Euthanasia Right or Wrong?

[Howlin0001]

Do you think it is right or wrong and why?

 

 

 

Here's an extract from wikipedia

 

Euthanasia (literally "good death" in Ancient Greek) refers to the practice of ending a life in a painless manner. As of 2008, some forms of euthanasia are legal in Belgium,[1] Luxembourg,[2] The Netherlands,[1] Switzerland,[1] the U.S. state of Oregon,[3] the Autonomous Community of Andalusia (Spain),[4][5] and Thailand.[6] Stances on euthanasia vary greatly; it is called murderous by some and merciful by others. Such controversy arises in part from the serious moral issues attached to the subject and in part from the fact that "euthanasia" is an umbrella term that describes a number of different methods. Accordingly, more specific terminology is often needed in order to facilitate constructive discussions on the topic.

 

 

 

Basically what I see it as dyeing with honour.

 

I think yes it should be legal. But who to actually administer whatever kills them I'm not too sure. Doctors have the Hippocratic Oath to honour, so for them to administer whatever is needed to honour that persons wishes is against the oath.

[Mollerz]

After recently doing coursework for my GCSE English on 'Whose Life Is It Anyway?' by Brian Clark (It's quite a good read, about Euthanasia), we have had many class discussions. Our entire class believe in Euthanasia and feel it's a person's choice whether to commit it to themselves. However, it is against religions and thus why it is illegal in most countries.

 

 

 

I say it should be legal as long as the person committing themselves know exactly what will happen and they haven't had something significant to affect their mental health within a certain amount of time.

[warri0r45]

People should have the right to end their own lives if they have a terminal illness such as late stage cancer, etc. Simply keeping them alive (as is the only goal with many terminal illnesses) because that's the way it's done is an archaic belief that needs to be thrown out in my opinion. I don't want people dictating to me whether I must live or not if it comes to the prospect of writhing in pain because of some horrible disease. It's my life and should be my choice to make if need be.

 

 

 

Having laid down the principle of the matter, there are some pragmatic issues to consider. Firstly, it's probably best to give candidates a full psychological run-down to make sure they're not just going through depression, etc. The emphasis should be entirely on their wishes when in a clear state of mind.

[RichieMcD]

If a person is living in the state of vegetation and wants to die I think it's only humane that we grant their wish. Only one person has the right to say if they want to live or die IMO and that's the person themselves. Making someone live a life they are deeply unhappy with I just think is extremely unfair.

 

 

 

Either way if a person wants to die they will, but keeping someone who wants to die and cannot do so as they're in a state of paralysis / vegetation I think is inhumane and extremely unfair.

 

 

 

Good topic Howlin, we're seriously missing some good debating topics in OT right now.

[nine naked men]

I think people should be given the choice to end their own lives if they're in intense pain, suffering from a debilitating illness, etc. I mean, if we deny them a chance, they could attempt to commit suicide themselves, and hurt themselves even more, or even endanger those around them. Plus, looking at it from a businessish point of view, hospitals in Australia are running short on beds, last time I heard, so they're basically just taking up space and cash by being there when they don't want to be. For the basic same reasons, I'm also for euthanising people who are in a vegetative state, as well.

 

 

 

But of course, as Warrior said, a psych evaluation wouldneed to be conducted to make sure they're in their right minds, not having their minds impaired or whatever by drugs or pain.

[warren211]

I'm a Catholic. Everyone seems to assume that I'll be against every form of euthanasia imaginable. But that's not true.

 

 

 

 

Euthanasia must be distinguished from the decision to forgo so-called "aggressive medical treatment," in other words, medical procedures which no longer correspond to the real situation of the patient either because they are by now disproportionate to any expected results or because they impose an excessive burden on the patient and his family. In such situations, when death is clearly imminent and inevitable, the Declaration on Euthanasia states that one can in conscience "refuse forms of treatment that would only secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life, so long as the normal care due to the sick person in similar cases is not interrupted." Certainly there is a moral obligation to care for oneself and to allow oneself to be cared for, but this duty must take account of concrete circumstances. It needs to be determined whether the means of treatment available are objectively proportionate to the prospects for improvement. To forgo extraordinary or disproportionate means is not the equivalent of suicide or euthanasia; it rather expresses acceptance of the human condition in the face of death.

 

 

 

Basically, he's giving the permission that if extensive care is needed (a person depends on machines and whatnot to live) and/or money is running out, or large doses of medicine are needed, it's ok to turn them off as long as you still give the best treatment you can until inevitable death occurs. That's passive euthanasia, ending the treatment that someone is on. Active euthanasia is different, it's the Dr. Kevorkian style death, where a patient is basically poisoned or some other form to die. That's just hastening death. If you're not dependant on machines or loads and loads of medicines and painkillers yet, you don't need that. But if you are, it's fine to turn them off so long as whatever feasible treatment possible still occurs (which can include hospice care which in my opinion is the best way to "die with honor" as a sick person).

[1_man_army]

People should have the right to control there own life however, I think legalising euthanasia would set a very dangerous precedent.

 

 

 

It puts the medical profession in a moral dilemma. They are bound to save lives, and while you can argue that abortions and the switching off of a life support machine are of the same principle, I would disagree as euthanasia cases often involve people who still posses their mental faculties.

 

 

 

It also poses a number of legal difficulties, how to you prove somebody is of sound enough mind to give their consent to be euthanised? It also poses difficulties in the area of life insurance - would companies pay out when you've chosen to die? A legal euthanasia system would also have the potential to be abused, in the UK we had the Harold Shipman case where he abused his position as a doctor to kill patients and take their savings. He is known to have killed over 215 and the number could be far higher, I can't help but think that if we had legalised euthanasia, he could have killed far more easily under the pretense of euthanising consenting people.

 

 

 

I know that last point may be slightly irrational but I just think legalising euthanasia would cause more trouble than it would solve and that it would set a difficult precedent.

[megakiller32]

I completely agree with it as long as the person says he is okay with it.

 

I think it's dying with dignity, there's nothing as humiliating as dying a slow, diminuitive death for example with something like Alzheimers.

 

There are no ways to save people with terminal illnesses, so if they want to die via euthanasia, I believe they should be allowed.

[Zierro]

If you can buy cigarettes and go to war, why can't you just take the shortcut instead?

[Lenticular_J]

Whoa, never knew there was people euthanasia. But Zierro's right. There's always gonna be someone who wants to die, whether they have a ridiculous reason or a good one. Nobody knows what's on the other side, so I'd never be one to kill a person unless I absolutely had to, but, dang. At least this is better than hanging.

[Howlin0001]

I'm a Catholic.

 

Same here I'm a Catholic and I would see it as being ok, but what annoys me about people saying no because its in the bible, they usually only refer to the bible when it suits them.

[Orpheus]

It's their life, they have the right to decide what they want to do with it. If they had something that they aren't getting out of, and it will kill them or make them unhappy(late-stage cancer, as warrior said, vegetative state, a disease that will kill them and there's no way to save them, extremes like that) they should have the choice of just ending it right then and there, instead of having to suffer. A psychological examination would be so they can determine if they are thinking rationally or not.

 

 

 

The Hippocratic Oath needs to be revised though.

[Bauke]

I think it's inhumane and cruel to prevent people from having a death the way they want, in cases of a terminal disease. Ofcourse, it should be performed with care and investigation is needed whether someone isn't just depressed instead of having an honest reason for wanting to die (just to name an example).

 

 

 

Should it be legal: Yes, definately, under certain circumstances, people should get the chance to end their lives with a little bit of dignity.

 

If people with ALS (just to name a disease) aren't allowed to perform euthanasia and just have to wait till they suffocate and die, then that's just plain cruelty.

 

 

 

I'm glad euthenasia is legal here.

[magekillr]

Against.

 

 

 

Some people might like to die, even in good mental health. However, no one has the right to kill, even if that's not the intention of the doctor. It's not fair to put the doctor in this position or the entire medical field for that matter, and I don't see it along the same lines as abortion simply because these people are for without a shadow of a doubt human lives.

 

 

 

I suppose if the doctor would agree to do it, then allow them, but I know if I were a doctor it's not something I could personally handle.

 

 

 

All and all, I'm with 1_man_army for his reasons.

[Zierro]

Against.

 

 

 

Some people might like to die, even in good mental health. However, no one has the right to kill, even if that's not the intention of the doctor. It's not fair to put the doctor in this position or the entire medical field for that matter, and I don't see it along the same lines as abortion simply because these people are for without a shadow of a doubt human lives.

 

 

 

Well, I don't know if that would account for "killing". I mean, if someone builds guns and they are used to take lives, is he considered a killer?

[magekillr]

Against.

 

 

 

Some people might like to die, even in good mental health. However, no one has the right to kill, even if that's not the intention of the doctor. It's not fair to put the doctor in this position or the entire medical field for that matter, and I don't see it along the same lines as abortion simply because these people are for without a shadow of a doubt human lives.

 

 

 

Well, I don't know if that would account for "killing". I mean, if someone builds guns and they are used to take lives, is he considered a killer?

 

 

 

I'm not so sure I understand your analogy, or how it could possibly be of any relevance.

[Zierro]

I really can't put it any simpler than that Mage. I'm saying that I wouldn't consider a doctor who uses euthanasia a "killer" anymore than someone else would call a gun builder a "killer".

[Orpheus]

I really can't put it any simpler than that Mage. I'm saying that I wouldn't consider a doctor who uses euthanasia a "killer" anymore than someone else would call a gun builder a "killer".

 

Which brings me back to my statement of the Hippocratic Oath needing a few revisions.

[Nom]

I think you can really boil euthanasia down into two categories: One in which the person is lucid and has a conscious choice, and one in which he doesn't.

 

 

 

In the case of the latter, I really believe euthanasia is the best course of action. Someone who is in a vegetative state and relying extensively on life support is really not experiencing life. Medically, they are alive, but so is a corpse being artificially stimulated. One can argue the definition of life, but the truth is someone like that is simply not living like a human being. If there is no or slim chance of recovery, death is little different than the "life" they have.

 

 

 

On the other hand, someone with a terminal illness who has full control of their actions and choices should not simply be killed without contest. Physician-assisted suicide is not something I agree with. The Hippocratic Oath compels a doctor to help the patient, not kill them. And no, killing the patient is not helping them when there are plenty of viable alternatives out there. Rather than saying, "Ok, you want to die, then die," the doctor should seek to make sure they aren't clinically depressed to begin with, then enlighten them on the subject of hospice living. Hospice focuses on relieving pain and giving comfort in a person's last days, rather than experimenting with medications trying to keep them alive or simply shooting them up with poison. It is certainly a much better way to go than alone and bitter.

[magekillr]

I really can't put it any simpler than that Mage. I'm saying that I wouldn't consider a doctor who uses euthanasia a "killer" anymore than someone else would call a gun builder a "killer".

 

 

 

I mean I understand your analogy, I'm just saying I don't understand how it applies here lol. It's a poor comparison.

 

 

 

Would you call the person who injects the needle into a prisoner a killer? I wouldn't call him a killer either, but I still think it's wrong for him to put the needle in, and to be put in that moral conundrum.

[Zierro]

It applies here because I don't think it's fair for that to be considered "killing". :|

 

 

 

Edit: I see what's wrong now. You're mad because I brought up guns right?

[magekillr]

It applies here because I don't think it's fair for that to be considered "killing". :|

 

 

 

Edit: I see what's wrong now. You're mad because I brought up guns right?

 

 

 

I still fail to see how that's a applicable analogy in this particular instance. A more suitable analogy would be what I referenced: death penalty. Perhaps it's just two different thought processes failing to understand one another, I don't know. At either rate, let's end it here.

 

 

 

I'm not "mad" either lol.

[Zierro]

Well I fail to see how it is not.

 

 

 

PS: You edited in my exact thoughts. :)

[jackattack]

I think there is a difference between having a doctor put you down and having a doctor say to someone who's in a lot of pain "Hey, here's your pills don't take more than 5 or you won't wake up."

[Ginger_Warrior]

I really can't put it any simpler than that Mage. I'm saying that I wouldn't consider a doctor who uses euthanasia a "killer" anymore than someone else would call a gun builder a "killer".

 

Which brings me back to my statement of the Hippocratic Oath needing a few revisions.

 

The Oath was made by a doctor who believed the body existed on a balance of Four Humours. It's honestly not synonymous with the subject of Modern Medicine, and was made in a time where exploitation was almost a fact of life.

 

 

 

Nowadays, we know the difference between right and wrong. We have insurance; contracts; a national code of law. Without boring you to death with details, the Oath is redundant and should not really appear in the context of this debate. If you think a homicidal doctor will honestly stop before he's about to do the deed and go, "Oh no, I swore to Hippocrates I wouldn't <3" you're deeply mistaken.

 

 

 

I'm in support of Euthanasia. I think it boils down to the principle that if a human is capable of independent, rational thought then they should have the ability to do whatever they want to their own body, so long as they are affecting no one else.

 

 

 

That said, if I succeed in becoming one, I think most doctors would have personal difficulty committing themselves to ending someone else's life. If they had no qualms at all, I'd probably be concerned for their suitability for that job.