Is Euthanasia right or wrong?

by BK-201 Thu Jan 24, 2013 8:33 am

I came across this article and thought it would make a great debate for the forum.

In Ethics class, we are studying certain ethical debates. For example, we have covered the Death Penalty, media censorship, etc. But the newest thing is euthanasia. Simply, euthanasia is defined as "assisted killing." It is meant for people who are suffering a great deal who may be better off dying because of the severity of that suffering.

There are two main arguments in the debate about euthanasia:

The first is the opponent side of the debate. Basically, these people say that the reason we are given life is to live it and that if God wanted us to die, then he would take our lives. It is murder to kill oneself or be killed using medicine because the suffering is too great. They think that if you are alive in this suffering then there is probably some reason for it.

The second is the proponent side of things. These people say that every person receives dignity and self-worth, and those slowly wasting away are being denied that dignity and self-worth. If someone is only half-conscious and salivating all over themselves, then people shouldn't have to live that way if they don't want to.

Looking at it from the law point of view, you need to know two key terms - active euthanasia and passive euthanasia.

-Greek: easy death. The act or practice of painlessly terminating the life of a person or animal. As applied to animals, it is sometimes referred to as "humane disposal." N.J.S.A. 45: 16-14. As applied to persons, it is accepted in some cultures but in the United States it may be treated as criminal, subjecting those responsible to prosecution under the homicide statutes. Two types of euthanasia exist.

Active euthanasia refers to the act of putting to death. Also known as "mercy killing," it involves the termination of life as painlessly as possible such as by an injection of lethal medications. Courts are struggling with this area of law which is also known as "assisted suicide." For the rights of the terminally ill, see 95 Uniform Laws Annotated 609 (1987).

Passive euthanasia involves withholding artificial life support, such as breathing or feeding tubes. It is often called the "right to die."

An exception to prosecution has been developed in some jurisdictions in which the termination of the life of an incurably ill patient is no longer treated as criminal if done by a guardian or immediate family member after consultation with an ethics committee of a hospital, and if accomplished by the negative means of withdrawing life-support systems or extraordinary medical care rather than by some affirmative act. 355 A. 2d 647.

http://www.answers.com/euthanasia

Most religions are against euthanasia because it goes against the belief that God is in control and that it is his job to control our destinies. Christianity does not support such measures as "mercy killing" or "assister killing" as they're so aptly name.

There have been some important court cases in the Supreme Court that have also debated the issue of euthanasia.

Washington v. Glucksberg (1997) and Vacco v. Quill (1997) rejected claims that terminally ill, competent patients had a constitutional right to the assistance of a physician in ending their lives. The plaintiffs were challenging state laws that barred doctors from prescribing lethal doses of medication for such patients. In the third case, Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health (1990), a patient was maintained on life support machinery in a persistent vegetative state and was incompetent to make decisions about her own treatment. The Court held that the state could prohibit the withdrawal of life support, absent “clear and convincing” evidence that this patient, if competent, would have decided to terminate treatment.

For some justices, constitutional liberty protects a person's right to make life's most important, intimate decisions free from state interference. Decisions about the timing of one's death, like decisions about contraception and abortion, would qualify. For other justices, liberty does not extend that far. These justices tend to identify liberty with traditional American legal practice—and the right to die hardly qualifies as a traditional legal right.

http://www.answers.com/euthanasia

Probably the most famous person dealing with this issue is Dr. Ted Kevorkian, known as "Doctor Death". He has been put in jail for his assisted killings of terminally ill patients. There was even one incident where he was filming the death of the person he is helping to kill.

A retired pathologist, Dr. Kevorkian, or "Dr. Death" to his detractors, made headlines in the 1990s by assisting over 130 people to commit suicide. The author of Prescription: Medicide, Dr. Kevorkian made his reputation challenging a 1993 Michigan law prohibiting physician-assisted suicide. Backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Kevorkian argued that the law, which had been expressly written to outlaw his practice of active euthanasia, denied individuals the right to choose how and when they died. However, Kevorkian's legal stance suffered when it was revealed that many of his patients' diseases were not terminal and were unverified. Unrepentant, the seventy-year-old physician continued his practice until a Michigan court sentenced him in 1999 to ten to twenty-five years in prison for the second-degree murder of Thomas Youk, a patient with Lou Gehrig's disease. Ultimately, Kevorkian's arrogance proved to be his downfall; the airing of Youk's suicide on the television program 60 Minutes infuriated the court, as did his participation in another assisted suicide while released on bail.

http://www.answers.com/euthanasia

There is also a case going on in Italy right now, about a girl who has been brain dameded for seventeen years. Finally, her father got the legalities of the situation under control and they finally pulled the plug. She was a beautiful woman and then BAM! Just like that, the next (almost) decade of her life and she's living it in a hospital bed. I think if it was me, I would want to be put out of my suffering because there is no may I would want to lay in a bed for as long as I am old.

http://youthvoices.net/discussion/euthanasia-right-or-wrong

So what do you think? Which side of the arguement do you agree with?

by Supernatural Knight Thu Jan 24, 2013 9:07 am

Hmm an interesting topic indeed.

I would believe that Euthanasia is right in the case when it is the patients choice and they are capable of making it without regret.

There is always legal issues concerning these matters, but I would consider that this should be a right as long as the patient is of a sound mind to make the choice. This is obviously only a last resort that desperate people in severe pain choose and there is more than just the one reason for choosing it, there is also the reason that a situation like this is strenuous one on the family as well with all the medical bills so it really is a humane way out for some.
Yes it is the assisted death of someone but if it is chosen there shouldn't be any possible chances for the homicide charge.

Your article says that religion is against this matter as it goes against gods plan for you or whatever, but in that case wouldn't all surgery be against this plan? Say with cancers for example, there have been some amazing advances in this area with more people beating cancer now than ever [not surprisingly] but wouldn't operating on and having Chemotherapy also be considered a taboo by these religions? They kill so wouldn't beating them place you on the opposite path that god had originally intended, so saying no to this seems a bit critical.

Now for the case where the person isn't capable of asking for the assisted death, who would really want to be a vegetable all their lives? I'm not sure about you, but the idea of being forever stuck in a bed or wheelchair being barely able to blink until the day you do die, it doesn't exactly sound like living. This also places an immense stress on the family having to care for you 24/7 and worrying who will look after you should you outlive those around you.

So in the right circumstances I really do think it should be allowed.

by Dcmac Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:32 pm

Is this for euthanasia in general, or on humans only?

I feel as though it should be allowed for humans. We do it on animals, why are humans excluded? It's really weird how we can cross certain moral lines easily, but when it pertains to us it's an immediate no-no.

Whether I think euthanasia is right or wrong, I don't think it's right unless used in dire situations. If any average person can legally get it, it would amount to a doctor profiting immensely off someone's poor mental health. But if someone is in immense pain and suffering, with no hope in sight, why won't we let them? It's their judgement and their lives.

by Belsfir Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:25 pm

Nope,

The cops try to stop people jumping off bridges, so why should they not stop people trying to kill themselves in hospitals?

We keep people from making hazardous choices (high taxes on cigarettes, drinking age restrictions, illegal sale of prescription meds and drugs), so why should we allow people to make the most dangerous choice to themselves?

The worst I see of this is the formation of death panels, if euthanasia by choice is legalized, then we are one step closer to government enforced euthanasia.

by **Kusanagi** Thu Jan 24, 2013 9:49 pm

Belsfir wrote:Nope,

The cops try to stop people jumping off bridges, so why should they not stop people trying to kill themselves in hospitals?

We keep people from making hazardous choices (high taxes on cigarettes, drinking age restrictions, illegal sale of prescription meds and drugs), so why should we allow people to make the most dangerous choice to themselves?

But these points are dependent on the assumption that what we do now is the right thing to do. Should cops try to stop people from jumping off bridges? There is freedom over oneself, after all. Should we have restrictions on things people can buy? Some people believe that government should have no hand in the free market.

I don't really think there's a "right" answer to this. People should have the right to decide what to do with themselves, but some people aren't right in their heads when they make decisions; many formerly-depressed people who've failed or been prevented from suicide have said that they regret the decision.

I also don't think there's a right answer to euthanasia on humans. My last paragraph has my spiel on whether we should allow its usage and choice, but this is about whether I would use it or not in a medical kind of setting. On one hand, I believe that suffering is worse than death. But on another, I believe that the life after a period of suffering is worth it. I guess if a human 100% has no future ahead of them besides suffering until they die, then I'd be okay with euthanasia, but if they have a chance of living through but also a large chance of dying, then I'm not sure. I'd probably hold out since once you die, that's it. That's the end. You lose everything, even the right to suffer.

But all of these are just my own opinion, and other people can do what they want. I don't really care about stuff like dignity and self-worth; those are just excuses and post-decision justification.

by Dcmac Thu Jan 24, 2013 9:57 pm

Belsfir wrote:The cops try to stop people jumping off bridges, so why should they not stop people trying to kill themselves in hospitals?

We keep people from making hazardous choices (high taxes on cigarettes, drinking age restrictions, illegal sale of prescription meds and drugs), so why should we allow people to make the most dangerous choice to themselves?

Allowing people to commit suicide in public would be completely immoral. Imagine if a kid were to watch a man jump to his death. Also, who would dispose of the bodies? That doesn't sound sanitary.

And preventing underage drinking and drug usage is important. Sure, it keeps the individual who would use that safe, but more importantly it prevents (or tries to at least) any danger to the public. Again, if the streets were filled with legal rampant drug users on bath salts and underage drunk drivers how safe would that be?

Euthansia won't affect anyone who isn't involved.

by SkepticalDragon Fri Jan 25, 2013 12:21 am

I support laws making advising, encouraging, or assisting in suicide a serious misdemeanor offense and a minor felony if the person attempts it. I support public advocacy and liberalized "community support mental health services" for those suffering or struggling with serious and long-term suicidal ideation. But I likewise support decriminalizing suicide making it at worse a public health concern...

by Belsfir Fri Jan 25, 2013 12:38 am

Dcmac wrote:
Belsfir wrote:The cops try to stop people jumping off bridges, so why should they not stop people trying to kill themselves in hospitals?

We keep people from making hazardous choices (high taxes on cigarettes, drinking age restrictions, illegal sale of prescription meds and drugs), so why should we allow people to make the most dangerous choice to themselves?

Allowing people to commit suicide in public would be completely immoral. Imagine if a kid were to watch a man jump to his death. Also, who would dispose of the bodies? That doesn't sound sanitary.

And preventing underage drinking and drug usage is important. Sure, it keeps the individual who would use that safe, but more importantly it prevents (or tries to at least) any danger to the public. Again, if the streets were filled with legal rampant drug users on bath salts and underage drunk drivers how safe would that be?

Euthansia won't affect anyone who isn't involved.

Ah, but that logic works both ways. For instance, imagine the horror to a kid if they found out that granny decided to pull the plug?

by Enigma Fri Jan 25, 2013 1:17 am

Belsfir wrote:
Dcmac wrote:
Belsfir wrote:The cops try to stop people jumping off bridges, so why should they not stop people trying to kill themselves in hospitals?

We keep people from making hazardous choices (high taxes on cigarettes, drinking age restrictions, illegal sale of prescription meds and drugs), so why should we allow people to make the most dangerous choice to themselves?

Allowing people to commit suicide in public would be completely immoral. Imagine if a kid were to watch a man jump to his death. Also, who would dispose of the bodies? That doesn't sound sanitary.

And preventing underage drinking and drug usage is important. Sure, it keeps the individual who would use that safe, but more importantly it prevents (or tries to at least) any danger to the public. Again, if the streets were filled with legal rampant drug users on bath salts and underage drunk drivers how safe would that be?

Euthansia won't affect anyone who isn't involved.

Ah, but that logic works both ways. For instance, imagine the horror to a kid if they found out that granny decided to pull the plug?

You missed the point he's making. Here's are two scenarios, tell me which one is worse.

1.) You're 9 years old, walking down the street with your mom or dad or whoever, all of a sudden, a body splatters on the pavement coating you in a mist of blood and brain matter. The man didn't jump from high enough and still lives for a few moments, gasping for breath, as you watch his organs began to fail. The blood soaks into your shoes and through your socks, and you can feel the warmth on your toes. He finally breaths his last as you watch his eyes lose focus and his moans and screams of agony finally cease. You are then forced to sit through a police investigation, recalling all of the events that took place, and reliving them. You are horribly scarred for life, and develop a severe mental disability because of it, losing complete control on reality.

2.) "Honey..we need to talk..your Grandmother passed on last night.."

I'm gonna go with 1.

@OP

Yes, I fully support euthanasia, with a few certain stipulations.

1.) The obvious decision of yes or no remains with the one to be euthanized, so long as they are in their right mind, and able to do so.

1a.) If said person is not able to do so, the final decision should be made by an unbiased panel, based on statistics such as "terminality", cost (to family) of continued life support, potential harm to family (such as a (relatively) young mother becoming terminal with NO hope to live, but her being alive, at least in a vegetative state, is keeping her young child from becoming emotionally unstable), and more that I don't feel like thinking of.

2.) Hospital staff may not contribute to the process, for reasons of keeping the entire process completely unbiased.

3.) Panel judges will either A.) Not be paid, or B.) Be paid salary with no option for bonuses based on decisions or how many decisions were made.

I've got to go eat, but I'll leave this here for now.

by **bedheadred** Fri Jan 25, 2013 1:23 am

I have a very personal tragedy relating to euthanasia. My grandmother was very ill and elderly. She was in a county hospital in Texas for pneumonia, along with other problems relating to mobility and nutrition. I can imagine her quality of life wasn't great. She refused to get out of bed, as an ornery redhead would. One of the RN's decided it would be in my grandmother's (and 6 other patients') best interests to be euthanized. Her death destroyed my grandfather and father. The FBI stepped in to investigate the murders. They told my grandfather the case would be wrapped up in a years time. My grandfather passed away 366 days later. He didn't live to see the RN tried and convicted.

If euthanasia was legal at the point in time my grandmother was murdered, I don't believe this RN would have gotten the jail time she justly deserves. While I do believe people have a right not to suffer, we need to protect ourselves from someone making that choice for us.

by DemonEyesJoe Fri Jan 25, 2013 1:50 am

bedheadred wrote:I have a very personal tragedy relating to euthanasia. My grandmother was very ill and elderly. She was in a county hospital in Texas for pneumonia, along with other problems relating to mobility and nutrition. I can imagine her quality of life wasn't great. She refused to get out of bed, as an ornery redhead would. One of the RN's decided it would be in my grandmother's (and 6 other patients') best interests to be euthanized. Her death destroyed my grandfather and father. The FBI stepped in to investigate the murders. They told my grandfather the case would be wrapped up in a years time. My grandfather passed away 366 days later. He didn't live to see the RN tried and convicted.

If euthanasia was legal at the point in time my grandmother was murdered, I don't believe this RN would have gotten the jail time she justly deserves. While I do believe people have a right not to suffer, we need to protect ourselves from someone making that choice for us.

wow...doctors/nurses can just straight make that decision on their own? i thought it would be a personal and family choice. outside of that, it seems like a religious debate. euthanization is ok, as long as everyone supports it and gets their last goodbyes and such. until then, there is always something to keep from being uncomfortable until that time.

again, outside of that is merely religion forcing itself onto other people IMO....but yea, THOSE discussions are..."forbidden?"

by SkepticalDragon Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:09 am

bedheadred wrote:I have a very personal tragedy relating to euthanasia. My grandmother was very ill and elderly. She was in a county hospital in Texas for pneumonia, along with other problems relating to mobility and nutrition. I can imagine her quality of life wasn't great. She refused to get out of bed, as an ornery redhead would. One of the RN's decided it would be in my grandmother's (and 6 other patients') best interests to be euthanized. Her death destroyed my grandfather and father. The FBI stepped in to investigate the murders. They told my grandfather the case would be wrapped up in a years time. My grandfather passed away 366 days later. He didn't live to see the RN tried and convicted.

If euthanasia was legal at the point in time my grandmother was murdered, I don't believe this RN would have gotten the jail time she justly deserves. While I do believe people have a right not to suffer, we need to protect ourselves from someone making that choice for us.

Texas in fact has a kind of euthanasia law on the books, sometimes called the "futile care law", but more properly the 1999 Advance Directives Act. The law basically outlines the process and criteria involved in involuntarily ending of life-support or continued care... hypothetically if a hospital can reasonably prove they abide by this law they are immune from liability and prosecution in this matter.

Personally I am very divided on the issue of the right to die... it is not an easy subject to reason out or live with the emotional consequences thereof. Part of me wants to support the right to die and another part abhors it.

However as a liberal libertarian I strongly support that everyone has a right to life, liberty, and dignity... which also means reasonable access to a free health care system... that every patient has the right to be reasonably informed including the right to choose and deny treatment... that health care providers should be expected to welcome, support, encourage the former as much as remotely possible... and that the expectation for health care providers to do no harm directly or indirectly, in addition to care for those in need of their service supporting and encouraging their individual health and wellness.

Since the former means compulsory/coerced and involuntary/non-voluntary euthanasia is not tolerable under my world view. If that is the case... I am glad that the RN saw justice...

by **Kusanagi** Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:46 am

bedheadred wrote:I have a very personal tragedy relating to euthanasia. My grandmother was very ill and elderly. She was in a county hospital in Texas for pneumonia, along with other problems relating to mobility and nutrition. I can imagine her quality of life wasn't great. She refused to get out of bed, as an ornery redhead would. One of the RN's decided it would be in my grandmother's (and 6 other patients') best interests to be euthanized. Her death destroyed my grandfather and father. The FBI stepped in to investigate the murders. They told my grandfather the case would be wrapped up in a years time. My grandfather passed away 366 days later. He didn't live to see the RN tried and convicted.

If euthanasia was legal at the point in time my grandmother was murdered, I don't believe this RN would have gotten the jail time she justly deserves. While I do believe people have a right not to suffer, we need to protect ourselves from someone making that choice for us.

That's terrible, and the RN is an unbelievably selfish and self-righteous person. This isn't assisted suicide or anything close; that's just murder with an excuse. Unfortunately, yeah, the use of euthanasia in this case if it were legal would make the murder not seem like it was such. If assisted suicide were to be allowed, there would have to be strict guidelines to identify murder. But I do think it's not the euthanasia's fault for this, but rather the RN is just a horrible person.

by Belsfir Fri Jan 25, 2013 4:19 am

Enigma wrote:
Belsfir wrote:
Dcmac wrote:
Belsfir wrote:The cops try to stop people jumping off bridges, so why should they not stop people trying to kill themselves in hospitals?

We keep people from making hazardous choices (high taxes on cigarettes, drinking age restrictions, illegal sale of prescription meds and drugs), so why should we allow people to make the most dangerous choice to themselves?

Allowing people to commit suicide in public would be completely immoral. Imagine if a kid were to watch a man jump to his death. Also, who would dispose of the bodies? That doesn't sound sanitary.

And preventing underage drinking and drug usage is important. Sure, it keeps the individual who would use that safe, but more importantly it prevents (or tries to at least) any danger to the public. Again, if the streets were filled with legal rampant drug users on bath salts and underage drunk drivers how safe would that be?

Euthansia won't affect anyone who isn't involved.

Ah, but that logic works both ways. For instance, imagine the horror to a kid if they found out that granny decided to pull the plug?

You missed the point he's making. Here's are two scenarios, tell me which one is worse.

1.) You're 9 years old, walking down the street with your mom or dad or whoever, all of a sudden, a body splatters on the pavement coating you in a mist of blood and brain matter. The man didn't jump from high enough and still lives for a few moments, gasping for breath, as you watch his organs began to fail. The blood soaks into your shoes and through your socks, and you can feel the warmth on your toes. He finally breaths his last as you watch his eyes lose focus and his moans and screams of agony finally cease. You are then forced to sit through a police investigation, recalling all of the events that took place, and reliving them. You are horribly scarred for life, and develop a severe mental disability because of it, losing complete control on reality.

2.) "Honey..we need to talk..your Grandmother passed on last night.."

I'm gonna go with 1.

@OP

Yes, I fully support euthanasia, with a few certain stipulations.

1.) The obvious decision of yes or no remains with the one to be euthanized, so long as they are in their right mind, and able to do so.

1a.) If said person is not able to do so, the final decision should be made by an unbiased panel, based on statistics such as "terminality", cost (to family) of continued life support, potential harm to family (such as a (relatively) young mother becoming terminal with NO hope to live, but her being alive, at least in a vegetative state, is keeping her young child from becoming emotionally unstable), and more that I don't feel like thinking of.

2.) Hospital staff may not contribute to the process, for reasons of keeping the entire process completely unbiased.

3.) Panel judges will either A.) Not be paid, or B.) Be paid salary with no option for bonuses based on decisions or how many decisions were made.

I've got to go eat, but I'll leave this here for now.

Lol, you wrote about a paragraph for your supporting scenario and gave the opposition a mere sentence. I find both forms of suicide completely wrong, and both impressionable on people.

Moreover, patients choosing to be euthanized do bring an impact on loved ones,
Don't tell me that a child would rather his mother die than to see her live, albeit she is in a vegetative state, only a child that hated his mother would choose so.

Death panels should never be formed EVER, nobody has the right to decide such things.
And thats my major problem with any legislation to forward euthanasia, it would only make it closer to having those formed

Hopefully there comes a day where medicine will make the topic of euthanasia seem far outdated.

by **MiniSiets** Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:10 am

I'm a firm believer in personal choice and minimizing suffering whenever reasonably possible, and in many cases people are trapped in severely debilitating conditions that make life far more miserable than it is worth. For this reason I think euthanasia is a necessary evil, but nonetheless it should be closely regulated in some fashion similar to what Enigma described in order to prevent abuse and needless suicides based on trivial circumstances (IE your girlfriend breaking up with you is not a legitimate excuse to demand assisted suicide). Furthermore, it would not be a process such that one could just walk into a clinic one day and be executed the next. Their condition would need to be monitored for at least some length of time before official approval and commencement.

It's ironic that we put our pets down out of our love for them and desire to spare them needless suffering, yet we do not offer the same for human beings. In this rare circumstance, we are actually being less cruel to animals than we are to ourselves. I had to euthanize my dog that I've lived most of my life with, and while I felt absolutely terrible doing it, I knew in the end that it was best for her because she was in a lot of pain and her condition was only going to continue to get worse.

In the case of Red's grandmother, that's definitely very unfortunate, though shouldn't be conflated with euthanasia, as it was not properly regulated nor even discussed with the patient herself to make that decision, which just makes it straightforward murder. Under a properly regulated system, the RN would still be tried for murder due to circumventing regulations.

by Doomguy Fri Jan 25, 2013 7:28 pm

I'm going to have to say I fundamentally believe it is wrong to assist in the death of anyone. The real question though is whether it is alright to let people even make this choice. We are given a certain degree of freedom, do we let people make this choice on their own? Or should we take away that judgement?

I know I can't support this but to tell others what to do... that doesn't feel right either.

by Natsuru-san Sat Jan 26, 2013 12:03 pm

I'm not even going to read the artical but I can already say that it's wrong. People should have a chance to live. If they commit a crime then lock em away but don't kill em. That's just how I feel.

by **Kusanagi** Sat Jan 26, 2013 6:37 pm

Natsuru-san wrote:I'm not even going to read the artical but I can already say that it's wrong. People should have a chance to live. If they commit a crime then lock em away but don't kill em. That's just how I feel.

This isn't about death penalty. It's about whether to allow the choice to commit suicide. People should have the chance to live, but what if the people themselves don't want to live?

by Natsuru-san Sat Jan 26, 2013 11:24 pm

In that case I won't even get into that. It's not for me to say. *Exits thread for good*

by Paper Tiger Sun Jan 27, 2013 12:37 am

Doomguy wrote:The real question though is whether it is alright to let people even make this choice. We are given a certain degree of freedom, do we let people make this choice on their own? Or should we take away that judgement?

When you're driving alone in the mountains, who is there to stop you from driving off the road into a ravine or a rock face? If you live alone, who is there to stop you from slitting your wrists or hanging yourself? Point is, without a full-on invasion of privacy one cannot be stopped from making the choice to end their life... And to be honest, I don't think we should even attempt to do so - if one is given the freedom to join the military out of one's own volition (and possibly lose their life during service), one should also have the freedom to end their own life, without owing any explanations to anyone even. Public suicides excluded of course, for reasons that were already discussed on the 1st page of this thread.

by SkepticalDragon Sun Jan 27, 2013 5:34 am

Paper Tiger wrote:
Doomguy wrote:The real question though is whether it is alright to let people even make this choice. We are given a certain degree of freedom, do we let people make this choice on their own? Or should we take away that judgement?
When you're driving alone in the mountains, who is there to stop you from driving off the road into a ravine or a rock face? If you live alone, who is there to stop you from slitting your wrists or hanging yourself? Point is, without a full-on invasion of privacy one cannot be stopped from making the choice to end their life... And to be honest, I don't think we should even attempt to do so - if one is given the freedom to join the military out of one's own volition (and possibly lose their life during service), one should also have the freedom to end their own life, without owing any explanations to anyone even. Public suicides excluded of course, for reasons that were already discussed on the 1st page of this thread.

Some might argue that there is a difference between direct and indirect suicide, which is what perhaps you mean by joining the military for combat duty in hopes of dying... ideally they are supposed to bar entry to individuals who are enlisting in the uniformed services to die... and such persons may be ineligible for enlistment if they have been previously treated, diagnosed, or hospitalized for anything relating to mental or emotional health (hypothetically they could receive a wavier or lie to their recruiter, however this has the risk of being discovered and is very illegal).

by johnstang2 Sun Jan 27, 2013 11:18 am

Crud another Euthanasia discussion.

Ok. Me personally I can't take another life willfully. I had trouble with my military career because of that. I ended up have a special discharge handed to me which was 'Totally honorable' - non of the 'Honorable under special conditions'.

This condition developed from my pellet rifle hunting days. I had just shot a squirrel and it would not die right away. I shot is like another 5 times and it would not die. All it would do was look right into my eyes with a look that I knew asked "Why did you shoot me? Why are you intent on killing me?"

I then smashed my rifle against the tree to ribbons and dented the barrels severely. I vowed then never to harm another living thing ever again. I vow I have kept to this day luckily.

On this issue I really can't say one way or the other for I can see where both sides are correct. It is up to the individual if they will help or not. I know I can not be a party to it personally but I can turn a blind eye to it.

I have seen people who was adamant for one side jump to the other side the very moment it strikes very close to home with say a loved one asks for the same help.

So in short I am saying one can argue for or against this issue all they want. But until they are faced with this situation they will never actually know what they will do. you may say I know exactly what I will do but trust me you really don't unless of course you already faced this situation.

This debate is an old one. I first heard of it back in the early 1980's. I am sure it was around before then too. Every few years another debate pop up around me somehow. I am getting sick of it. But I have no control over it. Crying or Very sad

by **MiniSiets** Sun Jan 27, 2013 7:20 pm

I apologize in advance for this, but I think it's necessary to give some perspective. For everyone arguing euthanasia should remain illegal, I am curious to hear what you would do in this woman's situation (forewarning, graphic images contained in article):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1582095/Disfigured-French-woman-loses-euthanasia-bid.html

by Doomguy Sun Jan 27, 2013 9:56 pm

MiniSiets wrote:I apologize in advance for this, but I think it's necessary to give some perspective. For everyone arguing euthanasia should remain illegal, I am curious to hear what you would do in this woman's situation (forewarning, graphic images contained in article):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1582095/Disfigured-French-woman-loses-euthanasia-bid.html

That truly is terrible, I cannot possibly imagine the pain. I wish our medical technology was even more advance but it's not. It just seems wrong to me for a doctor to give up and say death is the only way out. Killing someone for any reason just seems so wrong to me . I cannot explain why, I would never make a soldier, my conscious just won't accept death as an answer.

I can tell you one thing though. If I was in such a state of agonizing pain and suffering, then who knows what I would think then.

by Belsfir Sun Jan 27, 2013 11:33 pm

Doomguy wrote:
MiniSiets wrote:I apologize in advance for this, but I think it's necessary to give some perspective. For everyone arguing euthanasia should remain illegal, I am curious to hear what you would do in this woman's situation (forewarning, graphic images contained in article):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1582095/Disfigured-French-woman-loses-euthanasia-bid.html

That truly is terrible, I cannot possibly imagine the pain. I wish our medical technology was even more advance but it's not. It just seems wrong to me for a doctor to give up and say death is the only way out. Killing someone for any reason just seems so wrong to me . I cannot explain why, I would never make a soldier, my conscious just won't accept death as an answer.

I can tell you one thing though. If I was in such a state of agonizing pain and suffering, then who knows what I would think then.

Aye, when has killing people ever been the answer?

by Sponsored content

Is Euthanasia right or wrong?

Is Euthanasia right or wrong?

Re: Is Euthanasia right or wrong?

Re: Is Euthanasia right or wrong?

Re: Is Euthanasia right or wrong?

Re: Is Euthanasia right or wrong?

Re: Is Euthanasia right or wrong?

Re: Is Euthanasia right or wrong?

Re: Is Euthanasia right or wrong?

Re: Is Euthanasia right or wrong?

Re: Is Euthanasia right or wrong?

Re: Is Euthanasia right or wrong?

Re: Is Euthanasia right or wrong?

Re: Is Euthanasia right or wrong?

Re: Is Euthanasia right or wrong?

Re: Is Euthanasia right or wrong?

Re: Is Euthanasia right or wrong?

Re: Is Euthanasia right or wrong?

Re: Is Euthanasia right or wrong?

Re: Is Euthanasia right or wrong?

Re: Is Euthanasia right or wrong?

Re: Is Euthanasia right or wrong?

Re: Is Euthanasia right or wrong?

Re: Is Euthanasia right or wrong?

Re: Is Euthanasia right or wrong?

Re: Is Euthanasia right or wrong?

Re: Is Euthanasia right or wrong?