English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

In my mind, the issue is simple. Who owns the life? We love our freedom and our power of self-determination. Our love of freedom should dictate that an adult of sound mind should be allowed to decide how he should die. When our love of life and love of freedom collide, freedom takes priority.

No law allowing an action requires that action, meaning that no one would be required to commit suicide, assisted or otherwise. Along the same lines, no doctor ever has to perform a surgery to which he or she objects, such as abortion. He or she would likewise not have to assist with a suicide against his or her will.

The Hipocratic Oath is "first, do no harm." The act of extending a life of suffering arguably violates that oath, so assisting suicide can be argued as upholding it.

So, to allow assisted suicide supports freedom of choice, supports the Hipocratic Oath, supports our love of self-determination.

2007-07-05 09:36:17 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

14 answers

I agree that the act of extending a life of suffering violates the Hippocratic Oath more than assisting in ending a life of suffering, and I think it should be legal.

2007-07-05 09:39:50 · answer #1 · answered by Leah 6 · 4 2

No! I'm not just saying that because I believe in natural death, either. If euthanasia is legalized, eventually there will arise argument as to who decides when it should happen. They'll start "euthanizing" kids with Down's syndrome, autism, incurable diseases... I don't even want to think about what would follow legalization of euthanasia.

"Extending a life of suffering" is not necessarily harmful. Bad stuff happens; that's part of life. Some people's suffering comes in a physical form, while others suffer emotionally or psychologically. I don't think anyone here believes a clinically depressed person, or a schizophrenic person, or a person whose entire family has died, should be killed for their own good. Humans can understand what makes us suffer; that's what differentiates us from animals, and that's what enables us to take lemons and make lemonade. From the hardest situations sometimes we learn the most. Who are we to say when someone should die?

Now, I'm not saying we should pull out all the stops and keep someone on life support for thirty years when it's clear they aren't going to revive, but there is a difference between allowing someone to die of something they're dying of anyway, and outright killing them.

2007-07-05 09:46:14 · answer #2 · answered by csbp029 4 · 2 1

My answer may seem flippant, but it really isn't meant to be. I'm glad I have the option of euthanasia when a dearly loved pet becomes ill and has no chance of recovery. I find it very unsettling that the same mercy may not be an option for me when my time comes.

Even more unsettling, I believe my vet is a better doctor than some I've had. I've seen vet assistants rush to a beeping machine to check for a crimp in an IV tube, and the same situation ignored for my grandmothers roommate in the hospital. Sometimes I'm jealous of my pets and it's not just because they have cute toys.

2007-07-05 10:16:08 · answer #3 · answered by sagacious_ness 7 · 1 0

It should, or at least we should NOT prosecute doctors (or anyone else) who assists in that situation.

I think that the folks who most vehemently oppose this idea have no concept WHATSOEVER what its like to lay there like a vegetable, soiling the bed, in pain, while loved ones look on.

I hope that if I'm ever in that state that my partner has the courage and the strength (I know she has the resources) to administer a sufficient dose of morphine.

I hope that I would also have the strength if requested.

2007-07-05 13:16:24 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I agree with you, but the laws governing euthanasia have to be clearly defined to avoid abuses....abuses from impatient relatives who don't want to see grandpa's inheritance eaten away by doctor bills...abuses from healthcare plan bureaucrats tired of paying out...abuses from hospital bureaucrats who want a hospital bed for someone with better insurance...abuses from doctors who are tired of caring for a challenging patient. To avoid all that euthanasia laws need to:
1. Require a signed and witnessed living will
2. A signed statement from the physician saying that the patient is in a terminal status with less than a year to live (I'd vote for 6 months, but could be swayed either way).
3. The patient's mental health needs to be evaluated to make sure he/she is not in a depression that is reversible.
4. The patient needs to have been made aware of other end-of-life services available besides termination, i.e., pain management, hospice care, etc.
5. A panel of family and health care professionals need to make the judgment for termination...not just one person.

2007-07-05 09:57:58 · answer #5 · answered by kathy_is_a_nurse 7 · 1 1

If the family wishes to terminate the life of a loved one who cannot choose form themselves, then they should be allowed to do so.

If a person wishes to end their own life then we shouldn't try to stop them...as long as their suicide doesn't directly harm another person.

Euthenasia won't work, but suicide and physician-assisted suicide should be completely legal.

2007-07-05 09:51:21 · answer #6 · answered by Mathsorcerer 7 · 2 2

The main issue I have with euthanasia is it's potential for abuse. If someone decides that they wish to die then they can do as they please. But, there will be room for others, possibly relatives, to take advantage of these situations. Ultimately due to this possibility I am against it.

2007-07-05 09:42:11 · answer #7 · answered by Brian 7 · 3 0

Two weeks ago I told my primary doc; that euthanizing me would be the most humane thing that the VA could do for me......And that is only what is considered illegal? Just hope there will not be hundreds of thousands of our recent veterans repeating my same words in 20 years! (keep forgetting how many will commit suicide!)

2007-07-05 09:56:27 · answer #8 · answered by pacer 5 · 2 1

Wrong.

Who is the ultimate "decision maker" on who should die and who should live?

Extending life does not violate the hippocratic oath if the patient:

-might recover
-has moderate or less pain

The hippocratic oath was written more for euthanasia that care.

2007-07-05 09:40:01 · answer #9 · answered by infobrokernate 6 · 0 3

No. But when Social Security runs out, we will have fun telling our children euthenasia is wrong, after allowing abortion in the name of choice.

When we toy with the definitions of "people" we allow all forms of rationale for genocide.

ADDED: Let me put in this plug for a living will or other long term incapacitation planning and documents. These items are relatively inexpensive to have drafted while you are young and healthy, and I recommend this for newlyweds and single parents, especially.

2007-07-05 09:41:28 · answer #10 · answered by ? 7 · 3 3

fedest.com, questions and answers