I am doing a persuasive essay on this topic, I would appreciate it if more opinions, information were involved on this.
2006-11-01 00:11:19 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Other - Social Science
if the situation is terminal and hopeless, then morality is not an issue. it 's just a matter of what works.
case in point: Terri Schiavo. her condition was terminal - all she could do was lie there and crap herself, occasionally uttering incoherent noises. yet because of everybody else's fear of death and personal guilt, they made her suffer through machine-assisted "life", and a slow, starving death because of the issue of morality.
in reality, nobody actually cared for Terry's condition and welfare - they just couldn't live with themselves if she died without grinding out until the very last second like every Good Christian must. bullshit.
folks like Dr. Kevorkian are important and necessary because they present an option that previously was not available. Assisted Suicide to terminal patients. no useless drugs, no long years of bedridden misery. no relatives,doctors, and beuraucrats peering down with fake smiles, empty words, and Good Intentions.
Death With Diginity. plain and simple.
2006-11-01 06:56:58 · answer #1 · answered by saturndescends 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think everyone has a right to die if they feel that living in their present state would be intolerable.
It's hard to say who can make the decision, though. That is why we need clearly written laws defining who has the legal ability to speak for a being (human or otherwise) and choose for them if they cannot choose themselves.
If it were up to me, I would enact some rule about how long a person should be kept on life support or at what percentage their chance of recovery they should be taken off.
What we need to realize is that we are keeping people (and pets) alive who would have normally died without medical intervention, so it isn't any more immoral to allow them to go, than it is to make them stay.
2006-11-01 02:53:34 · answer #2 · answered by mutherwulf 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
practically, euthanasia is immoral but we have to accept the fact that euthanasia will be the option. for exmaple, a victim of war that loose everything, his limbs and arms and love one's.
2006-11-01 00:22:57 · answer #3 · answered by lemuel 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
this is always a slippery slope question, if used to stop intense suffering, in a case that is termimnal. so if this became legal who would be the judge of intense suffering? would this include not only physical but also mental suffering. If it were me I would like to be able to make that choice to live or die.
2006-11-01 02:13:56 · answer #4 · answered by robert s 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Depends on the circumstances.
For animals I don't think it is if it is absolutely necessary and all other avenues have been explored
For humans only in a terminal illness with unbearable pain..
NEVER for convenience.
2006-11-01 00:22:23 · answer #5 · answered by Bella Donna 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
depends on the circumstances,
incurably sick ,no hope,great pain.
sure,
it is legal in my country.
America cant talk any way ,about what is moral.
they say abortion is wrong and bomb women and children
they say euthanasia is wrong but they have the death penalty
2006-11-01 00:22:45 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. not at all. each soul has a right to choose there own destiny
2006-11-01 02:40:14 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I am assuming you are referring to "human choice" euthanasia? as versus animal euthanasia? or am I wrong? Could you broaden your question please?
2006-11-01 00:18:17 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not if the person or animal is suffering.
2006-11-01 00:18:53 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋