should euthanasia be legalised? discuss the reasons for and the reasons against.?

Answer 1

Euthanasia should be legalized.

A person who does not want to live should be able to find a peaceful way to end their life. Who are we to prevent a person from trying to find a peaceful way to die? For an individual determined to die, it forces them to choose other ways of ending their lives (e.g., slitting wrists, shooting self, overdosing on different types of medication). In regulating morality, did we really change their decision ultimately?

Answer 2

If a person choose to take their own life and can do it themselves then it should be for them to decide but as for allowing euthanasia, it's a very dangerous policy to consider. Some cases are clear cut for example the boy injured at hillsborough who was brain dead and would never have any quality of life, but so many cases are not. For example if a person is so badly disabled that they are unable, for physical or mental reasons, to communicate, who are we to decide if they have sufficient quality of life. A person could be a dribbling vegetable and suffering from a wasting illness which would eventually kill them but they may still prefer that to not existing at all. Just because a person doesn't have reasoning power to make the decision should mean that anybody else can make it for them. It is a slipperly slope indeed and we are in danger of disposing of the terminal ill or chronically disabled for the convenience of society rather than the well being of the individual.

No definitely shouldn't be legalised. Specific cases may be decided in the courts, like the hillsborough case but blanket legalisation is definitely wrong. If ever it is an issue each individual case should be decided on it's merits.

Answer 3

there's a statistical courting between the upward push in situations of paranoia and schizophrenia and the existence of the victims, together with smoking hashish (no matter if the direct correlation is in dispute). Ignoring the medical disputes, there is an overriding difficulty with the distribution of hashish. The mass grant factors of hashish are managed through organised crime and terror agencies. Legalising hashish use will almost truly be enriching the criminal gangs and providing finance for the worry communities! This has continually been the numerous difficulty of drug squads. If any evidence of it truly is needed, examine up on the present use of the Air rigidity, to blow up a large cache of the stuff in Afghanistan. yet another periodic difficulty with hashish is its use as a provider for not person-friendly drugs, to set off addictions. I stay in a city, the position this seems to happen each and every 5-10 years (probable coinciding with the launch from penal complex of the pedlars of this garbage!) that is unlikely that medical data will ever be concrete, in trouble-free words and considering many medico's many times use it and could shelter it to the hilt! One incontrivertible medical difficulty with smoking the stuff is that that is a strategies extra carcinogenic than tobacco!....... and all of us comprehend how risky that is! (the united kingdom ban on smoking in public places has considered a large help in health facility admissions of cardiac situations).

Answer 4

I think it should. A man like Dr. Kevorkian does not belong in prison.

Every human being deserves the "right" and "relief" to die without needless suffering. Now, who gets to draw the line, I cannot say.

But I can't understand how people can stick their noses into a situation that totally does not concern them. If a person is just a total vegetable, and has it written in their living will that they do not wish to be a financial and mental burden on their family, their wishes should be granted.

The same goes for someone that has requested that they painlessly be put out of extreme misery.

Human life may indeed have "dignity," but there's nothing dignified to some about being a vegetable, incapable of interaction, hooked up to expensive machines, soiling themselves.

Answer 5

This is why you should have a living will. I believe it is on a case by case basis. But guess ultimately I am for because if someone specifically states should an extreme condition happen (i.e. a coma which the person would never recover) they wish to be removed from life support. I, however, would want my family to keep hope and would never have a living will that included me being taken off of life support.

Answer 6

Euthanasia in exceptional circumstances should be allowed. The value of a person's life however can never be determined by anyone other than themselves.

Answer 7

Yes, If a person has a serious debilitating and/or painful disease from which there is no recovery, and they(Hence I use the word they, as in the person, not the doctor, caretaker, etc.) chose to end it, that should be their choice to make. If someone is serious enough about it, they'll find a way to do it if it is legal or not.

Answer 8

It shouldn't be up to anyone except the person dying. If they are of sound mind they should be allowed to chose when and how they die. To prevent them is the same as taking their life against their will, because then they would not be in control of it.

Answer 9

It all depends on the ethics and beliefs of the people who want it. Personally, I think it is too controversial to ever make it as a written legal law.

Answer 10

no because enough people are killed every day because of war, and we dont need to kill some more people just to put them out of their "misery" it has been proven that most mentally challenged people are happy with their lives and the way that they are going, so whats to say that the "vegetables" aren't happy either?