or in other terms where the person has a right to life he should also have a right to death if u agree then why the government disallows the person to give up his life own his will...?
2006-10-02 00:28:14 · 11 answers · asked by SG 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
It ultimately comes down to the quality of life...I have worked in health care for many years now and to watch people suffer is hard enough let alone to be the one to suffer. I believe that if their quality of life has diminished so far with no point of return it would be the most humane thing to do...
2006-10-02 06:31:27 · answer #1 · answered by coopchic 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A living will with DNR is the only thing available at this time, however the old argument that if someone was suicidal they would take advantage of an opportunity like Mercy killing, is an outdated argument. A doctor is qualified to distinguish between someone who is terminally ill or if they just want to end their life because of depression or other reasons. Mercy killing has a place in society but until enough people stand up and make their wishes known to their elected officials nothing will change.
2006-10-09 19:25:41 · answer #2 · answered by daydoom 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because "Free Will" can be compromised by things like physical pain, emotional distress, psycological disease, and other treatable conditions.
A person's stated desire to die may not hold true in the absence of depression or another triggering cause, but if we allow the person to act upon a death wish, we ignore that the person's real best interests may involve living on after all.
I am in no way advocating denying the mercy of death in the cases of terminally ill patients in unrelievable pain, however, we must guard especially against the slippery slope that allows relief for the dying to give away in favor of generalized Euthanasia of the ill, elderly and others.
2006-10-09 22:01:23 · answer #3 · answered by chocolahoma 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Mercy Killing, aside from the obvious humanitarian aspects, opens a huge can of worms, ethics, morals, laws etc. An example, Grammpa's worth a bundle, in a home terminally ill, and while he is able to , recognizes people, hold somewhat coherent conversations, he is legally incompetent. Dad wants to send Junior on a World tour for a graduation tour, divorce Mom, move to Europe with his Secretary......(pick a scenario). As next of Kin to Grammpa, he is Grammpa's Medical Power of Attorney and Mercy killing is legal. Do you see where this is going?
2006-10-02 10:30:27 · answer #4 · answered by mld m 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have been in hospitals and cared for a dying friend and mother in law and I can tell you that anyone who would argue against allowing a person to die, when there is no hope of cure and the remaining weeks will be spent in either uncontrollable pain or mental confusion caused by attempts to control the unendurable
agony, should be forced to care for the terminally ill themselves. If that doesn't change their heart then they have none.
Schaivo had it easy, her brain had liquefied to some degree so she truly wasn't aware of her own existence. But I thought at the time (before the autopsy) that surely if she were aware, and unable to communicate, that even the simplest thing like having and itch and not being able to scratch or tell someone else where to scratch would be a torture of its own.
2006-10-02 08:07:45 · answer #5 · answered by justa 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
What happen to life, liberty and justice for all? I mean if the government is going to but their heads in on someones liberty in taking their own life, I know people are going to say 'yea life, to live life' but when in constant pain and the destruction that comes along with a family member that isn't able to function on their own. It all adds up to not much of a life for family and friends.
A lot of the politician that get involved in this are trying to get their name in the paper as a good christian folk which in return will get them more votes instead of thinking about the life of the person and how the passing would benefit the whole family. Instead of spending millions of dollars by keeping a vegetable alive they can use that money to send the kids to college once they become of that age.
Every time I think about that Shivo, how ever you spell her name, incident. How many worms came out and tired to feed on her? Let the woman die in piece. I got so tired hearing it in the news and every day you had a new blood sucker politician trying to get their 2 cents in. How many years was she in that coma, how many thousands of dollars spent to keep her alive? Probably could have put all her kids threw college.
I tell you this, if I'm like that spend the money on my kids, that way I can die a proud parent, once I have kids that is.
2006-10-02 07:53:56 · answer #6 · answered by Dan 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If you plan on doing your self in, you can't expect the government to know about it without doing anything. By that it means you can't declare it , or put it in writing without repercussions. It is only fair to that person that has made a decision to kill themselves to be stopped and counseled regarding. At least that's the way it is now. In the future, who knows!
2006-10-09 21:54:34 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
there is still debate going on, however, although I understand every life is precious, I would say I support mercy killing. As for myself I would not want to live a life living-hell (better be off dead and end it all). It is also mentally and financially draining to family and friends.
2006-10-02 07:32:22 · answer #8 · answered by PunkGreen1829 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I have to agree with justagran, and I believe everyone should have a living will stating their directives.
2006-10-09 21:50:26 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
A person should choose
2006-10-02 10:04:01 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋