NationStates Jolt Archive

what are your views on euthanasia, is it legal in your country?

Its legal in my country!

dirt

It's legalized in my Nationstate. =P

If you're dying, and you're in pain, there's no reason you shouldn't be allowed to die of your own choice.

If you're dying and there's no reasonable way to save you, you should be able to choose to go off life support. If you're not dying, suicide's not the answer.

but then again what if an elderly person gets preserised by family/friends to die to lower the burden to look after them

If that's discovered, then the family should be charged with manslughter or murder.

It's not legal in my country, but I'm definitely in favor.

but then again what if an elderly person gets preserised by family/friends to die to lower the burden to look after them

*shrugs* It's still his decision.

Though that's an interesting aspect - would old age be considered for euthanasia? If the guy's gonna die within ten years, during which he'll be losing his sight, hearing, memory, respect, bowel control, why shouldn't he be able to decide to die?

Define the question. Are we talking about active or passive euthanasia? Voluntary, non-voluntary or involuntary?

"Do you want your grandmother to die in a sterile, airless hospital surrounded by strangers, or do you want her to meet Chuck Norris?" - Bill Hicks.

If you're dying and there's no reasonable way to save you, you should be able to choose to go off life support. If you're not dying, suicide's not the answer.

I think I'd like something more direct then measures like removing feeding tubses and such. Slowly starving to death is not the way to go. A little injection maybe... potassium choride is it? Make it fast.

If there is no possible way to help then i suppose that it's right....who wants to suffer, right??
KILLER JESUITS! :mp5:

I think I'd like something more direct then measures like removing feeding tubses and such. Slowly starving to death is not the way to go. A little injection maybe... potassium choride is it? Make it fast.

Absolutely - it's inhumane to do otherwise.

what are your views on euthanasia, is it legal in your country?
Euthanasia isn't legal in the US. I don't have strong views on it either way, but I do think that if someone is in continual pain with no hope of it ever ending or being ameliorated, it would be merciful to allow them to make the decision to end their life. The major problem I have with euthanasia in general is that medical science is proceeding at such a rapid pace that what is fatal today may not be fatal tomorrow.

Euthanasia falls into the same category as the death penalty in some ways: ending a life, whether voluntarily or involuntarily is an irreversable step. Whoever decides to end one needs to have their facts straight.

Euthanasia isn't legal in the US. I don't have strong views on it either way, but I do think that if someone is in continual pain with no hope of it ever ending or being ameliorated, it would be merciful to allow them to make the decision to end their life. The major problem I have with euthanasia in general is that medical science is proceeding at such a rapid pace that what is fatal today may not be fatal tomorrow.

Euthanasia falls into the same category as the death penalty in some ways: ending a life, whether voluntarily or involuntarily is an irreversable step. Whoever decides to end one needs to have their facts straight.


This is pretty much the view I share as well. Thanks for writing it for me :D

If you're dying and there's no reasonable way to save you, you should be able to choose to go off life support. If you're not dying, suicide's not the answer.

It illegal here. I agree completely to that (the quote above), but even if there is the smallest chance to live, (even if it's in pain) and I would try everthing to help. The patiant might want otherwise but he is proably not thinking clearly, and I couldn't morally kill him. (However he can always refuse treatment :( .)

Edit: This is IF i was a doctor. which I'm not, though I'm applying to med school.

It illegal here. I agree completely to that (the quote above), but even if there is the smallest chance to live, (even if it's in pain) and I would try everthing to help. The patiant might want otherwise but he is proably not thinking clearly, and I couldn't morally kill him. (However he can always refuse treatment :( .)

Edit: This is IF i was a doctor. which I'm not, though I'm applying to med school.

But what kind of quality of life would somebody have if they were in constant, terrible pain? I'd take death any day.

I'm totally in favor of them. I think the youth in Asia are our best hope for understanding in the future. The youth in Asia are very pro-western and believe a lot of the same things we do, like freedom of the press. :)







Sorry. :(

That was stupid. :(

I apologize if I wasted any momenst of your lives with that and i wish i could give them back. :(

I'm totally in favor of them. I think the youth in Asia are our best hope for understanding in the future. The youth in Asia are very pro-western and believe a lot of the same things we do, like freedom of the press. :)







Sorry. :(

That was stupid. :(

I apologize if I wasted any momenst of your lives with that and i wish i could give them back. :(

BOO!!! GET OFF!!!

*lobs rotten fruit while covertly noting down the joke for future use*

I think I'd like something more direct then measures like removing feeding tubses and such. Slowly starving to death is not the way to go. A little injection maybe... potassium choride is it? Make it fast.I'd agree with you, but I'm a little leery of things that go too quickly. There's no chance to change your mind... life is a beautiful thing, and people may not realize how much they value even the little they have until it's too late.

BOO!!! GET OFF!!!

*lobs rotten fruit while covertly noting down the joke for future use*
I'm here Tuesdays and Thursdays at 7 PM. Thank you, thank, you. I love you all. :p

I'd agree with you, but I'm a little leery of things that go too quickly. There's no chance to change your mind... life is a beautiful thing, and people may not realize how much they value even the little they have until it's too late.

I'm sure you would have had plenty of time to think on your decision before you choose to take that ultimate step. I can't imagine what it must be like for those in end-stage diseases who are in constant horrific pain and knowing you will be dead very soon anyway... why suffer if you don't want to?

Define the question. Are we talking about active or passive euthanasia? Voluntary, non-voluntary or involuntary?

Against involuntary euthanasia.

My wife had a best friend who was in the hospital, dying of cancer. She was involuntarily euthanised.

From what she told me about the family, I believe the woman's son may have had it done so that he could inherit quicker.

I believe that will turn out to be the greatest use made of it, if made legal in the USA.

Too many greedy relatives. And medicine changes the outlook every day.

I had a friend who fell out of a car while traveling at high speed on a freeway. He was a sleeping passenger, and the door evidently wasn't locked, much less completely closed. Anyway, they said he was too brain damaged to come out of the coma, let alone to ever walk or even talk again. He woke up, and went on to get his MBA, and is now a CPA. And every year, when he goes into the hospital for his brain checkup, all the doctors and nurses crowd in to see the miracle.

Some people want to hang on, no matter what the pain or the circumstances. They should be allowed to do so, not given the boot. After all, death is irreversible, at least in this world.

I am not sure. My husband has a chronic disease, and it's possible that at some point in the future (hopefully when he is like 160, but not likely that far off) that he will be in a position that there is nothing that can be done to help him, where he will be in pain, misery, and more pain waiting to die. I shudder to think about that happening at all, but it's a very real possibility. If that happened I would want him to have the option (although I know he wouldn't take it) to end his life before things got worse. (now, I am going to cry)

I see people like my family though, and I know for a fact that one of them could probably talk just about anyone into killing themselves (when my mom had a heart attack 2 weeks ago she talked her into signing a DNR and when I got to the hospital I asked my mom about it and she said "I don't know, she thought it would be a good idea, so you could get a car with my life insurance or something) it's then that I worry that if someone really is very sick they could also be very suseptible to being taken advantage of by someone with less than pure motives.

so yeah, I don't know. I am going to agree with Eut.'s take on it.

I only agree with involuntary euthanasia if the patient is beyond medicine's reach; if the person would be suffering if they were awake. Otherwise, if they don't agree, then leavethem be.

Voluntary euthanasia is another issue entirely. If the person truly feels that they are in pain, they should have the right to end their own life.

In my opinion the only person allowed to decide if the life of person X is worth continuing is person X him/herself. Which means that if X has a clear wish to end his/her life, expressed over a prolonged period of time - X should have the right to die.

but then again what if an elderly person gets preserised by family/friends to die to lower the burden to look after them

That is why you have laws and rights to define your desires in such matters.

In my opinion the only person allowed to decide if the life of person X is worth continuing is person X him/herself. Which means that if X has a clear wish to end his/her life, expressed over a prolonged period of time - X should have the right to die.

It not as simple as that. Person X may not be able to make an informed choice (although he dose know what he is feeling.). Also Person X might not be able to make a choice, leaving person Y to make the choice for them. (I disagree with that thought)

It not as simple as that. Person X may not be able to make an informed choice (although he dose know what he is feeling.).

That is why I included a prolonged period of time clause - to prevent rash decisions caused by for instance being dumped.
However, even if his (lets assume male) motives would seem silly to me, I do not think I have a right to actually stop him from dying if he truly wants to. Informed choice or not.
I could of course *try* to get him informed, try to persuade him not to do it... but no forbidding.

Also Person X might not be able to make a choice, leaving person Y to make the choice for them. (I disagree with that thought)

So do I - unless person X explicetly gave person Y that power (e.g. in writing beforehand).

That is why I included a prolonged period of time clause - to prevent rash decisions caused by for instance being dumped.
However, even if his (lets assume male) motives would seem silly to me, I do not think I have a right to actually stop him from dying if he truly wants to. Informed choice or not. I could of course *try* to get him informed, try to persuade him not to do it... but no forbidding.
If euthanasia every did become legal here I think that would be the best way about going around it. Still I think there might be a few case scenarios where I would forbid it, like cases where doctors can, if needed, practice medicine on patience who don't want it because of psycological disorder and what-not.

I believe that a person's most fundamental right is to his/her body/life. They may do whatever they wish to their body as long as it does not affect others, including killing themselves, for whatever reason, whether in pain or not. However, if a person is in a coma, the person who is paying the bills for life support, hospital, etc., should be able to decide whether to kill them or prolong their "life."

We kill animals don't we. A human should suffer more than an animal?

We kill animals don't we. A human should suffer more than an animal?

If he wants to - yes. If he doesn't - no.

If a person is dying and competent (or made their wishes known while they were competent) then I see no reason why voluntary active euthanasia should be illegal.

It's technically illegal in Australia but it's an open secret that semi-active euthanasia goes on in hospitals- ie the dosing of patients with morphine to kill pain, with the knowledge that it will eventually lead to respiratory arrest. As long as the "primary aim" is not to kill it's legal. Basically this just promotes a lot of semantic debate around the law.

I'm only in favour of voluntary euthanasia in the case of terminally ill patients. You shouldn't kill yourself just because you've got a scar. And noone should kill you either. No matter how big your inheritance is.

I'm only in favour of voluntary euthanasia in the case of terminally ill patients. You shouldn't kill yourself just because you've got a scar.

And what gives you the right to make that decision on someone elses behalf ?

And what gives you the right to make that decision on someone elses behalf ?
I think that if they're not terminal and they want to kill themselves, they can go ahead and do it, but it's not really a doctor's place to do it. Although... hmmm... muddy area. :p

I believe that a person's most fundamental right is to his/her body/life. They may do whatever they wish to their body as long as it does not affect others, including killing themselves, for whatever reason, whether in pain or not.

So following your reasoning I guess if I'm away at college I'm not allowed to get a tatoo if I want it because it could affect my parents in a negative way?