Alphabuster187

Agreed, couldn't have said it better.

I think it's safe to say that most Americans oppose euthanesia/assited suicide.

__________________

Prestige: 10 / Rank: 70 / Kills: 97,285 / KDR: 2.68

Flyt

I obviously don't agree with the viewpoint but think you're right about how most in the US feel.

__________________

Alphabuster187

I don't oppose it but I feel most do, don't know for sure.

__________________

Prestige: 10 / Rank: 70 / Kills: 97,285 / KDR: 2.68

WeAre138

No. We need people who love jesus christ to get the ball rolling.

I agree with everyone here.

ishter

Flyt, I feel the system may be abused if the parameters warranting euthanasia were as per mentioned. If euthanasia could be used as a humane method of suicide, without a doubt the suicide rates/euthanasia assisted suicide rates would climb. I fear that people in a low-point of their lives may also decide to take this route, where previously, suicide was the only option for escape. Can you see what I'm getting at? This would inevitably lead to the lines being blurred, and would become vastly misused.

Furthermore, the point regarding inevitable death is a valid one too, which ensures the seriousness of ones condition, ultimately ensuring that the system is not abused by people who would not normally contemplate suicide.

I cannot speak for nibbles, but that is my reasoning behind the need for suffering and inevitable death when warranting euthanasia.

Nibbles

Put simply, I believe that the treatment should fit the problem. If you had a headache and required no more than an aspirin, your doctor wouldn't prescribe morphine. Obviously terminal illness is a lot more complicated than my analogy, but that is what it boils down to for me at a very basic level.

However, I believe the question you are asking (please, correct me if I am wrong) is: "Regardless of circumstances, why shouldn't a person legally be allowed the option of ending their life through assisted suicide?"

If there was no requirement other than the patients consent, I don't believe the best decision would always be made - for example, temporary and/or curable conditions which cloud judgement such as depression could be a driving factor. Would it be right, for example, if a loved one who normally would never think about terminating their life, decided to end it while in a state of chronic depression (which would be quite a catalyst)?

On the other hand, if a person is intelligent, mentally stable, knows the consequences, is not about to impact anyone else in a negative way through death (eg, burdening the next of kin with a mortgage to pay and several kids to look after) - basically, if the "patient" is someone who had all bases covered, well prepared and was totally ready to go, then I cannot see a reason why they should not be allowed to opt for assisted suicide.

I totally agree with your view Flyt, but only if this (the above paragraph) is the scenario. However, I don't find it to be a realistic solution. Qualification would be extremely rare, not to mention the potential for legal loopholes would likely be massive.

ishter

Agreed, probably a better explanation then my own.

Flyt

So in essence you feel it is better to protect people and their loved ones from themselves, and their potentially wrong and irreversible decisions, rather than letting them decide for themselves what they want or do not want? I'm a strong believer in free will and that people should be allowed to be as self destructive as they want. (Obviously we are talking about people that who are lucid and able to communicate their wishes.)

Maybe I am crossing over into assisted suicide too much, and euthanasia should be limited to those that can not be asked or communicate what their wishes are; things like having no higher brain functions and only the brain stem working which keeps autonomic system functioning.

__________________

ishter

This effectively ignores the impact the individuals death will have on their loved ones, as nibbles previously mentioned, whether it be an emotional burden or a financial one. I think suicide is often a very selfish act, one that should remain illegal and under no circumstances (assisted or not) be legalized. Euthanasia is another story though. If prolonged suffering is inevitable, only to lead to the eventual, unavoidable death of an individual, under these circumstances, and these circumstances alone, I believe euthanasia should be an option.

Flyt

Without a doubt it ignores the impact to their loved ones. However, is it your or my place to take the role of protecting them? This is another discussion but..... I'm not a big fan of government involvement in peoples' lives.
Edit: In other words government should only do for people what they can not do for themselves.

__________________

ishter

EDIT: I respectfully disagree, the following argument sounded too much like an attack without this <--

According to that logic, is it alright for a mother to kill her child whenever she no longer wants him/her? Is it alright if fathers sexually abuse their children? Is it alright if siblings engage in sexual intercourse?

For fuck sake it is not, there is evidently a problem with the family to begin with, and if no-one else is going to step in, the government will and better bloody should. The examples above may be slightly exaggerated ones, but the principal remains the same.

Any government, as an institution, has the responsibility to manage it's country, therefore inclusive of it's people - the level of government involvement is dictated by none other than its citizens through their actions, if government involvement is not needed, then any remotely intelligent government will not interfere.

In fear of digression, I will leave you with the following thought,

If one wants to end their life (for no apparent or particular reason), but does not have the will power to follow through, should it then become the governments responsibility to do so? (According to your logic), whilst ignoring the many inevitable adverse effects upon the family and society as a whole?

Flyt

No offense taken.

No it should not be the governments role to step in and help someone do something they wont do for them self (i.e. kill them self) however the government (or society for that matter) shouldn't stand in the way of them doing it or finding someone to help them either. The government should have no role in this at all, including facilitating, preventing, or punishing after the fact.
And while there may not be an apparent reason to for them to want to end their life they may have reasons that make sense only to them and others that are or have been in their situation. End of life is a personal decision, end of story.
All the factors you mention should be taken into account by the person making that decision. And if the person making the decision is selfish enough to not consider those things, what makes you think they would have done any better in any of the other endeavors. (yes, I'm a cold hearted bastard).

The other things you mention are little more than red herrings, and my last comment; government should only do for people what they can not do for themselves applies to most of the things you mentioned, i.e. protect them.

__________________

Pyro

First off, I know I am necroposting.

Over the past few weeks, I've done many assignments on euthanasia. Tonight I decided to give this documentary a watch.
FRONTLINE: the suicide tourist: introduction | PBS
It's nearly an hour long, but it is really good. Judging by this thread, pretty much everyone is for euthanasia to some extent. If one has any doubts about it, I really hope that if you watch this documentary that it will help ease those doubts.

Though, one thing I do think I differ from most people on is how it is limited. I'd say my opinion is more like Flyt's. It just seems wrong to me to deny this right to anyone, regardless of how we feel about it. To give an extreme example, who are we to say that having something like a headache or a scraped knee is not suffering enough to end your life over? I'm sure most rational human beings would not kill themselves over a problem liek this, but why prohibit people from doing it? I guess, fundamentally, it isn't illegal for them to commit suicide, but we as a society do everything we can to make it the hardest choice to make. Essentially, to me, it almost seems as if we're punishing people for being suicidal because we leave them no real humane method of taking their own lives. We'll allow the government to humanely kill criminals, but we won't allow innocent people who wish to die peacefully to do so. I just don't get it.

Anyways, that's just my 2 cents on a topic I didn't really assert my opinion into earlier. Sorry for the necro.

Here's a clip from the documentary if you, understandably, don't watch to watch an hour long documentary.

__________________