2006-12-13 08:28:36 · 9 answers · asked by LuLu 1 in Health ➔ Other - Health
I think if you are suffering enough it should be allowed it gets to a point when the family has to let go and stop being selfish. Its hard but everyone must die some day and people would be dieing alot more if we didnt have al this med tech.
2006-12-13 08:32:13 · answer #1 · answered by Jake L 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think assisted suicide is only a good idea for those with terminal illnesses. Even for those individuals, the impulsive aspect of it needs to be removed somehow. For example, a person is terminally ill and feels especially depressed one day so he/she goes to their doctor that day and gets a prescription for the necessary drugs to end his/her life. The person might not feel that way the next day if made to take time to think on it. I like the idea of a law being put in place that if a person wants to go to his doctor for assisted suicide then he/she should be made to go to a different doctor for a second opinion some set time later in order to get the necessary drugs. (a week perhaps, maybe a few days) This way a terminally ill person has time to think about whether or not he/she is really making the right decision.
2006-12-13 08:47:46 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
well, it's important to address what the difference is between all these terms that are being tossed around.
First, there is a difference between allowing someone to die and helping someone to die. To allow someone to die is legal, and involves removing a feeding tube or iron lung, etc. It is pretty much allowing them to die as if there wasn't the technology to save them. To help someone to die would be to introduce something foreign or lethal to their body with the intention of death.
Okay, so now that we've established the difference, there are two branches off of Helping someone to die: Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. Euthanasia is illegal all over the country and involves giving the lethal medicine/injection to a patient. The loophole with Physician Assisted Suicide (only legal in Oregon) is that the doctor will prescribe the lethal dose and the patient takes it themself.
In Oregon, they do take measures to make sure that not just any old joe schmo is asking for a lethal dose of medication.
-they have to have a terminal illness
-they must have less than 6 months to live
-they must have made two oral requests to their doctor
-they must prepare one written request
-they must convince two physicians that this is not on a whim
-they must have a mental health professional approve and deem them of sound mind
-a doctor must inform them of other alternatives
personally, i think it is the choice of the patient. only they truly understand the physical pain they are enduring, and i believe it is their given right to choose to die with dignity rather than be subjected to a life that they can't live!
***in addition***
advance directives and a living will can be prepared without a lawyer. in the case that you can't make decisions for yourself, your next of kin will be delegated to make decisions (which, if you are married, would be your spouse, otherwise parent or child.) if you do not trust this person to make your decisions, you can designate a health proxy (someone who knows you well and knows what you would want) and this also doesn't require a lawyer. you can obtain these forms online and then hand them out to everyone you know!
2006-12-13 08:41:30 · answer #3 · answered by Kendra G 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
it type of feels like a reliable concept on paper... yet in genuine life it must be too really abusable. i'm adverse to both, although, i'm serious about a demise human being, or a extremely ill human being being allowed to absorb spite of medicine (no matter if it by using medicine, or maybe such issues as marijuana) he or she needs with the intention to ease the discomfort, even to the point the position he or she shortens his or her own lifespan doing so. i have self belief that the medical equipment is there to alleviate and help in the upkeep of life, and the easing of discomfort... It only seems incorrect (and extremely abusable) to allow sufferers lower than care of docs who swore the Hippocratic oath, to commit suicide, or be "assisted" of their suicide. this is only too large a slippery slope. for example, whose to assert that mentally depressed human beings should not be allowed to be euthanized lower than their very own consent? melancholy is a psychological ailment that may, and must be cured, yet would not it nonetheless be the alternative of the affected human being no matter if he or she needs to kill himself or herself? yet another social gathering, what ensue if an elderly affected human being is conflicted between the alternative of killing himself or herself, or draining all of his or her newborn's inheritance? There will be (if the children are vile adequate) rigidity from the children to euthanize the determine, or there would also be a want of the determine to finish that with the intention to furnish money for the children (this sounds stupid, yet you'd be shocked on the quantity of persons that could actually die for his or her children to have money and sense free). there are a kind of more desirable examples...
2016-10-18 06:07:05 · answer #4 · answered by bassage 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think there should be some sort of contract and it would be that they have to want this for at least a year and already be seeing a dr. and stuff to try and help them if it doesn't work then they can have assisted suicide after 1 year of therapy and stuff like that
2006-12-13 08:31:58 · answer #5 · answered by help:) 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Funny you should bring this up, almost two months ago, my grandparents "celebrated" their 70th wedding anniversary. I say "celebrated" in quotes because my grandfather has seriously bad Alzheimer's and had no clue it was their anniversary. For that matter, he barely has a clue about most things... this is not someone who is living, this is someone who is existing...barely existing at that!!
Granted, to be married 70 years to a wonderful woman, to live to be 95, to have two wonderful daughters, two special sons-in law, five terrific grandchildren and 1 amazing great grandson, is something to behold but he barely knows any of us and is not really living anymore! He knows my Grandmother and he knows his caretaker...and some days he knows you, and other days, he just looks through you as if you never existed in his life!! My Poppy used to be a gentle and relatively quiet man and now, he has major outbursts and gets violent with his caretaker...
I just get so angry when a pet, that is dying and has little quality of life, it can be euthanized...or when we are hospitalized, we can leave a directive that says don't keep my life going by extreme measures should I end up in a situation where I can't make decisions for myself but when I am home, with barely any quality of life, I can't be euthanized nor can I leave instructions for you not to medicate or feed me...
Maybe someday things will be different but I don't know why we have to wait so long for that day to come! Why can't we have as part of our living will or advanced directive, for those who love us, to make the decision for us...although it may hurt at first, it will be better for us and better for them in the long run...less suffering for everyone!!
2006-12-13 08:45:07 · answer #6 · answered by ToadysFroggy 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would like to think that I would support it. I feel that it's your life and you should do whatever you want with it. But there's so many things that could go wrong with this situation. Say a "bad" guy gets a hold of it and kills somebody, what would we do then?
2006-12-13 08:35:15 · answer #7 · answered by ♥ME♥ 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Everyone has a right to live, therefore everyone has a right to die. Simple as that.
2006-12-13 08:39:04 · answer #8 · answered by G 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no its bad and if ur thinking of commiting suicide then please do ur family and friends a favor........DONT DO IT!!!!!!! You will cause them pain and trouble.
2006-12-13 08:33:08 · answer #9 · answered by ♥ Mere ♥ 1 · 0⤊ 3⤋