Euthanasia
 

Should the right to die be granted?
Or do we not have this right to die?

Would you want to end the suffering of someone who is in endless chronic pain or in a vegetative state?
Or would you let them live through their conditions?

Sometimes conditions of pain can be medicated, but what if medication doesn't fix the problem?
One in a vegetative state cannot think for themselves or even think at all.
Should he or she, literally, be put out of his or her misery or remain an empty shell?

Discuss.

I'm for it. I know if I was in a state like that, I'd want someone to pull the plug for me. It's not like you're really alive, and if there is no chance you'll ever recover, why keep them alive? So you can save yourself a little emotional pain (pain you'll never get over because every time you visit them it will come flooding horribly back to see them in that state) and give someone else the chance to be released from the physical pain they are most likely in. It's only hurting everyone around to not let the person move on.

In my opinion...if we have the right to live (Constitutional right), we should also have the right to die.

I am pro euthanasia or pro suicide for people with chronic pain or terminal diseases.
It's necessary for those who cannot cope with their suffering anymore. It's difficult to imagine sometimes to be in such extreme pain that you'd want the alternative of dying . Or at least it is for me. Still with my more limited experiences with chronic pain, I can see how it would come to that with weeks or months of pain. Sometimes I think people who think it's always bad for people to kill themselves haven't experienced "real" pain yet to know what would drive someone there. The choice should always be carried out by the person being euthanized and they should never be pushed into that choice by other people.

I do think people should go through the proper channels attempting to get treatment, both mental *and physical.
* Mental to rule out people trying to commit suicide for mental and emotional reasons. Nobody should kill themselves due to being depressed.
At least the opinions of two doctors to ensure that there is no further treatments that can help alliavate the suffering and pain. The goal should be that it's done as a last resort after other treatments.

As for people in comas, I'm not so sure anymore. In the past I would have said yes since their soul has left them already. Now I'm hearing more about people having brain activity in comas and recovering.

I like the idea of euthanasia conceptually, but I'm just afraid that it'd easily be misused somehow. I say euthanasia is a good thing in the end, but there can be no limit to how controlled it is. And I mean no limit. I don't care if it's physically painful just to get it done. D:

I agree.

Yes, when it comes to chronic pain, I agree that all steps should be taken before the phase of Euthanasia comes into the picture. However, I'm talking about conditions of agonizing pain that most people couldn't relate with and that meds can't fix.

I'm not talking coma's either because there's always a chance of recovery with comas. When someone is in a vegetative state there are basic motor functions that still work within the body, but that person is still just a shell with no hope of recovery.

It can be misused, that's where a line can be drawn in. Euthanasia can be used, for example, for insurance or anything else as sick and twisted.

I see it as a means to end the incurable suffering of people.

I am for euthanasia. however it is a slippery slope that needs to be properly regulated. Take a look at the Netherlands. They have laws against euthanasia but physicians still aid in patient suicides because the patients suffering is too great. they avoid persecution by document various other forms of death. still, even those that are caught in the act aren't punished to harshly.

I feel like euthanasia should be an option for the terminally ill and even for those whose mental state is unsuitable to continue living (in other words they would commit suicide even without the doctors help). I'll try and remember the name of the book I read that discussed this issue more thoroughly. It's how I learned about the Netherlands and about the "Right to Die" act petitions.

I think having patients seeing more then one doctor would help with the regulations. Thing is, if it's being done illegally then it's not being regulated as much.
As mental state "unsuitable to continue living", could you explain?. we have pychiactric drugs for those cases.

actually that was an issue that was discussed in the Netherlands. The doctor responsible for the patient's car would have to seek the counsel of another physician in that field. sort of a "is this really the last option?" sort of talk. ultimately the final decision should rest with the patient or, in the case of a vegetative state, the family.

my family had this talk last time my grandmother was in the hospital. my aunts wanted to do everything they could to help her but my grandmother demanded that a DNR order be put in place and no life-prolonging measures be taken. Her pride wouldn't have it :(

as for the mental health thing, the case i read out was about a woman who lost one child to an accident and a second one a few months later to a medical complication. (don't exactly remember what happened) From what I can recall the woman was being medicated but hated every minute of it and every day grew more and more depressed. Her doctor thought about her case, sought a second opinion, and eventually agreed to help her commit suicide. In this case, I feel it was the right choice since his patient was not being helped via medication or support groups and stated that her only wish was to be buried with her sons.

I'm completely for it. I mean, if that person wanted to, they could hold their breath and then die if they wanted to. But there should be no law in place saying that if a person wants to die, then they can't. I mean, if they cannot even move, do anything for themself, or are so sick that they have to be on life support just to live, then just let that person die. Of course it has to be up to the person to speak the words, "Please let me die". It's their choice, and no one has the right to deny that choice.

Laila, if they're relying on life support to live, pulling the plug is not euthanasia, it's just pulling the plug. Euthanasia is ending their life prematurely.
And there need to be laws against people dying because if there weren't anyone could commit suicide, and as suicide is almost always caused by a disorder (as far as I know, depression), people who could be helped would be able to just leap.

Lastemoon, I thoroughly disagree with that woman committing suicide. I think euthanasia should only apply to situations like terminal illness, where there is no hope in sight. I do not think unbalances like extreme depression (like this Dutch lady) should be considered for euthanasia because there is still the chance that it can be solved. People who would commit suicide without a doctor's help do not need euthanasia for the same reasons I posted above. They need help and the help could most often work to solve their desire to die. Just because the Dutch woman is really depressed shouldn't make it okay for her to die.

Personally, I would agree with to doctor since the woman wasn't being helped by medication and therapy and her mental condition was worsening. The doctor determined she would've killed herself with or without his help and that is why he chose to help her. Am I saying everyone who has had a bad day should seek physician-assisted suicide? no. trust me, I've been there, done that whole attempted suicide thing and i can safely say i probably wouldn't be a candidate for P.A.S. Why? because in terms of the big picture, my case wasn't the worst out there. It was remedied by removing me from the home situation I found myself in.

For her the proposed treatment was failing and I sympathize with that. It's a touchy subject but in the case of that singular woman, I would agree with the doctor's course of action.

Correct me if I am wrong here. But you operate under the belief that individuals do not have any right to ownership over their lives? As any assertion that a person should be prevented from seeking assisted suicide, does tend to make strong assertions over who owns their life.

Edit:
Furthermore, who should pay for their living costs? Do you believe that society should cover these? After all if we are going to deny them ownership over their lives and force them to live against their will, it would seem a tad contradictory to then force them to cover the expenses of something that is being imposed upon them.

@Hermes:
How can you make laws against suicide? What are you going to do, toss the corpse in jail? When a person tries to kill themselves, they need psychiatric help. Not jail time. And furthermore such a law would be completely ineffective as once you are seriously considering suicide, the fact that it's illegal is likely to be completely irrelevant.

Chronic emotional suffering is just as painful and unbearable to live through as chronic physical pain. I can tell you from experience that pills are not always helpful and it is somewhat difficult to get therapy if you're properly suicidal, seeing how if you mention it you will promptly be tossed in the loony bin. It's not your life, and therefore not your place to decide if it's "okay" for the person to die or not.

Crimson, it's not that their lives don't belong to them, but that we're stepping in to protect their lives. People own pets, but if they abuse their pets, there will be prevention. I know that's a strained analogy, but I think it makes sense. And I do think it is society's job to pay for them. Healthcare should be public, and I strongly believe that's similar.

And Fabby, looking back I was wrong, there aren't laws against suicide, that doesn't make sense. There used to be laws against it, where people who attempted suicide would be basically stuck in mental hospitals, but that didn't quite work.
I have to point out, this is more opinion than fact in this debate, so I have no counter-point to your last point.

Well, people who attempt suicide ARE immediately sent to the hospital and put on 72 hour hold, but I imagine it's nicer than getting the court involved.

Hey, debates are pretty much all opinion :)

Ehhh, debates can have a lot of fact thrown in. This one specifically is pretty much just opinions at this point though.

Yeah, notice how I never quoted any facts/articles/etc. in the opening post.
This technically is debatable material. I just wanted to get a glimpse of peoples' morality.

While I do not believe that people can truly own pets, that is another discussion. I also do not entirely agree with you still, I like that your approach has consistency. Well from my perspective it seems to be consistent. I can freely agree though that there are many shortcomings in my position I am presenting here. Furthermore it contradicts with what I have expressed in other topics. To clarify a little, even in having euthanasia for reasons other than terminal illnesses I would want it to be regulated of course.

Finally as I mentioned, there are some contradictions between this and other views I hold. As such I can certainly raise some areas in my expressed position here which make me uncertain about it. Firstly as you mentioned there is the cause of suicide. I absolutely would not want such things to be trivialized and put to the side. There are very real factors in society which can lead to suicide attempts. When we turn away from the micro/individual level, and go for the larger picture we quickly see trends.

One common trend I identify in arguments is that groups who suffer marginalization, forced ethnocide and assimilation very commonly have much higher rates of suicide. As such my approach of reducing this debate down to the individual was extremely damaging, and ran the risk of simultaneously masking and legitimizing said oppression. This is certainly something which does trouble me!

More information on increased suicide rates amongst indigenous and fourth world peoples can be found here

I think that if a person is 100% willing to give up then they should be allowed to end their life prematurely. I think this also goes for the people who aid in suicide -- the person wants to die and they are giving their friend or random stranger permission to kill them. Either way, if you want to die, you'll find a way to do it eventually, so why not make a more humane alternative..?

However, for the aid in suicide bit, there would obviously have to be written proof that is notarized -- as it would be terrible if someone went and killed another person and told them "Oh, it's okay, s/he told me I could!"

Crimson, I also have a lot of trouble with consistency in my opinions. Too often I feel like I might contradict myself with my views on separate topics. I like to think someday I'll understand my own opinions completely and will no longer contradict myself, but I'm doubtful that I'll ever get that kind of enlightenment.

I say it's fairly normal to wind up contradicting our own opinions at times just so long as we, at least, recognize that we do. We're only human after all. :P

So it depends how libertarian you feel. Euthanasia for all or just for the terminally ill?
The other boring bureaucratic side to the debate is the legislative and safeguarding issues surrounding euthanasia.

I have always felt that Euthanasia is only necessary for all who are in a medical state of no hope of recovery.