Euthanasia Right or Wrong?

[Ginger_Warrior]

I didn't mean a family prolonging a person's death in order to spend time with them. I was referring to an instance in which the suffering person wants to spend a bit more time around their family. Its two opposite things.

 

 

 

It's a shame I annoy you.

 

I didn't say you annoyed me. -.-

 

 

 

I don't understand though. You've brought up an example where a person wants to live to spend more time with their family. Where's the euthanasia?

 

 

 

I think it pretty much stands to reason that if a person wants to live we should let him.

[Sumpta]

In response to the discussion above: obviously a person who chooses euthanasia takes the time beforehand to think about his life and get the lasts things done if he is so inclined. Euthanasia actually gives people that opportunity, which you often don't have if you wait for a natural death. I won't be able to say goodbye if I'm slowly turning into a vegetable. Nor will my family and friends be able to say goodbye to the person they knew and loved.

 

 

 

Also remember that just because you decide for euthanasia today, doesn't you'll be dead tomorrow. There is still quite a lot of paperwork to do, arrangements to me made etc. You get to decide what to do with the time that's left.

[Guest]

I for one think Euthanasia is a good thing. I am a veterinary student myself, and as you might know euthanasia is a very common way to die for most of our animals that life with us. We all know we humans are mammals as well, and that's why I want to tell you this.

 

 

 

In veterinary science we have two ways of ending an animals life by administering drugs. The first is a toxic called T-61 which shuts down nerve and brain cells. By this way we are sure the animal doesn't feel pain. It's a relative cheap toxic, but there is a big downside. Because of the toxic the animal will start to show spasms and it is not a pretty sight for the owner, so this is a toxic usually used for stray animals, wild birds and possible cows & pigs as well, but i am not sure about the cows & pigs. The other solution is an overdose with an opium-like compound. It consists of 2 injections, the first one is an injection to get the animal into sleep, the second is the actual overdose. By this it is a better death to watch at then by using T-61, and that is why this method is probably also used on humans (remember we work almost the same way as the other animals)

 

 

 

In animal practice most of the times the animals could have lived on for a while, but the state of live wouldn't be so well, for example a dog with loads of tumors and metastases n their lungs, the end is pretty near at that time. We all know we cant talk to the dog so without his knowledge we decide to end his life. In humane medicine patients can usually tell the doctor what they want, and if they are in a lot of pain that can not be cured, then who are we to not help them get rid of it? In my opinion an animal and a human are equal, and thus why not treat all living things as equal? If we think that euthanasia on animals as I just explained is common, then why don't help your fellow human being to end his life when it would be too painful for him/her to life on?

 

 

 

The oath mentioned at the start is also taken by veterinarians, you will have to help anyone as best as you can, and helping does involve euthanasia as well.

[Cup Lion]

I didn't mean a family prolonging a person's death in order to spend time with them. I was referring to an instance in which the suffering person wants to spend a bit more time around their family. Its two opposite things.

 

 

 

It's a shame I annoy you.

 

I didn't say you annoyed me. -.-

 

 

 

I don't understand though. You've brought up an example where a person wants to live to spend more time with their family. Where's the euthanasia?

 

 

 

I think it pretty much stands to reason that if a person wants to live we should let him.

 

If them being alive will cause medical difficulties, and if they are at the point where they can't convey their thoughts to their family, what is stopping the family from euthanising them? The person is just a burden, and the family might even say, "If he was conscious, he would want this." The man gets euthanised against his will, when in fact he would have enjoyed being with his family for a few more years/months, etc.

[Ginger_Warrior]

I didn't mean a family prolonging a person's death in order to spend time with them. I was referring to an instance in which the suffering person wants to spend a bit more time around their family. Its two opposite things.

 

 

 

It's a shame I annoy you.

 

I didn't say you annoyed me. -.-

 

 

 

I don't understand though. You've brought up an example where a person wants to live to spend more time with their family. Where's the euthanasia?

 

 

 

I think it pretty much stands to reason that if a person wants to live we should let him.

 

If them being alive will cause medical difficulties, and if they are at the point where they can't convey their thoughts to their family, what is stopping the family from euthanising them? The person is just a burden, and the family might even say, "If he was conscious, he would want this." The man gets euthanised against his will, when in fact he would have enjoyed being with his family for a few more years/months, etc.

 

Well then perhaps you've worded things a bit wrong there. You seemed to imply the man in that case has conveyed his express intentions not to die because he wants to spend time with his family. The fact of the matter is, we can't know the man's will in that situation, so it should be left up to doctors to make the decision, with the family's permission, as is the current practice.

 

 

 

Other people can't decide whether or not you want to be euthanised. They might suggest you would want it but they can't make the call.

[Howlin0001]

 

I don't see how religion comes into it...

 

The Catholic religion (one of many religions) comes into play in the sense that it teaches life and death is determined by God, not by man, as I stated in my post, which you quoted. That is how religion comes into it. I don't think I can be clearer.

 

 

 

 

 

Well BlueLancer is right. I asked

 

Do you think it is right or wrong and why?

 

I didn't say Do religion think it's wrong or wrong. So only bring religion into this if what you believe if taken from X religion.

[Bouwzie]

Completely depends on the situation. I'm okay with it if the person will only continue to suffer, but is kept alive using machines. I'm not okay with it if someone is in a coma and their family says he should be euthanatised.

[Cup Lion]

Asking for an opinion and not expecting religion to impact their opinion is kind of asinine.

 

 

 

BlueLancer didn't understand how religion came into this argument. I explained that the views of a religion can impact a person's stance on this issue. Thus, I do not see how he is correct in saying religion shouldn't be involved. People have ideas, those can be influence by religion, and when they write those views here, religion is now involved. No matter what, religion is bound to be involved. Religion can be associated with any topic.

[BlueLancer]

Asking for an opinion and not expecting religion to impact their opinion is kind of asinine.

 

 

 

BlueLancer didn't understand how religion came into this argument. I explained that the views of a religion can impact a person's stance on this issue. Thus, I do not see how he is correct in saying religion shouldn't be involved. People have ideas, those can be influence by religion, and when they write those views here, religion is now involved. No matter what, religion is bound to be involved. Religion can be associated with any topic.

 

 

 

I still can't find any supporting scripture in the Qur'an or Bible that prohibit assisted suicide if the person in question is in excruciating pain and asks for it. (Apologies if you were talking about another religion, such as Buddhism or Hinduism/Judaism)

 

 

 

If the religion doesn't cover that area, it's not a religious view but your personal one. 'Thou shalt not kill' doesn't even remotely apply in this scenario.

[Cup Lion]

The Catholic Church teaches against (not so much from the Bible) assisted suicide because the person is taking on the role of God and determining when someone should live and die. I agree with you in that I doubt there is anything concerning something similar to assisted suicide in a religious writing such as the Bible or the Qur'an. But its possible that religions oppose it not because of what those books say, but because its just what they teach against. I really don't know how to phrase it any differently.

[warri0r45]

The Catholic Church teaches against (not so much from the Bible) assisted suicide because the person is taking on the role of God and determining when someone should live and die. I agree with you in that I doubt there is anything concerning something similar to assisted suicide in a religious writing such as the Bible or the Qur'an. But its possible that religions oppose it not because of what those books say, but because its just what they teach against. I really don't know how to phrase it any differently.

 

 

 

Do Catholics use medicine? Determining when someone lives or dies is exactly what you do when you take antibiotics/cancer treatments, etc.

[Cup Lion]

No one has a right to take on the role of God and choose to kill themselves. Life and death is determined by God, not by man. But I guess one could make the point that we don't have a right to prolong life then via medical technologies.

 

 

 

I referred to your point on the previous page.

 

 

 

I really don't understand how they differentiate between using medicine and euthanasia. It might all have to do with their views on the intent of each use of "medication".

[mmmcannibalism]

No one has a right to take on the role of God and choose to kill themselves. Life and death is determined by God, not by man. But I guess one could make the point that we don't have a right to prolong life then via medical technologies.

 

 

 

I referred to your point on the previous page.

 

 

 

I really don't understand how they differentiate between using medicine and euthanasia. It might all have to do with their views on the intent of each use of "medication".

 

 

 

just for frame of reference I would probably not consider it under any circumstances but i dont feel euthanasia shoudl be illegal.

 

 

 

the difference between medicine and euthanaisa would be that medicine is trying to improve/maintain life while euthanasia ends it. From the religious perspective, the general belief as i know is that god decides life and death but we have free will in life. Medicine is trying to maintain our lives free will and such still accepting that God has the power to end it any time. Euthanasia is playing God in a sense that it ends life without God's consent

 

 

 

not saying i agree with the above just that its probably similair to the general belief

[jgrazotis]

weve started studying this in english and we have to right a persuasive essay on it soon, and im still undecided which side im going to take

[Sumpta]

The Catholic Church teaches against (not so much from the Bible) assisted suicide because the person is taking on the role of God and determining when someone should live and die. I agree with you in that I doubt there is anything concerning something similar to assisted suicide in a religious writing such as the Bible or the Qur'an. But its possible that religions oppose it not because of what those books say, but because its just what they teach against. I really don't know how to phrase it any differently.

 

 

 

Do Catholics use medicine? Determining when someone lives or dies is exactly what you do when you take antibiotics/cancer treatments, etc.

 

 

 

Actually, catholics say that all life is sacred and that every suffering has a meaning (being a reflection of how Jesus suffered). God gives us life, so we have to do all in our power to keep that gift, even if we suffer; only God has the power to take the gift back. So, inducing death is not allowed, whereas sustaining life would be applauded. Even though I have many doubts regarding this attitude, I suppose we should be thankful of the deep impact of catholic education/research on the development of medicine.

[Randox]

We already Euthanise pets to end there suffereing (at least in Canada) so there is precedent to make this legal already. From a pragmatic stand point, there is the fact that keeping people alive so they can suffer or be unaware vegtables is not only arguably immoral, but costly. Actualy, healthcare for the elderly is wasteful (but I am not that pragmatic personaly). Also, one should consider that a life is a persons own to spend however they wish. Within limits such as affecting another persons life in a manner they do desire (murder, theft, rape, etc.), I find we are already overly protective and limiting. A person should be of sound mind to make a decision to end their life, and they should consider the affect on other people too (its is selfish to commit suicide without considering others just as it is selfish to keep another alive in a state of torture against there will just so that you don't have to deal with their death).

 

 

 

I do have some personal stipulations on Euthanising oneself, cheifly that the person requesting the procedure be the person who altimatly 'pulls the plug' unless it is pysicaly immposible (such as paralysis) to do so. This means even if you dont put the syringe in yourself, you must be the one who actualy does the injecting (leaving you the choice to abort and pull the needle out unused). This can be applied to most any method be it some dagger or an electric chair (what a painful death). If people wan't to die, they will die, and no laws will prevent it.

[RichieMcD]

No one has a right to take on the role of God and choose to kill themselves. Life and death is determined by God, not by man. But I guess one could make the point that we don't have a right to prolong life then via medical technologies.

 

 

 

I referred to your point on the previous page.

 

 

 

I really don't understand how they differentiate between using medicine and euthanasia. It might all have to do with their views on the intent of each use of "medication".

 

 

 

just for frame of reference I would probably not consider it under any circumstances but i dont feel euthanasia shoudl be illegal.

 

 

 

the difference between medicine and euthanaisa would be that medicine is trying to improve/maintain life while euthanasia ends it. From the religious perspective, the general belief as i know is that god decides life and death but we have free will in life. Medicine is trying to maintain our lives free will and such still accepting that God has the power to end it any time. Euthanasia is playing God in a sense that it ends life without God's consent

 

 

 

not saying i agree with the above just that its probably similair to the general belief

 

 

 

Hypothetical situation. Person is walking across a road, a drunk or speeding driver hits the person resulting in total paralysis / state of vegetation. The person can no longer work, play with friends / children or hold a normal social life. What does that person really have to live for? What is going to make that person want to wake up in the morning? Very little to nothing I think.

 

 

 

That situation doesn't contain the case of free will, the person was crossing the road and never decided to be hit by a car resulting in said situation, now how can you argue free will? Same can be said about a person who lives a healthy life, eats a good diet, exercises regularly and doesn't smoke or do other detrimental things to their personal health and then ends up with Cancer or other life threatening diseases. How is that free will or choice, I doubt they'd want Cancer. :|

[fenrir321]

Suicide, in my opinion, is up to the person. Its really their issue. I'll try to stop them, but I won't risk my life to save the life a person who would most likely kill themselves despite my sacrifice. The real question would be why would the person NEED assistance in suicide? That's quite arrogant to think that their are "worthy" or "important" enough to put blood on another's hands. Assisted suicide really shouldn't exist since technically it is murder. If the suicider wants to die, they should do so on their own.

 

 

 

edit:

The Catholic Church teaches against (not so much from the Bible) assisted suicide because the person is taking on the role of God and determining when someone should live and die. I agree with you in that I doubt there is anything concerning something similar to assisted suicide in a religious writing such as the Bible or the Qur'an. But its possible that religions oppose it not because of what those books say, but because its just what they teach against. I really don't know how to phrase it any differently.

 

 

 

Do Catholics use medicine? Determining when someone lives or dies is exactly what you do when you take antibiotics/cancer treatments, etc.

 

OOH! I'm Catholic! \

 

Yes, Catholics use medicine because God put the plants there for us to use. But saying that medicines are "damnable" because they prolong life and therefore play God is as equally arguable that refusing medicines to shorten your life is also playing God. If both are damnable, then take the lesser of two evils and choose a longer life to make better medicine ;)

[fenrir321]

Hypothetical situation. Person is walking across a road, a drunk or speeding driver hits the person resulting in total paralysis / state of vegetation. The person can no longer work, play with friends / children or hold a normal social life. What does that person really have to live for? What is going to make that person want to wake up in the morning? Very little to nothing I think.

 

 

 

That situation doesn't contain the case of free will, the person was crossing the road and never decided to be hit by a car resulting in said situation, now how can you argue free will? Same can be said about a person who lives a healthy life, eats a good diet, exercises regularly and doesn't smoke or do other detrimental things to their personal health and then ends up with Cancer or other life threatening diseases. How is that free will or choice, I doubt they'd want Cancer. :|

 

Well, you'd have to define "death" of soul. A person who is in a vegetative state can be considered dead because what makes them human is no longer living. A person who is dying of cancer is still alive in every sense unless the person has brain cancer is also in a vegetative state.

 

As I said above, Euthanasia in my opinion is wrong only because it drags another person into it and is technically murder; if a person wishes to die, then they must go through it on their own.

 

To the "deadly" disease thing, my mom sees bunches of people at the hospital who are sick. Some of them could be considered "inevitably dead". But those "6 months to live" are about as right as they are wrong. And besides that, wouldn't the person want to enjoy their last days instead of fill them with despair? I'd rather go to Six Flags and die from a heart attack three weeks later than go into my room and shoot my brain in one day. Then again, I'm speaking from my opinion.

[warri0r45]

Suicide, in my opinion, is up to the person. Its really their issue. I'll try to stop them, but I won't risk my life to save the life a person who would most likely kill themselves despite my sacrifice. The real question would be why would the person NEED assistance in suicide? That's quite arrogant to think that their are "worthy" or "important" enough to put blood on another's hands. Assisted suicide really shouldn't exist since technically it is murder. If the suicider wants to die, they should do so on their own.

 

 

 

edit:

The Catholic Church teaches against (not so much from the Bible) assisted suicide because the person is taking on the role of God and determining when someone should live and die. I agree with you in that I doubt there is anything concerning something similar to assisted suicide in a religious writing such as the Bible or the Qur'an. But its possible that religions oppose it not because of what those books say, but because its just what they teach against. I really don't know how to phrase it any differently.

 

 

 

Do Catholics use medicine? Determining when someone lives or dies is exactly what you do when you take antibiotics/cancer treatments, etc.

 

OOH! I'm Catholic! \

 

Yes, Catholics use medicine because God put the plants there for us to use. But saying that medicines are "damnable" because they prolong life and therefore play God is as equally arguable that refusing medicines to shorten your life is also playing God. If both are damnable, then take the lesser of two evils and choose a longer life to make better medicine ;)

 

 

 

The point is that the very invention of medicine served to put the destiny of human life in our own hands. If you see it as the lesser of two evils to actually use medicine, then in all honesty I'm extremely happy that you do.

 

 

 

My point is that I just don't understand how someone could believe that life and death is the will of god then in the same breath go to the doctor to get antibiotics because a bacterial infection is killing them.

[Cup Lion]

I know exactly what you think Warrior, because I have the same thoughts. I just approach it in a way in which I justify the use of medicine because it prolongs life, which is usually seen as a good thing, while using it to end life isn't as good (though some can argue it is (but in general, death has a negative connotation)). That's the way I differentiate between Euthanasia and using medicine to prolong life.

[jackattack]

Suicide, in my opinion, is up to the person. Its really their issue. I'll try to stop them, but I won't risk my life to save the life a person who would most likely kill themselves despite my sacrifice. The real question would be why would the person NEED assistance in suicide? That's quite arrogant to think that their are "worthy" or "important" enough to put blood on another's hands. Assisted suicide really shouldn't exist since technically it is murder. If the suicider wants to die, they should do so on their own.

 

 

 

edit:

The Catholic Church teaches against (not so much from the Bible) assisted suicide because the person is taking on the role of God and determining when someone should live and die. I agree with you in that I doubt there is anything concerning something similar to assisted suicide in a religious writing such as the Bible or the Qur'an. But its possible that religions oppose it not because of what those books say, but because its just what they teach against. I really don't know how to phrase it any differently.

 

 

 

Do Catholics use medicine? Determining when someone lives or dies is exactly what you do when you take antibiotics/cancer treatments, etc.

 

OOH! I'm Catholic! \

 

Yes, Catholics use medicine because God put the plants there for us to use. But saying that medicines are "damnable" because they prolong life and therefore play God is as equally arguable that refusing medicines to shorten your life is also playing God. If both are damnable, then take the lesser of two evils and choose a longer life to make better medicine ;)

 

 

 

The point is that the very invention of medicine served to put the destiny of human life in our own hands. If you see it as the lesser of two evils to actually use medicine, then in all honesty I'm extremely happy that you do.

 

 

 

My point is that I just don't understand how someone could believe that life and death is the will of god then in the same breath go to the doctor to get antibiotics because a bacterial infection is killing them.

 

 

 

Life is a gift that should be enjoyed thoroughly.

[Cup Lion]

And someone who supports this will say: "So if they aren't enjoying life because they are in pain and in a coma, why should they continue living?"

 

 

 

Gah, it never ends.

[warri0r45]

 

 

 

The point is that the very invention of medicine served to put the destiny of human life in our own hands. If you see it as the lesser of two evils to actually use medicine, then in all honesty I'm extremely happy that you do.

 

 

 

My point is that I just don't understand how someone could believe that life and death is the will of god then in the same breath go to the doctor to get antibiotics because a bacterial infection is killing them.

 

 

 

Life is a gift that should be enjoyed thoroughly.

 

 

 

Thanks for the inspiring words, but I don't know how they relate to my post.

[michel555555]

i'm for

 

 

 

my grandfather was put into the hospital when i was still yong. my parents never told me but my older brother explained it when i was 16. he said that he was suffering from a nuerolgical condition that was slowly destroying his motor functions. he asked the doctor to kill him because he didn't want to have my parents and grandmother see him like that. the doctors refuesed and then one day he threw himself down the stairs. he ended up spending the last two months of his life in a coma before my grandmother finally decided to turn off the machines.

 

 

 

i would rather have some one killed by euthanasia then by having to resort to their own methods and having to put the family and themselves through more pain then they both have to.