Why has letting Nature take its course become so objectionable? Allow the poor animal to cease its suffering by putting it down. We should do the same for any horribly and hopelessly suffering member of any species, including our own unless that person requests to continue their suffering.
When suffering is the predominant characteristic of continuing to live, how can anyone believe that accepting death and assisting death in its approach is unreasonable?
Death is inevitable - yet our species has adopted belief systems that deny the inevitability and certainty of death. This denial of death affects reasoning to the point of imposing needless suffering upon our own kind - such as intentionally extending the life of the dying.
Too bad Gasper can't tell us his opinion - or maybe he did long ago and we are just now accepting his wishes.
2007-01-03 03:54:56
·
answer #1
·
answered by widowmate 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
believe me,i feel for ur pain.ur mother should not have had to endure such agony.however,human nature being what it is,i think the belief behind not allowing human euthanasia has to do with the probable likelihood of overstepping their bounds,and deciding who should live,who should die.yes,most medical people are decent,but power does tend to corrupt.for example,as a nurse,i met several patients whose parentswere told in the 1950's,that they were hopelessly retarded and should be institutionalised forever.it turns out,in reality their iq's were only mildly low,and that they could have lived independently,held jobs,married and had rich lives.instead,because of a drs say-so,their lives were bleak and cruel.one lady had syphilis from the orderlies who raped her years ago,sores caused her legs to be cut off.also,dna testing makes things even trickier-what if a child is born seemingly healthy,but at the age of 5 tests positive for something like dna defect showing a high likelihood they will get als or something when they are in middle age.do we allow that child to grow,knowing they will likely suffer and die at maybe 50 or so,or do we let him live,knowing technically,he is doomed?who decides?its not indifference to pain that keeps euthanasia becoming a reality,its fear of a time when a dr may decide for u,a time in which if a dr feels u a re thru-then u have no recourse.think it cant or wont happen?guess again-would insurers continue to pay for treatments,or will they just label entire classes of patients as "hopeless",killing them to keep down costs?not all people with certain cancers will die,with treatment some experience remissions and even cures-with incentives to keep trying for a cure,things like aids and ovarian cancer have increased survivabilitey,in the case of cancer,more cures than ever b4.but if insurance companies say-"its too expensive to treat",and lobby for euthanasia,innovation and incentives to research for certain diseases will decline,and u wont even get a chance to try for a remission or cure.i dont trust drs enough to have them decide the time or manner of my death.sure,it will start out,individual families decide,but eventually-drs will control access to life/death.look at the history of the world?do u have any reason to be optimistic?entire societies have been persecuted and even eradicated-study the history of the native americans-do u trust something like that can never happen again?once more,im sorry for ur pain.it was horrible,ive seen similar situations.but the alternative can be a slippery slope,toward someone else deciding if u are "good enough" to live.look at "death row"-a disproportionately higher numbers of minority inmates are actually put to death.do u trust this culture to do the right thing for all its patients,or will poor families without insurance be more pressured to put a loved one down??????
2007-01-02 12:17:07
·
answer #2
·
answered by Lyn K 4
·
0⤊
0⤋