2006-10-30 03:58:05 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
Having had to watch both my mother and my sister die lingering, agonizing deaths, I am in favor of euthanasia being made legal. However, there would have to be strict guidelines in order to prevent people from merely doing away with people who, in their illness, have become inconvenient and financial burdens.
2006-10-30 04:00:12 · answer #1 · answered by dingobluefoot 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
To put it simply, would YOU rather have a slow, painful, demeaning death or a quick painless one, albeit maybe a bit earlier?
Which one you'd choose aside, only a masochist would PREFER the former over the later.
I realise in Christianity it is unacceptable, but I'm not very religious. Anyway, the 'only god should take life' argument seems a bit odd when you consider the amount of crimes that, according to the bible, require death as a punishment (there's a lot of war in the bible too). Now, in some circumstances I believe a mercy killing would be just that, the most loving and merciful thing to do. Didn't Jesus talk about always doing the loving thing, as making someone endure a painful death isn't loving.
I do, however thing euthanasia should be kept to when the person in question asks for it, and it shouldn't be assumed that they'd want that.
2006-10-30 04:08:15 · answer #2 · answered by AndyB 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because religion is against euthanasia, i think we should not play god. BUT the advantages of euthanasia and the reasons euthanasia is being practiced in Oregon, Netherland, and Belgium, is because:
1) End of unbearable pain
2) A right to die with peace and dignity
3) Preventing families from suffering.
4) Cheaper than trying to take care of a seriously ill patient. (i.e Doctors would concentrate on those patients who realy need the help, and to those who actualy have a chance of living).
5) And Finaly a question that pro-euthanasians ask "If suicide is not against the law, then why should it be illegal to help someone commit suicide?".
2006-10-30 04:13:05 · answer #3 · answered by Blind-Poet 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Legally - no. But morally, I think it is. Why make someone suffer if they do not want to live, or are suffering from a terminal illness and know they will die anyway? I am not talking about allowing people to commit mass suicide because they are depressed - but terminally ill? Yes - euthanasia should be allowed and be accepted by family and the medical profession. If you were a potential euthanasiast (Is there such a word, I wonder?)- would you rather they kept you going, or pulled the plug?
2006-10-30 04:06:45 · answer #4 · answered by superman in disguise 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe that euthanasia is acceptable if there is no way for the person to survive. I don't see the point in making a 90-year-old person suffer and die with lung cancer or something equally as horrible. I don't think people should be able to commit suicide but if the person is dying anyway it should be their personal choice. It's not that much different than pulling the plug on someone who is on a vent.
2006-10-30 04:00:35 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Euthanasia is a fraudulent issue. Like abortion, it's not about the rights of the person but rather about killing others. The point is to degrade the sanctity of life.
Don't get me wrong, there ARE reasonable arguments for euthanasia. The people making them however are all evil liars who just want to kill others.
Witness what happened in New Orleans. Those liberal scumbags just couldn't wait to commit mass murder on people who got no say about it. THAT is the goal of the pro-euthanasia crowd. Not right to die but right to kill others on a whim.
2006-10-30 04:01:40 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
If I had an incurable disease and was in a lot of pain and misery then I think would opt for euthanasia (of course you dont know until you are in the situation) so for that reason I think it should be a voluntary option.
2006-10-30 21:22:57 · answer #7 · answered by Catwhiskers 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Euthanasia as in animals or people? Be specific.
2006-10-30 04:00:29 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Euthanasia isn't homicide, because of the fact that's the persons will to die. An analogy of that is that taking somebody's money isn't stealing in the event that they have agreed to enable you're taking it. of course this occasion isnt very comparable, yet helps you to get my element. each and every person has a extraordinary to unfastened will. isn't it crueler to tension someone to go through, than to grant them a raffle to relax in peace? of course, the guy could choose to comprehend completely what they're agreeing to, and that there is a threat of a treatment. somebody who thinks that human beings don't have a extraordinary to their very own dying of course has no longer suffered sufficient to comprehend how important that extraordinary is.
2016-12-16 16:36:07 · answer #9 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If the 'victim' whilst fully compus mentis opts for this then it should not be prosecuted as an offence if you help them with their termination self-starvation or moorphine overdose.
However it has to remain an illegal act or everybody would be using it as an excuse for killing off the unwanted.
Sorry but that's just the way it is.
Sadly we are imperfect beings trying to live in an imperfect society.
2006-10-30 04:31:05 · answer #10 · answered by scrambulls 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋