2006-12-05 18:39:06 · 11 answers · asked by kewtber 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
yes, I mean, for human beings
2006-12-05 18:42:39 · update #1
I live in Oregon, the ONLY state where euthanasia is legal.
We have voted in favor for it twice (to make it legal, and then when a petition to stop it came up) approving it both times by a somewhat wide margin, and have defied the Attorney General of the United States, even when he threatened to sue every doctor who's ever performed the procedure. However, when John Ashcroft stepped down as Atty. General a while back & Alberto Gonzalez took over, the Justice Department has not pursued the case.
It should be legal, for those who want to use it. I, personally, would have a hard time deciding, but I hope I will never be in such a situation. However, many do wish to use it to end their lives, and I respect that decision. If they wish to go quickly & painlessly, and not leave behind large medical bills for their family to pay, that's okay. If doctors are uncomfortable administering it, that's okay, they can choose not to do that as part of their practice.
Just because people object to euthanasia, doesn't mean it should be illegal. I don't like it when people smoke, yet I am not getting petitions signed to ban cigarette sales. All cigarettes do it kill you, just like euthanasia does, except euthanasia is quicker & less painful. If someone who objects to it does not which to use it if they become terminally ill, they do not have to. It's a choice that needs to be made by each person in that situation individually.
So yes, I think it should be, and for where I live, it is.
2006-12-05 18:55:51 · answer #1 · answered by amg503 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Legalized euthanasia (which very mostly might not be legislated within the United States within the close long run) could no longer enable households to put off tough family readily! It could require the written statements of a couple of health practitioner testifying to the sufferer's incurable and revolutionary situation; furthermore, the sufferer could have got to be in a position to fully grasp the difficulty and to provoke the request for assisted suicide. An aged character with dementia could no longer be a area for euthanasia beneath the stern legislation which could observe to such circumstances.
2016-09-03 11:43:17 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
By choice and if the person is of Sound Mind, sure. If I had a choice of everyday agonizing unbearable pain and medical bills that would ruin my family, yeah, kill me, please.
If implemented could it be abused. Everything is abused by someone. Is it morally right. Well the Government, at least US Government is not suppose to get involved in Moral Issues. That was a kinda Law in the Original Constitution. Them fellas had a good plan, Government of the people,by the people,for the people. That says Government is supposed to work for you, not you have to beg or be homeless after a storm takes your house.
That also says, if I choose to die, I can, that is called Freedom to Choose.
So if I had a bad disease, and the Doctors told me Sell the house to pay for this temporary pain medication or this experimental procedure that we cant say will work or not, still costs 1 million to try though, yeah, kill me please.
Oh you cant? Because the Government is Morally Opposed? tell that to the detainees.
Good question. DR.Kvorkian helped people out, but he was a boogey man and an evil troll.
6000 years of written language and we still have no idea what the Truth is.
2006-12-05 19:05:34 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Certainly. First of all, there is great hypocrisy in a nation allowing its citizens to be put to death in its prisons, but disallowing terminally ill, suffering people from ending their misery. That said, hypocrisy is not the issue, the issue is that allowing euthanasia is the morally correct position. I do not understand why suffering through a painful death would be legislated.
2006-12-05 18:45:28 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Probably not. There are other ways a physician can insure that a person's life ends, such as withholding of medications, or a deliberate overdose after holding back a dose or two. Its done very quietly, and usually only in cases where there is absolutely no hope of recovery, such as in advanced stage brain cancer. Of course, not every doctor is willing to do this, so it really depends on the physician. Because it is illegal, it is not "advertised". However, it can be argued that under certain circumstances it would be considered more merciful.
2006-12-05 18:44:26 · answer #5 · answered by Paul H 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I think euthanasia should be legal, if a person has decided they want to die then they should have that right. If they need help then give then the help! Why is this such a mojor issue?
2006-12-05 19:25:13 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, a IQ test should be adminstered to all registered voters who voted for G.W. Bush in 2004. If as I suspect, they have an IQ of less than a 100. They should be taken to the local hospital and be either lobotomized or euthanzied. Since this is a democracy, the choice will be theres.
2006-12-05 18:44:07 · answer #7 · answered by dirk diggler 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes, at least in the case of braindeath and/or the last stages of a terminal disease. Some people just aren't going to get any better.
2006-12-05 18:41:50 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Euthanasia must not be legalized because it is a killing of a person which is homicide under the Penal Law.
2006-12-05 18:40:59 · answer #9 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
its for pets last time i checked, but if you mean humans, certain states have the death penalty, too bad it takes so long after being convicted to having that sentence carried out though
2006-12-05 18:41:52 · answer #10 · answered by paki 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋