Euthanasia is usually defined as something along the lines of, ' Ending one's life to relive pain or suffering.' But what about for other reasons. If someone has their own reasoning behind why they would prefer to be dead is it wrong to say they're not allowed to end their own life? Basically, should people be able to end their own life as they see fit? Who knows, maybe someone is simply content with their life that they would rather, 'end on a high note' as such. I'm just interested in opinions
Kill them if there is no chance they can recover. Or the pain would be so bad it would be torture to keep them alive. Heres a strange example. Take the headcrabbed zombie from Half Life. They have no control over anything from the neck down. Their fingers are bony claws. They have an alien parasite digging into their SKULL. And their bucking chest is RIPPED OPEN. There is NO WAY they could recover from that. And letting them live is leaving them to suffer until the crab hops off to torment someone else. Its only humane to end their suffering and to kill the parasite so it cant cause anymore. Did i mention the fast zombies are completely insane from the pain. The zombine spouts distorted military jargon into the communicator in the hopes of warning other soldiers. And the poison zombie has FIVE headcrabs pumping poison into him and sucking his blood.And he LAUGHS when you kill him. Strange example but it applies to reality in a way.
I have a respect for the doctor who mercy-killed his patients when they asked him to, Jack Kevorkian I think it was. They got tired of the pain and asked the good doctor to end their suffering, so he did. As a doctor, he should honor the patient's wishes.
A doctor shouldn't have to perform euthanasia, its their job to save lives, not end them unless they can bear the burden, but I believe it's everybody's right to end their life as they see fit, mercy killing or not. Regardless of what people think of suicide in any way, call it selfish or whatever, it's still a basic right someone deserves to have.
I don't know if I even have an opinion on whether other people should be allowed to decide that they're in too much pain or suffering, or if their condition is too tormentuous, for them to live at all anymore. I guess they should be allowed to choose. All I know for sure is that, considering any realistic scenario, I would want to be kept alive. You never know what the future may hold. Life is great. It beats the heck out of the alternative.
I'm fine with people doing it, just as long as they decide not to inconvenience me, and others, by making the trains delayed or having the A1 shut when you jump off the motorway bridge.
Miggy makes a good point. with ending your own life you are hurting those around you more then you are hurting yourself.
I think that people should be able to choose whether or not they want to live, even if it means getting others involved. Although some paperwork should be involved to avoid people committing suicide/killing people without thinking.
Euthanasia Euthanasia has always been a controversial topic. But I think you have to look at the legal issues and moral issues. For instance, it wouldn’t be much different than deciding to pull the plug on your grandma when advanced terminal state has been reached. Now, Euthanasia should only be considered if there is no other option, if there is no way for someone to pay for treatment and wishes it’s time to just move on…and upon reaching agreement with one’s family. I don’t see what is so wrong with it, but then again being a nurse and being accustomed to watch terminal people die, makes you see things differently. I've seen patients struggle with their conditions for a long time, it’s sad…and heartbreaking. I've even been asked my many of my patients to end their lives, I can’t say that sometimes I go home and lay on bed thinking of the things I saw at work. I could go on and give examples, but under HIPAA I’m not allowed to do so. My point is, Euthanasia isn't a bad thing, in fact it would be a quicker way to put an end to someone’s pain, rather than watched them struggle for days or weeks, being administered high doses of morphine every hour. I've done it, I’m not proud of it…but someone has to do it.
I don't mean to necrobump, but I think this is a significant contribution to the thread. It's interesting how people view human euthanasia vs. animal euthanasia. There are people who are against the first, but support the latter. The law, at least in the US, agrees with them. In my personal experience, I've had to watch several older family members grow sick and die of incurable ailments and endure pain they shouldn't otherwise have to. I suppose the hard part is determining when it's acceptable and when it's not, which will never have a solidly definable line due to the infinite amount of variables that have to be considered when a person is in such a shattered state. I think a good idea to use as a guide, which I read somewhere before but don't remember who to credit unfortunately, is to consider euthanasia when the pain becomes greater than the hope. That may seem ambiguous, but it's a decent place to start. I remember when my grandfather was suffering from sepsis as a result of a complication from lung surgery (due to cancer). He was unconscious, and is prognosis was very poor. The only thing keeping him alive at the moment was a breathing tube and some sort of blood pressure regulating IV drip (I don't remember the specifics, I was 14 at the time). The doctor came in and basically told us that the probability for a decent quality of life, IF he recovered, was very low, in effect, the pain would become greater than the hope, and that we could choose to remove the life sustaining equipment and blood pressure medication and he would pass away in a matter of minutes. While not euthanasia in the traditional sense, it was in essence, passive euthanasia. We unanimously decided as a family to do this, and we were all present when he passed away. It was a difficult decision, but we all felt it was the right thing to do. I wish there would have been a more direct route, maybe prior to him having to suffer all the fruitless surgeries, constant probing, and back and forth trips to the hospital. He was not afraid of dying - he said so many times, and if he had the option to choose euthanasia via phenobarbital or another similar drug, I think he would have elected to do so to avoid personal pain and the anguish of loved ones watching him deteriorate. While this may conflict with the morals of some people, and that's fine for them to feel that way, I think it should be an available option to those who wish to do so. With animals, it's more widely accepted, for a variety of reasons. I had to put down a chronically ill cat yesterday morning. It was painful to make the decision and bring her to the vet for the final time, indeed, but it was for the best. She no longer groomed herself, she was wasting away, barely eating, going potty outside the litterbox and in places that she was sleeping or eating, and just sleeping all the time. We (my girlfriend and I) decided that it was the best course of action. We were petting the cat and telling it kind words the entire time during the procedure. The vet remarked that it was a great thing that we have this option, rather than having the animal suffer undue pain just for the sake of some legality or an owner's selfishness in just wanting them around longer than the animal can tolerate the pain. We cried, and it was incredibly painful, but we knew it was the right thing to do. We miss her dearly, but we're glad she's not in pain anymore. I just wonder why people are more accepting of animal euthanasia than human euthanasia, given that they're intended to do the same thing: relieve undue suffering.
A well written reply to this subject, I must say. I think the reason (Or one of the main reasons, rather) people do not support human euthanasia is because they feel that human life is more sacred than that of an animal, in a sense. To give a wo/man euthanasia is essentially killing them; the people who do not support HE (Human Euthanasia) claim that taking a human life regardless of the situation is wrong, and that they should die naturally. For an animal, many seem them as mere property rather than a life entity. It is much easier to lay down an animal than a human, for a variety of reasons. They cannot speak, do not have visible emotions (Though, this is very debatable.) have shorter lifespans, and get sick easier and become more pained as time goes on. Humans establish attachments to each other through communication via morals, emotions, and logic. Animals can only do one of the 3. (Again. Debatable.) A variety of factors contribute to this. I, personally, think human euthanasia should be available to patients who clearly have no chance of living a normal life/recovering from a vegetative state. But that's just me.
I agree that many view human life as more sacred than animal life, and I understand then why they'd be hesitant about HE. I do question, however, how they arrive at that conclusion, although I have a feeling that it's probably a religious and/or cultural influence guiding that decision. Personally, I don't see humans and animals as that different regarding the value of their life. As for those who feel that animals are more property than life, I wholeheartedly disagree with them. Perhaps some of this is my bias as an animal lover talking, but I can tell you that any of my animals, mostly cats, can display emotions quite obviously. The bond between human and animal is a very real one. Anytime I'm feeling sad, my cats have come around far more often, slept next to my face, followed me around, etc. And since the other cat has been put down, they appear to be grieving. Of course, I can't ask them, just observe their behavior as differing from the norm. Despite this, I can also understand that AE is different in that animals can not directly tell you if they're in pain, or the pain is too much, so they rely on us to make that determination for them.
See, I would respect someone else's right to make this choice, but I would never make it. The unlikely can happen. People can wake up and recover from states or withstand amounts of pain in ways that our "practice" of medicine cannot explain. I just wouldn't want to give up. I don't think there's such a thing as suffering without purpose. But again, that's just me.
I can respect that. The decision is very personal, and should be discussed with family and friends in a very serious manner. If someone is against it for themselves or for someone close to them, I think it's important to really make sure your wishes will be carried out if/when the time comes. I agree that situations aren't always clear, which makes the decision difficult, but in the case of my grandfather in my initial post, the possibility was very, very low, and the suffering that he would endure if he recovered was carefully considered in the final decision. In my case, if I was the victim of a painfully degenerative disease, I would ask for euthanasia, and trust that my family would obey my wishes. I don't think any of them would feel guilt or hesitation in that situation. I certainly didn't feel guilty about my grandfather; all involved considered it an act of mercy. As far as suffering having a purpose, I don't necessarily agree, but that's probably a different discussion altogether, and I respect your feelings on that matter.
^ Same answer as Echoax - - Auto Merge - - I think a good addition to my support for euthanasia legalization is that, yes, I also agree that there should be paperwork - at least as much as people already have to sign for other legal matters.
I believe that euthenasia should only be granted to those who do not have the ability to take their own lives. If they still can do it themselves, then I see it as unfair and unjustified to ask someone else to do it for you. Everyone has the right over their own life, but I don't think everyone has the right to choose who ends it for them.
