Poll: What do you think about... Euthanasia?

[Taizan]

I'm rather undecided, but then again I'm undecided with many things.

I m for Euthanasia, I guess. But unfortunately it's not all that easy... I do believe that euthanasia is the right way out if the person wants to go, or completely becomes a vegetable with no or miniscule chance of ever waking up and pretty much being connected to life support systems till his or her death.

But if Euthanasia became accepted, it could put a pretty bad precedent that could definitely be used in many fucked up ways.

It's really way to complicated to take a part in. It could be different for different people.

The end part seems a bit like a Slippery Slope argument. Who's to say that the legalisation of something that is designed to help end the suffering of a loved one could be used in 'many fucked up ways'?

If such an idea is properly enforced, incorporating some ideas previously mentioned in this thread, then i'd be up for it.

On a more personal level, my dad was diagnosed with a brain tumour last month, and if he ever was in so much pain that his life was not worth living, then i would consent to euthanasia.

 

[Jenny Creed]

People should be allowed to decide for themselves should they want to end their life. Particularly if they are suffering from a prolonged and mortal illness.

That's about what I was going to say.

Any place that society can allow any measure of personal freedom, I figure it probably should. And this seems like a simple enough case.

Besides, if someone honestly wants to die, they're going to find a way. Might as well save some nurse the trouble of walking in on a bloodbath where patient A decided to bite their tongue off.

 

[Specter_]

I am personally 100% for it. I believe if a person feels that they want to end their life that the Government, nor anyone else should have the right to prevent that person from doing so. Not everyone should have to live in pain and anguish and noone has a right to say otherwise. It's not their choice. The same goes for families who have a very ill family member. I believe if there is nothing more they can do for said person, and that person is unable to make a decision for themselves that the family should have that choice to put an end to their life. I am in no way saying that this should be done lightly, or to any little problem. I'm saying that if the conditions are right they should be able to make this choice. This is all I will say for now, but I am certainly up for a friendly debate or adding to what I believe and why. I would certainly like to hear what others have to say.

I agree. But instead of the family-thing I'd go for "whoever was closest to them".
And it should be based on medical decisions as well. If there is a chance for helping them, try it first. If it fails or there is no chance, let them die.

Honestly, why does everyone seem to have such a hangup about death? Why do you people hate it so much? You think it's wrong for anyone or anything to die, it's such a load of bullocks. Death is as much a part of life as birth, yet birth is beautiful? Everything dies, it has to.

But GOD decides who has to die and who hasn't and it's all part of the DIVINE PLAN and us mere humans have no business in messing with it...

 

[P1p3s]

i say against it as there are documented cases in countries where it is legal of family members having someone 'euthenased' their law permits the signatures of 2 (or 3 can't remember) blood relatives as sufficient to give someone a lethal injection - this means you do not actually have to give your consent to do it.

For whatever good we may intend it, there will always be those who corrupt it and the innocent/voiceless/those who cannot defend or protect themselves will suffer.

 

[Specter_]

I'm pro-euthanasia (with a few very important conditions) but I recently thought to myself:

"What's the fucking big deal? As long as I could lift my arm, I could kill myslef, I don't need anyone applauding me, it's not like they're gonna presecute me for illegal suicide"

I have a feeling that (except the cases of people in vegetative or similiar state, thats a different story) people who support euthanasia that fiercely either don't have the balls to kill themselves without people telling them it's alright and helping them or have some dirty business in euthanasia (insurance companies maybe?)

I think the point is that a lot of people would like a swift, painless death and for this you usually need help. To get the drugs needed, to KNOW what drugs are needed and so on. But by providing these informations and drugs with the knowledge of the patients plans, doctors usually makes themselves vulnerable to legal prosecution.

 

[Specter_]

I'm pro-euthanasia (with a few very important conditions) but I recently thought to myself:

"What's the fucking big deal? As long as I could lift my arm, I could kill myslef, I don't need anyone applauding me, it's not like they're gonna presecute me for illegal suicide"

I have a feeling that (except the cases of people in vegetative or similiar state, thats a different story) people who support euthanasia that fiercely either don't have the balls to kill themselves without people telling them it's alright and helping them or have some dirty business in euthanasia (insurance companies maybe?)

I think the point is that a lot of people would like a swift, painless death and for this you usually need help. To get the drugs needed, to KNOW what drugs are needed and so on. But by providing these informations and drugs with the knowledge of the patients plans, doctors usually makes themselves vulnerable to legal prosecution.

Since you mentioned doctors, I don't think doctors should have anything to do with euthanasia. As a patient (and 99,99% of patients don't want to die) you have to be absolutely sure your doctor won't kill you under any circumstances (like your family bribing him, because you're a useless old geezer) and then be able to write "euthanasia" in your history. I'm sure it's not impossible to train someone else to make injections and calculate dosages. When (if ) I'll be a doctor, I won't do euthanasia even if it will be legal, after all I'll be making an oath.

Of course it should be in such a manner that the doctor in question has no gains of you dieing. It shouldn't affect him positive or negative, so that he can make a sound judgement on the medical facts.

 

[WeedWorm]

Its ironic that we can slowly, legally kill ourselves (alcohol, tobacco, etc.) but were not allowed to actually kill ourselves.

I think euthanasia is just dandy. People want to die? Let them die! Just let them get their affairs in order and shoot them full of the Big Sleep juice.
Honestly, why does everyone seem to have such a hangup about death? Why do you people hate it so much? You think it's wrong for anyone or anything to die, it's such a load of bullocks. Death is as much a part of life as birth, yet birth is beautiful? Everything dies, it has to.

What he said.

 

[Sensenmann]

I dont believe that suffering is fair. I think the government should allow a set timeframe, that if the person is not better, they may opt for euthanasia.

 

[Barkotron the Magnificent]

I'm certainly in favour of euthanasia for some people. I can give you a list of names if you like, let me know when you're finished with them and I'll see if I've added any in the intervening time.

 

[sebar nl]

I'm totally pro euthanasia, so i'm glad it's legal here in The Netherlands. Also I just can't figure out why they are making such a big deal out is it in Italy.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Who are we to decide about other people's lives? That would be extremely arrogant: if someone really wants to die, let them. Ofcourse that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to convince them otherwise, but take that Italian girl. She already sad before she went in that vegetative coma that she didn't want to live on in such a coma. Who are we to ignore her own wishes about her own life and body?

 

[Specter_]

I dont believe that suffering is fair. I think the government should allow a set timeframe, that if the person is not better, they may opt for euthanasia.

I disagree with time being a factor. There have been cancer-treatments that lastet well over 5 years with the patient being 100% healthy afterwards (of course after another couple of years of rehab). In my opinion it's more about probability. If someone has a probability of <1% of getting better with the prospect of a painfull life, that is the point of thinking about euthanasia.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

What about euthanasia of healthy people? Am I really alone in being disgusted with the antics of Dignitas and Philip Nitschke?

There isn't anything "good" about dying you know, especially when a person is capable of living a life.

 

[R0DZ]

What about euthanasia of healthy people? Am I really alone in being disgusted with the antics of Dignitas and Philip Nitschke?

There isn't anything "good" about dying you know, especially when a person is capable of living a life.

I think I agree with what you're saying. Mostly because it would be a really large cost to help provide drugs to kill everyone who wanted to end their life. But I still think they should have a choice whether they live or die, don't you? Like maybe if they are healthy at least get them to pay a fee of some sort, that may sound silly but it does make sense if you think about it. They could pay for the cost of the drugs, get the doctor to hook it up for them, and then the person themselves could admininstor the drugs so the doctor would not have that sort of burden on his/her shoulders.

 

[Cowabungaa]

I dont believe that suffering is fair. I think the government should allow a set timeframe, that if the person is not better, they may opt for euthanasia.

I disagree with time being a factor. There have been cancer-treatments that lastet well over 5 years with the patient being 100% healthy afterwards (of course after another couple of years of rehab). In my opinion it's more about probability. If someone has a probability of <1% of getting better with the prospect of a painfull life, that is the point of thinking about euthanasia.

Why? What if someone wants to die when he/she has 2% chance? Who gives you the right to make that call for that person, why can't he/she let that decide for him/herself? Afterall, it's HIM/HER life, HIS/HER body, not yours.

 

[Specter_]

I dont believe that suffering is fair. I think the government should allow a set timeframe, that if the person is not better, they may opt for euthanasia.

I disagree with time being a factor. There have been cancer-treatments that lastet well over 5 years with the patient being 100% healthy afterwards (of course after another couple of years of rehab). In my opinion it's more about probability. If someone has a probability of <1% of getting better with the prospect of a painfull life, that is the point of thinking about euthanasia.

Why? What if someone wants to die when he/she has 2% chance? Who gives you the right to make that call for that person, why can't he/she let that decide for him/herself? Afterall, it's HIM/HER life, HIS/HER body, not yours.

You got me wrong:
In the case that a person can still make own judgements, there is no probability. And I'm still for trying before dieing.
And you totally ignored the "with the prospect of a painfull life". There might be a treatment for whatever the person has, but that says nothing about the life-quality after the treatment. And I'd prefer a swift and painless death over a long treatment that leaves me alive, but crippled and tortured.

 

[Cowabungaa]

I dont believe that suffering is fair. I think the government should allow a set timeframe, that if the person is not better, they may opt for euthanasia.

I disagree with time being a factor. There have been cancer-treatments that lastet well over 5 years with the patient being 100% healthy afterwards (of course after another couple of years of rehab). In my opinion it's more about probability. If someone has a probability of <1% of getting better with the prospect of a painfull life, that is the point of thinking about euthanasia.

Why? What if someone wants to die when he/she has 2% chance? Who gives you the right to make that call for that person, why can't he/she let that decide for him/herself? Afterall, it's HIM/HER life, HIS/HER body, not yours.

You got me wrong:
In the case that a person can still make own judgements, there is no probability. And I'm still for trying before dieing.
And you totally ignored the "with the prospect of a painfull life". There might be a treatment for whatever the person has, but that says nothing about the life-quality after the treatment. And I'd prefer a swift and painless death over a long treatment that leaves me alive, but crippled and tortured.

O no I didn't forget that I'm just saying, if someone really wants to die, let them. It's there own choice, not ours.

 

[Specter_]

I dont believe that suffering is fair. I think the government should allow a set timeframe, that if the person is not better, they may opt for euthanasia.

I disagree with time being a factor. There have been cancer-treatments that lastet well over 5 years with the patient being 100% healthy afterwards (of course after another couple of years of rehab). In my opinion it's more about probability. If someone has a probability of <1% of getting better with the prospect of a painfull life, that is the point of thinking about euthanasia.

Why? What if someone wants to die when he/she has 2% chance? Who gives you the right to make that call for that person, why can't he/she let that decide for him/herself? Afterall, it's HIM/HER life, HIS/HER body, not yours.

You got me wrong:
In the case that a person can still make own judgements, there is no probability. And I'm still for trying before dieing.
And you totally ignored the "with the prospect of a painfull life". There might be a treatment for whatever the person has, but that says nothing about the life-quality after the treatment. And I'd prefer a swift and painless death over a long treatment that leaves me alive, but crippled and tortured.

O no I didn't forget that I'm just saying, if someone really wants to die, let them. It's there own choice, not ours.

And in my head that's the difference between euthanasia and suicide.
If they just want to die, let them try. But if it's related to a medical state it should run it's course through a sophisticated, fact-based system that determines wether or not the person can be helped.
If the treatment helps and the person still wants to die, it switches back to suicide.

I've got an example:
I know a guy who crippled himself by being drunk and jumping headfirst into 30 centimetre deep water, thus breaking his neck (if anyone wondered why I laughed at a paralyzed guy: that's the one).
That was 6 years ago, he was 22 at the time, hyperfit, a promising swimmer and quite a bright guy.
After a year or so he tried to kill himself and failed due to his inability to hold stuff with his hands. Back then he himself saw no perspective of ever leading anything even remotely called "a life" ever again.
When he was 25, he was back in university, finishing his promotion in computer science and now earns about 15k per month, has a pregnant wive and is one of the most zen people I know.

5 years ago, he'd happily jump at whatever opportunity he had to die.
But on the medical basis there was no evidence whatsoever that he should die. The treatments available were promising and effective.

So yes, if he wants to kill himself, fine. Let him try.
But do not support his deathwish with any medical support whatsoever.

 

[smithy_2045]

If I want to die, I shouldn't be forced to live.

 

[BabyRaptor]

If I decide I want to die, nobody is gonna stop me whether it's legal or not. It should be the person's choice.