NationStates Jolt Archive

I just got one of my daily issues and it was about Euthanasia.
It got me thinking, how many people actually back the idea of legalised euthanasia?

My feeling is that everyone has the right to say when they want to die, and that everyone has the right to take their own life if they believe for some reason that it is not worth living or not that the pain of living is too much. Surely leaving euthanasia as illegal is discriminating agaisnt disabled or terminally ill people while able bodied people have the right to say when their life is over.

Its a controvertial and emotive subject, I just wondered what other people thought?

the problem is knowing what the person wants. Does the family want to remove the dottery one for financial or otherwise selfish reasons. Whilst people should be in charge of their own bodies if they have a capable mind to decide there is a very difficult grey area when they have passed the point of knowing what their own name is

Surely leaving euthanasia as illegal is discriminating agaisnt disabled or terminally ill people while able bodied people have the right to say when their life is over.

Yup. It's an absurdity of the current system that the people with the most justification for wanting to end their lives are usually the only ones who are unable to do so.

This is true, and I would agree that if it has got to the point of them not being able to really make rational decision based on all the facts then I wouldn't expect doctors to cqrry out their wishes to the same degree, however I don't think that should stop EVERYONE from being allowed to make that choice if they are mentally stable, but it should be THEIR choice not the choice of the family or friends.

We turn the life support off people in a coma that are unlikely to pull through everyday, yet here we are with hundreds or maybe even thousands of people who are mentally very well but unlikely to recover (sometimes even less so than someone in a coma) and we are denying them of the right to SAY they want to end it.

The thing that strikes me about anti-Euthanasia people is that it seems they are motived less by genuine compassionate 'morality' and more by adherence to a rigid moral code (which usually includes homophobia and other conservative stances). It's more about adherence to the 'party line' and 'conservative issues' than to a look at the reality of the problem.

It's always the same people dragging around the old decrepit baggage of 'the moral issues', whether they be whinging about science, 'family values' or whatever. Seriously I think the only reason society tolerates these fools is so we at least some old bat dissenting when stem-cell research comes up for debate.

The thing that strikes me about anti-Euthanasia people is that it seems they are motived less by genuine compassionate 'morality' and more by adherence to a rigid moral code (which usually includes homophobia and other conservative stances). It's more about adherence to the 'party line' and 'conservative issues' than to a look at the reality of the problem.

It's always the same people dragging around the old decrepit baggage of 'the moral issues', whether they be whinging about science, 'family values' or whatever. Seriously I think the only reason society tolerates these fools is so we at least some old bat dissenting when stem-cell research comes up for debate.

Well, we've finally found something we entirely agree about, Andaras. I accept that there could be a problem with people "pressured" into comitting suicide, but that is no good reason to deny people surcease from pain if they so choose. So much of this "immoral" crap is just jerks who want to control what people think and do.

It's about control and ownership.

If abortion is to be legal on the basis that a woman should have the final say over what happens to her own body, then volutary euthanasia should be legal for the same reasons. If it is legal for an individual to engage in behaviours that are known to be detrimental to their health then it should be legal for that same individual to be able to choose to end their life. To legislate otherwise is to imply that the state has some kind of ownership over my body, and I simply do not accept that to be the case.

I don't often find myself agreeing posts by Andaras, but this...

The thing that strikes me about anti-Euthanasia people is that it seems they are motived less by genuine compassionate 'morality' and more by adherence to a rigid moral code (which usually includes homophobia and other conservative stances). It's more about adherence to the 'party line' and 'conservative issues' than to a look at the reality of the problem.

...certainly rings true. I suspect that the knee-jerk rejection of euthanasia that a lot of people exhibit is somehow rooted in the Biblical prohibition against suicide that has also led to the ludicrous situation wherein suicide is listed as a crime (at least where I live).

I think that voluntary euthanasia should be legal. I've seen some people argue that allowing someone to die when there is a chance that medical intervention might allow them to live a bit longer (i.e. passive euthanasia) is immoral, and yet DNR-style instructions via 'living will' or 'advanced directive' arrangements allow it to take place. This sort of 'right to decide' should be extended.

It's about control and ownership.

If abortion is to be legal on the basis that a woman should have the final say over what happens to her own body, then volutary euthanasia should be legal for the same reasons. If it is legal for an individual to engage in behaviours that are known to be detrimental to their health then it should be legal for that same individual to be able to choose to end their life. To legislate otherwise is to imply that the state has some kind of ownership over my body, and I simply do not accept that to be the case.

I don't often find myself agreeing posts by Andaras, but this...



...certainly rings true. I suspect that the knee-jerk rejection of euthanasia that a lot of people exhibit is somehow rooted in the Biblical prohibition against suicide that has also led to the ludicrous situation wherein suicide is listed as a crime (at least where I live).

I think that voluntary euthanasia should be legal. I've seen some people argue that allowing someone to die when there is a chance that medical intervention might allow them to live a bit longer (i.e. passive euthanasia) is immoral, and yet DNR-style instructions via 'living will' or 'advanced directive' arrangements allow it to take place. This sort of 'right to decide' should be extended.

Well said, I am in full agreement here.

Also, I would like to add one more "benefit" that may come from euthanasia. If you think about it, and take a pragmatic, "big picture" look at it then euthanasia makes sense. People who are terminally ill and aren't mobile enough to kill themselves can't be able to produce much, but they still eat and consume other various resources. In the end, killing them off would be more efficient anyway...

I know, it's rather macabre, isn't it?

(I had another part to this post where I played the devils advocate for the hell of it, but I figured it wasn't really necessary.)

I would do everything I can to stop someone committing suicide unless there really is no hope and they are making a sane decision, where it can be verified by a doctor.

I am very much in favour of it for terminal patients in consultation with their doctors, people should be allowed to have a good death.

It ought to be left up to the person.

None of this half-way pseudo-euthanasia crap like passive sedation with the withdrawl of fluids and food or "do not resuscatate". While these options should be available, the option for a person to kill themselves should be out there.

If some moral individual feels the need to suffer until death that's their choice. I'd rather be able to die when I'm still able to make my own coherent decisions than to leave my fate in the hands of those who will likely go against my wishes.

As it is, there is no crime for committing suicide, so why should there be one for doctor assisted?

Of course there should be procedures in place to ensure that the person knows what their options are and if there is a chance that they can be cured or at least treated. Counselling. Medical advice. Like what exist for women seeking abortion. Options. Options.

I would do everything I can to stop someone committing suicide unless there really is no hope and they are making a sane decision, where it can be verified by a doctor.

I agree that voluntary euthenasia should be legal. I would let anybody who was of sound minde go right ahead.

I just got one of my daily issues and it was about Euthanasia.
It got me thinking, how many people actually back the idea of legalised euthanasia?

My feeling is that everyone has the right to say when they want to die, and that everyone has the right to take their own life if they believe for some reason that it is not worth living or not that the pain of living is too much. Surely leaving euthanasia as illegal is discriminating agaisnt disabled or terminally ill people while able bodied people have the right to say when their life is over.

Its a controvertial and emotive subject, I just wondered what other people thought?

I actually don't think its about control or ownership. But its about protecting the most vulnerable people in society. I actually think that legalising euthanasia would be opening up to a deathly discrimination against the disabled and aged.
I am very compassionate towards people with illness and terminal disease. I just want to make that clear. I remember looking at my nanna dying of cancer, and praying to God to just let her suffering end.
I saw a doco on people who were dying and had formed a group so that they could gather the ingredients to kill themselves. Most of the ingredients were illegal in Australia, so they had to source it from overseas. It took 2 years. But their quality of life had actually improved, because of those friendships and working towards a common goal....weird hey..
I suppose I would become very anxious, because I deal with the guardianship and family guardians so often, if they had the ability to decide when to end another person's life. There was actually a law in Australia, which has since been abolished, that you were allowed to euthanise a person with a severe disability up to the age of 16.
Brings up questions...like if a person is seen as a 'burden' to society, they aren't contributing or not efficient...lets euthanise them. It costs a shitload of money to keep someone in a nursing home, group home, pallative care. I just think it would be manipulated...

I actually don't think its about control or ownership. But its about protecting the most vulnerable people in society. I actually think that legalising euthanasia would be opening up to a deathly discrimination against the disabled and aged.
I am very compassionate towards people with illness and terminal disease. I just want to make that clear. I remember looking at my nanna dying of cancer, and praying to God to just let her suffering end.
I saw a doco on people who were dying and had formed a group so that they could gather the ingredients to kill themselves. Most of the ingredients were illegal in Australia, so they had to source it from overseas. It took 2 years. But their quality of life had actually improved, because of those friendships and working towards a common goal....weird hey..
I suppose I would become very anxious, because I deal with the guardianship and family guardians so often, if they had the ability to decide when to end another person's life. There was actually a law in Australia, which has since been abolished, that you were allowed to euthanise a person with a severe disability up to the age of 16.
Brings up questions...like if a person is seen as a 'burden' to society, they aren't contributing or not efficient...lets euthanise them. It costs a shitload of money to keep someone in a nursing home, group home, pallative care. I just think it would be manipulated...

I understand where your coming from and obviously the last thing I think anyone here wants is to have a situation where people are killed off simply because they are not contrbuting to society in a financial or indeed any other way.

It looks like from most of the comments so far that most people are in favour of euthanasia, because they believe in the right to choose when you die, this would indicate that they would stop short at letting for example their next of kin decide when they had had enough (this actualy already happens in coma cases, or abortions where the baby will not beqble bodied or willhave a disease). HOWEVER I don't think this should stop volutnary euthanasia (as in the person actually being killed decides when they die not the family or friends) becoming legal. The right to choose should be there, if someone doesn't want to die then they don't have to obviously, and there should be systems like trained professionals that evaluate each case on a case by case system to make sure that the patient has not been talked into that choice.

In theory, euthanasia is a good idea. However in practice things go wrong, look at Holland. Doctors don’t want to do it; people who could be kept alive are killed and not necessarily with there own consent, the research of preventative medicine has more or less come to a halt. There are even groups of depressed teenagers of whom it would be perfectly legal for them to euthanize themselves, and some of them have.

Why does it have to be normal doctors that do it? what about organisations like dignitas doing it? If doctors dont want to do it then ther should be proper monitored organisations that you can go to, that will respect your decision as well as make sure it IS your decision and that you fully understand all of the consequences and if you still want to do it help you. I dont see why it has to be doctors per se, it could be any trained professional.

I, for one, support young people in Asia.

I, for one, support young people in Asia.

:hail: I bow before your pun

Why don't we leave life and death to the Creator of life and death? "Everyone has a right to decide when they want to die"????
Are you also interested in making suicide and murder a legal and moral obligation?
Where is your concern for the sanctity of human life and the happenstance of the soul?

Exactly. There should be some more conservatives in this thread. You never know if you're going to pull through or not. Euthanasia (or suicide, rather) is just a waste of life. Note that someone in my family is dying of cancer as I'm typing this.

Auoul, my deepest prayers and sympathy to you and your family.

The thing that strikes me about anti-Euthanasia people is that it seems they are motived less by genuine compassionate 'morality' and more by adherence to a rigid moral code (which usually includes homophobia and other conservative stances). It's more about adherence to the 'party line' and 'conservative issues' than to a look at the reality of the problem.

It's always the same people dragging around the old decrepit baggage of 'the moral issues', whether they be whinging about science, 'family values' or whatever. Seriously I think the only reason society tolerates these fools is so we at least some old bat dissenting when stem-cell research comes up for debate.

Get your cameras! Andaras and I agree on something for once!

Why don't we leave life and death to the Creator of life and death?

Because Will Wright is too busy finishing up Spore to remove juvenile creatures from the Spore database.

Why does it have to be normal doctors that do it? what about organisations like dignitas doing it? If doctors dont want to do it then ther should be proper monitored organisations that you can go to, that will respect your decision as well as make sure it IS your decision and that you fully understand all of the consequences and if you still want to do it help you. I dont see why it has to be doctors per se, it could be any trained professional.

I agree - seperating euthanasia and medicine would prevent aforementioned research slowdown (or hesitation) in preventive medicine, as doctors would still only care about curing diseases and generally improving lifespans. It would make sure that patients aren't urged to kill themselves, but also not "sustained" for unreasonable periods against their will. They get to die when they want to and hear advice and arguments from both sides.

This, of course, would only work with conscious patients. Cases of comatose or similar patients cannot, for obvious reasons, be decided by the individual without a living will, leaving the decision to society. These cases should be decided on a case-by-case basis, with current suffering, deduced will, and future prospects as the core factors for any decision, but with euthanasia as an option. You have a right to live, not a duty.

Why don't we leave life and death to the Creator of life and death? "Everyone has a right to decide when they want to die"????
Are you also interested in making suicide and murder a legal and moral obligation?

Not an obligation - An individual choice. Also, by your reasoning, all medicine should be prohibited, unless God's Hand™ materialises out of nowhere and grabs a scalpel. And what's wrong with suicide?

Where is your concern for the sanctity of human life and the happenstance of the soul?

I feel that the "sanctity of human life" is better served when patients are allowed the choice to end everything instead of being kept alive by machinery, helpless, each day a torment and without hope.

And what's this soul business anyways? Never seen one.

Haroth, I've never seen a million dollars, either; but I know it exists. If human life means that little to you, why do you exist at all?

Haroth, I've never seen a million dollars, either; but I know it exists. If human life means that little to you, why do you exist at all?

Because, currently, I prefer what I have to the unknowable, possibly bleak nothingness that is death.
Concerning your beliefs and mine: To each his own. And hey, it is entirely possible that there are no million dollars. And no spoon.

Haroth, I see a certain hopelessness in you. I will pray for you and hope you see the light of hope and belief.

It's a very difficult subject. On the one hand you have the fact that there are people who are left living their life in misery and pain, with all their dignity removed. In such a case it's hard not to think 'we wouldn't let a dog live like this, so why a human'?

But on the other hand you have the difficulty of ensuring that it is always carried out properly, and is the true wish of the patient. How do you know that the person wasn't pressured into it, whether deliberately or otherwise, by family members who don't want the hassle of caring for them anymore? What about those cases where the patient is no longer fully in control of their mind?

I would, therefore, lean towards keeping a ban, although I would probably change my mind if I could be convinced that my fears would not actually occur.

I would do everything I can to stop someone committing suicide unless there really is no hope and they are making a sane decision, where it can be verified by a doctor.

Why?

I don't understand why personal autonomy and making ones own decisions, which is seen as so laudable in most cases, should be so easily dismissed in this case.

For me, euthanasia should be legal. The question we should be asking is how do we ensure that the potential abuses some posters have mentioned are avoided.

Because Will Wright is too busy finishing up Spore to remove juvenile creatures from the Spore database.

*rim shot*

http://www.weaselhut.net/cheezweas.gif

Why don't we leave life and death to the Creator of life and death?Because he created us in his image, meaning we have to decide on our earthly business ourselves. Besides, who are you to say there is any conflict between when/how people decide to end their life and God's plans? Can you read his mind?
Surely it has all be factored into God's ineffable plans; omniscience, you see.

Not to mention that quite a few people don't believe in a Creator; and fewer still believe in your particular version.

Where is your concern for the sanctity of human life and the happenstance of the soul?Where's your concern for human dignity, quality of life, and preventing needless suffering?

But on the other hand you have the difficulty of ensuring that it is always carried out properly, and is the true wish of the patient. How do you know that the person wasn't pressured into it, whether deliberately or otherwise, by family members who don't want the hassle of caring for them anymore?Psychological evaluation of patient and family?
I don't think it's a big risk in the first place though. And I very much doubt euthanasia is done on the spur of the moment. There's procedure to follow. After all, you wouldn't want the patient to live to regret it.

What about those cases where the patient is no longer fully in control of their mind?They would need a living will stipulating in what conditions they don't want to live on. If they are neither in command of their will and don't have a living will, then it becomes really difficult.


Euthanasia has been allowed (by law, rather than convention) under condition in the Netherlands for several years now. There don't seem to be particular problems with it in practice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_the_Netherlands:
Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide (Review Procedures) Act took effect on April 1, 2002. It legalizes euthanasia and physician assisted suicide in very specific cases, under very specific circumstances. The law was proposed by Els Borst, the D66 minister of Health. The procedures codified in the law had been a convention of the medical community for over twenty years.

The law allows medical review board to suspend prosecution of doctors who performed euthanasia when each of the following conditions is fulfilled:

* the patient's suffering is unbearable with no prospect of improvement
* the patient's request for euthanasia must be voluntary and persist over time (the request cannot be granted when under the influence of others, psychological illness or drugs)
* the patient must be fully aware of his/her condition, prospects and options
* there must be consultation with at least one other independent doctor who needs to confirm the conditions mentioned above
* the death must be carried out in a medically appropriate fashion by the doctor or patient, in which case the doctor must be present
* the patient is at least 12 years old (patients between 12 and 16 years of age require the consent of their parents)

I don't understand why personal autonomy and making ones own decisions, which is seen as so laudable in most cases, should be so easily dismissed in this case.Well, if someone is depressed and wants to die, trying prozac might be a less drastic solution to the same problem. Personal autonomy and making your own decisions is great, but one should also consider all the options; or at least make an effort to look further than the most drastic one (after all life is short, and there's too many options to consider all of them.)

Besides, I doubt Hideland would shoot someone in the limbs and tie them to a tree to prevent them from killing themselves. So his "I would do anything ..." is probably a bit of a hyperbole. You can do quite a bit without really infringing someone's autonomy.

I agree that voluntary euthenasia should be legal. I would let anybody who was of sound minde go right ahead.

Why not if they are not of sound mind? If they are insane and do not want to live anymore, who are you to judge that they should not be able to kill themselves? You do not know what it is like to be in their condition, it may be horrible.

I don't know if I've put my thoughts into words very well, so if it's hard to understand tell me and I'll try to to explain it a different way.

People should definetly have that choice. I truly think that death can sometimes be a better solution than life. But you should definetly ask for a psihological evaluation of a person.

Why don't we leave life and death to the Creator of life and death?

Because that's the competence of the individual. For the same reason we don't let our parents decide where we live after we've achieved independence. If a deity gave me my body, it is no mine to do with as I please. And that's ASSUMING such a thing happened. My body is MINE. It's MY life and I decide when it ends, on MY terms.

Why not if they are not of sound mind? If they are insane and do not want to live anymore, who are you to judge that they should not be able to kill themselves? You do not know what it is like to be in their condition, it may be horrible.

I don't know if I've put my thoughts into words very well, so if it's hard to understand tell me and I'll try to to explain it a different way.

Insane people are unable to make reasonable decisions. If they want to stop their life they will commit suicide. But when we talk about euthanasia you need somebody else to "pull the trigger"?!

Insane people are unable to make reasonable decisions. If they want to stop their life they will commit suicide. But when we talk about euthanasia you need somebody else to "pull the trigger"?!

Their decision would be reasonable to them, and that's all that matters.

Their decision would be reasonable to them

Not if they got better.

Not if they got better.

I was waiting for someone to say this, as I had thought of it after I posted my original thought.

I would say a young person with a slight psychological disorder would be able to get better, ergo euthanasia use would not be allowed on him or her. However, if an older person had a serious disorder with not much chance of being cured, he should be able to choose.

Why not if they are not of sound mind? If they are insane and do not want to live anymore, who are you to judge that they should not be able to kill themselves? You do not know what it is like to be in their condition, it may be horrible.And maybe if you put them on medicines they will neither be crazy nor wish to die anymore.

Their decision would be reasonable to them, and that's all that matters. Why would only that matter? They're not in their sound mind; it might not even be reasonable to them five minutes later.
Decisions are only worth something if they're made in sound mind.

Why not if they are not of sound mind? If they are insane and do not want to live anymore, who are you to judge that they should not be able to kill themselves? You do not know what it is like to be in their condition, it may be horrible.

I don't know if I've put my thoughts into words very well, so if it's hard to understand tell me and I'll try to to explain it a different way.

Well it only takes three seconds thinking about that to realise why.

What is your definition of sound mind?

well refried beans if the person is insane they may not understand the full extent of ending their lives, or truly understand, at the moment, the consequences, but if a person is sane, let them go ahead

Their decision would be reasonable to them, and that's all that matters.

So if your mum lost her head and decides that she couldn't deal with it anymore, you would be fine to let her kill herself even though she would not be sane when she reached that decision?

You've convinced to sway the other way, but I'm still curious of you have some sort of criteria for people to be considered insane or sane.

You've convinced to sway the other way, but I'm still curious of you have some sort of criteria for people to be considered insane or sane.

There are several psychological tests.

There are several psychological tests.

Such as? And what do the results have to be?

Such as? And what do the results have to be?

If you roll 4 or less on two 6-sided dice, you're nuts.

You've convinced to sway the other way, but I'm still curious of you have some sort of criteria for people to be considered insane or sane.

Heh I know what you mean. I often ask myself what is considered sane. I guess if you can a non delusional view of the world and your place within, you can be considered sane(religion notwithstanding). I guess if you view that the harming of others and yourself, to be not quite normal accepted behaviour, then you can be considered sane. I guess if your thoughts and actions are considered normal by sociaty, than you can be said to be sane.

Heh I know what you mean. I often ask myself what is considered sane. I guess if you can a non delusional view of the world and your place within, you can be considered sane(religion notwithstanding). I guess if you view that the harming of others and yourself, to be not quite normal accepted behaviour, then you can be considered sane. I guess if your thoughts and actions are considered normal by sociaty, than you can be said to be sane.

I prefer a less arbitrary distinction than "society", which is one of the reasons why I have a disdain for many psychological institutions in modern society.

My definition would be thinking honestly and critically about a decision before making it. If one is capable of seriously considering alternatives and acting in a reasonable (as in, having a reason for one's actions and not acting solely on whim) manner then I would consider one sane.

To put it simply, I think people need to be able to convince themselves of, and honestly think about, a big decision (like suicide) before making it to be sane.

Under this definition you could be as delusional as you want, so long as you are able to question the delusion (which people with certain disorders like schizophrenia are notoriously bad at) and consider alternatives, so that any decisions you make are not based solely on said delusion.

I don't think social mores and ethos really need apply except in the most minimal manner when considering sanity.

I support the right to Euthanasia.

If family members are allowed to pull the plug, or I'm allowed to have a living will stating that If I am in a vegetative state, let me die... well, euthanasia should be legal.

Seems logical, eh?

I prefer a less arbitrary distinction than "society", which is one of the reasons why I have a disdain for many psychological institutions in modern society.

My definition would be thinking honestly and critically about a decision before making it. If one is capable of seriously considering alternatives and acting in a reasonable (as in, having a reason for one's actions and not acting solely on whim) manner then I would consider one sane.

To put it simply, I think people need to be able to convince themselves of, and honestly think about, a big decision (like suicide) before making it to be sane.

Under this definition you could be as delusional as you want, so long as you are able to question the delusion (which people with certain disorders like schizophrenia are notoriously bad at) and consider alternatives, so that any decisions you make are not based solely on said delusion.

I don't think social mores and ethos really need apply except in the most minimal manner when considering sanity.

Meh maybe one day it will be as you envisage, not at the mo though.

Isn't there a rather large business in Switzerland offering this kind of service? =S

Besides, doctors should save lives, well, try too. I believe this is why they cannot turn off life support machines themselves. They used to swear by the Hippocratic oath, and maybe still do.

Well, if someone is depressed and wants to die, trying prozac might be a less drastic solution to the same problem. Personal autonomy and making your own decisions is great, but one should also consider all the options; or at least make an effort to look further than the most drastic one (after all life is short, and there's too many options to consider all of them.)

Besides, I doubt Hideland would shoot someone in the limbs and tie them to a tree to prevent them from killing themselves. So his "I would do anything ..." is probably a bit of a hyperbole. You can do quite a bit without really infringing someone's autonomy.

Why do you assume that the person has not already tried to remedy their situation, or considered his/her options? Why do you assume you that their decision is unsound?

Why do you assume that the person has not already tried to remedy their situation, or considered his/her options? Why do you assume you that their decision is unsound?I'm not assuming that at all. I'm just pointing out that the opposite should not be assumed, or rather that the issue shouldn't be ignored entirely.

In some cases their decision may be sound, in some cases it may not be. It's important to find out which.

I prefer a less arbitrary distinction than "society", which is one of the reasons why I have a disdain for many psychological institutions in modern society.

My definition would be thinking honestly and critically about a decision before making it. If one is capable of seriously considering alternatives and acting in a reasonable (as in, having a reason for one's actions and not acting solely on whim) manner then I would consider one sane.

To put it simply, I think people need to be able to convince themselves of, and honestly think about, a big decision (like suicide) before making it to be sane.

Under this definition you could be as delusional as you want, so long as you are able to question the delusion (which people with certain disorders like schizophrenia are notoriously bad at) and consider alternatives, so that any decisions you make are not based solely on said delusion.

I don't think social mores and ethos really need apply except in the most minimal manner when considering sanity.

The problem with all of this is that's it's nearly impossible to measure. I don't think it's possible to know if someone can think critically.

The problem with all of this is that's it's nearly impossible to measure. I don't think it's possible to know if someone can think critically.

You can't ever know what someone else is thinking. Period.

The best you can do is make assumptions based on behavior, and from those assumptions create an educated guess.

Unless you were to base insanity strictly on what someone does, and not why they do it, then that problem is unavoidable. I personally think that the whole point of the word (when used to describe a person, obviously) is to describe a form of thought that leads to action, not actions in and of themselves.

Isn't there a rather large business in Switzerland offering this kind of service? =S

Besides, doctors should save lives, well, try too. I believe this is why they cannot turn off life support machines themselves. They used to swear by the Hippocratic oath, and maybe still do.

The Hippocratic oath called for doctors to "do no harm." If someone is in constant pain - if their quality of life is practically nonexistent - and they'd rather end it, are you really harming them by helping them to do so in a painless manner? Couldn't you be harming them more by helping to continue their suffering?

Let's be honest here. Doctors have given fatal doses of morphine and the like when they could do nothing else as long as such drugs have been around. If a doctor cannot get you better, they can use their expertise to ease your passing.

As for my outlook on medically-assisted euthanasia, I believe it is ethical only when a patient is terminal and in pain or losing their mental capacities (obviously, they would still have to have enough capacity to agree to the procedure).

See, what I don't understand is how my own country can agree to the murder of unborn children without their knowledge or permission, but refuses to allow a grownup person on their deathbed to make a conscious choice to end their own suffering.

I know I sure as hell don't want to be living in a bed, with no control of my body's functions or the ability to feed myself.

I personally think euthanasia is not entirely bad. However, there needs to be a safeguard mechanism to prevent the abuse of such a law. I do not think that someone else should be given the privilege to euthanise someone else without their conscious consent. Therefore, one would have to make preparations for such a time when they would find themselves in a position where they wouldn't be able to mentally make that decision (say a living will, perhaps). Or if someone is mentally able to change their mind, then perhaps they could do so without a living will, but would have to be able to sign certain release forms and be advised of their potential decision before going through with it. I think that perhaps the only other way that someone should be able to euthanise someone is if the other person is an underage child, then maybe the parent or legal guardian should have the legal right to do so, but not in any other case. Of course I'm open to other scenarios. It's just that I would hate to see an abuse of legalised euthanasia come into play.

See, what I don't understand is how my own country can agree to the murder of unborn children without their knowledge or permission, but refuses to allow a grownup person on their deathbed to make a conscious choice to end their own suffering.

I know I sure as hell don't want to be living in a bed, with no control of my body's functions or the ability to feed myself.

That's because if they're unborn, they're not children or babies. Once born, they're babies.

But I agree that euthanasia should be legalized.

That's because if they're unborn, they're not children or babies. Once born, they're babies.

According to YOUR definition of life, but lets not get into this argument again friend, I think that we have had it before, and the issue at stake is not some logical one, just one of where you think life begins, and such a issue hinges on your own personal beliefs, morals, and life experiences, not on anything that can be reasoned with.

According to YOUR definition of life, but lets not get into this argument again friend, I think that we have had it before, and the issue at stake is not some logical one, just one of where you think life begins, and such a issue hinges on your own personal beliefs, morals, and life experiences, not on anything that can be reasoned with.

I don't think that we did, but I congratulate you on your respect for opposite points of view regarding this.

I don't think that we did, but I congratulate you on your respect for opposite points of view regarding this.

Well then we will have to have that discussion sometime.

By the way, as a card shark myself, I love the new avie

Well then we will have to have that discussion sometime.

By the way, as a card shark myself, I love the new avie

I'll admit I'm more of an RPG shark. The cards do work for STYLE pretty well, though. ;)

The cards do work for STYLE pretty well, though. ;)

It's what you got :hail: You style king of NSG.

It's what you got :hail: You style king of NSG.

Okay. I have a Conservative praising my style after we disagreed on a hot-button issue in a polite way.

NSG has gone Bizarro! :eek2:

Okay. I have a conservative praising my style after we disagreed on a hot-button issue in a polite way.

NSG has gone Bizarro! :eek2:

*starts humming "why can't we be friends"*

*starts humming "why can't we be friends"*

Because Conservatives like you are all Bible-bound sheep against homosexuality, and Liberals like me are all gay paedo perverts that will turn friendships into gay affairs!

:D

Because Conservatives like you are all Bible-bound sheep against homosexuality, and Liberals like me are all gay paedo perverts that will turn friendships into gay affairs!

:D

you forgot to mention that all of my kind chew tabacky, and all your kind drink that stuff that Starbucks tries to pass off as coffee

you forgot to mention that all of my kind chew tabacky, and all your kind drink that stuff that Starbucks tries to pass off as coffee

We don't have a Starbucks here in my city (in Brazil) yet, but I heard one will open soon. :D

Did hear there are like 5 Starbucks in São Paulo, though.

When I read 'euthanasia' I think of Johnny got his gun..

We don't have a Starbucks here in my city (in Brazil) yet, but I heard one will open soon. :D

Did hear there are like 5 Starbucks in São Paulo, though.

Don't bother with it, homebrew is so much better, just like many other brews.

Don't bother with it, homebrew is so much better, just like many other brews.

I'm more into cappucinos...

I don't think Damor has thought his position through very well. Perhaps he doesn't know God, or at least the Ten Commandments; among those Thou Shalt Not Kill! Sure, we have free will given by God. However, the candle of the wicked shall be extinguished.

I don't think Damor has thought his position through very well. Perhaps he doesn't know God, or at least the Ten Commandments; among those Thou Shalt Not Kill! Sure, we have free will given by God. However, the candle of the wicked shall be extinguished.

heh unless it's stoning the heretic, or killing the blasphemer, or the states legalised murder?

I don't think Damor has thought his position through very well. Perhaps he doesn't know God, or at least the Ten Commandments; among those Thou Shalt Not Kill! Maybe you should read the bible: murder galore, with the full blessing of God most of the time.
And I'm not sure what translation you're using, but the one I have says "you shall not murder"; (assisted) suicide is not murder. Well, ok, perhaps genocide in the name of the Lord isn't either, so that may invalidate my earlier comment.

And what would you make of "Honour thy father and mother", when they're asking you to euthanize them? Shouldn't you honour their request?

Sure, we have free will given by God. However, the candle of the wicked shall be extinguished.Yes yes, and "judge not lest ye be judged"; stop deciding for yourself who's wicked and who's not. Besides, didn't you mean to say "the candle of the wicked will burn for eternity in Hell"? The wicked seem to be getting off lightly just being extinguished; although it does fit better with a benevolent God, I'll grant you that.