Assisted suicide.

[roomy]

Should the law on assisted suicide be changed to allow people to help their loved ones to die without fear of prosecution?
Yes. People should be allowed to end their lives with assistance, without their loved ones risking arrest.
No. Human life should be preserved at all costs, irrespective of any physical suffering.
I'm not sure. Doesn't it depend on the individual case?

 

[jillian]

Sometimes I think we're kinder to our pets than to people.

 

[roomy]

Sometimes I think we're kinder to our pets than to people.

I tried to make a poll but it has ballsed up

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The potential for misuse and murder are to high. And at what point do we allow people to kill themselves? When ever they want? When ever a "lovedone" convinces them it is best? Bad idea all round.

 

[ReillyT]

The potential for misuse and murder are to high. And at what point do we allow people to kill themselves? When ever they want? When ever a "lovedone" convinces them it is best? Bad idea all round.

Then set some ground rules. The fact that a permissive attitude towards assisted suicide could be misused doesn't seem a strong basis to outlaw it. Automobiles are misused at the cost of thousands of people per year, but because they serve a societal function, we overlook the cost in lives. Even without a strong structural/legislative basis, the cost of permitted suicide wouldn't be anywhere near that high. With a strong structural/legislative basis, one would think it would actually be very, very low.

 

[Anguille]

The potential for misuse and murder are to high. And at what point do we allow people to kill themselves? When ever they want? When ever a "lovedone" convinces them it is best? Bad idea all round.

But what about the harm that is done by not allowing it? The harm in terms of incapacitated people who presently are denied their wishes and the harm that comes by badly performed assisted suicides. It's like abortion, you may not approve of it but it happens regardless of whether it's legal or not.

 

[manifold]

Should the law on assisted suicide be changed to allow people to help their loved ones to die without fear of prosecution?

No.

The law should be changed to allow people to go into business assisting others in their quest to expire. Why should anyone have to put the burden on a family member? I also see no need to require the expiree have a medical reason. Anyone fed up with reality can just sign a waiver and away they go. You could open up suicide shops in malls across America and really clean up I'd imagine.

 

[editec]

You forgot the option:

Yes, and in some cases, even if they're not entirely sure they want our help.

 

[roomy]

Personally, I sway toward the individual case option and think the medical profession needs to be involved in the decision.

 

[Gunny]

Should the law on assisted suicide be changed to allow people to help their loved ones to die without fear of prosecution?
Yes. People should be allowed to end their lives with assistance, without their loved ones risking arrest.
No. Human life should be preserved at all costs, irrespective of any physical suffering.
I'm not sure. Doesn't it depend on the individual case?

Oh. I thought you were asking for some help.

 

[Shattered]

Sometimes I think we're kinder to our pets than to people.

Nevermind the fact that our pets don't suck nearly as much as some people do.

 

[My Winter Storm]

Assisted suicide should be legal, there is no reason why it shouldn't be. Why shouldn't a terminally ill person be able to choose to end their life and die with dignity, without pain? Who are we to tell that person that they must suffer for the rest of their days?

As Jillian said, we treat our animals better than people. If our pet has cancer, it's considered cruel to keep that animal alive and in pain. Euthanasing that animal is considered the kindest thing to do - but keeping human beings alive and in pain is acceptable?

Allow me to share with you a story: Years ago, an elderly woman and her husband went to court because she wanted the right to die with dignity. She wanted her husband to help her take her own life because she was unable to. This woman had Motor Nuerine Disease, and was unable to move her limbs. She couldn't walk, but could still talk - although she knew she would lose the ability to do this, as well as the ability to swallow. This meant her death would be horrific - she would choke to death on her own saliva.

The court ruled against her. They basically told her that she had to go home, and wait to die by suffocation.

A few weeks later, she was dead - she'd choked to death on her own saliva.

What right do our courts have to send people home to suffer and die? Opponents of assisted suicide like to say that it 'devalues' human life. Does this mean that human life is only valueble when it's suffering? Opponents also like to say that pallitive care and morphine, even prayer, can help with suffering. Give me a break. Morphine does NOT work for all pain. Prayer does NOT work for extreme pain.
My grandpa died of lung cancer - I used to wish I could put him out of his misery because I knew he was suffering - I could see it. I hated that he had to die in so much pain and wished there was a way to take that pain from him.

No one has the right to tell me when I can and cannot end my life. Obviously, we shouldn't allow just anyone to end their life - those with a terminal illness or critical illness should be considered, though. If someone is going to die anyway, we can't we allow their death to be pain free?

 

[Dr Grump]

Cause God says it's wrong! Dontcha know!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Because down this road leads to danger beyond belief. Who gets to decide? If we can allow today for one set of people to decide it gets even easier tomorrow to add to the list, until death is just a function of asking or being deemed worthless by a society.

Give this power out and it WILL become a problem and eventually lead to what would be out right murder today to be called assisted suicide.

Add in the socialism called Government run health care and would not be long before the Government would be deciding who doesn't rate treatment anymore cause, well gee, they are gonna die anyway.

And why is the suffering of some acceptable for death but not others? What starts as strict guidelines will get blurred and blurrier with each new group demanding they be included.

Let me tell YOU a little story. I do not want to be alive. I stay for my family. Why is MY suffering not the same as that terminal patient? People like me that are not in danger of dieing except by their own hand will be one of the biggest groups to lobby and eventually win the right to just get a doctor to help kill them. Life will, in effect, have NO meaning at all.

 

[manu1959]

you know if someone wants to die.....have at it.....

 

[manu1959]

Sometimes I think we're kinder to our pets than to people.

leathal injection of a pet.....cool....

leathel injection of a murderer.....cruel and inhuman....

 

[editec]

Because down this road leads to danger beyond belief. Who gets to decide? If we can allow today for one set of people to decide it gets even easier tomorrow to add to the list, until death is just a function of asking or being deemed worthless by a society.

Interesting.

That the best argument for the end of the death penalty, too.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Interesting.

That the best argument for the end of the death penalty, too.

Wrong again dumbshit. But do keep trying.

 

[Anguille]

Because down this road leads to danger beyond belief. Who gets to decide? If we can allow today for one set of people to decide it gets even easier tomorrow to add to the list, until death is just a function of asking or being deemed worthless by a society.

Give this power out and it WILL become a problem and eventually lead to what would be out right murder today to be called assisted suicide.

Add in the socialism called Government run health care and would not be long before the Government would be deciding who doesn't rate treatment anymore cause, well gee, they are gonna die anyway.

And why is the suffering of some acceptable for death but not others? What starts as strict guidelines will get blurred and blurrier with each new group demanding they be included.

Let me tell YOU a little story. I do not want to be alive. I stay for my family. Why is MY suffering not the same as that terminal patient? People like me that are not in danger of dieing except by their own hand will be one of the biggest groups to lobby and eventually win the right to just get a doctor to help kill them. Life will, in effect, have NO meaning at all.

Except that you stay alive for your family. And though you don't say so, maybe you are waiting to see if things improve. You don't need a doctor to help you kill yourself. We are talking about assisted suicide for those physically incapable of ending their own lives due to pain that cannot be relieved.

 

[editec]

Wrong again dumbshit. But do keep trying.

No need.

I obviously scored.