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

2007-11-19 23:21:29 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

18 answers

Can I have your stuff when you opt to go?

2007-11-19 23:24:59 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4 0

Euthanasia is the practice of having a medically assisted death. Euthanasia can be conducted in various ways.

1) Euthanasia by means

Euthanasia may be conducted passively, non-aggressively, and aggressively. Passive euthanasia entails the withholding of common treatments (such as antibiotics, pain medications, or surgery) or the distribution of a medication (such as morphine) to relieve pain, knowing that it may also result in death (principle of double effect). Passive euthanasia is the most accepted form, and it is a common practice in most hospitals. Non-aggressive euthanasia entails the withdrawing of life support and is more controversial. Aggressive euthanasia entails the use of lethal substances or force to kill and is the most controversial means.

2) Euthanasia by consent
Euthanasia may be conducted with consent - voluntary euthanasia - or without consent - involuntary euthanasia. Since involuntary euthanasia is conducted without an individual's specifically given acquiescence, in the opinion of some this equates involuntary euthanasia to murder. Involuntary euthanasia may be conducted when the person is incapable of making a decision and it is thus left to a proxy. One recent example of this is the Terri Schiavo case. Euthanasia by proxy consent is highly controversial, especially because multiple proxies may claim the authority to decide for the patient. While voluntary euthanasia is euthanasia with the person’s direct consent it is still controversial for reasons discussed below.

2007-11-20 07:32:27 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

If the patient and immediate family agrees and signs a form with witnesses such as a psychologist then i dont see any real problem. In the end it is down to the individual, it is their life and if they dont want to suffer, which is fair enough, then go ahead. There is too much value put upon a life due to religious beliefs, in the greater scheme of things it really makes no difference.

2007-11-20 07:40:04 · answer #3 · answered by Jimmy 2 · 0 0

i,m a big believer in it.
australia became the first country in the world to legalize it.
you are hooked up to a computer and after you say you want
it,you are asked a second time are you sure? california
came within one per centage point of becoming the first
state to legalize it.. if you have an incurable and painfull
disease, death is enevitable and you are in unbearable pain
euthanasia should be an option for a sane person. if a dog
can be put to sleep to end its misery, why not a person?

2007-11-20 07:33:01 · answer #4 · answered by Jerry S 7 · 1 0

i agree with this. It's a decent form of dying. Thre's many people suffering, only waiting to the death and spending money and time.
The society needs to be less cynic and think about euthanasia truly.

Brazil Rio

2007-11-20 07:26:16 · answer #5 · answered by Brazil Rio 2 · 4 0

I hope that some day that laws all over the world will allow this to happen.I'm very much in favour of it.I don't want to linger,being fed by machines.My family feeling the need to visit me every day as a matter of duty etc.We don't let animals suffer, do we?

2007-11-20 09:26:55 · answer #6 · answered by CMH 6 · 0 0

Everyone should have the right to die with dignity. My husband and I have living wills which specifically state our wishes if we are in a coma, vegetative state, etc. I do not want to be kept alive if it means that I can only "live" with the assistance of machinery. I do not want to waste away lying in a hospital bed. I believe I should have the right to choose when I die under these types of circumstances.

2007-11-20 07:31:42 · answer #7 · answered by Vera C 6 · 2 0

sometimes I feel that people are being kept alive for the benefit of their families and not for the benefit of the patient. I personally would not want to put my family through the agony of waiting for me to die if I had no hope of recovery as I'm sure many of the people in that situation feel. I think its a disgrace that someone in britain who wants to die with dignity has to go abroad in order to avoid the coming pain/paralysis.

2007-11-20 07:47:57 · answer #8 · answered by gothicmamma 5 · 0 0

I'm all for someone having the right to end their life if the only scenario for them in the future is a painful and slow death, why should people have to suffer?

2007-11-20 07:24:11 · answer #9 · answered by Shanahan 4 · 5 0

In the case of Nancy Cruzan, it would have been an easier, less painful way for her to die. Her parents did what they felt was right. RIP for her, her mother and her father.

2007-11-20 08:18:44 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Yes.
Some people would like it so that can get a relative out of the way, and get their money.

Just cutting off life support to someone who has no chance, is the proper and moral way to do it.

2007-11-20 07:31:03 · answer #11 · answered by dinamuk 4 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers