Euthanasia?
 

After having an interesting argument on the topic at a local debating competition, I was wondering what the rest of you think of it? You don't have to go into specifics, but feel perfectly free to do so. :bigsmile: There's a definition below for those of you who aren't sure what it is.

"Euthanasia is the practice of killing a person or animal, in a painless or minimally painful way, for merciful reasons, usually to end their suffering."

I did an essay on this and a presentation about it at college. It's so deep and complex but in a nutshell I think it should be legal (though its never going to happen)

I think it should be allowed if the person, primary carer and medical professionals agree that life is excrutiatingly painful/depressing for the individual and that the person would benefit from ending their life. If the person has children of a dependent age then I don't think it should be allowed until they are over the age of 16 as that would be unfair on the child. Other things should be taken into account such as mental stability as if the person is not all there mentally, they may be making a decision which they do not fully understand.

I agree that if a animal is suffering then it should be put to rest peacefully, and painlessly. I don't think that the animal should continue to live on in pain and suffering.

It's legal for animals

Why I have always wondered are we fine about stopping the suffering of our pets in this country but allow humans to carry on suffering for what the professionals call "preservation of life" what if that person does not want their life preserved, what if it is far to painful.

Other countries have strict laws that allow Euthanasia which the UK should look at. Many people from the UK go abroad to end their lives, it seems sad that they have to leave the comfort of their own homes and lives to end their suffering.

Euthanasia is something I have always thought should be allowed for people and will always support.

Sorry, but this should remain ilegal, otherwise it will remove protection from the elderly and the disabled as organisations or other individuals bump vulnerable people off as a matter of expediencey.

There was a testimony of someone who wanted to die, and would be dead by now if it was allowed, but they manage to turn things around and are living an active life now.

We can presumably put men on the moon. Invent the wonderfull internet. But cannot produce a set of safegaurds to allow those who do not want to continue to suffer to choose not to suffer.

What hypocrytical maddness. Religions will probably be against it because religions thrive on stories of horror and suffering. Could call it their trade mark.

Of course it should be legal and it's about time our religious riddles politions started thinking about humanity instead of religious dogma that belongs to the dark ages....

It is not so much to do with religion here, but the danger of the system being abused. In the one country where this has been allowed there have been cases of involuntary euthanasia where it was done to get rid of someone they thought was a burden or a nuisance.

It is like the anti terror legislation being used to spy on people to see if they live where they live when applying for a school place.

Such a system is open to abuse

Agree totally.

I believe the one place where it is legal is Holland, and there are reported cases where the euthanasia was at the behest of someone else and not the victim.

If it costs more to treat someone than to kill them, or if the cost of care will eat inheritance, the patients will be put under pressure to opt for euthanasia, if someone does not go for that option for them.

And that is precisely what has been happening

Source

Not so long ago parents with down syndrome children were given this wonderful answer to their 'problem' , Euthanasia.
In Nazi germany it extend to legalised murder, incorporating anyone else with a physical/mental disability, gypsies, jews, and probably then would have extended to people with in growing toe nails, or birth marks, such was the lovely Nazi party who took this idea to its ultimate.
We may not have a perfect system here but the alternative is open to abuse, maybe not as bad, but one life lost to abuse is one way to many for the humane amongst us at least.

The polititions have never got round to even trying to come up with a sysytem of protection against abuse. Like I said if man kind can put it's mind to science then surely they can devise a system of safe gaurds.

The legal sytem of putting people on trial can result in abuse by rich lawyers getting rich clients off. But we don't go around saying we should not ahave a trial system just because it goes wrong sometimes.

The real abuse is allowing or forcing people to suffer horrendously without even trying to solve a difficult problem..At the the end of the day religious dogma puts a stop to even considering it.......

Well said Bananarama I couldnt agree more. I just think how hard can it be to create a system and at least trial it? I recently produced guidance for end of life care training and the key to everything written was choice, the dignity agenda says people should first and foremost have choices about their care, yet we fail to allow them a choice to die when their suffering is so unbearable.

If we had such a system, then elderly people could be pressurised by children or those with a financial interest, into opting for euthanasia just to save money.


i.e it is easy to imagine this conversation, even if it is not as blatant

A possibility in some cases. That is what intelligent safe gaurds would be designed to prevent. Don't for one moment try and convince me that if people cared about the suffering of terminal ill people that they would not at least have an open mind and try and solve the safe gaurd problem.....I will keep on saying this time and time again because it is true....Religious dogma will always destroy more than it creates.....

As long as we have ministers or prime ministers afflicted with the addiction of dark age beliefs then humanity will stay out of the window and inhumanity will flourish.

Example....Blair/Bush pair of religious addicts....What followed!!! Iraq war and all the on going tragedy that will continue to follow....Now we have Brown boasting about a religious upbringing and we have a government that hits the poor more that the rich....

Sorry but religion and politics is a recipe for inhumanity and disaster......and a total disregard for freedom of choice and rights....

I think it should be legalised. If someone is suffering THAT much, and its THEIR decision why should we let them die painfully, and slowly.

If I was dying, and I was in pain and I had no life, I would want it to end right there.

I think its horrible leaving someone to literally wait to die.

But what about those who can not voice their desires, does someone else make a decision?

This takes us towards a slippery slope that takes us the way of the abuses that the Nazi regime carried out, as mentioned by another poster.

they should trial it, perhaps with giving their own consent and having at least opinions from a doctor without families pressuring them into it. if its a success then roll it out across the country.

some people are very narrow minded about it until a horrible terminal illness happens to someone close to them, and its not nice at all to watch someone you know and love deteriorate at such a rapid rate where they are almost unrecognisable and clearly dont want to be here anymore.

in some countries where it is legal, not many people actually go through with it. doctors will send them out the right drugs to finish them off but not many people actually take them.

the laws should be relaxed quite a lot although it would leave a lot of grey areas.

The Nazi regime was about suffering........Exactly what we allow terminally ill people to experience....

Slippery slope and Nazi talk is just scare mongering to avoid the issue of at least trying to develop safe gaurds.....

if it was legal the slippery slope argument would be drastically cut back. the argument consists of one person being allowed the right to die, but others not. if it was legal then everyone would be allowed the right to die- therefore the main bulk of the slippery slope argument eliminated straight away.

the thing that confuses me over euthanasia is that suicide is legal so imo so should assisted suicide. if someone wants to die they have the option to via suicide, but if they are not physically capable then they should be allowed to be assisted. suicide can be seen (to some degree) as a basic human right, and i think essentially denying some people this option is just like denying someone the right to food or the right to water etc.

I think Euthanasia should be legalised. However, it is very debatable when it is volunaty euthanasia or non-voluntary euthanasia, because people can do it for their own benefits, eg. gaining money.

But i do think that if someone is suffering and in great pain they should have their own choice on whether to end their life, by assisted suicide.

Or maybe people should consult the hospice movement who have made excellent in roads on pain management

but what if even without the pain they have no quality of life? euthanasia isn't just a "relief" those with cancer and other illnesses, people who are paralysed or are in a vegetative state and have zero quality of life because they can't do anything themselves and people have to move them every hour or so to avoid bed sores. some people who want the right to die are not necessarily about to die, but instead have no quality of life and no amount of morphine will suffice.

Fantastic so when I am incontinent and in agony oh and lets not forget vommiting with the pain medication I will remember that great things have been done in terms of pain management!