Euthanasia

[*Jess*]

I hope there isn't a thread already about this but I couldn't find one.
What are your views on euthanasia?

Personally, I don't think there is anything bad about it. If someone has a good enough reason why they want to die, then so be it. They shouldn't be judged. If they are ill enough to consider their life not worth living then why should they be restricted from dying? And why should people be convicted of man slaughter for something that was decided by the other person?

[Poetika]

Since there isn't any actual forthy-mouthed debate here, but I'll put in my opinon anyways. I am all for euthanasia. Its the person's personal decision whether or not they want to fight for life or surrender; not the goverment's. not the doctor's. not the politican's. It may go against the moral ethics of conservatives, but then one's morals don't decide for another's choices or take responisibilty.

[pakstar]

i think that if a life can be saved we should do all we can to save it

[Sponge'K'nob]

i dont think its right that you could trust another person to kill you, if ya wanna die, then bloody do it yourself, i no for one i would do it myslef, if i had the bollox to, im not balsy enough to commit suicide,but hey, i could never ask anyone else to do it, or for anyone else, what sorta life would that be? knowing you ended another.

[*Jess*]

But Kaye, if you were too ill or completely paralysed, you can't do it yourself really.
and "pakstar" what happens if they can't save their lives? sometimes they are just completely paralysed people who are living just because they are alive, not because theres anything worth living for.

[Sponge'K'nob]

yeah i can understand someone wanting someone to help them die, i personally couldnt be the person to do it, modern technology na though, lot of things are being cured. dunno my opinion its ethically wrong.....my point of view lol

[pakstar]

But Kaye, if you were too ill or completely paralysed, you can't do it yourself really.
and "pakstar" what happens if they can't save their lives? sometimes they are just completely paralysed people who are living just because they are alive, not because theres anything worth living for.

why the quotation marks "jess"?

[Shane]

If I was incapable of movement and/or was in extreme pain I think I would rather die. it would be the kinder thing for your friends or family to do to you.

[t-junction]

It's always been a tricky one this. Personally, I am all for euthanasia. A person's right to die is a person's right to die. However, this usually comes under the idea of suicide. Euthanasia only really gets a look in when it comes to extremely unwell or old individuals. In which case, if they wish to die, they should be allowed to. This, in my opinion, should be carried out by a doctor. Less chance of pain or mistakes during death.

What the real issue is, if a person cannot communicate properly, who has the right to judge if their life is worth living or not? I know that if I was existing in a vegatative state, or completely paralysed, I would probably rather die. However, to some people, even the smallest fraction of life is sacred.

To get past this tricky moral issue, I'd like to use the rather harsh, but ultimately true, point that terminally ill people cost a fortune to look after. The equipment used to sustain their lifes, the food given to them, the doctors and nurses time, could be used elsewhere to help people with less serious illnesses, that could go on to live a normal, healthy life. Horrible, but true.

Thats my two pennies.

[Morazain]

A person has a right to live then they have a right to die.

I've known people who have died they say its like a quick pinch and that's it it's like falling into a deep sleep the moment you begin to die you begin to lose all reason to blissful dreams sounds like a thing eternal blissful sleep.

If you are wondering how I know this it's simple they didn't become dead they just managed to come back. There is after all a difference between Knowing you are going to die and knowing you are going to be dead soon.

You can ask me about that later but I think that the alternative to life of pain dying I think I would do the big nap.

[_bosnian_]

i did an internship in a hospital last year. before this internship i was against euthanasia, but now i'm all for this. because i saw people there, who couldn't do nothing alone. some just lied the whole day in the bed and were connected to machines, which kept them alive; they were feeded by machines etc.
so now i'm for euthanasia, but here in germany it'll never be allowed, because of the nazi-time. many people who wanted to die, went to switzerland or holland, where euthanasia is legal.

[clueless]

Well, i am totally against euthanasia. This, i believe, is strongly supported by my personal religious convictions, which teachs that this life is a test and everyone will face hardships, but with these hardships will come ease as everything, good or bad, has to end inevitably. I don't like the idea of a loved one suffering immense pain, anymore then a person who is pro-euthanasian, but i do not believe that any human as the right to cut short the life of another. life, in any form, is sacred.

[Conal]

Yes, it should be Legal in Britain
No, it should be illegal in Britain
Don't know

[clueless]

No.

[Mikhael]

what is it ???

[clueless]

euthanasia is in short, assisted suicide

[NATAL!E]

I think it should be.
There's so much more to it than people think.
When used in the correct circumstances, it helps so many people.

[~Wayne~]

If used in very desperate situations it can give people what they want if their suffering

[Boy_Wonder06]

we had to discuss this in my philosophy and moral issues lesson lol, it part of our GCSE course, there are so many ways to look at it. I mean yes, if someone is in pain i believe we should do what ever we can to make them feel better but on the other hand, what abaout the family of the person, they have to live with the fact that a loved one has died, and its cuz they were in too much pain, therefore making them feel like they have failed. what you all think of those arguments?

[Conal]

Suffering should not be a part of life... Suffering is not living... Death is a part of life... we all die at sometime...

[NATAL!E]

When those people who WANT euthanasia, and ask for it, they know they're at a stage where they're not even living anymore, they're just existing.

What sort of life is it, to know you're in so much pain, slowly dying, and there's nothing anyone can do, yet you're fully functional mentally?

I think it's only understandable why euthanasia should be made an option for people, I mean, if they're mentally stable, then it's not just a brash decision where the person is mentally ill.

And yeah, mostly, the people wanting it are slowly dying, so the family are going to have to go through the grieving process at some stage anyway. Would you be happy seeing a loved one suffering, in constant pain and dying? And not feel you wanted to help them as much as possible, even if it meant a quickened death?

Plus, it's not like they wouldn't have discussed it with their family in the first place anyway. It would also be in that person's best interests to help their family as much as possible too, which is probably one of the reasons to end their own suffering - to end the suffering of the family who're stood by, watching and not being able to help.

So I think euthanasia should be made legal here. And when you think about it, some people just go abroad anyway, and then their relatives are tried in court, for being present when the person wanted to take their own life in a humane way. Where is the justice in that?

[gprime]

The legality of euthanasia is essential in the UK, the United States, and any other nation which wishes to regard itself as a democracy. If the fundamental goal of a democracy is to preserve the liberties of its citizens, surely that includes the most important right of deciding whether or not one wishes to keep living. However, I'll carry this a step further. I believe any goverment effort to prevent suicide, even by those labelled mentally ill should be deemed illegal.

[hollib21]

Well I dont live in Britain, but I think it should be legal as long as there are some sort of "standards" set.
There should be some sort of guidelines drawn out specifiying what the circumstances are allowing it and not allowing it.
Like which terminal diseases...if the family agrees...what type of mental state the person is when they are making the decision...ect.
it would all depend.
But if it is ending a life that would be drawn out full of suffering...i dont see why not?

[PrincessAlice]

I think it should it isn't fair to somebody who is in pain and have no control over their life. If they have no control over their life and have to have somebody do everything for them it isn't a life its just making them stay alive when they have no meaning left

[clueless]

I think it should it isn't fair to somebody who is in pain and have no control over their life. If they have no control over their life and have to have somebody do everything for them it isn't a life its just making them stay alive when they have no meaning left
IMO, every living person has a meaning and purpose in life regardless of their situation. Life in any form is better than no life. It is sacred thus should be preserved. I am a religious person who believes in God and believes that everything that happens, happens for a reason- a reason which isn't always known to us. Euthanasia is wrong.

[gprime]

IMO, every living person has a meaning and purpose in life regardless of their situation. Life in any form is better than no life. It is sacred thus should be preserved. I am a religious person who believes in God and believes that everything that happens, happens for a reason- a reason which isn't always known to us. Euthanasia is wrong.

But why should you be able to force a competant adult to live against their own will.

[Bite-me]

I think it should be. I think there should be a parliment vote to see whether it should or not be brought to this country.

[Kate]

What if you were stuck paralasyed from your neck down?
Think.

[Shield]

If it was legalized, there would have to be a very defined line between it and homicide.

[horsey gal]

Life in any form is better than no life.

i have to disagree with that on a large scale. being left alive when say cancer is eating away at you , and nothing can be done to save you , you are lying in a bed thin and so ill you cant even get up. that is not a form of life worth living for any one. why would you want to die in even more pain and in such a horrible condition when you can peicefull go at the present time before it got extremely bad. i have seen the effects of such conditions as my nana died of cancer and it is horrible.

and like some one else mentioned, being paralised from the neck down, its ok if you have the willpower and are openly willing to live on, i mean superman did it, but some people dont want that berdon on them, and feel they would rather cut there losses and go now while they are still content in ther mind.


Well I dont live in Britain, but I think it should be legal as long as there are some sort of "standards" set.
There should be some sort of guidelines drawn out specifiying what the circumstances are allowing it and not allowing it.
Like which terminal diseases...if the family agrees...what type of mental state the person is when they are making the decision...ect.
it would all depend.
But if it is ending a life that would be drawn out full of suffering...i dont see why not?

yes i agree, there doeas need to be certain conditions such as you mentioned.

[emo-bass-rocker]

It depends. If people are suffering from a fatal illness and they want to die then yes. But if they want to die out of depression and they think life is worthless then no.

[callumgrant2000]

i was watching ont the news the other day how someone got sent to prison, for killing his wife, but the thing is she asked him to switch off her machine, she is in alot of pain, but at the moment this is illegal, so do you think that it should be made legal to let someone die if there want to?

[Deimos]

There's various arguments for and against euthanasia and assisted suicide, not all will be known or covered by this forum, so I'd suggest anyone who's gonna post a big informed response, actually read about the subject.

I think it should be made legal.

[callumgrant2000]

The history of the debate for physician-assisted suicide has been long, even tracing back to the Greek and Roman times. The debate originally was centered around the Hippocratic oath and the condemnation of the practice. With the upsurge of Christianity, many physicians continued to condemn the practice. Within the last two centuries the public has spurned many discussions about Physician-assisted suicide and Euthanasia from many different historic perpectives. Although this debate has been lengthy and many of the issues discussed over the centuries are repetitive, new ideas and concerns do emerge with the current debate.
Many terms are used in the debate for Physician-assisted suicide, and in order to alleviate confusion through out the paper a few definitions will be given. Voluntary active euthanasia is the intentionally administering medication or other interventions to cause the patient's death at the patient's explicit request and with fully informed consent. Involuntary active euthanasia is the intentionally administering medications or other interventions to cause patient's death when patient was competent but without the patient's explicit request and/or fully informed consent. Nonvoluntary active euthanasia is the intentionally administering medication or other interventions to cause patient's death when patient was incompetent or not able to explicitly requesting it. Terminating life-sustaining treatments is withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining medical treatments from the patient to let him or her die. Palliative care or indirect euthanasia is administering narcotics or other medications to relieve pain with incidental consequence of causing sufficient respiratory depression to result in the patient's death. Physician-assisted suicide is a physician providing medication or other interventions to a patient with the understanding that the patient intends to use them to commit suicide. Although there are many terms, confusion can abound. However the discussion of physician-assisted suicide will be the focus of the paper, since most of the press and discussion has been about this subject .
A few public advocates have spoken for physician-assisted suicide. Besides Doctor Jack Kervokian with his "death machine", Dr. Timothy Quill shows the compassionate side of physician-assisted suicide. In the story of Diane, Dr. Quill tries to convince physicians to take seriously the request of a patient to die. Currently Oregon is only state that allows physician-assisted suicide. Many of the supporters say there is a right to choose when and where one dies. Quill does speak in favor of legalizing physician-assisted suicide. However he brings up ideas about dignified death. The argument of the right to die comes from the right to terminate life-sustaining treatment. The authors of this argument say there is no essential difference between physician-assisted suicide and termination of life-sustaining treatment, since refusal of life-sustaining treatment is an upheld legal right. The analogy is one of a person sitting on a beach waiting for the tide to come in to drown and then another person walking into the ocean to drown.Before the Supreme Court ruling in 1997, some argued that the right to terminate care would be expanded to physician-assisted suicide and therefore making it a right.However, the Supreme Court did not say physician-assisted suicide is a right. (See later discussion of ruling.)
In response to the claim there is a right to die, there was detailed article published in the Hastings Center Report about the evolution of rights. According to the original liberal thinkers on rights, the right to commit suicide goes against the idea of a natural right. The philosophical arguments go to show there is no historical precedent for a right to be made dead, let alone requiring others to help. The essence of individual freedom is a sense of not belonging to someone else, not merely doing whatever you please. The current positing of rights to do whatever one pleases is a modern development and is seldom upheld in courts.So the argument that there is a natural right to die is a stretch from interpretation of rights and currently has no basis in the U.S. Constitution.
Although there may or may not be a right to die, there are other arguments for physician-assisted suicide. Quill showed how compassion can lead to the assisting of one's death.However at the same time Quill has discussed how a patient asking to die may not always be making a legitimate request. His idea is that this request should lead to a query about death and the options should be explored, instead of a simple yes or no answer. His example of a 55 year old women who requested to die was really a response to not wanting to undergo any more treatment for cancer and a desire to take a more symptom-related treatment path. Some patients are in a spiritual crisis, psychosocial problems, and even clinical depression. All of these requests for help, with proper discussion of options can lead to a more positive end of life experience. Physicians can feel sympathetic to a situation where there is nothing they can due to alleviate the pain of a patient. For many, simply side-stepping the question is unethical since the question can represent a cry for help.So the compassion for a patient who is in terminal pain can lead physicians to aid in physician-assisted suicide now even though it is illegal. Although there is know legal, medical, or philosophical historical precedent to allow physician-assisted suicide, physicians believe in physician-assisted suicide enough to knowingly break the law.
Since the discussion of physician-assisted suicide surrounds feelings and uncertain situations, the discussion has turned somewhat from why to have physician-assisted suicide to how. A proposal has been published on the conditions of physician-assisted suicide.The first requirement is that the patient must have a condition that is incurable and associated with severe, unrelenting suffering and understand the prognosis. Second the physician must be sure the request is not made because of inadequate pain control. Third the patient must clearly and repeatedly request to die. Fourth the physician must be sure the patient's judgement is not distorted. Fifth, the physician-assisted suicide should be only carried out in a meaningful doctor patient relationship. A physician should not be forced to participate in any act that they deem unethical. Sixth, consultation with another experienced physician is required to ensure it is a sincere request. Seventh, all of the steps should be clearly documented.This policy takes reasonable sets to insure the procedure is not abused, but the chance of abuse is always present.
To reduce the possibility abuse, the courts have recommended that the patient's judgment be evaluated by a psychiatrist.Using a psychiatrist as a gatekeeper to physician-assisted suicide brings up many other troubling points. In the field of psychiatry, the desire to commit suicide is considered a mental illness that can be treated. With this attitude how can a psychiatrist say someone is of sound mind with the desire to commit suicide? Usually the profession considers a suicide as an unsuccessful treatment of a disorder. National studies have showed that 90% of all suicides in the general population show some sort of psychiatric disorder.However these cases do not focus on the terminally ill. The studies of terminally ill patients who desire physician-assisted suicide and the prevalence of diagnosed depression can range from 13% to 77%.Most of these studies have small numbers of patients desiring physician-assisted suicide so there needs to be further study along this line. Also these studies were in a society where physician-assisted suicide was not openly allowed. The desire for physician-assisted suicide might change if it was legal, thereby changing the sampling pool. Also there are no studies examining the likelihood of terminally ill, suicidal patients changing their minds about suicide after receiving psychotherapy.
So there is a lack of information on desire for suicide in terminal patients.
Besides the case of not knowing the true nature of the desires for suicide in terminally ill patients, determining the patient's capacity to make a decision could be difficult for a psychiatrist. How truthful will a patient be with a psychiatrist if one believes that they will not be allowed to terminate their life if the psychiatrist does not believe they are competent? Also, is depression a reason to hold back the decision for physician-assisted suicide? Many psychiatrists believe depression is a normal response to severe medical illness and not a sign of psychiatric illness.So, consulting a psychiatrist to determine competence may prevent abuses, but it leads to its own quandary, since psychiatrists may not want to perform this function.
Although many issues about physician-assisted suicide remain, many studies have shown a strong support of it in medical physicians and in the general public in two published studies. In Oregon, 60 percent of physician believed that the physician-assisted suicide should be legal in some cases. 46 percent said they would prescribe a lethal dose. Moreover, 7 percent have admitted to complying with a request of a patient for a lethal dose, although this act was illegal at the time.In the Michigan study, the public and physicians were questioned. The proportion of respondants favoring the legalization was 56 percent of physicians and 66 percent of the public. This was compared to 37 percent of physicians and 26 percent of the public who favor an outright ban.The reasons for each individual choice can vary but there is a support for the legalization of physician-assisted suicide that in some way needs to be addressed. Also the fact the Dr. Kevokian has never been convicted may be another example the support for physician-assisted suicide in Michigan.
Although some arguments for physician-assisted suicide are strong, many do have unresolved issues. Furthermore, the argument against physician-assisted suicide has many strong points. One of the most common arguments is the slippery slope. This argument is presented as a way to still allow the process to be illegal although there may be a moral authority in extreme cases.The presidential report of 1983 said "The Commission finds this limitation on individual self-determination to be an acceptable cost of securing the general protection of human life afforded by the prohibition of direct killing."The report expressed a concern for the general protection of all life. The report did not think the limit few who would be helped with practices such as physician assisted suicide is worth the sacrifice to the general protection of human life. The fear is that the financial costs of treatment or pressures from the family will cause the decision of the patient to have physician-assisted suicide performed. The "slippery slope" claim is that the right to physician-assisted suicide will slowly spread to the disabled or mentally competent adults who are not terminally ill. The final extreme of the slippery slope argument is that it will finally reach a point of involuntary euthansia.Many cite the Dutch example of what will happen, however this discussion will be deferred to later. The arguments for the slippery slope normally do not distinguish a difference between euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, as noted by Mark Siegler. Society and legislators have all made a distinct difference between physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia. Also, the slippery slope argument ignores the current rights of real people in favor of the speculative harms that may be visited in future people.
Another major objection to physician-assisted suicide is the loss of trust of a doctor. What will a patient think if it is known that their physician actively aided in someone else's death. One maxim of medical care is "Cure sometimes, relieve often, comfort always."Many times a physician can not cure a disease and or relieve the symptoms. But how would a patient feel knowing that the doctor gave up on another patient especially if they were terminally ill and allowed the suicide to occur. The doctor-patient relationship is the foundation of all interactions and to have aided in death comes in the middle of it, would make more than a few patients uncomfortable. Also another maxim of a physician is to first do no harm; suicide can be seen as harm to a patient. The argument along these lines states that physician-assisted suicide distorts the healing purpose of medicine.This argument is valid and does cause many problems, however they must also be weighed against the needs of the particular patient, which each physician has to make.
One issue that is difficult to resolve is the morality of physician-assisted suicide. Many physicians and patients have a moral dilemma with physician-assisted suicide. Another aspect involves the morality of the nurses who are involved with a possible action of physician-assisted suicide. If they object do they refer the patient to another nurse, or how do they voice their opinion against this action without involving the patient in the conflict between the physician and nurse?Besides the nurse there are many others who are involved as well. How do institutions make their policy clear enough ahead of time to alleviate any problems especially in the situation with terminally ill patients? What is the pharmacist's moral responsibility in this scenario? Do they ask the patient if the medication is for committing suicide? If they consciously object to physician-assisted suicide how do they perform their function? Do they not fill the prescription outright, or do they only fill the prescription to a level where the patient can not commit suicide? Another aspect of this is the responsibility of the doctor to provide further care. What happens if the suicide is botched somehow, or if other complications make the suicide impossible? There are many issues involved with the actual act and how it affects all of the people involved in the health care of the patient.
Another argument against physician-assisted suicide is that the physicians' professional societies, in particular the America Medical Association, has come out against the legalization of physician-assisted suicide.They have actively campaigned against the laws in Washington, California, and Oregon. The idea that the national organization stands against this measure is good for public policy support, however as previously mentioned many of the physicians polled in different studies responded positive to the legalization of the physician-assisted suicide. Some have claimed that the conservative leaders of organizations like the AMA are not necessarily representative of their constituents,though the AMA did recommend a more careful examination of the issue.
While there are many moral and practical decisions about the legalization of physician-assisted suicide, there is the example of the Netherlands. Although assisted suicide is still illegal in the Netherlands, the courts and government have come out with a set of guidelines that when followed ensure that a physician will not be prosecuted -- in essence decriminalizing the act. However, in the Netherlands there is not much of a distinction made between physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia since framers of the law did not want to discriminate against patients who could not effect their own death.There are four guidelines given to prevent a physician from being prosecuted. The first is the patient must be mentally competent adult. The second requirement must request euthanasia voluntarily and repeatedly and the physician needs to document the requests. The third requirement is the patient must be suffering intolerably, with no prospect of relief. The forth is the doctor must consult with another physician not involved with the case.
In 1990 and 1995 the Dutch government commissioned surveys to see the true nature of euthanasia in the Netherlands. The surveys were headed by Professor Jan Remelink, the attorney general of the Dutch Supreme Court. The Remelink surveys have been tossed around between the two sides of the discussion of physician-assisted suicide, with both sides claiming that the surveys prove their points. Initially the 1990 survey showed that only 18 percent of all euthanasia was reported to the government with the proper documentation, the number has since risen to 41 percent in 1995. The rise in number could be contributed to the change in reporting procedures. There are many reasons why physicians still do not fill out the forms, so the reporting is not fully accurate. Some of the reasons mentioned for not filing the report are it is time consuming, burdensome and possibly incriminating.The example of the Netherlands is normally selected to show evidence of a slippery slope, but van der Maas, vader Wal, Haverkate, and rest of the authors themselves claim "our data provide no conclusive evidence in either direction" in regards to the slippery slope. Many observers disagree with them.The startling fact that many cite as evidence of a slippery slope is the reported 1030 deaths in 1990 and 948 deaths in 1995 where the ending of a life occurred without the request of the patient. Many of the doctors involved in these cases claimed that many of the patients expressed interest in the decision ahead of time and at the end they were in a position where the patient could not ask. Still, there were a few reports of doctors ending the lives without the explicit request of a patient. The involuntary deaths is also not increasing, so some believe that the Dutch physicians continue to practice physician-assisted dying only reluctantly and under compelling circumstances. However others argue that the society is becoming more tolerant of physician-aided death and that any death with out explicit request is morally objectionable and any system that allows that is not justified and that the Netherlands is sliding down the slippery slope towards nonvoluntary active euthanasia.
While the Netherlands can provide insight into physician-assisted dying, a few differences need to be noted. First the only discussion in America is for physician-assisted suicide. Second the societies of the Netherlands and America are different and we each subscribe to different ideals. This does not mean that all of the evidence from the Netherlands is not important, we just need to realize that there is a limit to how far we project the results of the Netherlands onto American culture.
While physician-assisted suicide is not legal in the U.S. except in Oregon, the Supreme Court ruled on the states' right to decide individually on the legality of physician-assisted suicide. The two cases were [I]Vacco v. Quill and Washington v. Glucksberg, where the court upheld the right for the states to criminalize physician-assisted suicide.The Supreme Court reversed both decisions of the lower court's opinion claiming it was illegal to criminalize physician-assisted suicide; however the Supreme Court did not say there was a right to physician-assisted suicide. The Supreme Court did say in the concurring opinions that the patient had a right to palliative care. They did believe that when a physician gave pain medications to relieve the suffering of a patient such treatment would be permissible even if another consequence of that pain medication is a shortening of the patient's life. The Supreme Court did allow states to pass their own laws on the subject and allowed a discussion of the right to physician-assisted suicide in the public.
In the case of Lee v. State of Oregon, the courts ruled that there was not enough protection for the terminally ill patient who may end up in a premature death who may actually want to live. This lack of protection came from the absence of a mental health professional consult when physician-assisted suicide is requested. So the courts do say there is a state interest in protecting patients who may want to live. While the states interest in protecting patients is one of the key legal arguments against physician-assisted suicide and making physician-assisted suicide illegal. So the courts have upheld the pillars of protecting the patient. However, in attempting to protect the patient the courts have incorporated the psychiatrist, which brings up the dilemmas of the psychiatry previously mentioned.
Many physicians agree with the ruling that palliative care is very important and should not be restricted. However they also agree that the debate for physician-assisted suicide is not over. Some however disagree with the idea of a right to palliative care. They do not disagree with the idea of comforting patients at the end of their death, but they do think sedating someone to death is ethically problematic. The claim is that terminal sedation is equivalent to a slow euthanasia. If one sedates someone to a deep sleep and then withdraws food and water, does this ethically follow the guidelines of right to refuse medical treatment? The physician is putting the patient in a position where artificial support can be legally removed. Dr. Orentlicher claims the court rejected the idea that terminal sedation "is covert physician-assisted suicide." He also claims that in rejecting a right to physician-assisted suicide they embraced a direct form of euthanasia, which can be easily abused. While terminal sedation can be abused and at best there is still debate on the permissibility of terminally sedating a patient and withdrawing life support, the courts have upheld a right to palliative care, as long as the primary purpose of the sedation is to relieve pain and not hasten death.
While the moral and ethical debate rages in the public and the courts, physicians have to deal with such situations every day. Looking back to the study of Oregon physicians, 4 percent of the physicians studied had given a lethal prescription to a patient and the patient had taken it, while 7 percent of physicians admitted to actually giving the medication. While this number may seem low, one must remember while the study was conducted it was illegal to write a lethal prescription. Attempts have been made at nationwide surveys of the practice of physician-assisted suicide, but not many of the surveys are returned and those that are cannot be factually verified. So the current prevalence of physician-assisted suicide is completely unknown. The practice, if it does occur, is not talked about openly, due to the legal ramifications. Additional research must determine the current actual practice of physicians.
In the debate of physician-assisted suicide, there are many valid arguments on each side. This paper has only been able to touch on the surface of many of the arguments. Whichever path society does choose in regards to physician-assisted suicide, moral objections will need to be addressed. Either way, the public needs to be educated about the different legal options concerning the end-of-life care and the consequences of any changes in laws governing such care.

[jem]

It depends.
If someone is in serious pain and keeping them alive is just torturing them then i think thats ok.
It shouldnt be a quick decision though because if theyre ill they probably wouldnt be 100% certain about what they want.
I dont think it should all go to courts and stuff though. why should some random person decide on whether someone should live?
Think it should be a decision made by the family maybe with the help of some professional people to give them advice or whatever.

[Deimos]

lrn2paragraph

[Innamorata]

I think it should be up to them.

[pathfinder]

If you allow suicide, most may want one at some part of their life.Euthansia just gives a bedridden patient the same chance to end it. The problem is that there is a chance that if one commits suicide, he wills not succed, but euthanasia is 100% death once the patient presses that button.

[Rashella]

Aslong as the person has the right state of mind and an appropiate reason to make the choice, they should be able to decide to die.

[jess]

It wouldn't be so simple as to legalise such a thing as euthanasia because if its legal it would open up the floodgates for lupols in the law, not every person who can't speak or move wants to die, there may be cases where the patient wants to live but the relatives may want them to die to inherit money and say its what they would have wanted. Doctors may kill someone and call it assisted suicide saying its what they wanted and escape jail sentences, good lawyers could turn murder cases into assisted suicide cases and getting out of going to jail.
Euthanasia is a lovely thought and if someone was terminally ill but could say for themselves that they wanted to die, i think certain cases should be allowed but you cannot justify a broad statement like euthanasia should be made legal because there should be 2 things responsible to taking away life, thats your own self and the grim reaper.

[Leon]

I remember spending a whole bloody topic of RE at school on this...*yawn*

If people want to die they should have the right to, its basically suicide but letting somebody know first.

[God.]

You aren't given the right to birth, therefore you shouldn't have the right of death taken away.

[Innamorata]

Yeah. I agreed with euthanasia, same with suicide.

[Kate]

I agree with it firmly. I think it's not only cruel and downgrading to keep a person unable to commit suicide alive, but that it's stupid to spend so much money on keeping a suicidal person alive, which costs the NHS millions.

[Innamorata]

Exactly. Callum agrees too. If someone really really doesn't want to live, why would you spend loads on forcing them to stay alive? It's just cruel.

[Lextasy]

& the fact that it isn't legal in Britain means some families have to spend money they don't have on going to another country where it is legal, just so a relative can finally rest in peace.

[Nirvana_rox]

I think it should be legal but with certain rules to it though.

[Buttons93]

Ugh I've just done this as a topic in RS .. woo!
It was about the Christian views on it, they said it's all to do with the sanctity of life.
In my opinion I think it should be allowed as long as they are mentally stable and they wouldn't have a good quality life if they lived. I also think that it shouldn't be 100% up to the person, I believe the family should have a say in it also so it is seem from two totally different perspectives and between them they work out what would be best of the person who wishes to die.
Only if they had a terminal illness or paralysis should they be allowed to though, otherwise there is usually a different way out, instead of death.

[*Jess*]

Often there isn't another way out to some people though, and the effects of a non-terminal illness would be worse to their lives in their opinions than living.
I think there should be a choice for anyone to live or die, but I suppose that they should go through councelling and psychiatry before they are able to make the final decision.

[Wandering Soul]

ya know i dont know if i should answer this one seeing as i dont live in britian... but ill give you my view anyway. (i just wont vote)
if the balls to kill yourself.... you shouldnt kill yourself. but i say go for it... youd get rid of at least a couple of percents of the human population quick.

[Leon]

ya know i dont know if i should answer this one seeing as i dont live in britian... but ill give you my view anyway. (i just wont vote)
You can still have an opinion on it, regardless of where you live.

[Wandering Soul]

oh you got my opinion

[VraiCanon]

I disagree with euthanasia.
What gives you the right to take away life? The most precious thing on earth.
Life is a gift from God - only God has the right to take it away.
However, I do not really agree with keeping people alive when it obvious they should be dead.(I know that sounds harsh, but still.) When your time has got to come, its got to come.

[God.]

I disagree with euthanasia.
What gives you the right to take away life? The most precious thing on earth.
Life is a gift from God - only God has the right to take it away.
However, I do not really agree with keeping people alive when it obvious they should be dead.(I know that sounds harsh, but still.) When your time has got to come, its got to come.

Please don't state your opinion as if its fact.

Your points bring me 2 questions;

If only God has the right to take away life, who has the right to prolong it? Say I had Cancer, would I be defying the will of God by getting it treated?

Secondly, your second point is too vague. People who use Euthanasia generally do because they feel their life is no longer worth living. Or as you put it, "should be dead."

Who has the right to decide whether someone else should be dead?

[VraiCanon]

Please don't state your opinion as if its fact.

Your points bring me 2 questions;

If only God has the right to take away life, who has the right to prolong it? Say I had Cancer, would I be defying the will of God by getting it treated?

Secondly, your second point is too vague. People who use Euthanasia generally do because they feel their life is no longer worth living. Or as you put it, "should be dead."

Who has the right to decide whether someone else should be dead?

I know, my beliefs are pretty contradictory :( but it makes sense in my head.
Who said I think my point is fact? I just didn't feel the need to say 'in my opinion.'
But anyway...
You bring a good point about who has the right to prolong life. As a religious person, I believe everything happens for a reason so if I was to have Cancer, God planned this for me - I am quite stumped on how to answer that Q. :(
When I say 'people who should be dead' I mean people who have been in say, a horrific car crash and they're constantly being recussitated - of course they shouldn't be alive. God planned that they would die.
People should be able to die naturally - in this sense nobody is judging who should or shouldn't be dead.

[God.]

I know, my beliefs are pretty contradictory :( but it makes sense in my head.
Who said I think my point is fact? I just didn't feel the need to say 'in my opinion.'
But anyway...
You bring a good point about who has the right to prolong life. As a religious person, I believe everything happens for a reason so if I was to have Cancer, God planned this for me - I am quite stumped on how to answer that Q. :(
When I say 'people who should be dead' I mean people who have been in say, a horrific car crash and they're constantly being recussitated - of course they shouldn't be alive. God planned that they would die.
People should be able to die naturally - in this sense nobody is judging who should or shouldn't be dead.

Sorry, it just looked like you were making statements of truth, rather than opinion. :P

Glad i got you thinking with the first one, maybe you should go away and think about it for a while, then come back and post. :)

As for the second point, there would still ultimately be a decision taken to stop trying to resuscitate the patient, so it fails to take away a judgement. In addition, what difference is there in someone who is injured to the point (in your view) of a situation where they should simply be allowed to die, and indeed one where through one disease/condition/ailment or another, they're unable to exist, even in their own mind, or through severe physical disabilities, or waking up every day in agony.

Who's to tell those people that they have to suffer on?

[VraiCanon]

As for the second point, there would still ultimately be a decision taken to stop trying to resuscitate the patient, so it fails to take away a judgement. In addition, what difference is there in someone who is injured to the point (in your view) of a situation where they should simply be allowed to die, and indeed one where through one disease/condition/ailment or another, they're unable to exist, even in their own mind, or through severe physical disabilities, or waking up every day in agony.

Who's to tell those people that they have to suffer on?

I am going to have a long think about the first one.
I suppose what I just said was actually euthanasia aswell, huh, I've confused myself. Would turning a life support machine off count as euthanasia?
I can see where you're coming from, you're right but then it all (even my point) comes down to the fact I believe God decides when/how you're going to die rather than anyone else. Say someone tried to murder you, and you died as a result of your injuries, God had intended for you to die, through someone else, no matter how much treatment you got.
I think this theory also works for say those who have always lived a completely healthy & satisfactory lifestyle yet becomes seriously ill and dies as a result. Its not fair, they've done everything they can do to prevent the illness but this is how God planned it.
God intends for people to suffer as a test, I think.

[*Jess*]

I'm currently reading a book about a man who was allegedly mistreated by the NHS when he was in their care.
To cut a very long story short, he commit suicide because he declared his life no longer worth living. He was in and out of hospital, he had a tracheoctomy and i think it was either painful to talk or he couldn't talk at all, his legs were amputated, his nieces were too scared to see him in the state he was in and he could no longer play football with his sons. He lived for his own children and his nieces and therefore it pained him not to be able to play with them or not be able to see them.
He was well enough to commit suicide, and people knew about his plans to do so.
This is similar to euthanasia, if you're completely debilatated you can't take your own life, so you need someone else to do it. The hospitals are about caring for the person, making them feel better. There is a fine line between caring and solely prolonging life for the sake of it. Part of caring is to make sure they are in as little pain as possible, both physically and mentally, when you reach the point that nothing but death can stop this pain then you need to die.

[tf_arl_90]

My body, my decision.

If you're against euthanasia, don't do it.

[baby bo]

i love you callum we have been together over a yea and you just understand everything about me i just love and miss ya loadsxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx

[Nintendus]

I picked that I don't know. I can see all the arguments about ending suffering, and no one wants anyone to suffer; however, I have a strong pro-life sense in me at the same time.

I don't think I could come up with an answer without knowing what the result it.

[GemmaJamPot]

I think that euthanasia should be legalised, however I think it should be caefully monitored... because where euthanasia is concerned, the victim in question might be so severely brain damaged that they might not be able to express their choice, and therefore the next of kin would have to decide for them.. How can the next of kin know what the victim feels? They might not want to die. Or on the other hand, they might want to die and end the suffering, but the next of kin might not be ready to let go, and therefore keeps them alive for their own selfish reasons, or because they dont want to "kill" them because they dont know how the victim feels.
Another thing that should be taken into account is animals... we get to "play God" where animals are concerned because we put them down... but what if the animal doesnt want to be put down? Its the same thing!! If we can do it for animals, then we should be able to do it for people too... because we suffer too and no suffering is fair.
X

[jennyeatworld]

Dr. Kevorkian is actually from my state and there has been a long debate going on about this. Personally, I support it. Many people, such as family members of terminally ill patients that want to take part in Euthanasia, think it is a selfish act. I suppose suicide COULD be looked at as a selfish act, but wanting to keep someone who is in pain and suffering alive just so you do not have to bear the thought of them dying is much more selfish in my opinion. I had to write a five paged paper on this subject, and my philosophy teacher was quite impressed with it. There are a couple states in the US that have already legalized assisted suicide, I think it would be wise for all others to follow in those footsteps as well. In the words of Jack Kevorkian, "dying should not be a crime."

[Thesimpleone.]

legalise it. if a person is dying of an incurable painful disease and there is no quality of life, then its the kindest thing to do. x

[GemmaJamPot]

In one sense I agree... but then again, what if the person doesnt want to die?
X

[*Jess*]

Well the point of Euthanasia is usually that the person wants to die :S.

[jennyeatworld]

If the person doesn't want to die then they don't have to. Euthanasia requires the consent of the patient in order to partake in assisted suicide.

[GemmaJamPot]

Well the point of Euthanasia is usually that the person wants to die :S.


Not neccesarily... If the person is so brain damaged that they cannot speak, for example... then it would be up to the next of kin to decide. If they choose for them to die... what if the person didnt want to die? Fair enough, they wouldnt be living themselves, but perhaps they wanted to stay alive to see their children etc..
Or.. if the next of kin decided to keep them alive and the person actually wanted to die...
X

[vanity-doll]

We actually had to use this topic as part of a discussion in school a few days ago.
And I'm not sure - it is against my religion but at the end of the day what somebody believes and how they feel should be up to them.
I just think that maybe if it did become legal some people will use it as a form of suicide. Their illness might not be that bad but they want to die and will LEGALLY. In life everything is already mapped out for you in my eyes and what is meant to happen should happen but dying at a point when you're not supposed to is going against that.
I have nothing against people that want close family/friends to help them die quicker because i.e they are incapable of moving etc but at the end of the day how do we know some illnesses won't be cured in their lifetime?
Cancer is one I think that, you may be in pain with but when you know you are going to die anyway you should make the most of spending the last months you have left with your loved ones.
I'm not sure it's such a confusing thing, and I would never be able to help some close family member or friend of mine if they wanted to die. It's against my beliefs but if that's what people choose then I guess that is totally up to them, as is everything.

[zakarius]

i believe its none of the goverments business what people do, as long as theres legal documentation to prove it wasnt murder, then its completely up to the people involved.. why is it any of our business if peopel kill for those reasons

i know for one id never do it if sum1 asked me, and i doubt id ask sum1 to kill me either but at the end of the day who cares really apart from nosey bastards

[conor]

Euthanasia comes in different forms..
'Consentual Euthanasia' should have been the thread title I think.
Wow, @Zakarius, you've dug one up from the grave :P

[Trollface.jpg]

euthenasia is and always will be a bad idea
just like execution in the legal system
it alows a body of people a certain level of power
power breeds abuse
we have enough people dying and being killed
and those criminals have no system to hide behind
imagine a murdurer who worked as a doctor
imagine just how far harrald shipman would have gone

would we even think he had done wrong???

[zakarius]

lol i know
couldnt be arsed to read thru the pages aha so just posted my thoughts after page 1 ^-^

[Element]

Imo it should only be allowed in serious medical circumstances.