2006-10-27 12:15:17 · 34 answers · asked by ANTHONY C 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Our dog (Rebs) was a rescue dog. He had been mistreated and was in a poor way when we adopted him. After 14 very happy years as part of our family he got sick. we were alloweed to make the decuision to end his suffering, and let him be at peace.
My nan was mistreated as a child and was adopyted into our family at a young age. She was independent despit4e crippling illness due to her mistreatment as a child. It was her wish to dye with dignity as an independent woman.
She got sick.
She begged me to kill her on many occasions.
I did not.
She died in a foreign enviroment witrh all her dignity and pride stripped bear.
My Dog was allowed my more dignity than my Nan whom I had a very close relationship with.
If I had been given the choice as to who should be left to suffer My Nan or My Dog I would choose the dog.
The dog coukld never express his intimate feelings, wants and desires.
My nan could.
My Nan suffered unecasarily and died in misery.
My Dog died in dinginty without suffering.
I will live with that knowledge for the rest of my life.
Please excuse spelling mistakes as I am to emotional to correct them.
2006-10-27 12:40:57 · answer #1 · answered by angie 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yes, if thats what the person wants. Its a decision made by the terminally ill person themselves and NOT by anyone else - so to say "who decides on quality is life" is an invalild argument. It is not a decision made FOR them, they make it themselves.
Who has the right to force them to suffer against their will?
Medicine can only do so much.
All the wonderful care and home nursing and pain releif that the above poster is talking about COSTS MONEY and not everyone has the resources to pay for it. What then? They suffer in an NHS flea pit hospital?
Recently watched a member of my BF's family dying of lung cancer and she was begging to be "let go" as she was in so much pain and had no dignity or quality of life left. She lingered on for weeks in this state. It was horrible. You wouldn't let a dog go through what she went through. You'd have the poor thing euthansased. But it seems people aren't allowed that kindness under our laws.
And while euthansia is illegal that means the police then have to persecute a bereaved family for helping their loved one die with dignity. Thats uncivilised.
It makes me sick the way some religious nuts can try to force their beleifs on everyone else. OK so they don't beleive in euthansia and think its up to God alone to end someone's life. Fine. They can choose NOT to have euthanasia. But they have no right to deny it to someone else.
It just annoys these people that they can't force everyone to beleive what they do.
2006-10-27 12:33:45 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
'quality of life@ is different from one person to another. If a dog, cat, horse gets seriously ill, we have them put to sleep, it's classed as humane (they cant tell us how they're feeling)
If a human get's to the point where we know they're suffering terribly without hope of recovery and they can't tell us how they feel then I do believe in it, however I do think there are problems though, say where kids are due to inherit etc there should be a specialist involved who can give their opinion also, but who would want that job?? I know, if i'm ever terminally ill, in pain and don't really know what's going on, I would hope that I can go with some dignity, I wouldn't want to go on and on, knowing the pain and problems it would cause my loved ones
2006-10-27 12:24:32 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I think so. If person needs all medical equipment to continue this life without any acceptance or recognition of anything around him or her and without hope of the improvement I cannot see the point.
This question actual for most of us because at some point anyone can be in that situation. For me if it's time- I must go! Don't keep me here with lots of attention
2006-10-27 12:23:47 · answer #4 · answered by Everona97 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who can define "quality of life"? I sure wouldn't want to be the one making the decision.
Good quality palliative care (concentrating on pain relief / mental health / pleasurable activities and communication with family+friends) is a much more acceptable solution for me... but maybe I'm just an idealist.
2006-10-27 12:34:31 · answer #5 · answered by Kat D 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes , of course there must be clear definitions as to 'quality of life.' In those cases where the person in question has made their wishes clear when of sound mind that decision should be respected. This is no place for others to try to force their personal beliefs on others.
2006-10-27 12:21:39 · answer #6 · answered by dano 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No one knows how to answer that! Who chooses the end, who decides the quality of life is bad? What about mentally ill people, and chronic pain. There are so many things about this that conflict with respect for life. Yet I understand that some would be better off not to suffer. We do it for our animals.
I agree with the idea, but can't understand how it could be applied.
2006-10-27 12:18:54 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes, euthanasia should be allowed. It's about quality of life not quantity. If a person wants to end their suffering, it's selfish of us to keep them here. There is no freedom to live without the freedom to die.
2006-10-27 12:17:23 · answer #8 · answered by Chris 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I wish they might in basic terms call it love it is instead of putting candy euphamisms on it: professional-decision and professional-existence. it is professional-abortion or anti-abortion, the two for or against. professional-decision eliminates the nasty be conscious "abortion" and is asserting you have the choice to abort or no longer; for this reason spinning a nicer thank you to assert I desire human beings's top for abortion on call for. And whoever invented "professional-existence" is putting its very own spin on it. so a procedures as imposing morality on the entire united states, are not maximum all rules imposing ethical standards on society? Abortion isn't stated interior the Bible, different than inflicting an harm to a pregnant mom the place she loses her toddler. it is formerly the scientific community practiced it. i do no longer understand how this have been given pinned on the non secular community. possibly those of religion ought to easily have greater efficient morals. i do no longer seem at it lots as coming from a non secular view. If it is a prior due style of beginning administration it is a mom killing her toddler. all of us began in that state, it is a man or woman, and that i'm destructive to killing it via fact it is invconvenient. in many areas of the international they abort previous due interior the 0.33 trimester while the toddler ought to stay to tell the story outdoors the womb, using partial beginning abortion the place they tear out products of the toddler at a time. The ultrasound video "Silent Scream" confirmed the toddler's mouth go huge open crying on a similar time as being torn to products, assisting ban previous due term abortions interior the U.S. What it comes right down to is a egocentric mentality that opts for amorality the place human beings decide for to ruin out with homicide with the help of someway asserting it is not a human, it is a fetus.
2016-10-03 00:59:29 · answer #9 · answered by fritch 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
personal choice if u are mentally stable and u decide that your physical state is not of a good quality compared to what you are used to then yes but when mental health comes in to it it shouldnt be allowed if you make a will stating that if you are involved in an accident and lose your quality of life then again yes you should be allowed
life is to be enjoyed (quality) if that is taken from us then what is left if i couldnt enjoy my life then i would want euthanasia for myself
2006-10-27 15:33:25 · answer #10 · answered by zoomer2001uk 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋