Euthenasia at the requet of a patient?

[JBeukema]

If a person is rendered in such a position through illness or injury that they will live for an extended period if their death is not accelerated, but that they will experience great pain or discomfort or other suffering the the meantime, is it (A) acceptable or (B) 'right' for a medical professional to assist them, after establishing that they are of sound mind, in ending their lives in a more tolerable manner? Why or why not?

Is a doctor's greater duty to protect life or to prevent and alleviate suffering? Is it 'doing harm' to enable a patient to end their own life? Is it doing harm to act in their stead in accordance with their wishes either as understood or expressed? Or is it doing greater harm to force a person to continue to living in such a state of suffering against their will?

 

[Polk]

Or is it doing greater harm to force a person to continue to living in such a state of suffering against their will?

This.

 

[iagainsti]

I think the argument about euthanasia ties in with other issues involving life and death, and so should be answered by taking those into consideration as well.

Those against abortion argue that a fetus is a human being with a right to live. Those in favor of abortion argue that a fetus does not yet have the right to life that all human beings possess.

Those against the death penalty argue that a person, no matter what crime they've committed, retains his or her right to life. Those in favor of the death penalty argue that committing murder constitutes a forfeiture of one's right to life.

I find it interesting that there are many who will argue both against abortion and for the death penalty. Their reasoning is usually that those sentenced to death forfeited their right to life when they committed murder. But my question is this: what gives them the right to decide what constitutes a forfeiture of one's right to live? Should anyone be able to decide this? And if so, whom?

I think that the answer to all three of these issues is rooted in the question of: who should have the power to determine whether or not a person has the right to live? (For the sake of this argument, "person" also includes the unborn and convicted murderers). If you would answer:

no one: Everyone has a right to life which no one, not even the person in question, should have the power to violate. This means that abortion, the death penalty, and euthanasia should all be illegal.

the government/majority: Our leadership should have the power to determine whether someone has the right to live. This meanst hat the legality of abortion, the death penalty, and euthanasia should be decided by the majority opinion and/or the powers that be.

the person in question: Only the person in question should have the power to acknowledge or forfeit his or her right to life. This means that the death penalty should be illegal, euthanasia should be legal, and abortion is still iffy (obviously the fetus doesn't have the capacity to make any such decision, so it could be argued that the right to decide should lie with the person whom the decision most affects - the mother - therefore meaning that abortion should be legal...although one could also argue that since the fetus doesn't have the capacity to decide, and only the person in question can decide, it should be illegal).

I would answer that only the person in question should have the power to forfeit his or her right to life, and therefore I would argue in favor of euthanasia.

 

[KittenKoder]

A life of suffering is a fate worse than an eternity in hell.

 

[Luissa]

kill em all!

 

[KittenKoder]

kill em all!

That to.

 

[Luissa]

I am liberal, I want anyone over the age of 65 dead remember.

 

[KittenKoder]

I am liberal, I want anyone over the age of 65 dead remember.

I thought we had it down to 60?

 

[Luissa]

no my parents are 62 and 63, I can't cut them off just yet.

 

[Care4all]

I think the argument about euthanasia ties in with other issues involving life and death, and so should be answered by taking those into consideration as well.

Those against abortion argue that a fetus is a human being with a right to live. Those in favor of abortion argue that a fetus does not yet have the right to life that all human beings possess.

Those against the death penalty argue that a person, no matter what crime they've committed, retains his or her right to life. Those in favor of the death penalty argue that committing murder constitutes a forfeiture of one's right to life.

I find it interesting that there are many who will argue both against abortion and for the death penalty. Their reasoning is usually that those sentenced to death forfeited their right to life when they committed murder. But my question is this: what gives them the right to decide what constitutes a forfeiture of one's right to live? Should anyone be able to decide this? And if so, whom?

I think that the answer to all three of these issues is rooted in the question of: who should have the power to determine whether or not a person has the right to live? (For the sake of this argument, "person" also includes the unborn and convicted murderers). If you would answer:

no one: Everyone has a right to life which no one, not even the person in question, should have the power to violate. This means that abortion, the death penalty, and euthanasia should all be illegal.

the government/majority: Our leadership should have the power to determine whether someone has the right to live. This meanst hat the legality of abortion, the death penalty, and euthanasia should be decided by the majority opinion and/or the powers that be.

the person in question: Only the person in question should have the power to acknowledge or forfeit his or her right to life. This means that the death penalty should be illegal, euthanasia should be legal, and abortion is still iffy (obviously the fetus doesn't have the capacity to make any such decision, so it could be argued that the right to decide should lie with the person whom the decision most affects - the mother - therefore meaning that abortion should be legal...although one could also argue that since the fetus doesn't have the capacity to decide, and only the person in question can decide, it should be illegal).

I would answer that only the person in question should have the power to forfeit his or her right to life, and therefore I would argue in favor of euthanasia.

so, can a teen just off themselves cuz they don't like peer pressure and this be viewed as OK just because they decided it?

can any person on the street decide to blow their heads off in the middle of the street for others to see....it is ''their'' body?

or a teacher that wants to do themselves in, to do such whenever they please, like in their classroom in front of their students?

care

 

[John Lemmon]

so, can a teen just off themselves cuz they don't like peer pressure and this be viewed as OK just because they decided it?

can any person on the street decide to blow their heads off in the middle of the street for others to see....it is ''their'' body?

or a teacher that wants to do themselves in, to do such whenever they please, like in their classroom in front of their students?

care

That's called suicide, which is already do-able. Please at least try to understand and follow the topic.

Euthanasia should always be legal, like, wtf do I care if people I don't know want to end their life because of pain and suffering... It's THEIR choice, not mine.

 

[Care4all]

so, can a teen just off themselves cuz they don't like peer pressure and this be viewed as OK just because they decided it?

can any person on the street decide to blow their heads off in the middle of the street for others to see....it is ''their'' body?

or a teacher that wants to do themselves in, to do such whenever they please, like in their classroom in front of their students?

care

That's called suicide, which is already do-able. Please at least try to understand and follow the topic.

Euthanasia should always be legal, like, wtf do I care if people I don't know want to end their life because of pain and suffering... It's THEIR choice, not mine.

I understand such Lemon boy...but his argument was that ANYONE should be able to decide what to do with themselves....if they don't want to have to deal with their pain, then they should be able to kill themselves...well there are many people in pain, can they just kill themselves legally, where ever and when ever they feel like it, in a classroom if be such... what if they can't afford a doctor to help them kill themselves, do we tax payers now have to fund it for the unwealthy? his argument was that since it is your body, then it should be okay....well, if it is his body, it should be okay to kill yourself where ever and whenever too, no?

who gets to determine the pain one is in and who gets to off himself? Can it just be mental pain and then one can choose to off themselves?

The WHOLE THING IS SICK imo and disregards human life to no end..I'm sorry, I cant see this kind of thinking heading any other way than heading south....euthanasia...where the doctors or gvt eventually decide that it is their humane duty to put an end to the lives of those that are not perfect or perfectly healthy....in the guise of "compassionate" reasons for truly only monetary purposes.

assisted suicide is still still suicide, btw.

care

 

[John Lemmon]

assisted suicide is still still suicide, btw.

ya, so what? I don't follow the Christian Book of Fools.

How many teachers have offed themselves in front of a class? Please try to make some sense in a realistic way.

How much does it cost for a doctor to shoot a patient with a cocktail of drugs on a yearly basis? More than the cost of bullets for 1 day in Irak? Probably not. Because doctor assisted suicice/euthanasia is done every day here in the US. Like when the doctor give so much pain killing medicine that it kills the patient. It's happening already, so wake up. And it's pretty inexpensive.

I find it hilarious that people would think that the government will take control of the system to order people to be euthanized. What color is the sky in your world? You just prove that you're out of rational arguments.

 

[Care4all]

assisted suicide is still still suicide, btw.

ya, so what? I don't follow the Christian Book of Fools.

How many teachers have offed themselves in front of a class? Please try to make some sense in a realistic way.

How much does it cost for a doctor to shoot a patient with a cocktail of drugs on a yearly basis? More than the cost of bullets for 1 day in Irak? Probably not. Because doctor assisted suicice/euthanasia is done every day here in the US. Like when the doctor give so much pain killing medicine that it kills the patient. It's happening already, so wake up. And it's pretty inexpensive.

I find it hilarious that people would think that the government will take control of the system to order people to be euthanized. What color is the sky in your world? You just prove that you're out of rational arguments.

That's because you are obviously young and still ignorant....

WHO GIVES A HOOT, ABOUT THE MONEY it costs to keep people that are sick, alive? YOU DO....and you are the gvt so it is NOT as far fetched as you seem to naively think....

care

 

[KittenKoder]

assisted suicide is still still suicide, btw.

ya, so what? I don't follow the Christian Book of Fools.

How many teachers have offed themselves in front of a class? Please try to make some sense in a realistic way.

How much does it cost for a doctor to shoot a patient with a cocktail of drugs on a yearly basis? More than the cost of bullets for 1 day in Irak? Probably not. Because doctor assisted suicice/euthanasia is done every day here in the US. Like when the doctor give so much pain killing medicine that it kills the patient. It's happening already, so wake up. And it's pretty inexpensive.

I find it hilarious that people would think that the government will take control of the system to order people to be euthanized. What color is the sky in your world? You just prove that you're out of rational arguments.

That's because you are obviously young and still ignorant....

WHO GIVES A HOOT, ABOUT THE MONEY it costs to keep people that are sick, alive? YOU DO....and you are the gvt so it is NOT as far fetched as you seem to naively think....

care

Actually, the only people that benefit keeping them alive are the doctors, big pharm, and medical equipment manufacturers. No one else benefits, unless the "loved ones" are truly selfish and just can't let go.

 

[John Lemmon]

That's because you are obviously young and still ignorant....

You've been owned and you're lashing out.

 

[editec]

Legal Medical assisted suicide for the dying and in pain ought to be the law of the land.

Talk about an invasion of someone personal rights?

What is more invasive than forcing somebody to suffer a painful death because the GOVERNMENT decided you don't have the right to end that pain?

Note that the majority of people here who will object to this are also the people who claim that they love FREEDOM and hate government?

Except in this case, of course.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Anyone of legal age should be able to end their life for any reason.

If someone of legal age wishes to end their life, who are we to say no?

Therefore if a person is sick and suffering, a quick painless method of death should be available to them and if a rational person of legal age wishes to end his life, the same rules should apply.

The societal assumption that someone wishing to commit suicide renders a person somehow mentally ill is poor logic as assumptions are wont to be.

 

[KittenKoder]

Legal Medical assisted suicide for the dying and in pain ought to be the law of the land.

Talk about an invasion of someone personal rights?

What is more invasive than forcing somebody to suffer a painful death because the GOVERNMENT decided you don't have the right to end that pain.

The truly fucked up thing about keeping people alive is that it's not something the body wants either. You can die from pain, the brain will shut down at it's threshold. But modern science has found a way around this, so it's just not right in so many ways.

 

[KittenKoder]

Anyone of legal age should be able to end their life for any reason.

If someone of legal age wishes to end their life, who are we to say no?

Therefore if a person is sick and suffering, a quick painless method of death should be available to them and if a rational person of legal age wishes to end his life, the same rules should apply.

The societal assumption that someone wishing to commit suicide renders a person somehow mentally ill is poor logic as assumptions are wont to be.

Often the biggest hurtle is that people are selfish, and they won't let go of those they "care about". If people would simply learn to let go and move on, it would help a lot.