, yeah, I think thats the idea.


How can you possibly distinguish a mentally ill person and a normal person from coming in and saying "i want to die"

With state approved euthanasia, the applicant would presumably have to be screened by a psychotherapist. A therapist will be able to tell if the person is out of their mind or not.

Also, what business is it of yours, mine, or the states? in all honesty, if a person was insane and suicidal, the state doesn't jump in and give them proper medical and psychiatric treatment. It doesn't give them free medication and pyschoanalysis before the trouble really starts. And if those methods don't fix the problem, the state isn't going to put the person on welfare and enroll them in state sponsered "deep therapy" to try to work it out.

If they state and society isn't willing to take care of these people, it doesn't get to decide that it has control over them.


amuk
I cant think of a reason

For that extreme example, I'd have to say its irresponsible and inhuman to just allow people to kill themselves when then whim overtakes them and do nothing. Ultimately its their choice, but the derranged aren't expected to be competent enough to make regular decisions, let alone that kind.


sminkypinky
That strikes me as horribly wrong and cruel beyond tollerance.

But thats quite different. The dog is being killed because it suffers, and similarly a horse is killed when it breaks a leg, but thats because its life isn't valued very much, not merely because it suffers. Often animals are put to death before they are suffering, without an attempt at treatment, or when treatment is too expensive. Its humane, but its humane for animals. For humans, I'd say its a different story.



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 02:23 PM
link   
I think that this is another issue - like abortion - where we have to draw a line somewhere.

There are cases where abortion is warranted (if there was a serious risk the mother could die or remain paralysed afterwards, or if the child were the fruit of rape). But it should not be used as an arbitrary contraception method.

Thus it follows that in the same logic, euthanasia is definitely warranted in some cases (when a person is terminally ill and in considerable pain, or so deprived of his or her faculties that he is no longer "living"), but should not be used (as in the Robert Latimer case) to put a paraplegic or tetraplegic child "out of her misery".

There are also many forms of euthanasia. I consider passive euthanasia - when the family decides that the person, often because of a combination of extreme illness and age, should be "let go of" in order to preserve his or her dignity - to be a lot more acceptable.

A few years ago, my 91-year-old grandmother had to leave her apartment and go live with one of her daughters because she could no longer be autonomous - her eyes watered all the time, which made it difficult for her to read or watch TV, and she'd had a hip replacement surgery which left her with a greatly reduced mobility. A week after she moved out of the apartment where she'd lived for 31 years, she checked into the hospital for heart problems and, while there, she had a stroke. This left her blind and completely paralyzed on one side.

Her family decided that given her age, her loss of mobility and the paralysis, she'd hate seeing herself like this - so they asked the doctors to stop feeding her and just give her medication to help her be comfortable. She died peacefully five days later.

What I mean to show by this is that euthanasia can be an act of love or an act of weakness. Each situation is different, but when the key premises are the preservation of dignity, the easing of a terrible pain or the incapacity to see a future for the person because of that person's age or a terminal illness, passive euthanasia is more than acceptable - it's a gift of release.

As with other issues, there is no place for extremes. One must be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water.



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Otts
or if the child were the fruit of rape

Why are children born of rape not worth as much as other people??



should not be used (as in the Robert Latimer case) to put a paraplegic or tetraplegic child "out of her misery".

Says who? You? Why should anyone listen to you? Not trying to be insulting, but you and I are not authorities on this matter, and we don't bear any of the burden on this either. Its not our life, its not our decision. If a person wants to kill themselves, then people should try to help them get thru it, if they try but can't, then what can anyone do? Chain them to a wall? Tie them down with straps? Why shouldn't someone be allowed to end their life for them painlessly and soundly?


What I mean to show by this is that euthanasia can be an act of love or an act of weakness.

Waitaminute, its ok for some people to decide without even asking if someone gets to live, but not for that person themselves? Why is it ok for this woman to die but not the parapalegic? Or did I misunderstand?



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Nygdan - nope, we're not authorities on the matter. That's why I always say that what I post is my personal opinion.

If a paraplegic or a tetraplegic wants to die, if they see no future for themselves, or if they're in pain, I say that it's a personal decision. However, Robert Latimer functioned under the assumption that his child would not, handicapped as she was, be able to have a fulfilling life, or even a half-fulfilling one. He made the decision for the child, and although I know and respect that he made it out of love, I think it could lead to question the worth of handicapped people. That's why it's important to look very carefully at the how, when and why of euthanasia.



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Enki
Why not require a psychiatric evaluation? There are already ways to determine if a person is legally competent to make decisions. If you can't walk in off the street and get gender re-assignment surgery, why would you be allowed to walk in off the street and be legally euthanized.

Is your only issue with euthanasia that people who are mentally ill might request and receive it?


A psychiatric evaluation!!!....exactly....Wat doctor is gonna say ok....i give permission for this person to die.

ANYBODY THAT wants to kill themselves is going to be considered crazy by a psychologist. Especially if they are considered psychological sound.



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 03:20 PM
link   
People tend to know whats best for themselves if they have 1/2 a brain. If they want to end their own misery of life who is anyone , be it a doctor or a poster here at ats to determine whether or not it should be legal. If it were legal, it wouldnt be as messy as going down to the gun and knife show and buying a gun and shooting yourself, or slicing into your wrists leaving nasty pools of blood and flesh for people to have to clean up. That would be more traumatic for the family members then seeing their loved one die by lethal injection. It should be legal, regardless of the circumstance, some form of counseling should of course be included to determine if the person is overreacting and wants the easy way out of a situation.
Say for instance you get thrown in prison for life w/o paroll......is it really necessary, knowing that you are completely guilty of the crime to put that amount of burden on the general taxpayer. Shouldn't you be able to end it. I think so, and the same goes for anyone else whether they are old and sick, or any age and dying. It's their life, give them some benefit if that is the choice they decide is the best option for themselves.



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

That strikes me as horribly wrong and cruel beyond tollerance.

But thats quite different. The dog is being killed because it suffers, and similarly a horse is killed when it breaks a leg, but thats because its life isn't valued very much, not merely because it suffers. Often animals are put to death before they are suffering, without an attempt at treatment, or when treatment is too expensive. Its humane, but its humane for animals. For humans, I'd say its a different story.


- Hey! No fair. If you're going to quote quote the whole line in context please.

What I said was - But in many cases we wouldn't let a dog suffer the way some people have to suffer. Particularly with certain cancers when even the heroin-based pain-killers stop working.

That strikes me as horribly wrong and cruel beyond tollerance.


The issue of shooting a horse or 'putting a dog or cat down' without an attempt at treatment clearly has nothing to do with the point I was making, nor was I making anything like that point myself.

Would you care to address that point I did raise?



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
A psychiatric evaluation!!!....exactly....Wat doctor is gonna say ok....i give permission for this person to die.

A good psychologist will be able to tell if the person is incompetent and insane or not.


ANYBODY THAT wants to kill themselves is going to be considered crazy by a psychologist.

Doubtful. It in itself is not an idication of insanity. What it will do is screen out people who are more properly treated for depression and whatnot, as opposed to those who have made a decision.

sminkeypinkey
quote the whole line in context please.

how did i destroy the context? You said 'particularly' with certain cancers, this means that you were talking about the phenomenon in general, and highlighting a particular example. If you meant something else, then it wasn't clear, at least to me, and glad to see we agree on this aspect of the topic.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join