Should be legal.

Have they.....Pain management so called is a joke.....What about nursing homes been to any lately on a regular basis....Pain is not the only problem with teminal illness. One can suffer in many ways not including pain. Stuggling for breath......The feeling of wanting to vomit but cannot. Hanging on to life is not just about pain.......

Those that are forced to hang onto life against their will is an act of barbaric torture.....Is that what religion stands for.....More often than not the answer to that question is a resounding YES.......

I don't think I have used religion in this argument at all :conf:

No you have not, I don't think people are getting your reasoning to this theory being open to abuse.
No body wishes to see suffering espeicially at first hand and in particular when that suffering is from a loved one close to death.
Some of the comments here seem to forget the very personal issues here without realising how hurtful this dilemma can be for them.
Some people need to consider carefully that, those opposed to euthanasia may actually care more about someones suffering and life, than those that absolutely don't.
Not forgetting one abuse of this law if ever Euthanasia was made legal, would be one to many.
Would the people in favour of Euthansia then feel guilty of, or aiding legalised murder?
Of cours not that would simply be unfair, rather like those in favour of euthanisia now 'accusing' people not in favour to be uncaring to the point of enjoying a persons suffering.

Our politics is riddled with religion. Prime Minister, Ministers. As such they will block any attempt for a solution to be found due to their dogmatism. However they will find time to discuss and pass laws to kill the unborn.....

If someone really cares about suffering they will hunt relentlessly for a possible solution instead of scaremongering about the negative possibilities.

There is no such thing as a perfect solution to anything. We send our children to school and some get bullied and some commit sucide as a result. We don't go around saying we should not have scools. equally we should not dismiss the possibility of carfully regulated euthenasia.. To do so is to allow avoidable human torture.

To do so is to allow avoidable human torture. [/quote]


You see this what your missing, and that reply is quite frankly insulting.

NOBODY wishes to see a loved one suffer and your suggesting people who do, do so deliberately by torturing them.
That view is, as I said, is just as insulting as saying those in favour of killing someone alive are aiding murder.
whether its direct action or by passing a law which eventually results in ONE case of abuse, are you going to live easy knowing you aided a pre-meditated murder?

Of course that would be unfair just as unfair as calling people who don't see your point of view as condoning torture. It's NOT law in this country for a damn good reason, people will take advantage of a change.
We have a good system now where if you were in this situation I'm sure your consequences would be looked at sympatheticaly, passing a law won't much change the death rate but if it saves one life from abuse surely thats ONE life DEFINATELY worth saving.

I believe if someone is in pain or have no quality of life, they should be allowed to die if they choose to, Who are we to prolong someone's suffering if they do not want it anymore? It's inhumane.

Euthanasia should be legalised. The member who said think of the pain management, then Euthanasia is the ultimate pain management. Suicide is legal so why is assisted suicide illegal? Some people may want to commit suicide but are physically incapable.

Then also there are people who have been in comas for years and instead of being euthanised they are refused medical treatment, e.g. switching off life support. This is perfectly legal and is technically not euthanasia. However refusal of medical treatment is sometimes horrific. There was a story of an old woman with cancer who was refused any treatment at all and it took her 3 weeks to die, and when she finally did she was a shadow of her former self and weighed about 3 stone.

Of course issues are going to be raised in things like permission, and who speaks for those who can't speak etc but I think things like this could be ironed out with a considerable amount of thought.

Speaking from personal experience, its not nice to witness the rapid deterioration of someone close to you until within months they are not how you remember them. These final memories stick with you always and tarnish the great memories you had before that. Its strange, and not nice.

Finally, many people just want the right to die. Most people won't go through with it, as proved in other countries, people just want the right so they know the option is there for them if things start to get bad and they can't cope anymore.

my brother had a brain tumor he had a op but the cancer went down his spain all he could do was move his head, he asked to die so many times he was in so much pain he was so many drugs just to stop the pain, he asked them to stop it and let him go ,the doctors said they could not aloow him to be in pain so gave him more drugs, was so hard seeing him like that i was only 11, i asked my mum why they would not let him go, i had a cat that had cancer they put her to sleep why could they not do it for my brother he was in so much pain he was like it for 12 weeks he begged my mum to put a pillow over his face cus of the pain now if they put him to sleep he would have died peacfull he died in so much pain, it was so unfaiir to see him like that he was 19 and they found out when he was 15 he had cancer, i would never ever want to see anyone in the pain he was in so they should do it for people that want to go

They should also consider how much money they could save and put back into the NHS. If someone has cancer and they quickly deteriorate over a year and they want to die within that year, all of the care, equipment and medication prescribed is worthless. The person doesn't want to be there so why should the tax payer pay to keep them alive when they don't want to be? People are being kept alive and its wasting money that could be used elsewhere. The person might want to die so its pointless them receiving the treatment to prolong an unwanted life.

I know this post sounds quite ruthless but its really not supposed to come across that way, hopefully you are all intelligent enough to see the point I'm making by ignoring the way I've worded it.

So people who are suicidal should be helped to commit suicide, especially if they are on benefit and not in work to save tax payers money?

That is the logical conclusion of that argument.

I never mentioned a thing about benefits.

No its not, my argument is if someone doesn't want to be alive then they should be given the right to die if they want to use it. If someone doesn't want to be here then is it really worth all the medical treatment that costs thousands per person if they don't want to even be alive in the first place? Its prolonging a life where the 'owner' doesn't want it. It would save a hell of a lot of money and would help solve some of the problems currently being faced financially by the NHS and would go towards the treatment of patients who will gain a better quality of life from it, not helping prolong a life of someone who doesn't live and someone who has a low quality of life that cannot improve.

Not at all, indeed as someone who is in favour of the current system where euthansia isn't a statutory right, I think your point shows how delicate a problem this.
Both sides don't wish to see suffering, myself least of all and this view (one of many I could have selected from those against my oppinion) shows exactly the same care and sicnserity there is on the side of euthanasia.
It has certainly made me think closely of the issues, its been a first class thread and considering the age of some of you guys, thoroughly well thought and argued.
:thumbs:

I dont think anyone suggested that for one second Sticks, you know they didnt. We are talking about terminally ill people in this thread who want the "choice" about suffering or not suffering. As someone who has been with a close family member until they passed I feel strongly that we should be allowed to assist them to end their suffering if that is what they want.

You can talk about all the pain mangement in the world but it has huge consequences as well, it can cause nausea, vomitting, drowsiness, confusion etc.. why should we have to put up with that if we dont want to.

Here is a case under present legislation where the parents of a child believe she has a reasonable quality of life, but the hospital trust want her to die.

One can not help feel that a bean counter has discussed cost here.

If euthanasia were legalised, we could increase the number of such cases ten fold.

Speaking as one with a disability, who's niece has Downs, we can be considered more vulnerable and at the mercy of others who might decree what type of quality of life we are having.

In the 1980's such a decision was reported when a homeless man was denied dialysis because they did not think his quality of life was good enough.

Such abuses can and do happen already, and again will be increased should this become law, as has happened in countries where it is legal

Its legal to be refused medical treatment and for families/patients to withdraw medical treatment which is why there are so many grey areas. Theres a story of an old woman who was dying of cancer and wanted the right to die. But instead she asked for withdrawal of medical treatment so that she could die faster, and how wrong she was. It took her 3 weeks and eventually when she did die she was starved, dehydrated and was under 3 stone as well as already being very weak. If someone is that determined to die then why should they have to go through all that suffering?

I agree with euthanasia, so long as the person has made their own decision to die. I do not believe that anybody else should make that decision for them.