NationStates Jolt Archive

After reading a lengthy debate on the topic of euthenasia, i just want to know whether or not people think it should be legal.

This topic could best be likened to the name of your nation...

Argh... I'm really uncomfortable with the idea of killing grown human beings... :(
I haven't really decided on the issue. I regard killing people as wrong. Letting people live in intense suffering is wrong too. I haven't been able to decide which is worse.

Yes.

Argh... I'm really uncomfortable with the idea of killing grown human beings... :(
I haven't really decided on the issue. I regard killing people as wrong. Letting people live in intense suffering is wrong too. I haven't been able to decide which is worse.
The biggest logical arguemnt against legislating for euthenasia, is the issue of concent. We are typically talking about severly disabled elderly persons, whom are clearly unable to concent to a legally binding agreement. Which government sanctioned euthanasia would be.

That said, the practice of assisted suicide is rarely prosecuted and should remain that way.

Depends entirly on the situation. If there is no chance to be saved, and your just going to suffer, it should be, but if there is a fairly good chance of it being able to be cured, it shouldn't.

I think that euthenasia should be legal but doctors shouldn't be compelled to help, their role is to save life, not end it.

yes. HELL DAMN YES.

Yes, because to not allow someone the right to kill themselves is taking away their personal freedom.

I don't think it should be done if the person is mentally unstable or otherwise incapable of rationally making the decision (ie in a coma, diagnosed mental disorder, etc). But if a sane, mentally stable person asks a doctor for it, they should receive.

Who is the government or anyone else to tell me what to do with MY life?

After reading a lengthy debate on the topic of euthenasia, i just want to know whether or not people think it should be legal.

It is my opinion that the only person that is allowed to decide if he/she (I'll stick with male) wants to live on or not is that person himself. If someone therefor really wishes to die and repeats this wish over a prolonged period of time (to avoid euthanising someone that just broke up with their girlfriend), I think assisting him with his suicide should be legal. After all, it is *his* life.

I also think it should be broader than just in the case of suffering. Sacrificing oneself for another (a father giving up his heart to save his son) for instance seems quite noble to me - and one can argue that Jesus did the same when he allowed the Romans to crucify him. I can also imagine that someone who is 85 years old and has had a fruitful life can have the feeling he is "done", even though he would still be able to do lots of things and live a relatively healthy life for another decade. But why should he be forced to do so ?

I think that euthenasia should be legal but doctors shouldn't be compelled to help, their role is to save life, not end it.

Correction: the doctors role is to "do no harm". Life and death are both neutral concepts, it is the person experiencing them who decides if they are good or bad. And if someone decides that a shorter life is "less harmful" to him than a long life, it is the doctors duty to help him.

In theory I agree with the concept of euthanasia, but only for people who are not able bodied - they should be able to commit suicide by themselves, only for people with terminal illnesses. In my view, people who get a terminal illness should be allowed to sign a document while they are still of sound mind stating at which stage they would like to be assisted with dying.... in which case, their doctor should help them do it painlessly....

Provided I am not attempting to commit a crime (such as insurance fraud), can the government legally stop me from:

-Tearing the page out of a book I own?
-Burning a painting of my own creation?
-Deleting the manuscript of a novel I spent 10 years writing?
-Purchasing an old clunker and keeping it in my backyard to hit with a sledgehammer as a form of tension release?
-Taking my old fridge out into the desert and shooting it full of holes?

If these items belong to me, then noone can legally stop me or punish me. So if I can be punished by the government for suicide... does that mean they own my body??
If my body is my property (and I dare anyone to produce a Bill of Sale to dispute it), then I should be allowed to do anything I want with it, including destroy it... or provide someone else (like a doctor, perhaps?) monetary compensation for assisting me in its' destruction.

My $.02

Trout out!

Provided I am not attempting to commit a crime (such as insurance fraud), can the government legally stop me from:

-Tearing the page out of a book I own?
-Burning a painting of my own creation?
-Deleting the manuscript of a novel I spent 10 years writing?
-Purchasing an old clunker and keeping it in my backyard to hit with a sledgehammer as a form of tension release?
-Taking my old fridge out into the desert and shooting it full of holes?Depending on how old the fridge is and what sorts of dangerous substances might be released in the process, yes. :p

-snip-
Correction: the doctors role is to "do no harm". Life and death are both neutral concepts, it is the person experiencing them who decides if they are good or bad. And if someone decides that a shorter life is "less harmful" to him than a long life, it is the doctors duty to help him.

You can quibble about the wording if you like but nobody should be compelled to end another's life. If somebody is willing to help then great but it should be a voluntary thing.

You can quibble about the wording if you like but nobody should be compelled to end another's life. If somebody is willing to help then great but it should be a voluntary thing.

Why ? If a doctor is unwilling to put the patients needs before his own he is unfit to be a doctor in my opinion.

The biggest logical arguemnt against legislating for euthenasia, is the issue of concent. We are typically talking about severly disabled elderly persons, whom are clearly unable to concent to a legally binding agreement. Which government sanctioned euthanasia would be.

That said, the practice of assisted suicide is rarely prosecuted and should remain that way.
dude, euthenasia is defined as: "assisted suicide under the consent of the individual" and it's MOSTLY the disabled, or terminally ill

Argh... I'm really uncomfortable with the idea of killing grown human beings... :(
I haven't really decided on the issue. I regard killing people as wrong. Letting people live in intense suffering is wrong too. I haven't been able to decide which is worse.

Hey we can kill unwanted babies, why not kill unwanted old people

I have a big problem with the "yes, but only if..." answer. Do you really think it'd stop there? I don't believe it would, but would quickly degenerate into Genetic fitness and whatnot. People would end up going "Whoops! I have some slight form of Cancer! Since all cancer is fatal, I'd better whack myself now!"

I don't trust people to make life and death decisions.

Hey we can kill unwanted babies, why not kill unwanted old peopleNote the "grown" in the quote. ;)

Hey we can kill unwanted babies, why not kill unwanted old people
have you even SEEN the news in the past 3 years? the issue of ABORTION is more controversial than euthenasia! no we CANNOT kill unwanted babies! and killing unwanted old people, just because they're in the way is MURDER not EUTHENASIA!

have you even SEEN the news in the past 3 years? the issue of ABORTION is more controversial than euthenasia! no we CANNOT kill unwanted babies! and killing unwanted old people, just because they're in the way is MURDER not EUTHENASIA!

?
sure you can kill unwanted babies

I have a big problem with the "yes, but only if..." answer. Do you really think it'd stop there? I don't believe it would, but would quickly degenerate into Genetic fitness and whatnot. People would end up going "Whoops! I have some slight form of Cancer! Since all cancer is fatal, I'd better whack myself now!"

So ? As long as they only make the decision for themselves, what's wrong with that ? Their life, their choice to end it. Why should the fact that *you* consider their motives silly be of any importance to them ?

Of course, once other people wish to decide on your behalf if you should live or die we are entering the realm of murder.

It's a difficult one, but overall, I think it should. The reason that I find the issue difficult is largely due to consent; when it gets to the stage where death may genuinely be better for the individual than death, they can't always give it. If they do have the mental capability to do so, though, then I think it's their choice. I would also say that if they have declared in the past that should they end up in such a situation that they would rather die, then they should be able to do so. However, the problem with that is that you can't guarantee they won't have changed their mind.

Add to that the potential for the abuse of the power that lies in the hands of those that would carrying out the euthanasing. That's not terribly likely, I'm sure, but who knows? Then there's the actual act of legislating for it - how exactly is it defined, what exactly can be done etc etc.

As I say, it's a difficult issue, but theoretically, yes, I think it should be legal.

yes, I pass it for most of my nations.

I have a big problem with the "yes, but only if..." answer. Do you really think it'd stop there? I don't believe it would, but would quickly degenerate into Genetic fitness and whatnot. People would end up going "Whoops! I have some slight form of Cancer! Since all cancer is fatal, I'd better whack myself now!"

I don't trust people to make life and death decisions.

What's wrong with that line of thinking? Perhaps the human race could use a little genetic cleasing.
-Down's Syndrome? * :sniper: *
-Mental retardation? * :sniper: *
-Rapist? * :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: *
-Have a history of making babies that come out physically, mentally, or genetically, deficient? *sterilization*
-Violent criminal? *Take his g'nads!*
-Didn't finish high school? *Vasectomy/ tubes tied until you get a diploma*

Extreme? Yes! But how much better off would the world be... and how little time would it actually take to see the improvement?

Trout out!

Yes

What's wrong with that line of thinking? Perhaps the human race could use a little genetic cleasing.
-Down's Syndrome? * :sniper: *
-Mental retardation? * :sniper: *
-Rapist? * :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: *
<snip>


Those things are however not euthanasia - they are implementations of the death penalty; even if they would be "mercy-killings".

Euthanasia requires the consent of the person that dies.