Would you support a law that made euthanasia a legal choice for any adult of sound mind?

Question

Furthermore, let's say that this law would also allow for adults of sound mind to assist other adults of sound mind in the process of euthanasia.

What are your thoughts?

Answer 1

It sounds good but there needs to be checks and balances. Otherwise, how do you know I didn't "kill" grandpa Joe for his life Insurance instead of to "ease his pain". Also, a lot of depressed people would take this as a way out when they don't really want to die in the long run. Thanks for the question, and have a great day!

Answer 2

Well, I know most Religious Groups are pro-suffering and many would like to watch. And the Medical Establishment would hate to see people die before their insurance runs out.

But I don't have a problem with it, except for two conditions. First it needs to be done under medical supervision. Both because most suicide attempts fail and because people should have a chance to act on their second thoughts.

The other condition is that a representative of the County should witness the signing of the papers and ask questions to make sure that it's what people really want. There are often points in the treatment of trauma cases and serious illness when the patients want to die even though they are making good progress and the prognosis is positive.

There have been cases in the Netherlands where elderly patients have been urged to accept Euthanasia because the hospital needed the bed.

Answer 3

Since you asserted that the person was of sound mind, I assume you mean "assisted suicide", not "euthanasia."

Yes, I think that the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" must include the right to end that life if so desired. I am bothered by the idea that some people seem to have that anyone who wants to die is not of sound mind. If I ever contract something like ALS or something similar, I'm out of here. . .

Answer 4

Excellent question! If I was in a vegetative state, please take me to Oregon and euthanise me. Don't starve me to death, ffs! That is just horrible! I can't believe that it's illegal to starve an animal to death, but it's okay to do that to a human being? And we're not talking the Scott Petersons of the world, either - we're talking about our loved ones.

My best friend recently helped care for her grandmother-in-law when they pulled the plug on Gran. Most of the family lives here - even a lot of the extended family - so the house was always full of people. And, of course, food. She said it just felt so very wrong for anyone to be eating in that house, while poor Gran was slowly starving to death in the back room.

One day, when my friend was at work, her sis-in-law and Gramp were eating ice cream, talking about how much Gran loved ice cream. They tried to give her a bite, but she had not eaten in several days; she almost choked to death. Of course, that probably would have been better - the poor lady lived a full fourteen days. Even if there's only one chance in a billion that she was aware of the fact she was being tortured and starved to death, that's too high for me.

I fully support euthanasia and find it ironic as hell that we say it's "inhumane" to let an animal suffer - so why on earth is it "inhumane" to put a terminal patient out of their misery?

That being said, I do have concerns about playing God, but I also have my own belief system, and I really don't think God is going to condemn a good person to Hell just because they did not want to suffer terribly.

I think it would have to be extremely regulated and only medical professionals, who are specially certified, should be allowed to do it - if not, you'd have way too many jerks killing people just for the money or, even worse, just for the hell of it. If not restricted, it would be a murderers wet dream.

Answer 5

i'd have no problem with it. if we're so concerned about freedom and individual choice, then certainly this qualifies.

the one significant problem i see is that you would have a lot of difficulty in two areas.

1) establishing the necessary and sufficient conditions for being 'of sound mind'.
2) ensuring that only the legitimately contracted acts are euthanized. it could be a difficult situation in a potential murder.

that being said, both could be treated.

'of sound mind' could be that you know all the factors involved. you know your chances of survival as they stand now, you know your assets, you know how long you have to live, essentially. following from that, a basic iq test could be administered. it must be shown that the person is rational. if you cannot follow logical sentences, then you're not of sound mind.

the murder chances could be reduced by having witnesses. granted, this could just multiply the problem by having several conspirators. but i suppose the witnesses could acknowledge that if there is any sign of foul play, they know they will be suspects.

so yeah, i see no reason to not support a law like that. let people do what they wish with their own destinies.

Answer 6

Considering the world is very overpopulated, I'd support the right for anyone at any age to participate in this kind of program.

Why are we so hung up on keeping everyone alive at any costs?

There's millions of people who really don't need to be here: disabled, deformed, criminally insane, mentally unstable & those who do little more than deplete our resources by remaining charity cases their whole lives.

Is there a purpose in keeping these people around other than to give ourselves a pat on the back for being so "generous, kind & merciful"?

Other than those mentioned, if someone else suddenly decides they don't want to be around anymore - we should let them have at it.

Prepare some paperwork that allows them to make arrangements for their impending death. This would ensure that taxpayers aren't stuck with the costs of body disposal. If they can't afford it, their parents or relatives could pitch in. They could write out a will, thier last wishes & other things they'd like to get done with before they off themselves.

This kind of program would save the country millions in court costs, medical expenses & vauable resources.

Answer 7

As long as it's a personal choice,made in a sound state of mind,then I see no reason why it should be illegal.So yes I would support it.

AD

Answer 8

NO! The problems that this would open up isn't worth it. It's not our choice to choose when we or anyone else dies and for a reason that goes beyond just cause it's not right. And then what comes next? Disabled people should be taken out, babies, kids, people with deformities at birth or due to an accident later?

Answer 9

Seeing how many people are to be manipulated I'm very wary. Their intellectual level doesn't seem to always safe guard them. Yet I do know in the not to distant future the insurance companies (even if it is universal health care) will offer to pay for the bullet & deny the medical benefits.

Answer 10

No. In no way shape or form would I support euthanasia.

Margaret Sanger and Adolph Hitler practiced the same things, because they thought they were going to create the "perfect" race, it's called eugenics.

Eugenics is evil!!!

EDIT:

Sweethartt is right!! Taking ones life is against the law of God!!

Proberbs 28:24

'Whoever is a partner with a thief (to take another life) hates his own life; He swears to tell the truth, but reveals nothing.'