NationStates Jolt Archive

It's a touchy subject, but here are my views. I'm definitely for it. If they are suffering with no hope of a cure, they would thank you for ending their pain. Those who oppose euthanasia haven't experienced the pain, so they can't judge it for themselves. They don't care about the poor patient, they just want to appear morally correct by opposing it. People who oppose it need to be GIVEN a terminal illness. It sounds cold and harsh, but I'm not trying to flame. The ones that oppose it have NO IDEA what it is like to be in a terrible condition with no hope of recovery. They would most likely change their mind. Keeping the terminally ill alive against their wishes is nothing short of torture. Don't we have laws against that?

Also, 'freedom' comes from the words 'free' and 'doom'. (In the book "From Here to Eternity") Laws against UNassisted suicide are meaningless, because if they succeed, they are beyond the reach of the law.

There's also evidence of euthanasia in the Bible. Jesus only hung on the cross for three hours, and then died. It usually takes much longer to die from crucifixion. The Romans stabbed him because 'they were surprised he had died so soon'.

There was an Australian Senator who opposed organ transplants (he said that if someone had a heart attack, that was God saying they should be dead). Then HE himself had a heart attack and needed a transplant. He said that God wanted him to have a transplant. Well, why him and not so many others?

What a hypocrite! The people that oppose euthanasia need to be put in similar pain to those that desire it. Otherwise, they can't understand the pain and shouldn't judge those that want euthanasia. Also, the opponents of it aren't going to be affected by it (they're not the ones dying), so why complain? I think they are a bunch of bigots (no offense to anyone here - everyone here tends to have good opinions and good reasons).


Also, check out www.nancycrick.com

From the main page of that site (before the police shut it down):

My name is Nancy Crick. I'm 70 years of age and have been suffering from bowel cancer for three years. To say my quality of life has deteriorated is a gross understatement.

I have gone from being an active, vital, healthy woman (I had no symptoms on diagnosis) to a 27kg shell. I've lost almost all of my teeth, energy and, most importantly, the will and desire to live.

Most of my day - and night - is spent leaning over the toilet bowl dealing with chronic vomiting and diarrhoea. I am also in almost constant pain.

I can no longer leave the security of my home because of the vomiting and diarrhoea, and have had to cancel most of my medical appointments for this reason. Would you wish to have me in your car? My energy level is so low that it is as much as I can manage to venture as far as the letter box. On occasions I have made that distance, but have not been able to make the return journey before collapsing.

I require medication to sleep, but am often too tired to allow myself the luxury of sleeping as I lose control of my bladder when asleep, and also am not aware if my colostomy bag fills and overflows.

Imagine if you had to wake up in a wet bed, covered in your own faeces; it's not dignified, comfortable nor compatible with a relaxed start to a new day.

Through all this I am still at home, managing my household and cooking as best I can, sometimes forcing myself over the limit and paying the price. I have some help with stoma management, and am lucky in that I have friends who visit.

Other than visitors, the phone and television, I am cut off from the world, a world I fully embraced before this befell me. I am a prisoner in my own home. If family and friends cannot come to me or phone, I am alone with my pain. I cannot go to them.

As the pain and indignity worsen, I am frightened of the future. Not the future as others envision it: my future - becoming so weak I am unable to leave my bed to clean myself up; being unable to reach my pain medication; having the pain become so unbearable I lose my mind. The only future I have to look forward to.

This type of future would not be visited on a pet or farm animal. Compassionate vets will not let this happen; they gently euthanase our animals. Why then is it so unreasonable to expect compassionate doctors to do the same for human beings?

Yours sincerely

Nancy Crick


Another issue is that some people don't know what euthanasia is. One person said, "Euthanasia isn't murder, is it? OK, how about if I euthanise you when you're asleep in bed?"

That guy is foolish. That isn't even euthanasia. Euthanasia requires consent, awareness and probably a legal signature.

A few years ago, Nancy Crick took a lethal cocktail of drugs to end her suffering. The pro-lifers want to prosecute the 21 witnesses who were with her to give her comfort (she didn't want to die alone). The pro-lifers also accuse the voluntary euthanasia advocates of manipulating her into commiting suicide. They use the evidence that Nancy did not have cancer when she died. Even so, she was suffering from the consequences of cancer and the treatment. She was a 27kg shell when she died. The pro-lifers make me sick.

I believe that anti-euthanasia = pro-torture.

Also, sometimes chronic illnesses, such as arthritis, can become as bas as or worse than terminal pain.

What are your thoughts on the issue?

Sorry if this post is a bit long.

My gut feeling is that euthanasia should be legal. The major problem is that death is final, and people who are temporarily depressed might choose to end their lives without giving themselves a chance to recover.

i don't see any reason to deny any person control over their own life. your life is your own, and if you wish to end it then you should be totally free to do so.

My gut feeling is that euthanasia should be legal. The major problem is that death is final, and people who are temporarily depressed might choose to end their lives without giving themselves a chance to recover.

Euthanasia would only be legal in extreme cases, such as fully-blown AIDS or when cancer cannot be cured and has spread. It would also require a cooling off period and would have many controls, as the DWD assisted suicide law in Oregon has.

I am an ex-nurse, who worked for five years in age care homes and hostels.

Before starting this job, I was pro-euthanasia, and what I saw, heard and delt with during my years in this job, have only made my feelings stronger.

I will never understand why we have to try to keep elderly, sick, frail people, who only want to die, alive. It honestly broke my heart to see the pain, suffering and frustration some of my residents went through. Asking them if there was anything I could do for them, and them replying "just let me die", or "help me die", was the worst. We spent more time looking after their mental health, trying to keep them positive and interested in life, and failing miserably, than looking after their physical health.

I in no way condone the decision being made for an individual by family or any outside agency, but if a person is suffering from a terminal, painful illness, or is a frail, bedridden, elderly person (usually suffering severe health problems and or dementia), who has a living will stating their preference to die, then no-one should have the right to say no.

Why do we put our pets out of their pain and suffering, when they are terminally ill or very severly injured, but deny the same to ourselves.

Euthanasia would only be legal in extreme cases, such as fully-blown AIDS or when cancer cannot be cured and has spread. It would also require a cooling off period and would have many controls, as the DWD assisted suicide law in Oregon has.

Then I would have to vote "For."

I am an ex-nurse, who worked for five years in age care homes and hostels.

Before starting this job, I was pro-euthanasia, and what I saw, heard and delt with during my years in this job, have only made my feelings stronger.

I will never understand why we have to try to keep elderly, sick, frail people, who only want to die, alive. It honestly broke my heart to see the pain, suffering and frustration some of my residents went through. Asking them if there was anything I could do for them, and them replying "just let me die", or "help me die", was the worst. We spent more time looking after their mental health, trying to keep them positive and interested in life, and failing miserably, than looking after their physical health.

I in no way condone the decision being made for an individual by family or any outside agency, but if a person is suffering from a terminal, painful illness, or is a frail, bedridden, elderly person (usually suffering severe health problems and or dementia), who has a living will stating their preference to die, then no-one should have the right to say no.

Why do we put our pets out of their pain and suffering, when they are terminally ill or very severly injured, but deny the same to ourselves.

Excellent post. I have often told my children that when I get too old to care for myself, I'm going to do as the Nez Perce indians did when they got so old they were no longer able to be of service to the tribe ... just wander out into the wilderness.

I am an ex-nurse, who worked for five years in age care homes and hostels.

Before starting this job, I was pro-euthanasia, and what I saw, heard and delt with during my years in this job, have only made my feelings stronger.

I will never understand why we have to try to keep elderly, sick, frail people, who only want to die, alive. It honestly broke my heart to see the pain, suffering and frustration some of my residents went through. Asking them if there was anything I could do for them, and them replying "just let me die", or "help me die", was the worst. We spent more time looking after their mental health, trying to keep them positive and interested in life, and failing miserably, than looking after their physical health.

I in no way condone the decision being made for an individual by family or any outside agency, but if a person is suffering from a terminal, painful illness, or is a frail, bedridden, elderly person (usually suffering severe health problems and or dementia), who has a living will stating their preference to die, then no-one should have the right to say no.

Why do we put our pets out of their pain and suffering, when they are terminally ill or very severly injured, but deny the same to ourselves.

I agree with Eutrusca. This is an excellent post. Actually being involved in people in that situation and who want euthanasia and really strengthen one's viewpoint and emphasise with them.

I'm going to disagree, just to make sure both sides of the debate get raised, but you won't like my reasons (especially you, Bottle!).
I don't think euthanasia should be legalised, because I don't believe a person has the right to end their own life. I believe God created everyone, and doesn't want anyone to kill themselves, or seek the help of others to kill them. No one knows what their future holds, what good they might be able to do, what joy they might experience, that they will deny themselves by suicide.
In the case where the individual is not lucid, or not conscious, and it's the family/medical profession deciding, the same thing holds. No one knows the future. If the person is only surviving because of continued or repeated medical treatment, then it's a grey area, I admit this. But human life is of immense value, more than any of us realise.
I understand that most of you will not share the beliefs that lead me to this position. I hope you'll honestly consider my words anyway.

Well, personally I think your views are - and this is the politest way I can describe it - extremist. A simple example:

People who oppose it need to be GIVEN a terminal illness.

If I were just to ignore certain sections of your post however, I agree mostly with what you are saying. I support euthanasia for terminally ill patients. Then again, I support anyone's right to end their life at whatever point they deem fit.

I'm going to disagree, just to make sure both sides of the debate get raised, but you won't like my reasons (especially you, Bottle!).
I don't think euthanasia should be legalised, because I don't believe a person has the right to end their own life. I believe God created everyone, and doesn't want anyone to kill themselves, or seek the help of others to kill them. No one knows what their future holds, what good they might be able to do, what joy they might experience, that they will deny themselves by suicide.
In the case where the individual is not lucid, or not conscious, and it's the family/medical profession deciding, the same thing holds. No one knows the future. If the person is only surviving because of continued or repeated medical treatment, then it's a grey area, I admit this. But human life is of immense value, more than any of us realise.
I understand that most of you will not share the beliefs that lead me to this position. I hope you'll honestly consider my words anyway.

Just a few quick points - for an atheist (like me), the concern that God doesn't want us to kill ourselves doesn't come in to the picture. And while life can be valuable, a life of constant suffering isn't. The quality of life greatly impacts its worth (in my opinion).

Not trying to attack your beliefs, just commenting.

I support euthanasia for terminally ill patients. Then again, I support anyone's right to end their life at whatever point they deem fit.

Just a few quick points - for an atheist (like me), the concern that God doesn't want us to kill ourselves doesn't come in to the picture. And while life can be valuable, a life of constant suffering isn't. The quality of life greatly impacts its worth (in my opinion).

Not trying to attack your beliefs, just commenting.

Fair enough, but what about the general point about not knowing the future? Leaving God out of the discussion for the moment (as much as I can), my points about the potential for doing good and experiencing joy remain, doubly so if there is no existence after this one, as death would then end any possibility for positive experiences and actions.

Fair enough, but what about the general point about not knowing the future? Leaving God out of the discussion for the moment (as much as I can), my points about the potential for doing good and experiencing joy remain, doubly so if there is no existence after this one, as death would then end any possibility for positive experiences and actions.

Yes, good might happen. Or you could end up suffering even further for nought. That's why a person needs to balance the odds of things getting better against the suffering they will endure. If they feel the suffering is worth the chance, they can continue to live. If they feel it isn't, they don't have to.

The key point of voluntary euthanasia is that nobody is going to kill you if you want to live. It's just about giving each person the freedom to decide for themselves if they wish to continue to.

Yes, good might happen. Or you could end up suffering even further for nought. That's why a person needs to balance the odds of things getting better against the suffering they will endure. If they feel the suffering is worth the chance, they can continue to live. If they feel it isn't, they don't have to.

The key point of voluntary euthanasia is that nobody is going to kill you if you want to live. It's just about giving each person the freedom to decide for themselves if they wish to continue to.

O.K., I can't argue against most of what you're saying, because we're coming from a different perspective on who has rights over someone's life. You say people have the right to die, I say they don't.
In the case of someone comatose, unconscious, or otherwise unable to communicate, they cannot make the decision and have it carried out, unless they left a living will, and even then, they might have changed their mind. In that case, the person does not decide, someone else decides for them.
How would you cover this fairly common situation in a euthanasia law?

O.K., I can't argue against most of what you're saying, because we're coming from a different perspective on who has rights over someone's life. You say people have the right to die, I say they don't.
In the case of someone comatose, unconscious, or otherwise unable to communicate, they cannot make the decision and have it carried out, unless they left a living will, and even then, they might have changed their mind. In that case, the person does not decide, someone else decides for them.
How would you cover this fairly common situation in a euthanasia law?

If a person cannot decide for themselves due to their physical or mental condition, there would be a simple hierarchy:

a) Their husband/wife
b) Their parents
c) Their children (if of age)
d) Their sibling(s)

You can rearrange the order or add other people of course, it's just a simple example. If none of the people in the hierarchy are available, the doctor in charge of the patient would have to decide for the patient based on the available information.

Hope that helps.

In the case of someone comatose, unconscious, or otherwise unable to communicate, they cannot make the decision and have it carried out, unless they left a living will, and even then, they might have changed their mind. In that case, the person does not decide, someone else decides for them.
How would you cover this fairly common situation in a euthanasia law?

Euthenasia and "pulling the plug" on a comotose person are not really the same thing. Euthenasia, I believe should be carried out *only* if the person themselves have expressed that they wish to die and have been examined by pyschiatric professionals to ensure that they are competent to make that decision.

As for a comotose person without a living will, they have someone (generally that they have chosen) with the responsibility of making medical decisions for them. It is for this person to decide whether or not to leave them on life support.

For someone who is on life support but experts cite a good chance of recovery, no one should have the authority to do something that would cause them to die but themselves (unless there was a living will and the doctors put them on life support in error).

If a person cannot decide for themselves due to their physical or mental condition, there would be a simple hierarchy:

a) Their husband/wife
b) Their parents
c) Their children (if of age)
d) Their sibling(s)

You can rearrange the order or add other people of course, it's just a simple example. If none of the people in the hierarchy are available, the doctor in charge of the patient would have to decide for the patient based on the available information.

Hope that helps.
This is exactly my point. Someone else, NOT the person themself, would be deciding whether they live or die. That doesn't logically fit with the premise that a person has the right to determine when their life ends. In the example list you give, either their spouse, a close relative, or their doctor decides when the person dies. The decision has been taken out of the hands of the person whose right you say it is to decide.

This is exactly my point. Someone else, NOT the person themself, would be deciding whether they live or die. That doesn't logically fit with the premise that a person has the right to determine when their life ends. In the example list you give, either their spouse, a close relative, or their doctor decides when the person dies. The decision has been taken out of the hands of the person whose right you say it is to decide.

So you'd prefer that we just let nature take its course, and in no way interfere? The unconscious person should be left entirely alone, with no treatment, since we don't know if they want to live or not.

Or perhaps you prefer that we should treat them by default. That someone else should assume for them that they want to live. Someone like a doctor, or a spouse... oh wait...

You see, doctors do exactly what I am describing every day when it comes to treating patients. I see no reason why a loved one or family member shouldn't be able to do the same for requesting no treatment.

So you'd prefer that we just let nature take its course, and in no way interfere? The unconscious person should be left entirely alone, with no treatment, since we don't know if they want to live or not.

Or perhaps you prefer that we should treat them by default. That someone else should assume for them that they want to live. Someone like a doctor, or a spouse... oh wait...

You see, doctors do exactly what I am describing every day when it comes to treating patients. I see no reason why a loved one or family member shouldn't be able to do the same for requesting no treatment.
BINGO. :)

So you'd prefer that we just let nature take its course, and in no way interfere? The unconscious person should be left entirely alone, with no treatment, since we don't know if they want to live or not.

Or perhaps you prefer that we should treat them by default. That someone else should assume for them that they want to live. Someone like a doctor, or a spouse... oh wait...

You see, doctors do exactly what I am describing every day when it comes to treating patients. I see no reason why a loved one or family member shouldn't be able to do the same for requesting no treatment.

I'm saying that your premise that people have a right to die is false. This is just one of the contradictory situations that arise when you begin to develop a false premise.
My default position is to keep the person alive, 'cause that's what's right. Their wishes are not the defining factor in my position.

I'm saying that your premise that people have a right to die is false. This is just one of the contradictory situations that arise when you begin to develop a false premise.
My default position is to keep the person alive, 'cause that's what's right. Their wishes are not the defining factor in my position.

Ok, then we'll try another approach. Why are you allowed to decide for everyone what is right and wrong? I'm not infringing on anyone's right to live, why are you trying to restrict their right to die?

It isn't even like their right to die affects you personally in any way. Unless someone speaks up, the doctors are going to treat patients as they normally would. The only situation in which someone who undergo euthanasia is if they want it, or they can't speak for themselves and their family/spouse/doctor thinks it is what they would want.

Am I permitted to deny people alcohol because I deem it wrong? How about T.V.? Political views that don't align with my own?

I respect that you don't like euthanasia, and I would never expect you to take part in it yourself if you don't want to. But to say because you don't agree with it, that nobody may benefit from it - that is the epitamy of taking away freedom of choice.

Ok, then we'll try another approach. Why are you allowed to decide for everyone what is right and wrong? I'm not infringing on anyone's right to live, why are you trying to restrict their right to die?

It isn't even like their right to die affects you personally in any way. Unless someone speaks up, the doctors are going to treat patients as they normally would. The only situation in which someone who undergo euthanasia is if they want it, or they can't speak for themselves and their family/spouse/doctor thinks it is what they would want.

Am I permitted to deny people alcohol because I deem it wrong? How about T.V.? Political views that don't align with my own?

I respect that you don't like euthanasia, and I would never expect you to take part in it yourself if you don't want to. But to say because you don't agree with it, that nobody may benefit from it - that is the epitamy of taking away freedom of choice.
Our society (I live in the U.K., but I'm talking about Western representative-democracy type society generally) has laws that some members of the society may not agree with (legality of cannabis, road speed restrictions etc.). Are those members of our society free to disregard those laws they deem to be unjust? The answer is that they can, but the rightness of such an action depends on whether you believe in absolute or relative morality.

I take it from your comments that you believe in relative morality, that everyone chooses their own moral code, although you may adapt that position as regards law.
I believe that there is an absolute morality deriving from the nature of God, that we do not get to pick our own set of rules; the rules are set by God.

I'm not saying that everything I currently believe must therefore be right; I am fallible and prejudiced like everyone else. I do, however, believe the rules are out there, and I don't think I'm ever going to shift from that position.

We will therefore inevitably reach an impasse in most moral discussions. You will say, "Why do you get to say what's right for anyone other than yourself?"
I reply, "I don't make the rules, God does!"
To which you respond, "I don't believe in God!"

That's not to say we can never agree on anything, but this basic difference of perception is going to come up an awful lot in rational discussions of moral issues.

Still, it beats flaming, right?

I'm saying that your premise that people have a right to die is false. This is just one of the contradictory situations that arise when you begin to develop a false premise.
My default position is to keep the person alive, 'cause that's what's right. Their wishes are not the defining factor in my position.
wow, so you think i don't have the right to have signed a DNR? you think that you have the right to tell me what should be done with my body? do you think i have the right to have a say in my own funeral arrangments? should i be allowed to make any decisions about my medical care? because if you have the power to decide when i should live or die, then why would you trust me to make those decisions for myself?

We will therefore inevitably reach an impasse in most moral discussions. You will say, "Why do you get to say what's right for anyone other than yourself?"
I reply, "I don't make the rules, God does!"
To which you respond, "I don't believe in God!"

but that is exactly what you are arguing against. God clearly has chosen a person to die in these situations, and human actions are fighting God's will by artificially maintaining their life. the ONLY way to act in accordance with God's will is to take them off lifesupport and allow God to decide whether to take them or not. if He wants them to live then they will, if not they will die.

but that is exactly what you are arguing against. God clearly has chosen a person to die in these situations, and human actions are fighting God's will by artificially maintaining their life. the ONLY way to act in accordance with God's will is to take them off lifesupport and allow God to decide whether to take them or not. if He wants them to live then they will, if not they will die.

Except that God does not cause everyone's death directly. He allows that a person be in a life-threatening situation, then he sees what choices the people caring for them will make. God is allowed to use doctors to prolong life; I just don't believe He wants to use doctors to end life.
I don't remember whether you're an atheist, and agnostic, or something else, but since you're not a Christian (I'm fairly sure you've said that), how is it you know what God's will is?

Except that God does not cause everyone's death directly. He allows that a person be in a life-threatening situation, then he sees what choices the people caring for them will make. God is allowed to use doctors to prolong life; I just don't believe He wants to use doctors to end life.
I don't remember whether you're an atheist, and agnostic, or something else, but since you're not a Christian (I'm fairly sure you've said that), how is it you know what God's will is?
if God is all-powerful, then (by definition) nothing can occur except that it be by his will. therefore, whatever we do in any situation was God's will...it couldn't have been otherwise.

also, keep in mind: a doctor who does not actively work to prolong a life is not guilty of ending that life. the doctor isn't killing anybody, he's simply allowing God's will to be done. if God felt that person should be alive then they would be, and if they die that means God wanted them dead. human action cannot thwart God's will, so no matter how hard that doctor tried he would never have been able to save the person anyway; God wanted them to die, and no puny actions by the doctor would have been able to stop God's will. therefore, it doesn't matter if the doctor tried to save the person or not. or, at least, it only matters for the doctor, who's soul may be judged harshly by God if he tries to thwart God's will...but that's the doctor's problem, not the dead person's or their family's.

if God is all-powerful, then (by definition) nothing can occur except that it be by his will. therefore, whatever we do in any situation was God's will...it couldn't have been otherwise.

also, keep in mind: a doctor who does not actively work to prolong a life is not guilty of ending that life. the doctor isn't killing anybody, he's simply allowing God's will to be done. if God felt that person should be alive then they would be, and if they die that means God wanted them dead. human action cannot thwart God's will, so no matter how hard that doctor tried he would never have been able to save the person anyway; God wanted them to die, and no puny actions by the doctor would have been able to stop God's will. therefore, it doesn't matter if the doctor tried to save the person or not. or, at least, it only matters for the doctor, who's soul may be judged harshly by God if he tries to thwart God's will...but that's the doctor's problem, not the dead person's or their family's.
I'm using a different understanding of God's sovereignty than you are. That is, I'm defining "all-powerful" differently.
Your definition discounts the possibility of free will, which I believe exists in parallel with God's sovereign will. You appear to be using a Calvinist/Reformed understanding, which is fair enough, lots of Christians would agree with you, but not all.
We are all responsible for all of our choices, active or passive. I believe God really lets us make choices, with real outcomes, though I can't put all the metaphysics of it into words.
We may be hijacking this thread; I'm not sure. I do know that the free will/sovereignty debate is not going to get solved by us on this forum.
And, to help my understanding of your points, would you tell me a little about your spiritual beliefs (or chosen absence thereof)?

I'm using a different understanding of God's sovereignty than you are. That is, I'm defining "all-powerful" differently.
Your definition discounts the possibility of free will, which I believe exists in parallel with God's sovereign will. You appear to be using a Calvinist/Reformed understanding, which is fair enough, lots of Christians would agree with you, but not all.
We are all responsible for all of our choices, active or passive. I believe God really lets us make choices, with real outcomes, though I can't put all the metaphysics of it into words.
We may be hijacking this thread; I'm not sure. I do know that the free will/sovereignty debate is not going to get solved by us on this forum.
And, to help my understanding of your points, would you tell me a little about your spiritual beliefs (or chosen absence thereof)?
it seems to me that you are using an understanding of god that suits your argument rather coincidentally! i am not in any way attacking what you believe. I will also say i really agree with sydenia/bottle have been saying

I've always thought that as long as Euthanasia=Suicide it should be legal, but I really don't know about people who doesn't have the ability to choose or show what's their election on living or dying. It' something we won't be able to answer here.

I'm saying that your premise that people have a right to die is false. This is just one of the contradictory situations that arise when you begin to develop a false premise.
My default position is to keep the person alive, 'cause that's what's right. Their wishes are not the defining factor in my position.

People do have the right to die... often they have NO choice BUT to die.

What is your justification for the removal of the 'right to die'?

Religious? Doesn't apply to the non-religious...

Creation by God? I would argue that YOUR basis is flawed... your premise is false.

Your default position implies that you know better what a person needs than that person does, or that person's representative. You don't have the 'right' to make that decision for them.

It's a touchy subject, but here are my views. I'm definitely for it. If they are suffering with no hope of a cure, they would thank you for ending their pain. Those who oppose euthanasia haven't experienced the pain, so they can't judge it for themselves. They don't care about the poor patient, they just want to appear morally correct by opposing it. People who oppose it need to be GIVEN a terminal illness. It sounds cold and harsh, but I'm not trying to flame. The ones that oppose it have NO IDEA what it is like to be in a terrible condition with no hope of recovery. They would most likely change their mind. Keeping the terminally ill alive against their wishes is nothing short of torture. Don't we have laws against that?

Also, 'freedom' comes from the words 'free' and 'doom'. (In the book "From Here to Eternity") Laws against UNassisted suicide are meaningless, because if they succeed, they are beyond the reach of the law.

There's also evidence of euthanasia in the Bible. Jesus only hung on the cross for three hours, and then died. It usually takes much longer to die from crucifixion. The Romans stabbed him because 'they were surprised he had died so soon'.

There was an Australian Senator who opposed organ transplants (he said that if someone had a heart attack, that was God saying they should be dead). Then HE himself had a heart attack and needed a transplant. He said that God wanted him to have a transplant. Well, why him and not so many others?

What a hypocrite! The people that oppose euthanasia need to be put in similar pain to those that desire it. Otherwise, they can't understand the pain and shouldn't judge those that want euthanasia. Also, the opponents of it aren't going to be affected by it (they're not the ones dying), so why complain? I think they are a bunch of bigots (no offense to anyone here - everyone here tends to have good opinions and good reasons).


Also, check out www.nancycrick.com



I think voluntary euthanasia should be legal. I mean I'd never really go through it myself(way too afraid of what's on "the other side") but there are others who aren't afraid of what could happens afterwards. If they're in pain they shouldn't be forced to suffer.

O.K., I can't argue against most of what you're saying, because we're coming from a different perspective on who has rights over someone's life. You say people have the right to die, I say they don't.


Then you support slavery. You are essentially saying that a 'god' that no one can prove exists, owns their life.