NationStates Jolt Archive

Feel free to Debate Euthanasia in this thread, but i have a specific.

I have a friend (yes, honest) and she keeps trying to kill herself.
Pills dont help.
Docs dont help.
And she keeps using really painful and slow methods.


...
Would it be right for me to suggest to her a painless method, cos her treatment is going nowhere and she keeps fucking it up.

Would it be right for me to suggest to her a painless method, cos her treatment is going nowhere and she keeps fucking it up.
Hell no, in my opinion.

Assuming she is mentally sound and isn't suffering from clinical depression, yes. I'd recommend a painless method.

Helium tank.. air-tight space.. lack of oxygen.

We need more information, does she have a terminal illness? Even if she does I wouldn't reccomend any method to her if I were you if only because of the guilt you'll feel if she uses it and succeeds.

no

suicide methods are easy to research. if she really was looking for quicker and less painful she could find out easily enough. that she doesnt is a symptom of her illness

she is too young for you to give up on the hope that she can be helped. there may well be a treatment that will relieve her depression and let her live a normal life.

the best thing you can do for her is to continue to be her friend and to let her know that you think your life is better for her continuing to live and be your friend.

when she really really wants out she will choose a fast and sure method and there will be nothing you can do to stop it. dont bring that day any closer.

Would it be right for me to suggest to her a painless method, cos her treatment is going nowhere and she keeps fucking it up.

Yes.

Else she will probably end up throwing herself in front of a train, which will not only be very messy, but also cause big delays. And I hate delays.

On a serious note: if people want to kill themselves, I'm all for it. If doctors do it for them it will be less painfull and it will also cost the tax payers less money.

there is never a right time for Euthanasia as you can see your friend isn't being helped by the treatment but why should she just give up imagine if every sufferer of leprosy had killed themselves would there be a cure? no because there would be no demand and no person able to test out the treatment

rest assured I think the doctors are trying everything they can don’t go round thinking that nothing can be done or nothing is being done otherwise you may end up assisting suicide just as your friend recovers

k.
I dunno, she sees lots of Doctors and the whole thing started cos she made a joke
"So how would you commit suicide?"
"Id take an overdose of anti-depressents, duuh."
"..."

They took her seriously and then everyone was meanto her and shit.


...


life sucks.

And she keeps using really painful and slow methods.
...
Would it be right for me to suggest to her a painless method, cos her treatment is going nowhere and she keeps fucking it up.
Why do you think suggesting a painless method would help? It's not difficult to find out about easy ways to commit suicide (or even work them out yourself), so the fact that she chooses slow and painful methods suggests she's not actually committed to dying - if you really wanted to die you'd wouldn't use a slow methods that gave people time to discover you.

Much as I dislike psychiatrists, persudaing her to keep seeing one of them would be the best course of action here. Regardless of whether you believe depression is a disease, it certainly has some underlying cause (whether physical or mental) and she needs to understand what this is to be able to make progress. It takes time, and she'll need support, but it sounds like you'll be there for her.

life sucks.
Does not :p .

I'm all for Youth in Asia
lol

On a serious note: if people want to kill themselves, I'm all for it. If doctors do it for them it will be less painfull and it will also cost the tax payers less money.

So you agree that people who want to kill themselves should die. Then so should people with cancer, AIDS, or any other life-threatening disease/virus, regardless of chance to live.

Clinical depression is as much a medical condition as cancer is, and a lot of people make throught clinical depression without killing themselves. Now you are telling me that while they're mentally impaired and want to kill themselves, they should?

Forgive me for saying this, but you are a monster.

ADDED:

And in case you start getting all offended at my remark, I'm clinically depressed. A few months ago I had recurring suicidal thoughts, and even attempted it once (only to be foiled by a locked door to the roof). Now I'm over those suicidal tendencies, and am happily enjoying life (most of the time), and will be a productive member of society. You mean to tell me that while I had suicidal thoughts due to my mental illness, I deserved to die? Simply because of an illness that is not my fault?

So you agree that people who want to kill themselves should die. Then so should people with cancer, AIDS, or any other life-threatening disease/virus, regardless of chance to live.

Clinical depression is as much a medical condition as cancer is, and a lot of people make throught clinical depression without killing themselves. Now you are telling me that while they're mentally impaired and want to kill themselves, they should?

Forgive me for saying this, but you are a monster.

One needn't be clinically depressed to desire death.

One needn't be clinically depressed to desire death.

I know, but his comments addressed *all* suicidal people. I've left aside the non-clinically depressed suicidal people (supposedly deserving to die), but he implied all, meaning including clinically depressed suicidal people.

Would it be right for me to suggest to her a painless method, cos her treatment is going nowhere and she keeps fucking it up.Yes. Assuming she is reasonably sane and rational (or a hopeless, irreversible case of the opposite), you could just as well make things easier for her and give her your support.

EDIT: It's not difficult to find out about easy ways to commit suicide (or even work them out yourself), so the fact that she chooses slow and painful methods suggests she's not actually committed to dying - if you really wanted to die you'd wouldn't use a slow methods that gave people time to discover you.
A good point. IMO, if she sits on the fence and can't really decide whether to really go for it and die, or to live on, then help her make up her mind as soon as possible, so that she can either die or recover ASAP.

Feel free to Debate Euthanasia in this thread, but i have a specific.

I have a friend (yes, honest) and she keeps trying to kill herself.
Pills dont help.
Docs dont help.
And she keeps using really painful and slow methods.


...
Would it be right for me to suggest to her a painless method, cos her treatment is going nowhere and she keeps fucking it up.

If you suggest a painless method and she kills herself, she will have NO chance of recovering and continuing on with her life (because she will be dead).

If you try to help her and the pills and docs that don't help keep working on it, she has SOME (however small) chance of recovering and continuing on with her life.

Which do you think is better?

I know, but his comments addressed *all* suicidal people. I've left aside the non-clinically depressed suicidal people (supposedly deserving to die), but he implied all, meaning including clinically depressed suicidal people.

No, he said people. He did not specify, so you're assuming people means all people.

No, he said people. He did not specify, so you're assuming people means all people.

Yes, and I believe that is a logical assumption.

If I say black people are criminals, do I not imply "all black people" and make an unwarranted generalization?

Yes, and I believe that is a logical assumption.

If I say black people are criminals, do I not imply "all black people" and make an unwarranted generalization?

It's still an assumption. Calling him a monster without knowing for sure is absurd.

I wouldn't suggest any method to her. Even if she is trying to kill herself, telling her the best way to do it doesn't seem like the right thing to do.

When talking about Euthanasia in cases like the Dorothy issue that Nations get, I agree with it 100%. When somebody is brain dead, I think the family should be able to make the decision. Although, I'm unsure about terminal illnesses, because there is always the chance for a cure.

It's still an assumption. Calling him a monster without knowing for sure is absurd.

However, it is socially acceptable to assume someone saying "black people are criminals" is making a generalization, therefore justifying calling them a monster, isn't it?

I don't think non-racist people would have a problem with denouncing a person saying "black people are criminals", even though they are (supposedly) assuming that person means "all black people".

So you agree that people who want to kill themselves should die. Then so should people with cancer, AIDS, or any other life-threatening disease/virus, regardless of chance to live.

Clinical depression is as much a medical condition as cancer is, and a lot of people make throught clinical depression without killing themselves. Now you are telling me that while they're mentally impaired and want to kill themselves, they should?

Forgive me for saying this, but you are a monster.

ADDED:

And in case you start getting all offended at my remark, I'm clinically depressed. A few months ago I had recurring suicidal thoughts, and even attempted it once (only to be foiled by a locked door to the roof). Now I'm over those suicidal tendencies, and am happily enjoying life (most of the time), and will be a productive member of society. You mean to tell me that while I had suicidal thoughts due to my mental illness, I deserved to die? Simply because of an illness that is not my fault?
I don't think people in favor of euthanasia would say that it is ok for someone to choose to die if they were not able to make rational decisions. People usually make these decisions on euthanasia before their disease alters their judgement. For instance, if it could be foreseen that it would become too painful for them to endure or if they would be reduced to a vegatative state.

I don't think people in favor of euthanasia would say that it is ok for someone to choose to die if they were not able to make rational decisions. People usually make these decisions on euthanasia before their disease alters their judgement. For instance, if it becomes too painful for them to endure or if the would be reduced to a vegatative state.

I agree with euthanasia for people in a persistent vegetative state, but absolutely not for regular people who want to die. If they want to die, there's something wrong with them mentally, and they need help. Killing them is murder; because they have a life-threatening condition which could kill them doesn't justify killing them.

I agree with euthanasia for people in a persistent vegetative state, but absolutely not for regular people who want to die. If they want to die, there's something wrong with them mentally, and they need help. Killing them is murder; because they have a life-threatening condition which could kill them doesn't justify killing them.
I agree with you partly. People who have severe depression but can get help for it, should not be allowed to commit suicide in a medical environment. I differ with you when it comes to a life-threatening situation in which there is no hope of recovery. If all a person has to look forward to is ever increasing pain with no hope of getting better, I believe that person should have the right to say when enough is enough.

However, it is socially acceptable to assume someone saying "black people are criminals" is making a generalization, therefore justifying calling them a monster, isn't it?

I don't think non-racist people would have a problem with denouncing a person saying "black people are criminals", even though they are (supposedly) assuming that person means "all black people".

Yes, black people. You're getting specific, though still general. People is so broad that when someone says something using it as the subject, it should be obvious that he doesn't mean all people. At the least, it does not justify calling one a monster.

"People are criminals." Sounds kind of odd, doesn't it? You're most likely to ask, "what people are you talking about?"

We must agree on the definition of 'people' that he was referring to, however. Does he include the depressed, the mentally handicapped, as people?

I agree with you partly. People who have severe depression but can get help for it, should not be allowed to commit suicide in a medical environment. I differ with you when it comes to a life-threatening situation in which there is no hope of recovery. If all a person has to look forward to is ever increasing pain with no hope of getting better, I believe that person should have the right to say when enough is enough.

[applause]

I agree with you partly. People who have severe depression but can get help for it, should not be allowed to commit suicide in a medical environment. I differ with you when it comes to a life-threatening situation in which there is no hope of recovery. If all a person has to look forward to is ever increasing pain with no hope of getting better, I believe that person should have the right to say when enough is enough.

I did not state an opinion about that clause.

But while we're at it, I'm going to. There's always a chance. Why do you think doctors aren't allowed to kill people when they're hours away from dying from cancer? It's because there's a chance, however slim, that a cure might be created, and be handed out quickly.

We must agree on the definition of 'people' that he was referring to, however. Does he include the depressed, the mentally handicapped, as people?

If he doesn't, he's a monster anyways :p

[applause]
My girlfriend's grandfather will be passing this afternoon. He's suffered his fourth heart attack and has severely advanced alzheimers. He's been on life support for about a week now.

I did not state an opinion about that clause.

But while we're at it, I'm going to. There's always a chance. Why do you think doctors aren't allowed to kill people when they're hours away from dying from cancer? It's because there's a chance, however slim, that a cure might be created, and be handed out quickly.
That is unrealistic.

My girlfriend's grandfather will be passing this afternoon. He's suffered his fourth heart attack and has severely advanced alzheimers. He's been on life support for about a week now.

:( Hope he had a good life.

That is unrealistic.

Unrealistic, but still possible. As long as the person still has a chance to live, no matter how slim, you don't have the right to take away their life.

Unrealistic, but still possible. As long as the person still has a chance to live, no matter how slim, you don't have the right to take away their life.
I wouldn't take away their life. I'd leave it up to them.

:( Hope he had a good life.
He seems to have had one. I've never met him. He was an artist and from what I hear he had a great sense of humor. We have one of his paintings in our apartment.

I wouldn't take away their life. I'd leave it up to them.

Same thing. Suicide is illegal. Why? You're taking away a life when you have no right to. The same, they would have no right to take away a life that still has a chance of living.

So you agree that people who want to kill themselves should die. Then so should people with cancer, AIDS, or any other life-threatening disease/virus, regardless of chance to live.

Clinical depression is as much a medical condition as cancer is, and a lot of people make throught clinical depression without killing themselves. Now you are telling me that while they're mentally impaired and want to kill themselves, they should?

Forgive me for saying this, but you are a monster.

Monster. Hmmm, no can't say I've called that before. I've had words like "fool", "nutcase", "gay", "flamer", "stupid person", etc. thrown at me, but never "Monster". I guess I can add it to the list of "meant to be"-insults.

And I never said people that all people with suicidal tendencies - be they clinically depressed or not - should kill themselves. I was merely talking about the person, the female friend of Europa alpha, in question in this thread. But since you obviously want to induce a discussion about my ideas upon this thesis, I shall give you my thoughts.


Yes. People that are mentally impaired and want to kill themselves should happily do so. The mere fact that they are mentally impaired - or "clinically depressed" - indicates they are weak. Weak enough to justify that when they want to remove themselves from the genepool it can only be a good thing.


And in case you start getting all offended at my remark, I'm clinically depressed. A few months ago I had recurring suicidal thoughts, and even attempted it once (only to be foiled by a locked door to the roof). Now I'm over those suicidal tendencies, and am happily enjoying life (most of the time), and will be a productive member of society. You mean to tell me that while I had suicidal thoughts due to my mental illness, I deserved to die? Simply because of an illness that is not my fault?

Well, good for you. Until you get a relapse, fall back into a clinically depressed state of mind and take another few thousand (insert currency here)s to get you back upon your feet.

And yes, when you had suicidal thoughts and wanted to kill yourself you should've done so. Except you missed my point there, the point in which I stated that killing yourself should be done without intervening with other peoples lifes. I also stated that doctors can help with that. Doctors are there to help you ;)

Because when you jump off a building, try to get run down by a car/train/truck/bike/pedestrian and/or try to cut/shoot/smack yourself to death you are not only being suicidal, but also a self-centered and asocial person. Since you create a mess, cause delay, traffic jams and usurp taxes.

You mean to tell me that while I had suicidal thoughts due to my mental illness, I deserved to die? Simply because of an illness that is not my fault?

In addion, I never said you "deserved" to die, I said that you should kill yourself if you wanted to. It's not like I'm going to force suicidal people. I'm just asking that you keep it clean.

And I do not know wether or not your "illness" is your fault or not, since I do not know what the diagnosis was, nor do I know what the presumed cause of it is/was.

Same thing. Suicide is illegal. Why? You're taking away a life when you have no right to. The same, they would have no right to take away a life that still has a chance of living.
Legality does not always mean morality.
There is a such thing as living under physical (not mental) torture. In these cases, I'd respect the wishes of the sufferer more than I would the wishes of someone who has faith that things will get better.

Monster. Hmmm, no can't say I've called that before. I've had words like "fool", "nutcase", "gay", "flamer", "stupid person", etc. thrown at me, but never "Monster". I guess I can add it to the list of "meant to be"-insults.

Sorry, but I got a little emotional about your comment.

And I never said people that all people with suicidal tendencies - be they clinically depressed or not - should kill themselves. I was merely talking about the person, the female friend of Europa alpha, in question in this thread. But since you obviously want to induce a discussion about my ideas upon this thesis, I shall give you my thoughts.

You said "people" implying all people. Be careful with your words in the future.

Yes. People that are mentally impaired and want to kill themselves should happily do so. The mere fact that they are mentally impaired - or "clinically depressed" - indicates they are weak. Weak enough to justify that when they want to remove themselves from the genepool it can only be a good thing.

By your logic, why do we have hospitals or doctors? People who incur illnesses are clearly weak and should die.

Likewise, you're saying that people who incur the mental illness of clinical depression with the symptom of suicidal tendencies, they should die, and it would be a "good thing" if they died.

Well, good for you. Until you get a relapse, fall back into a clinically depressed state of mind and take another few thousand (insert currency here)s to get you back upon your feet.

And yes, when you had suicidal thoughts and wanted to kill yourself you should've done so.

Why should I die because I have a mental illness? Why should people in life-threatening conditions die, if they have a chance of living?

Except you missed my point there, the point in which I stated that killing yourself should be done without intervening with other peoples lifes. I also stated that doctors can help with that. Doctors are there to help you ;)

Because when you jump off a building, try to get run down by a car/train/truck/bike/pedestrian and/or try to cut/shoot/smack yourself to death you are not only being suicidal, but also a self-centered and asocial person. Since you create a mess, cause delay, traffic jams and usurp taxes.

The killing yourself should not be done in the first place. Simply because you're not inconveniencing others doesn't justify death due to a life-threatening condition.

By your logic, a person involved in a car accident with life-threatening injuries should die, but in a way that it doesn't intervene with other people's lives, like doctors who would try to save them.

In addion, I never said you "deserved" to die, I said that you should kill yourself if you wanted to. It's not like I'm going to force suicidal people. I'm just asking that you keep it clean.

"Should" is the same as "deserve" in this case, in my opinion. If you think that I should kill myself if I wanted to, then you are saying that I deserve to die if I incur clinical depression with the symptoms of suicidal tendencies.

And I do not know wether or not your "illness" is your fault or not, since I do not know what the diagnosis was, nor do I know what the presumed cause of it is/was.

It can't be known, it just happens. That's how clinical depression is.

Legality does not always mean morality.
There is a such thing as living under physical (not mental) torture. In these cases, I'd respect the wishes of the sufferer more than I would the wishes of someone who has faith that things will get better.

In these cases, I'd respect the sufferer's chance at life more than I would the sufferer's wishes to end the pain.

If you have the flu and it's so bad that you want to die, I'm going to respect your life more than your cries for help. Likewise, while there's still a chance for life, it should be taken.

Sorry, but I got a little emotional about your comment.

It happens.

You said "people" implying all people. Be careful with your words in the future.

*makes notes*

By your logic, why do we have hospitals or doctors? People who incur illnesses are clearly weak and should die.

Yep. Survival of the fittest.
Or in this case 'least insane'.

Likewise, you're saying that people who incur the mental illness of clinical depression with the symptom of suicidal tendencies, they should die, and it would be a "good thing" if they died.

No. I said it would be a good thing if they killed themselves if they themselves wanted to. I never said they had to. Don't mingle my words please, they're generally carefully chosen.

Why should I die because I have a mental illness?

You 'should' only die if you want to. If you do not want to die, I see no reason why you should even attempt to die.

Why should people in life-threatening conditions die, if they have a chance of living?

Well, if you want to kill yourself, do so, like I said earlier. On a sidenote, I think you are awefully misinterpreting my use of the word 'should'.

The killing yourself should not be done in the first place. Simply because you're not inconveniencing others doesn't justify death due to a life-threatening condition.

The mental illness of a clinical depression is only life-threatening if you try to kill yourself.

By your logic, a person involved in a car accident with life-threatening injuries should die, but in a way that it doesn't intervene with other people's lives, like doctors who would try to save them.

No. The person should not. Unless he tried to kill himself. And yes, if that person tried to commit suicide, he should do it without intervening in people's lifes, automatically excluding death by car accident, since that can hurt other people too.

"Should" is the same as "deserve" in this case, in my opinion. If you think that I should kill myself if I wanted to, then you are saying that I deserve to die if I incur clinical depression with the symptoms of suicidal tendencies.

Yes, that is your opinion of how I used 'should' in this case, but it wasn't the intended meaning. I used 'should' as in 'preferrably would have to', rather than as in 'must' or 'are obliged to'.

It can't be known, it just happens. That's how clinical depression is.

Maybe I've had it too. In that case, I just got over it.

One who allows freedom of choice, or one who condemns others to suffer for an indefinite period because it upsets their sensibilities?

Life ain't that precious. It can be created in 2 minutes in the back of a volkswagon by people with no prior knowledge of how it works. If someone doesn't want it, why do we get to tell them otherwise?

Now that doesn't mean we shouldn't provide help in counselling and pharmatherapy whenever possible. But at the end of the day, if the person says and means "No more," then we should respect those wishes.

Feel free to Debate Euthanasia in this thread, but i have a specific.

I have a friend (yes, honest) and she keeps trying to kill herself.
Pills dont help.
Docs dont help.
And she keeps using really painful and slow methods.


...
Would it be right for me to suggest to her a painless method, cos her treatment is going nowhere and she keeps fucking it up.

I think, as has been previously mentioned, that she doesn't really want to die. So I don't think suggesting a painless method would be wise, it might indicate to her that you do want her to die (which we know is not true). If her doctor(s) isn't helping, she needs to find one who can or will. If her meds aren't helping, she needs to find meds that will. In the meantime she needs to know her friends are there for her and want her to continue to live and hopefully, someday be happy.

In these cases, I'd respect the sufferer's chance at life more than I would the sufferer's wishes to end the pain.

If you have the flu and it's so bad that you want to die, I'm going to respect your life more than your cries for help. Likewise, while there's still a chance for life, it should be taken.
Assisted suicide is usually reserved for more serious things than the flu. But taking your view into consideration, you are not the one I would go to for help. There are ways to commit suicide or to have someone help you to commit suicide if you are not able to do so yourself when put into a situation where euthanasia is called for. You are simply making it harder for the patient to do what he or she feels needs to be done and possibly putting another at risk for engaging in something which, in the eyes of the law is illegal.
It is safer and more humane to the patient of the euthanasia is carried out by a medical professional. But like back-alley abortions, when there is a will there is a way.

*snip*

You seem to be missing a key point in this debate.

Dying because of cancer is generally the same as committing suicide because of clinical depression.

I keep driving the whole "life-threatening condition" = "suicidal tendencies by clinical depression", but you consider them two different things. You, my friend, do not know what clinical depression is.

I only WANT to kill myself because I have a mental illness. A person committing suicide because of their clinical depression would (or should if it's not) be listed as a death by clinical depression, because they perished due to an illness, the same way a person would perish from cancer or AIDS.

I hope this clears things up, and maybe you should now re-read my posts, knowing that suicide because of clinical depression is a death due to an illness in the same way a death from cancer is.

One who allows freedom of choice, or one who condemns others to suffer for an indefinite period because it upsets their sensibilities?

I'm sorry, but sensibilities? I'm not even going to respond to that kind of ignorance and stupidity. I know, it's not fair, and it's Fass-like, but you pissed me off. Try READING my posts.
*scoffs* sensibilities...

Life ain't that precious. It can be created in 2 minutes in the back of a volkswagon by people with no prior knowledge of how it works. If someone doesn't want it, why do we get to tell them otherwise?

If someone doesn't want it, then there's something wrong with them mentally, and they need help. If they can be successfully recovered, then they will proceed to live and enjoy life.

A person that doesn't want to die may have that desire for only a moment, or a week, but the fact of the matter is (in almost all cases) that once they recover and realize the foolishness of their suicidal wishes, they return to living happily.

Now that doesn't mean we shouldn't provide help in counselling and pharmatherapy whenever possible. But at the end of the day, if the person says and means "No more," then we should respect those wishes.

If the person says and means "no more" that means they're still not mentally fit. How do you know it isn't just a phase where they're feeling depressed and want to kill themselves? How do you know that they can't be healed later in life and then proceed to enjoy life, deeply regretting ever wanting to end it? Because that's EXACTLY how I felt after I realized what mistake I was doing, I was slapping myself for ever thinking about doing that. Yet if someone like you would have provided me with my wishes, I wouldn't be here right now, enjoying life.

I will deny them their wishes of suicide for that reason exactly. Not for some *EXPLETIVE DELETED* "sensibilities" that you say I have.

Assisted suicide is usually reserved for more serious things than the flu. But taking your view into consideration, you are not the one I would go to for help. There are ways to commit suicide or to have someone help you to commit suicide if you are not able to do so yourself when put into a situation where euthanasia is called for. You are simply making it harder for the patient to do what he or she feels needs to be done and possibly putting another at risk for engaging in something which, in the eyes of the law is illegal.
It is safer and more humane to the patient of the euthanasia is carried out by a medical professional. But like back-alley abortions, when there is a will there is a way.

Please! You're saying that since they may find a way to do it illegally, it should be available to them legally.

That's like saying:

Since criminals are already able to buy guns off the black market, we should outright sell them weapons and save them the time.
Since druggies are already able to buy drugs off drug-dealers, we should outright sell them the drugs and save them the time.
Since suicidal people going through a phase want to commit suicide (even though we don't know that they might get better later on and enjoy life) can already commit suicide with the help of a buddy, we should outright make it legal and save them the time.

The law doesn't work like that. If you can do something illegally anyways, the law won't just go "oh since you can do that anyways, might as well make it legal".

Please! You're saying that since they may find a way to do it illegally, it should be available to them legally.

That's like saying:

Since criminals are already able to buy guns off the black market, we should outright sell them weapons and save them the time.
Since druggies are already able to buy drugs off drug-dealers, we should outright sell them the drugs and save them the time.
Since suicidal people going through a phase want to commit suicide (even though we don't know that they might get better later on and enjoy life) can already commit suicide with the help of a buddy, we should outright make it legal and save them the time.

The law doesn't work like that. If you can do something illegally anyways, the law won't just go "oh since you can do that anyways, might as well make it legal".
IF you are 86 years old, have advanced alzheimers and the only thing keeping you alive is a machine... you are not going to get better.
And actually if you look to places like the Netherlands, relaxed drug laws actually help people get off drugs. Here's a little bit of info on that issue:
http://www.cedro-uva.org/lib/reinarman.why.html

To sum up the post I wrote before, I'd break the law to support euthanasia under certain circumstances. And I'd do it with a clear conscience.

IF you are 86 years old, have advanced alzheimers and the only thing keeping you alive is a machine... you are not going to get better.
And actually if you look to places like the Netherlands, relaxed drug laws actually help people get off drugs. Here's a little bit of info on that issue:
http://www.cedro-uva.org/lib/reinarman.why.html

To sum up the post I wrote before, I'd break the law to support euthanasia under certain circumstances. And I'd do it with a clear conscience.
And to add to that, euthanasia is legal as well for cases like those. And it works quite well.

And to add to that, euthanasia is legal as well for cases like those. And it works quite well.
Well, yeah. Or else my girlfriends family would be explaining themselves to the police right now.

Euthanasia for the terminally ill is one thing, letting the suicidal go through with their aims is never something that should be allowed. That distinction should be clear to all, at least I hope so.

If a person has some sort of mental illness like clinical depression, what those close to them should do is convince them to get help. Depression can be treated and a person who has it can go on to live a relatively normal life, with medication. Someone who has a terminal illness like Lou Gehrig's Disease or something is different. If someone knows they are going to die anyway and doesn't want to spend the rest of their days in pain, they shouldn't have to. Yes, they may one day find a cure, but even when they find one, it may take years to get the FDA to approve it. When a person finds a cure, it legally cannot be administered that same day, they have to make sure it's safe. Diseases like Lou Gehrig's disease kill really fast, it usually kills within 3-5 years. If they found a cure today, it could realistically take that amount of time to be approved for public consumption. The person could very well be dead anyway before they can take it. Stephen Hawking is the exception, he has had it for 30 years, he's the only person i've heard of who has lived with it for nearly that long.

Now, i don't think that all people with terminal illnesses or all people who are brain dead should die. If they don't want to, great, but if they do, i would have no moral qualms about helping them if they asked me to. I plan to fill out a living will at some point so that my loved ones will pull the plug if i ever end up brain dead.