euthanasia is assisted suicide, which is to kill someone who is in pain or in terminal stage of disease and end their suffering. will you agree to euthanasia on a loved on? if no, why? if yes, why?
2007-11-27 02:06:25 · 21 answers · asked by cinnamonraisin 2 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Medicine
I absolutely agree with it. If someone is terminal and in a great deal of pain and suffering and wish to end their lives, I would respect their wishes and agree to allow consential euthianasia. It's their choice, not mine, to make.
I do NOT agree with euthianasia without the patient's consent, and the fact that this happens all the time (especially to cancer patients) enrages me. That's just plain murder, whether the intentions of the doctor are good or not.
2007-11-27 02:10:37 · answer #1 · answered by Love My Hubby - Hate His Mom 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I agree with ending someones suffering if they are suffering from a terminal illness & they are in the last days of the their life & in terrible pain. I also think the assisted suicide should be carried out by some in the immediate family.
If the laws were to be change & euthanasia was made legal I think it would be abused.
2007-11-27 02:10:56 · answer #2 · answered by Ĕrotic Ńightmare 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
No, of course not! People have a right to life!
Well, I guess you can't call it a right, because you can waive a right, so its more an 'Obligation to Life' as the current system works.
Still isn't it better for our beloved ones to lay dying for months in a hospital bed so our last memories of them are painful and someone whose life could actually be saved (not just prolonged) does not have access to that bed?
Maybe we shouldn't allow euthanasia because people will make hasty decisions about it- because there is no way in the world some system could exist to check and recheck to make sure people do not rush into it.
2007-11-27 02:25:01 · answer #3 · answered by donfolstar 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, I do not agree with euthanasia. The reason is because human life is not ours to take. I am for allowing terminal patients to die with dignity and pain free. If we require more powerful medicines to relieve suffering, then those should be allowed to be developed. Making people comfortable is a good thing. There is no reason to kill them even a moment early.
.
2007-11-27 02:12:45 · answer #4 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I think it should be legal and available to people who want it, and meet certain criteria, such as:
- it is severe, debilitating, untreatable pain
- a diagnosis that the disease or injury is terminal in the near future
- the person requests euthanasia, repeatedly, in front of several witnesses
- the treatment is quick, painless, and humane.
- the person has been evaluated by several medical and psychological professionals, and judged sane, rational, and capable of making this decision and understanding the implications associated with it.
Why should someone be condemned to months of pain, when everyone KNOWS that they will die in a matter of months?
Why should they have to "live" connected to tubes, monitoring equipment, etc, and have someone wash and bathe them all against their will?
Why should they be forced to remain in a hospital room, surrounded by strangers, when they could spend their final hours in their own home, surrounded by friends and family?
Why should we allow this final kindness for a pet, but not a family member?
2007-11-27 02:16:29 · answer #5 · answered by Ralfcoder 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
This one is still iffy to me. On the one hand, it's difficult to watch our loved ones suffer. On the other hand, we are taking a life that bears the image of the Creator, God. Taking life is forbidden in scripture . . . God says He'll be the one responsible for that.
When politicians speak about euthanasia, one of the things they say is that these lives aren't worth living. That's what the Nazi's said about the Jews . . . their lives are not worth living. It's an excuse you MUST use when you purposely take the lives of those who inconvenience you.
And here's this: Once we allow killing for convenience, we're set up for disaster. We have more elderly than ever, they want to enjoy life to the fullest after retirement, and we have less younger people, so not enough tax money to support them. Euthanasia is a time bomb . . . it will lead to the malicious killing of the elderly without consent. They inconvenience us, and their lives are "not worth living," so let's euthanize them.
And there's this: our culture NEEDS to care for those who need care. Once we stop helping the downcast & lowly, and instead euthanize them, expect the next generations to increase in selfishness, hardness, reclusiveness, and lack of compassion. But if we choose to not kill, but rather care (& advances in pain medicine have changed the suffering dynamic), it will benefit our society as people become deeper and more self-sacrificing.
It makes you understand why God would tell us not to kill (Exod. 20) and why He would absolutely forbid the taking of innocent life no matter what (Gen. 9:6). We bear His image, along with the responsibility to help those who need help, NOT kill them. This is a great question, and I'm glad you asked it, and hopefully this shows one perspective that is out there on the issue. Let me just say that I completely sympathize with anyone watching their loved ones suffer - I watched a close family member deteriorate with alzheimer's, and it was crushing for a long time. But there are bigger stakes in the euthanasia debate.
2007-11-27 02:20:49 · answer #6 · answered by Mike 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Tough subject. I've heard stories of cases but I personally couldn't do it. I could not live with myself knowing I let my loved one die. I'd leave it to the medical professionals to advise what to do, as much as I would want to end their suffering.
Yet in a case where my loved one was brain dead or needed the assistance of machines to stay alive I would not have them suffer in that manner. My grandfather was in the ICU on a respirator for 2 weeks and in a ward for 2 weeks and this cycle continued for over a month. It was so hard to see him thrive on a ventilator and seem to get better and then be off of it and deteriorate. I wished that God would take him but at the same time I wished he'd get better. The whole ordeal gave me false hope.
2007-11-27 02:13:08 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes, I have never understood why some christians prefer unbearably suffering of their loved ones in terminal disease. Take lungcancer for instance. If it is untreatable, most patients die from a an lunginfection. They are lucky. The rest die from a slow suffocation which can take weeks. This kind of dying can be compared to death by hanging, only MUCH slower...
2007-11-27 02:11:51 · answer #8 · answered by psychopiet 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I would say no. In fairyland a loved aged parent who has lived a good life and is in unbearable pain, is aided to peace. In the real world, unethical and already inept and understaffed hospitals begin to pull the plug overquick, not practice quite as sincerely on older people and make decisions based on who is paying for hearts lungs and kidneys. Never look at the rule. Always look at the possibilites for its abuse.
2007-11-27 02:12:09 · answer #9 · answered by nutsfornouveau 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
well this is a big issue of all medical world which am part of... personally after seeing hundreds of cases of end stage cancer sufferances and sever accidents without possible recovery of the patient i think eutanasia will be a bliss to the patient... i guess u can't even begin to imagine the extent of pain those patients have and even if it was for my dearest one i would prefer eutanasia than seeing that merciless sufferance.
2007-11-27 02:11:27 · answer #10 · answered by Amrish S 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋