What's you opinion on "Euthanasia" (mercy-killing)?

Question

some people do it but do you think it's considered a sin?

Answer 1

gee,God asked for mercy and not sacrafice,i don't think mercy killing was quite what he had in mind

Answer 2

I know there will be those on this forum that will say euthanasia is a sin. But my response is this: Is it a sin to intervene with a disease process? Should a doctor make every medical effort to keep someone alive who would die "naturally" if the doctor did not intervene? As technology progresses, this becomes an ever increasing moral dilemma, because we can keep people alive today longer than ever before, but that does not necessarily mean we are giving them a quality life...in many cases, just delaying the inevitable.

If you believe that a doctor has a right to thwart the dying process by keeping someone alive past their natural time, then why is it NOT alright to assist someone who faces an inevitable end without that intervention IF that is the patient's well-considered desire?

Having said that, I also believe that euthanasia must be done under very strict guidelines that prevents greedy family or an uncaring health care system from pushing the person to make a decision that they do not want to make. The person must have clearly stated their desires in writing when they were alert and in their right mind. There must be a limited timeframe where euthanasia can be an option. It should be for terminal cases only where death is determined to be only a number of months away at the most. The patient must have been evaluated and treated for depression, if that is a factor. They must be made aware of all their options, including pain management, hospice care, etc. The recommendations to assist the patient's demise from the medical staff must come from a board of doctors and not be placed in the hands of only one doctor.

Answer 3

i'm no longer smooth with it until eventually this is like Kevorkian and he's doing it for someone who won't be able to end their discomfort themselves yet who has many witnesses to substantiate this is the kill-ee's favor. except that ... who's to say the kill-er isn't killing for causes that in basic terms earnings her or him? difficult line to flow. yet i don't believe we ought to continuously ought to stick round in this existence and conflict through although, if we prefer to flow. i imagine if we ascertain to go away this existence, this is like the purest sacrifice, fantastically once you're religious, to end this existence and experience to the subsequent. yet inspite of if you're actually not, it takes marvelous braveness and that's a wide act to request of a pal or relative. those who're left in the back of will continuously be suspect and judged. wide decision. yet a own and private one which is no longer as a lot because the church or the state to intrude in, notwithstanding it does no longer damage if both were consulted. .

Answer 4

I think if somebody is conciously able to make that decision, or if they have a living will stating that it's their wish, then it's their right. How many of us really want to live as a vegetable or with constant, excruciating pain. I think it's ridiculous that Dr. Kevorkian (?) got in trouble for it.

Answer 5

It should be a sin to let someone suffer needlessly. Whats wrong with letting people choose for themselves.

Answer 6

It depends on the circumstances. I think if someone is genuinely in pain and misery and there is no foul-play involved in the death, then I don't see a problem.

Answer 7

It has been done for years. Years ago when the Doctor said "if you give them this much it will kill them" was permission to kill them off

Answer 8

if it's an animal it's probably ok .If it's human it's murder.