2006-10-14 05:36:46 · 29 answers · asked by http://hogshead.pokerknave.com/ 6 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
yes
2006-10-14 05:40:07 · answer #1 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Morally? No. Legally, yes! It's a tough one. So many factors could decide it but I think there should be some kind of facility here where people could opt for that in extreme circumstances. They have places in the Netherlands or somewhere which are able to do it so why not here. I'm not saying, take someone you're fed up of looking after and bunk them off, or sending your grandparents to be done in but if someone has eg: parkinsons disease and knows that the end of their life will be miserable then they can sign up now and agree to it so that when the time comes there are no come backs to the person/s that do it. Personally I would want to choose it for myself but then I've never been so poorly that it's ever been an option. You don't know how you would feel.
2006-10-14 05:48:33 · answer #2 · answered by t11omo 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What the hell have "morals" got to do with it?
This is a religious question isn't it? about taking away life that God has given blah blah. what if you don't beleive in God? What if you're not religious?
To me, cheating on your spouse is "morally wrong". Abandoning your children is "morally wrong". Stealing is morally wrong.
Helping someone end their life because they WANT to, because they are in pain and want an end to it, what the hell has "morals" got to do with that? Its an act of kindness and mercy.
You can say what you want anyway, its legal in Switzerland and people will go there. So you won't stop it as long as people can just go to Switzerland to so it. Although they shouldn't have to - they should be able to do it in their own country without a bunch of interfering God Botherers and "moralists" sticking their ignorant noses into something that has nothing to do with them.
Why can't these people mind their own friggin business!
You wouldn't see an incurably sick animal suffer - you'd have the poor thing put out of its misery. You wouldn't put a dog through what some of these poor people have to suffer whilst waiting for a long drawn out death. I'm all for it if thats what the person wants. Waiting for nature to take its course is a long, protracted, painful and miserable trial.
2006-10-14 11:41:37 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Legal society finds it morally wrong as the convicted person escapes an eye-for-eye style of judgement, punishment, to the chargrin of people out to point fingers and seek justice regardless the cost.
Legally, it is also not right as a near death person cannot fend for themselves. Until the day comes when another person can read and show what the dying is thinking, it's not right.
But certainly not if you are from some flesh eating tribe in the rain forest. *wink*
2006-10-14 06:26:40 · answer #4 · answered by mmmporg 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If your dog is suffering you put it down. Is that morally wrong? People think not, yet if someone gives you permission it is? It makes no real sense. I would say no. Then again morals are hard to define as they are only really the basis of what the majority of people consider to be right. If you say that it is morally wrong yet later in life you suffer excruciating pain I'm sure your opinion will change. You have to live it to learn it.
2006-10-14 05:53:28 · answer #5 · answered by travis 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it is immoral for the law to decide that a terminally ill person should be kept alive when the affected person has chosen that they would rather die with some dignity. Not only does it take away their dignity and prolong the agony for that person and their family but the money spent by the NHS could be used on people who are having to wait too long for treatment due to NHS shortages.
2006-10-14 06:30:00 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think it's ironic that we call it humane to put an animal out of it's misery by "putting it to sleep", yet it is illegal to assist a dying cancer victim in passing on when their guts are falling out of their butt. This is a double standard. I feel it is morally wrong to stand by and watch your loved one suffer in what you know is their last days on Earth. Life is not worth living when you have nothing but excrutiating pain to look forward to.
2006-10-14 06:04:51 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I personaly do not think so, But if you have a terminal illness and are in a lot of pain you should be allowed to. It may be a selfish way to end your life, but if you had a pet that was suffering in the same way, you would not hesitate to have it put to sleep. A very controversial question as regards religious beliefs and a difficult one to make I would imagine.
2006-10-14 05:51:43 · answer #8 · answered by hakuna matata 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Only if its is a healhty person and there is nothing wrong with them yes it is. However if it stops suffering in a terminally ill person then no. We as humans have compassion and understand suffering a pain full death isnt the best way to go.
2006-10-14 05:44:17 · answer #9 · answered by wandera1970 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
no. each case is different but at the end of the day it is up to the individual, not the ruling body, as to when and if they choose to end their life. if a person is terminally ill and incapable of carrying out their wish, then allowing a loved one to help should be allowed. at the end of the day it ultimatly helps all involved. the terminally ill by no longer suffering, and the assisstant by knowing their loved one is no longer suffering. there's nothing worse than watching someone you love suffer without cause.
2006-10-14 05:58:36 · answer #10 · answered by drdreallday 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hard question! Im not sure if its morally wrong, depends on your own beliefs. Personally i don't think i could expect any of my loved ones to help me die but i would end my own suffering if my body was useless.
2006-10-14 05:46:12 · answer #11 · answered by rd 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋