Euthanasia - Right or Wrong?

[DeletedUser345]

It is my opinion that euthanasia is in most circumstances an option that should be made availible for those who want to die, for does it not mean 'good death' in Greek.

The law (in Britain) should I believe be changed as most recent statistics carried out show the public as in favour of supporting euthanasia.

Just a little something to discuss, i will put forward my viewpoints/arguements when someone disagrees with me

 

[DeletedUser]

Our life is our own.

Just as nobody should be able to take away the life of another, nobody should be able to force a person to live, if they do not wish to do so. As such, I think that euthanasia is right, when it is a person's wish to end their own life. However, when people are in a state where they are not capable of making that decision, the lines get a little blurry.

 

[DeletedUser]

I agree with you Achilles. If someone wants to end their life due to a terminal illness then they should be able to.

 

[DeletedUser]

I agree with you Achilles. If someone wants to end their life due to a terminal illness then they should be able to.

Is that the only case you would allow euthanasia to take place, if the person is already suffering from a terminal illness?

 

[DeletedUser]

Is that the only case you would allow euthanasia to take place, if the person is already suffering from a terminal illness?

I believe that there should be safeguards in place to ensure it's not an easy way out for people who are depressed. I don't believe someone should be able to die for the sake of it.

 

[DeletedUser]

I believe that there should be safeguards in place to ensure it's not an easy way out for people who are depressed. I don't believe someone should be able to die for the sake of it.

Should people not have control of their own lives, however? Be allowed to choose when they live, and when they die?

 

[DeletedUser]

Should people not have control of their own lives, however? Be allowed to choose when they live, and when they die?

They do. I believe people who are depressed shouldn't commit suicide. They should be supported by groups to help them come out of depression. I only think people should have an assisted death if their life is unbearable through illness.

 

[DeletedUser]

They do. I believe people who are depressed shouldn't commit suicide. They should be supported by groups to help them come out of depression. I only think people should have an assisted death if their life is unbearable through illness.

I'm inclined to disagree, personally, but I can see where you're coming from and I do agree partially, that there should be support available.

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm inclined to disagree, personally, but I can see where you're coming from and I do agree partially, that there should be support available.

I think someone shouldn't die when there are other options available. That person could have a great life ahead of them but because of a death of a relative or something along those lines they want to commit suicide. If you asked them the same question in 5 or more years their outlook could be very different.

This presents the question, is a bad life better than no life? I believe so yes, if that life has a possibility of getting better. With something like a terminal illness, it shows little sign of getting better.

 

[DeletedUser]

I think someone shouldn't die when there are other options available. That person could have a great life ahead of them but because of a death of a relative or something along those lines they want to commit suicide. If you asked them the same question in 5 or more years their outlook could be very different.

This presents the question, is a bad life better than no life? I believe so yes, if that life has a possibility of getting better. With something like a terminal illness, it shows little sign of getting better.

Based upon personal experience alone, I'd be leaning towards saying yes. Obviously I haven't experienced 'no life', but having dealt with (and still be dealing with) serious depression, it's not really one of those things that just comes around for a while, makes you feel bad, and then goes away to leave your life looking brilliant.

Is a bad life better than no life? Possibly, in some cases. In a lot of cases, however, people suffer terribly with depression for many years before it gets better, and many people are never truly free from it. In those cases, I'd say no, it probably isn't better.

The trouble is, we can't see the future, so we don't know whether things will get better or not. So is it worth putting people through years of torment, just because there is a slight possibility that things may improve?

 

[DeletedUser]

Umm, if they want to commit suicide, they can do so with or without any particular license. I.e., they do so now. To argue whether people should be allowed to kill themselves is meaningless, because if they have the ability to do so, and they means to do so, and they want to, you can sure as hell try to convince them out of it, but you won't be able to stop them (delay maybe, bit not stop).

I therefore presume a discussion about euthanasia is about assisted suicide, which infers that a person is incapable of taking their own life due to physical inability. My answer then would be, yes, but only after a limited timeframe in which they recieve counseling.

 

[DeletedUser]

To put it short and concisely (although undoubtedly I'll get carried away anyway), simply because it is very late here and my brain isn't working as intended, I think Euthanasia should be legal. Albeit, only after multiple safeguards to prevent abuse and under certain circumstances. For instance, if someone has an illness and are effectively a 'vegetable' they should be able to have Euthanasia as an option whereas somebody who is in full control of their body and functions should not need to seek out another individual to assist their suicide (and then there's all these issues about whether or not it was just murder disguised as Euthanasia because the only other witness is dead, and if one were to use that excuse it'd definitely be murder - if they can suicide themselves they don't need help).

A safeguard that I had in mind would be multiple people present at a conference of sorts, where documents would be signed outlining the requirements to be met before the Euthanasia could be performed and overseen by the respective legal officials (obviously all prior to be made into a vegetable, if the person in question wanted to have it as an option) in order to eliminate corruption within the trusted circle of family and friends.

The nature and effectiveness of any safeguards are irrelevant, as that is not part of the debate but worth pointing out that with my above statements I am assuming that said safeguards are genuine and effective in preventing abuse.

QED: Euthanasia is fine under certain circumstances, eg. when one is in a lot of pain and suffering but has the inability to end their own life and have given that responsibility for the decision to trusted individuals.

Personally, I'd give a few trusted family members the responsibility to end my life if I was in a state of extreme pain and suffering and with very little to no chance of recovery but only after methods of cure were considered and tried. I wouldn't want to live where I couldn't act out my own free will or speak my mind and so forth.

 

[DeletedUser]

Personally, I'd give a few trusted family members the responsibility to end my life if I was in a state of extreme pain and suffering and with very little to no chance of recovery.

Oi, if my family members were around, I would be in extreme pain and suffering with very little to no chance of recovery. I guess that would make me a candidate for euthanasia aye?

 

[DeletedUser]

For instance, if someone has an illness and are effectively a 'vegetable' they should be able to have Euthanasia as an option

What if a person is involved in an accident and enters into a vegetative state, without any prior discussion of Euthanasia. Would they have to remain in that state, or would the power to make the decision fall to close family members, despite the absence of any meetings/documentation giving them the right to make such a decision?

My issue with the argument that euthanasia should primarily be available for those in a vegetative/unresponsive state is that very few people expect to be in such a state, or make preparations for if it happens. As such, they wouldn't be able to take advantage of any euthanasia services available, because of the safeguards in place to protect them.

 

[DeletedUser13405]

Taking it one step farther...what if a healthy person is in an accident and becomes a quadrapelegic, but otherwise has mental facilities intact? Suicide may be just be out for that individual as they may not have the ability to do it. But would death via assisted suicide be preferable to life as a quadrapelegic if the individual so chose? I would support assisted suicide in a circumstance such as this.

 

[DeletedUser345]

Playing devils advocate here seeing as it is all one-sided currently.

Should people over 70, severly disbaled people and those in long hospital care (say 1 year or above) be euthanised? Currently these people use up a large amount of our hospital and economic resources which could be better spent saving a persons life who has a future (dare i say it) and spent devloping and looking into cures for cancer etc. Surely it would be better of devloping cures for motor neurone disease to aid people in the future than spending money now trying to draw out every drop of life from a person currently with the disease.

 

[DeletedUser]

Playing devils advocate here seeing as it is all one-sided currently.

Should people over 70, severly disbaled people and those in long hospital care (say 1 year or above) be euthanised? Currently these people use up a large amount of our hospital and economic resources which could be better spent saving a persons life who has a future (dare i say it) and spent devloping and looking into cures for cancer etc. Surely it would be better of devloping cures for motor neurone disease to aid people in the future than spending money now trying to draw out every drop of life from a person currently with the disease.

Compulsory euthanasia.. hm. Those over 70, well some still contribute to society, so I'd have to say no to compulsory euthanasia of all over 70's. Severely disabled, it depends on the disability. If they're disabled to the extent that they cannot contribute to society at all, then perhaps they should be euthanised (heh, spell-check suggests that these people should be 'mechanised'). If they're still able to function and contribute, then no. As for those receiving long-term hospital care, again it would depend. Are they in a vegetative/unresponsive state? If yes, then yes they should be euthanised. If no, and they are still able to function and contribute, then no.

 

[DeletedUser345]

Compulsory euthanasia.. hm. Those over 70, well some still contribute to society, so I'd have to say no to compulsory euthanasia of all over 70's. Severely disabled, it depends on the disability. If they're disabled to the extent that they cannot contribute to society at all, then perhaps they should be euthanised (heh, spell-check suggests that these people should be 'mechanised'). If they're still able to function and contribute, then no. As for those receiving long-term hospital care, again it would depend. Are they in a vegetative/unresponsive state? If yes, then yes they should be euthanised. If no, and they are still able to function and contribute, then no.

Many over 70s don't contribute much after they reach that age obviously there are some and they should be kept alive, example is perhaps a role model such as Mandela. But many are lonely in their now rather empty house or stuck in a carehome.

Off the top of my head i can only think of one severly disabled person who really contributes to soceity and that is Stephen Hawking. Again people like him are more the rarity than the norm.

People who have been in hospital care for that length of time cannot contribute as if they were going to get better they would have done by then in msot probabilities.

 

[DeletedUser]

Many over 70s don't contribute much after they reach that age obviously there are some and they should be kept alive, example is perhaps a role model such as Mandela. But many are lonely in their now rather empty house or stuck in a carehome.

Off the top of my head i can only think of one severly disabled person who really contributes to soceity and that is Stephen Hawking. Again people like him are more the rarity than the norm.

People who have been in hospital care for that length of time cannot contribute as if they were going to get better they would have done by then in msot probabilities.

As long as there are some who can contribute, how are you going to decide who is euthanised, though? It's difficult to say who could have a positive impact, even if they aren't currently, and who is having an impact in small ways, and who is nothing but a drain on society.

What criteria would you use to determine whether or not someone in those three categories (over-70, severely disabled, long-term hospital care) is euthanised?

 

[DeletedUser]

Achilles aren't you over 70?

As for your comment regarding Stephen Hawking, I believe everyone contributes to society in their own way. You can't really take someone away and kill them, vegetable or not vegetable.