NationStates Jolt Archive

Kay, I haven't seen any topics on this here. This is one of my favorite topics, as I'm a philosophy geek, particularly ethics, and this is my preferred issue.

So, should euthanasia be legalized?

Yes. Especially if the person is capable of making that decision themselves. I know that if I was in a vegetative state, I would to be euthanised. If we see it as alright for animals, then it should also apply to humans in my view.

I guess on a case-by-case basis, it can be considered.

I'm not a particular fan of the concept, but if someone has, like, a month left of conscious pain...I really don't think I can deny them an earlier end to their pain.

Yes.

Just to clear things up, i define euthanasia as meaning that the death was chosen.

No such thing as 'involuntary euthanasia', that's called murder.

Kay, I haven't seen any topics on this here. This is one of my favorite topics, as I'm a philosophy geek, particularly ethics, and this is my preferred issue.

So, should euthanasia be legalized?
of course. i cannot, for the life of me, comprehend the massive arrogance of anybody who would lay claim to another human's life. if a human wishes to end their life then that is their decision, and should be respected just as any other personal decision is respected in the eyes of the law.

of course. i cannot, for the life of me, comprehend the massive arrogance of anybody who would lay claim to another human's life. if a human wishes to end their life then that is their decision, and should be respected just as any other personal decision is respected in the eyes of the law.
Yeah, I never got that. How they outright refuse that they are based on Christianity, then base laws on the fact that taking a human life is wrong in all cases. Anyone refusing someone else a decision such as this is about as arrogant as you can get.

Oh yeah, one argument I heard against euthanasia was that 'some doctors would have moral qualms about ending a patient's life'. Isn't that great? That has nothing to do with whether it's right or wrong. Send them to me, I'll kill them for you. I have no qualms bout ending a life. Now is it still wrong?
They should at *least* use some fallacious logic, instead of just throwing the possibility of logic out the window...

Just to clear things up, i define euthanasia as meaning that the death was chosen.

No such thing as 'involuntary euthanasia', that's called murder.

a) I think Euthanasia should be allowed if it is reserved solely for the terminally ill who are suffering.

b) since the Dutch experiment looks to be producing unacceptable results(for me anyway), I am going to have say I am against it

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/smith200312230101.asp

Pay attention to the part where infants and adults are being Euthanised without being asked. Now, I dont know if this really means no permission was given or not, but it sounds pretty scary.

They are even calling it "Termination without request or consent."

Yaaay for the civilized Dutch who allow this and Booo for the Barbaric Americans who dont.

Oh, and everybody knows what the difference between passive and active euthanasia is, right?

(I don't actually put any stock in them being different myself, as they're both identical in my eyes, but anyway...)

of course. i cannot, for the life of me, comprehend the massive arrogance of anybody who would lay claim to another human's life. if a human wishes to end their life then that is their decision, and should be respected just as any other personal decision is respected in the eyes of the law.

Absolutely.

Although I would add the caveat that, since the decision is such a final one, some sort of counseling/mental competency exam should be administered beforehand.

Yes, Euthanasia should be legal. After all, if an animal is intense, crippling pain, we put it down, don't we? But as humans, we should be made to suffer that pain for as long as it takes? That makes no sense. Of course, we don't always put animals down for the same altruistic reason, but that's not the subject of debate. Yes, if it's that persons choice, then Euthanasia should be an option, I can't think of any reason why it shouldn't be, disregarding any religious qualms. But then again, that'd be down to the personal choice of the patient, since we aren't talking about enforced Euthanasia for the ill and poor.

So yes then. If it's their choice.

Absolutely.

Although I would add the caveat that, since the decision is such a final one, some sort of counseling/mental competency exam should be administered beforehand.
i would be okay with that, as long as said exam did not turn into a chickenshit runaround routine, the way mandatory "counceling" before abortions is sometimes used to block people from making their own choices.

Self-delusion is rampant in the euthanasia movement. Most proponents recognize that it is inherently dangerous to legalize killing. But they desperately want to believe that they can control the grim reaper. Thus, they continue to peddle the nonsense that "guidelines will protect against abuse" despite overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary.
The abuse already happens. But without the guidelines, the abuse is close to the *only* thing that happens.

It gets worse: Repeated studies sponsored by the Dutch government have found that doctors kill approximately 1,000 patients each year who have not asked for euthanasia. This is not only a violation of every guideline, but an act that Dutch law considers murder. Nonvoluntary euthanasia has become so common that it even has a name: "Termination without request or consent."
Anybody have statistics for the USA? I bet it's close to that here to. Also, nonvoluntary euthanasia is an oxymoron.

The Swiss have also unleashed the culture of death into their midst. Rather than authorizing doctors to commit euthanasia, however, Swiss law instead permits private suicide facilitation. As a result, Switzerland has become a destination for "suicide tourists" who travel there not to ski, but to receive a poison cocktail.

A private group that goes by the name "Dignitas" facilitates most Swiss assisted suicides. Its founder, lawyer Ludwig Minelli, recently told the Swiss press that he will not restrict Dignitas’s dark work to providing services to the dying. Indeed, the report said Minelli believes that "severe depression can be irreversible and that he is justified" in helping "the mentally ill" to die. Along these lines, a Swiss doctor is being investigated for possible prosecution for the double suicide of French twins with schizophrenia.
So why again is this a bad thing? Not yet has an argument about why suicide is bad has been presented. Not only that, but I say mental suffering is certainly a form of pain, and unbearable pain that will not end is certainly a justified reason for euthanasia in my view.

As an aside, I heard the story of the two twins, and I feel it would be preposterous for charges to be pressed against the doctor. Then again, it won't stop anybody, will it...

If he gets his way, the law will soon require doctors who oppose euthanasia to refer patients who want to be killed to a colleague willing to do the deed. So much for choice.
Oh, so what the patient can do is to be determined by the particular doctor? That makes no logical sense.

Yes, Euthanasia should be legal. After all, if an animal is intense, crippling pain, we put it down, don't we? But as humans, we should be made to suffer that pain for as long as it takes? That makes no sense. Of course, we don't always put animals down for the same altruistic reason, but that's not the subject of debate. Yes, if it's that persons choice, then Euthanasia should be an option, I can't think of any reason why it shouldn't be, disregarding any religious qualms. But then again, that'd be down to the personal choice of the patient, since we aren't talking about enforced Euthanasia for the ill and poor.

So yes then. If it's their choice.
that is so true, I work at a veterinary clinic, and I have seen it several times. It doesn't happen often, but it has.

Yes, Euthanasia should be legal. After all, if an animal is intense, crippling pain, we put it down, don't we? But as humans, we should be made to suffer that pain for as long as it takes? That makes no sense. Of course, we don't always put animals down for the same altruistic reason, but that's not the subject of debate. Yes, if it's that persons choice, then Euthanasia should be an option, I can't think of any reason why it shouldn't be, disregarding any religious qualms. But then again, that'd be down to the personal choice of the patient, since we aren't talking about enforced Euthanasia for the ill and poor.

So yes then. If it's their choice.
Just to clear things up, the definition of euthanasia here is death by choice. It just doesn't make any sense if you expand it beyond that, because it contradicts itself then.

Err...

bump

Perhaps you should send out TGs to known trollers to come in and harass the the thread? I don't think you're going to get too much argument or debate out of people otherwise...

Either that or you could try and email Mr Chick, see if he'll come along and argue his corner. He's against most everything, so it's a certainty he'll be against this.

Either that or you could try and email Mr Chick, see if he'll come along and argue his corner. He's against most everything, so it's a certainty he'll be against this.
:D

i say, if they want to die, let em... or if their a veggie, its up to some family members. unless theres no hope of them de-veggifing in which case, they might as well let them go.

I'm surprised we have so many votes for 'only passive euthanasia'.
What, in your eyes, is the fundamental difference between active and passive euthanasia?

What is the difference between passive and active euthanasia, in a literal context? It confused me when I seen the poll.

very little. of course i wouldnt be outraged or anything if someone did euthinise someone who was a veggie without anyone consent.. of course alot of people dont want to be euthinised.. i was only being fair to them

active--taking lives, passive--letting die

http://www.str.org/free/points/actveuth.htm

basicall i just see it as a moral difference between actively killing a patient and passively allowing the patient to die.. which doesnt really make much of a difference

very little. of course i wouldnt be outraged or anything if someone did euthinise someone who was a veggie without anyone consent.. of course alot of people dont want to be euthinised.. i was only being fair to them
That's not what passive euthanasia is.

Passive euthanasia is killing someone by removing necessary life support.
Active euthanasia is killing them with medication or lethal injection or something like that.

I guess I should have defined the terms in my original post...

That's not what passive euthanasia is.

Passive euthanasia is killing someone by removing necessary life support.
Active euthanasia is killing them with medication or lethal injection or something like that.

I guess I should have defined the terms in my original post...
In that case: If you're gonna do euthanasia, active is more humane

http://www.str.org/free/points/actveuth.htm

basicall i just see it as a moral difference between actively killing a patient and passively allowing the patient to die.. which doesnt really make much of a difference

I quote from that page:
"In active euthanasia you directly and intentionally cause a person's death. In passive euthanasia you do not directly take their life but you permit them to die. You don't intend this, although you may foresee it."
I don't know how he can say that with a straight face...
It's utter bullshit. Ack!

In that case: If you're gonna do euthanasia, active is more humane
Like hell. Of course, they say that passive euthanasia isn't taking anybody's life, it's allowing them to die. Which makes no sense.

Ah, now I understand. Well, I'd say I'm in favour of active euthenasia, given that if someone is in a vegetative state, it's unlikely they are suffering, so the unplugging the life support thing is only going to serve two purposes. To bring some resolution, and so, some peace, to the family of the patient, and to free up that bed for another person. Neither of these directly benefit the patient. So you need to have the option for the patient to actively choose his to end his life if they feel the situation merits it. Otherwise, you aren't really doing anything truly worthwhile. (well, you could argue that giving the family of the patient resolution is worthwhile, and it is, but I meant purely from the patients point of view.)

Like hell. Of course, they say that passive euthanasia isn't taking anybody's life, it's allowing them to die. Which makes no sense.
indeed.

First you keep 'em alive and then you let 'em die. And say you didn't kill them

dont let me hijack this thread, im just curious... wheres ol kevorkian(sp?) these days?

Well, I suppose I could try arguing against euthanasia. I guess I'll start with something simple.

OK, Ten Commandments, "Thou shalt not kill". Euthanasia, by default, requires one person to kill another, whether it is consentual or not. How can you justify legalizing something that so clearly contradicts one of the founding principles of Western civilization?

Well, I suppose I could try arguing against euthanasia. I guess I'll start with something simple.

OK, Ten Commandments, "Thou shalt not kill". Euthanasia, by default, requires one person to kill another, whether it is consentual or not. How can you justify legalizing something that so clearly contradicts one of the founding principles of Western civilization?

well i think in modern times we should make that "thou shalt not kill*"

*unless they are in agonizing pain and dont have anything to live for other then death

We (the western civilization) are no longer a christian society, but a multicultural. The Ten Commandments don't apply anymore

Well, I suppose I could try arguing against euthanasia. I guess I'll start with something simple.

OK, Ten Commandments, "Thou shalt not kill". Euthanasia, by default, requires one person to kill another, whether it is consentual or not. How can you justify legalizing something that so clearly contradicts one of the founding principles of Western civilization?
Simple.
Since when should Christianity dictate all of our morals?
I don't see why, even if it was a founding principle, it dictates what we are allowed to do so much.

Easy does it. If the person is not Christian, they'll feel no need to be bound to the ten commandments. As made clear before, this isn't enforced Euthanasia, so the element of choice is there. If the person is Christian, then they don't need to request to be euthanised. If the person is not Christian, how can you justify forcing their beliefs and moral code upon them?


Ack! Just in Before me. Damn your shorter reply. The only reason!

Hmmm... that didn't go too well. I need something better. God, I really don't wanna have to use a slippery slope argument. How I loathe slippery slope arguments. Maybe I'll try and go the fanatical route. No, I think I'll try to stay rational for now.

First of all, passive euthanasia. What right does anyone have to end the life of another person without that person's consent? Since when do individuals get to choose whether or not another individual lives or dies? It's our responsibility to keep people alive, and we can't simply allow someone to die just because their life is not as full as it could be. It is still life, and it is our job to preserve it.

The same could be said for active euthanasia, but in this case we're assuming that the person being euthanized is giving consent, correct? We're going to stay away from the religious argument this time (ie What right does someone have to take away God's gift to us etc. etc.). How can you guarantee that the person is in the proper state of mind to make such a decision regarding life and death? Certainly anyone in a grotesque amount of pain would be on some sort of medication, which would definitely affect their mental facilities. For those who only have (non-painful) terminal illnesses, there doesn't seem to be any reason to euthanize at all, except to get it over with more quickly, I suppose. Wouldn't this just be a selfish act, though? Something completely unnecessary?

I guess my main point is that how can any individual make a decision regarding life and death? What gives them the right to say, "Screw this, I'm out."

Hmmm... that didn't go too well. I need something better. God, I really don't wanna have to use a slippery slope argument. How I loathe slippery slope arguments. Maybe I'll try and go the fanatical route. No, I think I'll try to stay rational for now.

First of all, passive euthanasia. What right does anyone have to end the life of another person without that person's consent? Since when do individuals get to choose whether or not another individual lives or dies? It's our responsibility to keep people alive, and we can't simply allow someone to die just because their life is not as full as it could be. It is still life, and it is our job to preserve it.

There is no such thing as non-voluntary euthanasia, it's an oxymoron. Did you see the definitions for active and passive? Passive euthanasia isn't death without consent, that's called murder.
:D
Passive euthanasia is death by removal of life support, i.e., "letting die".

There is no such thing as non-voluntary euthanasia, it's an oxymoron. Did you see the definitions for active and passive? Passive euthanasia isn't death without consent, that's called murder.
:D
Passive euthanasia is death by removal of life support, i.e., "letting die".
Yeah, my bad. I totally misinterpreted that. Uh, ignore that part of what I wrote. I swear to god I'm not as stupid as I may seem right now.

How can you guarantee that the person is in the proper state of mind to make such a decision regarding life and death?

You can't.

Certainly anyone in a grotesque amount of pain would be on some sort of medication, which would definitely affect their mental facilities. For those who only have (non-painful) terminal illnesses, there doesn't seem to be any reason to euthanize at all, except to get it over with more quickly, I suppose. Wouldn't this just be a selfish act, though? Something completely unnecessary?

It might be. That doesn't specifically make it bad though.

I guess my main point is that how can any individual make a decision regarding life and death? What gives them the right to say, "Screw this, I'm out."

Well, I'd say they have more right to decide than the Gummint has to decide for them.
:D

Yeah, my bad. I totally misinterpreted that. Uh, ignore that part of what I wrote. I swear to god I'm not as stupid as I may seem right now.
Don't worry, mate, from what I'd seen so far it didn't look like you were stupid, just mislead. I probably should have included the definitions in my first post anyway.

i think if someone is in so much pain that theyve gone insane, (heh, i rhymed) then its safe to euthanise them

Yeah, my bad. I totally misinterpreted that. Uh, ignore that part of what I wrote. I swear to god I'm not as stupid as I may seem right now.

your not an idiot, your like the 4th person (myself included) to think that.

i think neo's just too damn smart.. i asked like four people around here and they thought the same thing

Well, Every individual has the right to give up whenever they want. After all, to put it... shoddily, it is their life. Who would you be then to say "No, you don't get to quit"? Of course, if the person has a non painful terminal illness they are fairly unlikely to request Euthanasia. After all, it only usually arises when the person is in intense pain, and is unable to take their own life, for example Mrs Pretty, who suffered from Motor Neuron disease and was unable to take her own life. She petitioned the British courts for her husband to be allowed to assist the suicide, but it was rejected. If active euthanasia was in place, such a petition would not have been necessary, and a lot of heartache could have been avoided. If someone who has a terminal illness wishes to end their life, and has the capacity, would you rather you did nothing, which could result in them taking their own life, or would you do what you could to ease their passing?

As for ensuring that they are in a correct state of mind, it isn't something that you can do to any true degree of accuracy, but if they are in such pain that it is only bearable with that amount of drugs pumped into the person and they are still saying yes to euthanasia, it's hardly something that's liable to change when you remove the drugs, no?

Don't worry, mate, from what I'd seen so far it didn't look like you were stupid, just mislead. I probably should have included the definitions in my first post anyway.
Nah, I should have known better. Heck, I've even formally debated euthanasia before. But I was the pro side then. I won. Obviously I'm much better at arguing in favor of it than I am at arguing against it.

Well, Every individual has the right to give up whenever they want. After all, to put it... shoddily, it is their life.
"It's my life...
and it's now or never
I ain't gonna live forever...
I just wanna live while I'm alive"

Quick, tranq me. I'm singing a Bon Jovi song!

Nah, I should have known better. Heck, I've even formally debated euthanasia before. But I was the pro side then. I won. Obviously I'm much better at arguing in favor of it than I am at arguing against it.

out of curiousity - which do you belive? from the sound of your first post, your for euthanasia, but i could be wrong

"It's my life...
and it's now or never
I ain't gonna live forever...
I just wanna live while I'm alive"

Quick, tranq me. I'm singing a Bon Jovi song!

We've got a live one!
*fires the elephant tranqs*

Damn Bon Jovi singers. Don't they realise the harm they do to the environment? Some people have no respect. None at all.

"It's my life...
and it's now or never
I ain't gonna live forever...
I just wanna live while I'm alive"

Quick, tranq me. I'm singing a Bon Jovi song!

heh, i never knew what the hell he was saying in that last line.. granted i never really cared, but eh - i love trivia.. i know now if someone asks me.

heh, i never knew what the hell he was saying in that last line.. granted i never really cared, but eh - i love trivia.. i know now if someone asks me.
I know, that line is impossible to understand...
It seems to be general consensus that the line is what I put there though. I'm not sure...

Hooray for random trivia!

"It's my life...
and it's now or never
I ain't gonna live forever...
I just wanna live while I'm alive"

Quick, tranq me. I'm singing a Bon Jovi song!
As a resident of New Jersey I am required by law to defend every famous person to ever come from the Garden State. You wish your state had someone as talented as Bon Jovi! He is a legend of rock! I don't really care for Bon Jovi.

But back to euthanasia. By legalizing it, you create all sorts of sticky situations. What constitutes euthanasia? If my friend is sick and wants to die and I shoot him in the head, is that euthanasia? Or does a doctor have to do it? Is there a procedure they would have to follow? Is the will of the family considered, or only the individual? How do you decide what circumstances allow for euthanasia?

As to whether or not I am for or against euthanasia. I know this is gonna sound really bad, but I don't really care. It's kinda like abortion. It hasn't personally affected me, so I haven't had any real reason to form an opinion. I suppose that makes me a defacto pro-euthanasia person, because if they made it a law it wouldn't phase me one way or the other.

But back to euthanasia. By legalizing it, you create all sorts of sticky situations. What constitutes euthanasia? If my friend is sick and wants to die and I shoot him in the head, is that euthanasia? Or does a doctor have to do it? Is there a procedure they would have to follow? Is the will of the family considered, or only the individual? How do you decide what circumstances allow for euthanasia?

i guess it would be easier to put it in a doctors hands, and have a sorta checklist.. like is it terminal, is it cureable, does this person have much time, is the person in quite a lot of pain, among other things..

sorry, im kinda sleepy, and finding it hard to form a corherant sentence.

and as for your it not affecting you either way, its not bad, it makes sense. just not all people think that way

Well, in cases of active Euthanasia, the will of the family is not really of any consequence, and yes, if it were to be legalised it would have to follow a procedure, and couldn't be performed by a friend shooting the patient in the head. It would have to be performed by a doctor, and only after it has been made as sure as can be that they desire to be euthanised. In cases of passive euthanasia, then preferably some statement written by the patient before the incident would be taken over the family, but only if it can be proven, kept in the will, for example, but in most cases it should be down to doctors recommendation, and the family's will. if the Doctor is sure that the patient is not going to recover, but the family is against this, then the doctor could, with say, a judges decision, over-ride the families will. However, the family would be obeyed until such a decision was reached. The same goes for the opposite, where the doctor believes there can be a recovery, and the family want the life support turned off.

I'm going to be honest. I really can't argue against euthanasia anymore. Don't have it in me. I just don't care enough. I'm sorry for those of you who wanted a lively debate. I have failed you all.

I'm going to be honest. I really can't argue against euthanasia anymore. Don't have it in me. I just don't care enough. I'm sorry for those of you who wanted a lively debate. I have failed you all.

eh, no problems. Playing devils advocate is always much more difficult, and I realise that competing against my invincible intellect is an impossible task. Ahah. ah ahah. I think failing us all is putting it a little harshly though, mm?

eh, no problems. Playing devils advocate is always much more difficult, and I realise that competing against my invincible intellect is an impossible task. Ahah. ah ahah. I think failing us all is putting it a little harshly though, mm?
I am the king of melodrama.

Also, not only am I your long lost twin, but I am pregnant with your babies. That's right, babies. More twins!

More twins? Ahhhh, I was told I shoulda stopped after the last time.

£1000? £2000?

More twins? Ahhhh, I was told I shoulda stopped after the last time.

£1000? £2000?
Hey, are we moving on to abortion now? Because, as I already said, I could care less about that issue as well.

No, not that. Something far more black and white. Bribery.
I'm offering you money not to sell your story to the paper.

Should I be feeling guilty about hijacking the thread like this for utter nonsense?

No. I'm just bumping it. That's it. Bump!

I think euthanasia should be legalized because to me it is about personal choice. If someone is dying and the rest of their days will be filled with excruciating pain, they shouldn't have to live like that if they don't want to. As has been mentioned already, we allow this for our pets, why not for our loved ones?

I wonder which two voted "Ending a life is always wrong"?

I wonder which two voted "Ending a life is always wrong"?

The Pope... and GWB. Because they do nothing else than cruise general. Prove they don't!

So, should the euthanasia be legalized?I hope you are not talking about "The Church of Euthanasia"...

The Pope... and GWB. Because they do nothing else than cruise general. Prove they don't!

Sorry the onus of proof is on you to show that they do, but as two people did vote "Ending a life is always wrong" you are already one step on the way to proving it.

I hope you are not talking about "The Church of Euthanasia"...
?
Did you read my post?
Euthanasia as in mercy death by choice, to try to describe it in as few words as possible, cause I'm lazy. That's what I'm talking about.

The CoE is hurting euthanasia advocates by demonizing us all in the eyes of the media, IMHO. But whatever floats their boat...

Sorry the onus of proof is on you to show that they do, but as two people did vote "Ending a life is always wrong" you are already one step on the way to proving it.

Fine. I did some investigative journalism, and here's what I found out.

"My interview with tha POPE."

Mr Pope sir. We know you are a very busy man.

Whu?

You. The Pope.

I'm the Pope?

Yup. And you owe me £5.

Oh. Here you go.

Thank you Popus. What I wanted to ask is very simple. What do you do all day?

Cruise the general forum on ns, voting in polls, before running away in glee at the chaos I caused.

Case closed.


"My interview with GWB."

El Presidente!

HAW HAW HAW, that's me.

Pleased to meet you, Mister president. Could you sign this photograph?

Sure, who should I make it out to?

Just write "I spend all day cruising the general forum on nationstates, voting in polls."

*GW signs*

Thank you Mr President.


I submit to you, Alien Born, the undisputable proof that these two people spend all day crusing the general forum on nationstates voting in polls.

I am against it! For real! Wheee, someone to flame!

But, really. I used to be all for euthanasia until I read up on all the cons to prepare myself for a highschool debate on the subject. I am for the principle of choosing over one's own life/death, but the thing is just that - you can NEVER be 100% sure that the choice made IS the independent choice of the patient. If euthanasia was to be commonly accepted, I think that terminally ill people would see themselves as a burden to the healthcare system by staying alive, and therefore be more inclined towards having themselves euthanized. Also, I believe that less money would be spent to ensure the living standard of the last years in people's lives.

So, well, yeah. To me, it's a question of which is the worst - being terminally ill and not being able to die, or being "put down" because of guilt or pressure from society.

Also, forgive my poor English...I am tired and foreign.

It is allready fully legal...

It is allready fully legal...

Where? In the US? If that is the case, I had no idea.

Where? In the US? If that is the case, I had no idea.
Belgium

Belgium

Sorry, but I seem to have missed the point.