Should Euthanasia be legalized?

Should Euthanasia be legalized?

I think it should. I think that if someone has a terminal illness, or is in a dire situation like Terri Schiavo was...then I think that the terminally ill person should be able to ask their Doctor/s to end their life for them.

If someone is in a Terri Schiavo situation, with no hope of recovery to even a basic quality of life, and with no ability to make their own decision because of the loss of mental faculties...then I think that that persons closest family along with their Doctor/s should be allowed to make the decision for them to end their life.

Euthanasia is mercy killing, it's helping those who are in chronic and excruciating pain, with no hope of either recovery or a return to a basic level of quality of life.

Were I to be in a position where I had something like terminal cancer or Motor Neurone Disease, I would want my Doctor to help me to die.

Euthanasia DOES already go on, often it goes on in private, I would think that a great many Doctor's are helping their patients to die quietly and at least with some degree of dignity. Sometimes, the authorities find out about these Euthanasia cases...and the Doctor/s and even family members are arrested and charged with murder and jailed. Which in my opinion is wrong.

You don't jail someone for being compassionate and caring enough to help a sick person to end their life.

So, I think that Euthanasia should be legalized, and this is the question of this poll.

Should Euthanasia be legalized?

:popcorn:

Let kids run free, no matter what continent they belong to!!!

A poll that should produce some interesting comments, so hopefully it won't end up on page two within the next hour.

I'm interested in peoples' opinions, as well as votes.

1. This has to be decided well in advance and wishes have to be emphatically clear, especially and most particularly if it merely concerns the gripes of getting older, or extreme old age.

2. This can't be a spur of the moment decision. The process has to take into account physical and mental stressors that could cause an irrational decision

3. This can't be done at all to children, except in the most extenuating circumstances (hydroceph, severe and permanent brain injury, etc.).

In a perfect society, I'm all for total choice for one's self at any adult age for any reason, but we ain't there and will probably never be.

I think you summed them up well.

Especially "spur of the moment decisions," I hadn't really thought of that before. And now I can see that being a problem- someone in the midst of pain saying they want it to end now, when they very well could be out of pain in a few days with a great chance of recovery... or whatever, insert examples here.

do to or with your own body is obscene, and it is invariably the control freaks among us that advocate these obscenities.

most American's during the Terri Schiavo situation, a living well is the only way to go. I know for sure that if I'm in a state where my quality of life expectations are at zero, I would want to die with dignity.

The ability to comprehend our mortal status as thinking beings leads me to the conclusion the ability to choose the time and nature of our own passing is the ultimate expression of free will.

No sadness should occur among others if they are in any way sympathetic to libertarian ideals.

a logical and rational decision. That is different from taking control of ones destiny through health care decision making that is consistent with ones beliefs and desires. but the endorsement or validation of suicide is a step too far for me.

He did what he wanted and should be remembered for that.

I'm a fan of his, have been for decades, and wonder if he would have claimed to be 'right in head.'

I can already choose to end my life by a variety of means, but what I can't do is end it in a supportive atmosphere, at least not in California. Why should we either deny the right to die to those who cannot control their own destinies because they're too sick or infirm, or worse, make those who can still control matters do so alone and without support?

From a personal religious standpoint I'm against this and the death penalty. I think God will take us when he's ready.

so why should your God govern my choices? If your God governs your life that's fine, but he (or she) has no relevance to mine and legislating that he/she should won't make me religious.

so sorry to offend you. If the poll was only for those that agreed a NO option wouldn't have been available. Get over yourself.

all is good

when you open your post with

"you don't HAVE to participate"

it's a bit abrasive and you set the one with your post title.

"on edit, I see, when I said "participate" I meant in euthanasia choices, not in the poll. Sorry if that was the misinterpretation, IF it was misinterpretation."

Just a misunderstanding, everything is okay on my side :toast:

It's friday, I'll be seeing the Rolling Stones tomorrow night everything is good. Disregard my more hostile post.


Cheers

I think highly of you - I was a bit taken aback, but can see how my poor wording was taken. I would nave probably done the same thing :silly:

The Stones were just here in Dallas and I had front row tix but didn't get to go - the rest of my posse had a blast though and straggled into work bleary eyed and partially deaf.

Have a great weekend Memphis!

:hi:

to keep people alive with drugs, machines and other extraordinary means or let them die according to their wishes. 100 years ago alot of the people you know would be dead and Teri Shiavo would just be some lady that died about 15 years ago.

but that is what faith is all about I guess. I don't expect those here that are nonreligious to understand, but I still vote no.

Fortunately we live in a country where such decisions can be made; a country where religious doctrine does not rule the land, thank God. My decision has been made and is in writing. Cancer and Alzheimer's have taken some of my family members. I "value" the lives of my survivors way too much to have them financially ruined because those with religious convictions "believe" I should be kept alive on a ventilator or tubes or whatever for years on end because they "value" my life (with, of course, no financial obligation to them.) Those with religious convictions should enjoy whatever life they would like to enjoy in this free country and stay out of other peoples bedrooms and hospital rooms. I respect your vote, but I find nothing religious in your posts.

If you want to live in a vegetative state for years on end waiting for God to take you home, while your loved one's suffer financial ruin, more power to you. I won't stand in your way; if I choose a different path please keep the religious zealots off my road.

if we allow euthanasia, then we open the door to involuntary euthanasia, as in, kill all the old people because they are costing too much money. This is the kind of insane logic euthanasia proponents are up against.

we're not helpless. We "open doors" all the time, and we deal with it BECAUSE we're smart (mostly).

There is a history of Alzheimer's and Cancer in my family. I do not want my wife to be financially ruined having to care for a vegetable because some religious yahoos "value" life. Its none of their fucking business how I choose my medical care. I think assisted suicide is a moral and just decision which should be made by the person affected. I respect the decision of those who choose to live in a braindead state forcing family members to fork over thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars annually for their care. Please respect my decision to "value" the lives of those I leave behind. Plan your funeral, party, whatever. Let your loved ones grieve and let them go on.

my mother was in the last stages of Alzheimer's and I remember crying in my car after leaving the vet thinking how my mother (or me,when the time comes )would love to be put out of her misery in a quick,painless way.

Needless to say--I voted yes.

families and physicians are agreeing to allow loved ones to die with dignity and peace. There are ways to allow this to happen, but it would be much better if it were open and honest. this is one of the big secrets about healthcare that few know. I'm not talking kevorkian here, but compassionately easing pain, ceasing life extending and fruitless treatments and tests, and allowing people and families to face the loss of life in a manner that is uplifting and positive.

..the way we ended Terri Schiavo's life to be morally reprehensible. Not because he life ended. The laws of this country forced her family to watch her starve to death for heaven's sake. If we did that to the family dog you would be arrested for animal cruelty. Yet I can take that same dog to the vet at the end of his life and have him painlessly put to sleep (I just went through this with my canine companion of 15 years... he just went to sleep and that was it).

Suicide, Assisted suicide and euthanasia should at least in some circumstances be legal and supported by some facet of the medical profession. Create your own criterias for what you think would work, but MY MOTHER deserves the same respect as MY DOG!

Maybe this is nitpicking but euthanasia is typically seen as the STATE deciding if a person should die or not.

This idea has lots of negative connotations and for good reasons that i don't feel I need to bring up now. (Since I don't think the original poster was really advocating Nazi eugenics)

But the original poster, might want to rephrase the poll question becuase to many of us, that IS what Euthanasia means.

Assisted suicide I can see. A person has a right to determine how his own life will be run as long as he isn't unduly harming others. Though I admit this is such a personal decision that I hesitate to advocate any elaborate rules or state regulations.

But this is too big a personal decision to be left to the state or hospital officials or some Church looking for publicity. Only the person involved or in the case Like Schiavo's , the guardian, can make this determination.

If someone of sound mind decides they should end thier own sufferign by dying, they should be allowed to do so int he least painful way possible. But if someone wants to hold on until the last possible moment, I support thier right to do so just as strongly.

This is a personal decision, either affirmatively by consent or by prior notice. But NOT decided for you. That is murder.

in action. I'm glad that the option exists. And contrary to all the press, since this has been enacted, it has NOT been abused or over-used. It's such a reasonable law and has the safeguards in place to protect all of us.

And BTW, it would help if the press, when referring to Oregon's law, would refer to it by it's rightful name, The Death with Dignity Act. They happily use Bushco's euphimistic names that are lies, but insist on calling our law "assisted suicide", in order to give it that bit of negative connotation.

My wife worked in nursing homes for years as a dietitian. She has told me that it is quite common that terminally ill patients are prescribed 'administer morphine as needed for pain'. In high doses, morphine suppresses breathing. Very peaceful, painless way of taking the final exit. This is, of course, done with the full knowledge of those involved.

If I'm in pain with no chance of recovery, that's the way I want to go!

in Ragged Edge, the Time or Newsweek of the disability rights movement.

http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/blogs/edgecentric/archives/2005/12/the_4ws.html

Disability rights groups who oppose Oregon's "Death with Dignity" law-- and who have as a result sided with the decided anti-rights Bush Administration (Gonzales) because the Administration opposes the law -- have come under fire from others in the movement. And the rancor became public late last summer....

In looking for a way in, the thing I find myself returning to is something I heard first from Diane Coleman, head of Not Dead Yet. Nearly a decade ago, I heard her refer to the people driving the right-to-die movement as the "4Ws": the "white, worried, well-off well." I don't know if she coined the term but it's stuck with me all this time because it's so apt.

The demographic which continues to drive the right-to-die movement is made up of people who are largely white middle class, certainly liberal ("progressive," as we call them in progressive circles -- go figure!). The people behind the laws are for the most part -- no, not entirely, but for the most part -- people who as yet are healthy, without disabilities, and nowhere near death....

The disability rights movement has railed publicly and privately about how this issue is framed by the media as the right to die vs the "right to life" groups, leaving out disability rights opposition as its own distinct voice. But the public framing of this debate leaves out a bunch of other group, too. Surveys show that African-Americans tend to oppose legalization of assisted suicide. So do Hispanic groups. So to people in lower income levels.

At the very least, this line of argument should indicate that this sin't as cut and dried an issue for progressives as the 48-5 vote tally (at this writing) would indicate.

why should we be less compassionate to our fellow human beings?

Our animals are shown compassion and are gently put to sleep. So why should humans be left to suffer and their suffering drag on and on.

I don't feel comfortable ending a human being's life like that. I almost voted that I didn't know though, because this is an issue that I wrestle with. I can see the merits of it in many cases, I empathize with a person wanting to die with dignity. I am just not able to conclusively give a blanket approval of euthanasia. (I have no problem with Asians, let alone the youths of those countries) :)

No, back to being serious, I'm still wrestling with this issue, I voted no and stand by that. However, I don't think this is a black and white issue, I think there is room to consider individual cases and so forth.

Shouldn't we be humane to all our loved ones??

I would strongly oppose anyone but the patient making the decision, even if they need help to carry out their wishes. If the person did not give clear directions, then I think we have to err on the side of existence, however painful it may be to watch. I guess I support the option of assisted suicide, like Oregon has. The poll did not make that clear, and euthanasia could be done without the patient's consent. I can't condone that.

it's just not an easy issue, you know?