Is Euthanasia(Mercy-killing) wrong? Explain.?

Question

it is for a project... please help

Answer 1

Not at all. If someone wants to end their life, it should be THEIR decision. Who is ANYone to tell me what to do with my body?

So far, the government says I can't end my own life, and can't ingest drugs of my choice...both of which can be done without providing an ounce of revenue to a corporation or government btw. So, why doesn't the govenment stop people from eating themselves to death? I can sit at McDonalds and down big mac after big mac until I run out of dough, day in and day out, and become the fattest most digusting unhealthy blob of an individual, but as soon as I ingest a "controlled substance", or put a gun to my head, I'm in violation of the law. How does that make sense?

BTW, you can't compare this to abortion. Aborted fetuses have no choice, but people stricken with terminal disease should be able to choose their own destiny.

Answer 2

Good question!

Some people ask why we put a dog "down" but not a human. As far as I know, it is legal in the state of Oregon. Some argue that "pulling the plug" or discontinuing life support is euthanasia, but I will argue this anytime. Some people will argue that euthanasia allows a doctor basically "play God".

This is a very hot topic and one that will be battled in the churches and courtrooms for many years to come.

Some reading your may be interested in:
http://ethics.acusd.edu/Applied/Euthanasia/index.asp

http://www.euthanasia.com/
http://www.nrlc.org/euthanasia/

Answer 3

The big moral questions aren't really about theological doctrine. Rather, they are about survival.

Moral codes exist to help their practitioners overcome the challenges of living in the world. Moral codes that don't do that eventually become extinct, often taking whole nations into the grave with them.

One of the cleverest ways to wage war is to infect your enemy with a moral system that "sounds good" (seems to urge people to do "good things") but which doesn't require anyone to regard national survival as having significance in the greater scheme of things.

Is euthanasia wrong? It's the WRONG QUESTION because no standard is identified to judge the better course of action from the worse ones. The right questions are: "Will the life or the death of this person cost more?" and "Who will have to pay for it?" Cost doesn't have to be money, of course. Someone who must live in pain because he can live in no other way is paying a continual price in order to live. For him, it might be a price too great.

Something to be acknowledge is the inescapability of eventual death for each person. Sooner or later, we all bite the dust. Now, there are oldsters selfish enough to brag about "spending their children's inheritance." But, really, which is better: parents spending their life's savings on medicine and surgery so that they can live a single year longer than they would have otherwise, or dying a year sooner and letting their grandchildren have that crucial advantage of start-up capital?

Answer 4

Yes, because it is intent. Killing another human being on purpose is just wrong. Now that being said this is one crime that should never be prosecuted. I do believe that it should be investigated carefully. You would have to pass measures, like was the person suffering, was they near death anyway, what was your stake in it, if you stood to inherit a sum of money, you would have to take a closer look then. But to end ones own life is a decision that should be left up to each individual and god. Not some congressman that could care less except for their image. Is mercy killing wrong, yes. But who am I to judge.

Answer 5

There isn't one correct answer to your question. Euthanasia is a controversial subject and if you must come down on one side or the other for your project, I suggest you read both sides of the issue and reach a conclusion that you'll be able to defend: http://www.religioustolerance.org/euth1.htm

Good luck!

Answer 6

It is wrong, because it is illegal, it should be legal but until it is it would be wrong to practice it. However, it is practiced legally in a Hospice setting because doctors withhold nourishment and allow people to starve if they are determined to be Terminal. They also allow the patient to overdose on Morphine if they request it, but it would be illegal for a doctor or nurse to inject the patient with an overdose.

Answer 7

Depends on your point of view of course.

For most people of faith, all forms of kiling are wrong. If you're pro-life- it usually means no abortion, no ethanasia, no capital punishment, etc. But as we see, often times there is no consistency in those positions- Lib tend to be ok with abortion as a choice, but against capital punishment. Cons tend to be the opposite.

Problem is, in reality it is not black and white. Its grey. If somebody is terminal and in so much pain and they make the choice, who are we to stop them? God, if you believe, will deal with them. In most places, suicide (as ethansia) is illegal -- well, the attempt is. If you're successful, there's not much they can do to you.

That's why, in those cases, I think the state needs to stay out of it. The moral aspect of it must be undertaken by the person in question and his/her family.

Answer 8

this issue is also closely related to assisted suicide, which is illegal partly because then in theory you could murder someone and say you were assisting a suicide therefore are not guilty.
good luck on your project! it sounds like it will be pretty interesting.

Answer 9

Morally or legally, morally yes, legally, it is ok in some states, It is kind of like sucking the brain out of a health, almost full term baby, it is legal but not ethical.

Answer 10

answer a question with a question. is it right to let some terminally ill person suffer when the pain level is beyond drugs and they want to die?