Are we focussing on how it will affect ourselves when we don't want others to have the right to commit suicide or euthanasia? Are we totally ignoring their rights?
2007-03-02 18:43:50 · 15 answers · asked by chrisviolet4011 4 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Yes. There is nothing wrong with suicide and euthanasia. Noone asks to be born into this horrible, pointless existence. The least we can do is help them leave it so that they won't have to think about the endless horrors and injustice that compose our feeble and insignificant existences. What do they have to fear except another bad thought? There is no divine plan, no goodness, no hope. Let there be sweet death and nothingness for those who suffer life.
2007-03-03 15:07:05 · answer #1 · answered by Zeek 3 · 6⤊ 1⤋
This is an extremely complex area of medical ethics. One of the dangers is that any euthanasia law could be subject to abuse. For example, heirs wanting to speed the demise of a very elderly person who refuses to die. Ethanasia is actually taking place all the time, usually by doctors and nurses who know the end is near for their patient and want to speed his/her release. Of course, it is done quietly. Doctors, in general, do not want to be responsible for taking life for any reason though and they are the ones who would have to implement it. Also, who is to decide? The patients? Sometimes they are not in the best position to decide and then change their minds. The relatives? They may have ulterior motives or be guided primarily by their emotions which is not a good basis for deciding such an irreversible issue. The doctors don't want to do it mostly. And what criteria are to be followed? Each case is different. And as you point out, sometimes selfishness enters into it. But even when it doesn't, there is no easy solution or way to ethically legislate euthanasia. And as long as there is no legislation, it is officially murder. There are some places in Europe where they are doing legal, humane , euthanasia to such a high standard that it meets most people's ethical criteria. However, it is expensive and the patient must be compos mentis, able to travel and meet certain other condtions.
2007-03-02 19:20:19 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
...hmmmm.
i think that if someone was with me and was discussing options of suicide or euthanasia i would be considering their over-all personal condition and that would be self-less of me.
if the personal conditions were harmonious to the will of the individual i would have no opposition.
presumably most suicides are stress related and also presumably those who request euthanasia are terminal.
these are differing social phenomena and should be regarded differently.
i believe a person has the right to die and that only they should be permitted to make that decision unless a contract signed by a person of terminality makes specific person(s) other to choose given the contracted conditions.
suicide is another matter however. most suicidals (i presume again) don't/won't concern their self with a contract or wait for intervention. most successfull suicides that is.
any persons oppositions to either are selfishly based as sympathetic or hostile and these sympathies or hostilities are determined by the (im)personals which may be elucidated through knowledge/awareness/relationship.
but all in all .... a person makes their own choices even if they excuse the choice as selfless. it is always selfish for the person.
and....when a person gives up hope they die a slow death....or do something quite radical to signal a choice possibility.
euthanasia should be an option i believe for those who are terminal and in considerable pain.
and it is no ones choice but their own to make. so if no-one desires to be assistant to such a choice that would their choice to not be assistant.
we have only self to refer to even if it is an others dilemma.
so yes of course....any oppositions are selfishly based and that is not wrong.....because we only have self to facilitate our affirmations or oppositions.
what is recommendable i think is to understand what is life and what is worth living for a person and us all. the very most common values of being human.
if a person doesn't want others to have the right it may be negatively conceived or as deterrent for others to profit somehow.
but in a positive sense each case and circumstance is individual and not collective and we must consider our self as other with the same love and hope and faith we have in our self to be with them....or not with them.
but in the end.....when the soul/spirit determines it is no longer going to stay in a body ill ...it leaves. and if an ill-mind make the decision of a body with spirit the choice is made and the spirit do not force the issue because the spirit do not die anyway. it has no fear though its purpose may have to wait.
enough said for now....
be well
2007-03-02 19:54:06 · answer #3 · answered by noninvultuous 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I think we lump suicide and euthanasia with murder, because no matter the motivations behind each act, they all end the same and with finality. It's the absolute end to a human life that is the common denominator. It's a genetic reaction to be abhored by death in all its forms. Our bodies want us to live.
As far as rights, here in the U.S., citizens are only guaranteed the right to life, not death.
2007-03-02 19:13:15 · answer #4 · answered by God_Lives_Underwater 5 · 6⤊ 1⤋
It's based more on our ignorance and those that further ignorance for their own selfish gain. Humane judgment would serve our rights better but justice is not yet a part of the judicial process when it comes to such rights .Superstition seems to prevail as does the evil it secures.
2007-03-02 19:24:01 · answer #5 · answered by dogpatch USA 7 · 9⤊ 0⤋
yes i think it is a form of selfishness, we dont want to lose people we love and care for, whilst i think suicide is a tragedy that can be avoided, euthanasia should be a free choice that can be openly discussed amongst the family, i know how i want to live my life, and if i was in constant pain or otherwise incapacitated to the point i couldnt live my life the way i wanted with absolutley no hope of recovery i wouldnt want someone else telling me i have to hang in there!
2007-03-02 18:50:19 · answer #6 · answered by sydneygal 6 · 19⤊ 1⤋
you are right but in a way we have a right to live and have a quality of life when we are alive and well sometimes its not always about us or them . sometimes a cure is around the corner.
i would rather wait and be in pain for a while longer in hoping for a cure. and if there is a chance to be cured tromorrow.. i would take the cahnce to wait.
2007-03-02 21:38:09 · answer #7 · answered by Elvis 109 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Personally I focus on the repercussion euthanasia has on the entire society: if we accept it and make it legal, we give future generations the impression that life is worth only to a point, that a person has value only because she is healthy and functioning and that life in itself has no value.
2007-03-02 20:01:56 · answer #8 · answered by remy 5 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Yes, provided they've had access to medical care, including susbstantial mental health treatment and have no desire to live. It's sad to think people get to that phase, but there are SO many suicides all throughout history.
2007-03-02 18:47:38 · answer #9 · answered by Jacob S 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I think you are right, we sometimes allow our religious convictions, if you will, overshadow a patient's wishes. In that way, you could say we are being selfish.
2007-03-02 18:50:09 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 13⤊ 2⤋