I need your opinion for my college paper...due TOMORROW!?

Question

I'm doing homework...and I want your opinion. It'll help LOTS when I finally start writing the research paper that's due TOMMOROW. (I know. I know. That's terrible that I haven't written it. Oh well).

Do you know what euthanasia is? It deals with someone intentionally helping a sick person kill themselves, (usually the sick people are in commas or are brain dead, or "vegetables"). The sick people don't want to live anymore (sometimes because their in pain. sometimes they aren't conscious) so they ask friends, family, doctor's or nurses to help them die, by either giving them an injection, pulling a plug, or NOT giving them necessary food or water.
(sigh).

Tell me if you already knew what euthanasia was before I told you. Had you heard that word before? And tell me your opinion about it. Do you think it should be allowed in the U.S.?

Feel free to explain your opinion as much as you want. OR you can answer as short as: Never heard of it. Yes it should be allowed. Don't know.

Answer 1

I heard that word by read a book called "Advancing the culture of death: Euthanasia and physician Assisted suicide".
Euthanasia sometimes called mercy killing, refers to the practice of bringing about the death of a person whose life is judged to be worthless.
There are some types of Euthanasia:
-Active euthanasia (hope it make sense) is a type of killing a person looks like they are felling good but they have a disease which cannot cure like cancer.
-Another type of euthansia that a person kill a patient without the patients agreement.
Passive euthansia is mean when a doctor stop giving medicine to the patient and let them die.

I think i shouldn't be allow because it kind of killing a person when that person don't have anything to defence themself, we should try to help them, no matter what, even their are no cure for their sickness

Answer 2

Yes. I have heard of it. More specifically, the illegal form of euthanasia is when someone who is ill asks for another to assist them in suicide. Pulling a plug on someone who is on life support is not considered euthanasia if they are clinically brain dead. Also, if that person has a living will or the family has a consensus that the individual does not wich to placed on a life support. Also, as far as not feeding someone who is a vegetable would be considered by some municipalities murder. I believe some of your explanations of euthanasia are misleading. Before you write your paper, you might to look at some previous cases where euthanasia was charged to get a better idea.

As for my opinion, I feel that if both parties are of sound mind and body and they are terminally ill with no possible chance of experiencing life aas they see fit, then no one should be charged with any crime. They are the ones who have to live with the symptoms, not the lawyers and doctors. Besides, their life hasa already been taken form them at an early age, they should at least be abel to decide when they will stop fighting. Most of the laws that have been drawn up are ther not to protect the patients, but rather to benefit the doctors, hospitals, and lawyers who can bleed the insurance companies and families of money until the last minute.

Assisted suicide shoud be allowed under provisions such as the person must be terminally ill and handicapped and they must have at least three medical opinions stating that they are no longer capable of experiencing life independently and pain free.

Answer 3

Yes, I know what euthanasia is. I actually wrote a paper about it too. I am very much opposed to it.

Making euthanasia acceptable opens an entire pandora's box that we don't want to get into. Who decides when euthanizing is appropriate? The family? The doctors? It's a dangerous place to go, and the legal complications would be endless. Look at what happened a couple of years ago to that lady in Florida! There was a huge "custody" type battle over who decided about her treatment - her parents or her estranged husband. The husband wanted to cut the cords (and he had money to gain when she died), while the parents wanted to keep trying to heal her. Stuff like that would inevitably happen all the time if euthanasia were legal in the states. Or even worse - if the doctors were the decision makers, imagine the intensity of the grief in families where they disagreed with the doctor's opinion. Or think of the malpractice suits that could be raised. Yikes. Total legal mess.

We also shouldn't give human beings the power to decide over another's life, because there's too much potential for shady behavior. It could end up being a way to legally get away with murder. Situations like a greedy wife whose husband is seriously ill and who has tons of money to gain if he dies. Or situations where doctors are quick to advise a certain way just because they don't like the person. We have to allow for human nature in our legal system. As someone above noted, there is a difference between euthanizing (nicknamed "kind killing") and taking someone who is brain dead off of life support. Anyway, no one should have the right to decide whether another person lives or dies. That's why we have laws against murder in the states, right? The murderer does not have the right to make that choice for their victim. The same moral rule applies.

Do some research on the Nazi regime in WWII. They made euthanasia legal and took it a lot farther than terminal illness (which is usually the reason for legalizing euthanasia cited in the states). They euthanized people with disorders like down's syndrome, any babies with deformities, and even babies who were born ugly or without the proper "aryan" features. It's pretty damn scary footsteps to follow in, don't you think? Making it legal for terminal illness is just the first step in a very scary direction.

Anyway, just some stuff to think about. Good luck on your paper!

Answer 4

Yes, I've heard of it and it's another tough debate. The person who talks about the Dutch situation is really on the money and knows what he's talking about.

It was the same with abortion, give an inch they take a mile. At first only abortions in the first trimester were allowed, and now we have Josef Mengeles all over the place posing as doctors committing horrendous atrocities against children for money.

Even though some people definitely deserve to be executed who is going to ensure someone doesn't abuse it by using it for racial cleansing, or getting rid of poor people, or ugly people or whomever. I've heard it said that death row isn't populated by the worst criminals, but by people too poor to afford good lawyers.

I believe that if someone is truly suffering horribly, and they want to die, they should be allowed to have their suffering end. But it's all just so open for abuse. If doctors can hammer a nail into a fully developed baby's head for a few thousand dollars, maybe the next person these souless money grubbing monsters will be pulling the plug on, will be you.

Answer 5

I cant say I have never heard this term before, but I wasnt recalling it when I saw it. Now, situations whether it should be allowed or not really vary. Wow though..I dont know. My grandma just passed away a few weeks ago, and has been sick for a long time. She was completely bedridden, with diabetes, neurpathy, a pacemaker-defibulater, quadruple bypass, amputation of leg, dependent on oxygen, asthma...I think the list even goes farther. Me and my mother took care of her, and although that sounds like a lot for her to bear...I think that the only thing that was keeping her coming through all her complications each time was will. They had just recently put her on dialysis because she was basically drowing on her inside fluids. With all the crap that came along with dialysis, she tried to stay positive...but stuff kept going wrong. I think that her will died and she was tired of fighting so she let go. But I think that it was not in our hands or hers to decide. Even through all the ups and downs and her wanting to give up sometimes, I would tell her it was gods will and he would let her know when it was time to stop fighting for her life, not our desicion or even hers. Its kinda how I feel about death penalty. If someone killed a loved one of mine, my first reaction would probably be that they should die to. But when I really thought about it I would decide that God would take care of that and it isnt a judges or juries decision or right.

Answer 6

Yes, I did know.
Yes, I do think it should be allowed.

From a personal stand point, recovering, say, 5 years of one's life missed by being in a coma or vegetable, and the emotional hardships placed on loved ones is not worth it. If ever I am completely debilitated and unable to speak/move, then what is there? Waiting for something to cure me? I'd rather give myself to medical research at that point .

Answer 7

Yeah my father was in a situation like that docters said he would never recover and never walk or talk again, But he did. So I most certaintly don't think it should be legal, And alot of people think they are doing the person a *Favor* even if they can't say they don't want to die.

Answer 8

I've heard of it before. It should be legal in some cases. Also, if it were decided to be done there should be a time frame that must go by before it is done. Helping to eliminate changed minds and a possible improvement.

Answer 9

You actually have not defined it very well. To euthanize someone is to kill them, or to terminate their life, usually without their permission. Suicide for medical reasons is not euthanizing!

It is already practiced in this country on a daily basis. Many terminally ill are actually overdosed on Morphine to depress their breathing and to hasten their death!

To pull the plug on someone who is already brain dead and being kept alive on only medical devices is not euthinasia. They are already dead, being kept alive artificially!

Read this:

Now They Want to Euthanize Children
In the Netherlands, 31 percent of pediatricians have killed infants. A fifth of these killings were done without the "consent" of parents. Going Dutch has never been so horrible.
by Wesley J. Smith
09/13/2004 12:00:00 AM

FIRST, Dutch euthanasia advocates said that patient killing will be limited to the competent, terminally ill who ask for it. Then, when doctors began euthanizing patients who clearly were not terminally ill, sweat not, they soothed: medicalized killing will be limited to competent people with incurable illnesses or disabilities. Then, when doctors began killing patients who were depressed but not physically ill, not to worry, they told us: only competent depressed people whose desire to commit suicide is "rational" will have their deaths facilitated. Then, when doctors began killing incompetent people, such as those with Alzheimer's, it's all under control, they crooned: non-voluntary killing will be limited to patients who would have asked for it if they were competent.

And now they want to euthanize children.

In the Netherlands, Groningen University Hospital has decided its doctors will euthanize children under the age of 12, if doctors believe their suffering is intolerable or if they have an incurable illness. But what does that mean? In many cases, as occurs now with adults, it will become an excuse not to provide proper pain control for children who are dying of potentially agonizing maladies such as cancer, and doing away with them instead. As for those deemed "incurable"--this term is merely a euphemism for killing babies and children who are seriously disabled.

I am opposed to it!