I am in favour of it for people who are in great pain, who are not going to get any better, and who want their suffering to end.
We are kinder to animals than we are to our own kind sometimes.
2007-11-24 00:09:08
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I am going to say for the most part I disagree with euthanasia except for very very extreme cases.
I have watched people die very slow painful deaths due to disease (cancer in this case) where there was no cure and the pain killers had long since stopped working.
If we allowed an animal to suffer the same way we allow some people to slowly and painfully die we would be charged with cruelty to animals.
It is a difficult question and a moral one. In my opinion it should be an absolute last resort after everything else has been tried to relieve unbearable suffering.
Of course this also leads to people that are brain dead or near brain dead. But the body is still alive with machines (obviously not in pain but not alive either). In my case, I have a card that says keep me alive with machines for 6 months if there is absolutely no improvement disconnect and then DNR (do not resuscitate). However if there is improvement keep me on the machines and let me keep fighting or life.
To me as long as we are able to function at all, even if it is simply by talking to others (for instance the case of someone that is totally paralyzed) I think we should keep fighting for life for there is a lot we can still contribute (consider Christopher Reeves).
However, there are cases where we may be alive but there simply is no life for the person as the two examples I talked about above.
It is a difficult choice and one I hope no one reading this ever has to make in real life.
Take care and may Our Creator bless and watch over you.
2007-11-24 00:57:48
·
answer #2
·
answered by jerrys1960 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Everyone has the absolute right to live, as everyone also has teh absolute right to make their own decision about their death.
I think that if someone decides they want to be euthanised, and they are of clear mental capacity, NOT under any sort of duress, promise, threat, or suggestion....and they have something terminal, they are suffering, yes, they have that absolute right.
On the other hand, euthanasia is an excuse for the medical profession to get rid of patients in it's overmanaged, overpopulated, overregulated, system.
There is NO excuse for people to die at all, even from what we are told are "terminal illnesses". The medical profession holds the cures for everything, they just use these cures selectively or not at all.
Do your homework, and you'll find i'm speaking the truth.
2007-11-24 03:44:20
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
this one is a toughie..... there's too many variables in each case to come up with an answer that covers them all.....I know that if I had to face some horrid disease that caused terrible pain before finally allowing me to die, I'd opt for the 'early out' of euthanasia..... allowed or not..... and I'd have to hope for a friend to help me, most likely.... and then worry that the friend would suffer for having helped me..... that sort of thing should be straightened out first, I'm thinking..... no one who helps AT THE PERSON"S REQUEST should have to answer to a court about it......
this should , I think, be a matter between a patient and his doctor and select family members.... those who know the patient's wishes..... never should it get to the courts!!!!!....we've all seen what happens then.............
2007-11-24 00:13:40
·
answer #4
·
answered by meanolmaw 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think it is wrong. We should do everything in our power to save a life.
2007-11-24 00:08:26
·
answer #5
·
answered by azurewaters1 3
·
0⤊
0⤋