Topic awaiting preservation: Euthanasia (Page 1 of 1)

Well we are already doing abortion so more controversy can't do too much harm

In recent news a couple of British people have been helped to die in Switzerland (assisted suicide being illegal here):
www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,937015,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/2949307.stm

I find myself in favour of strictly controlled assisted suicide but really as a last resort and this seemed... uneccesary.

I should add that I'd fight right to the very end - advances in medical research (esp. stem cell research, as mentioned in the American Science thread) mean that even the most terrible ailments may have a cure (or at least treatment) just around the corner.

Thoughts?

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

I don't have a well established, well thought, analytical type decision on this topic yet.
My initial reactions are a few:
1) Every person has the right to end their life whenever they wish.
2) Every person has the right to continue their life as long as they wish, or as long as medical science is capable.
3) People should not be unduly influenced by others to end their life or continue their life at any time.
4) If a person is physically capable to take their own life, they should have the balls to do it themselves.
5) If a person is not physically capable of taking their own lives, they should be able to ask for medical assistance, controlled by the state and by their medical peers as much as any medical procedure is.

I've read someplace that in 'ancient' India, men who were aging and didn't want to deal with the pain and suffering that went along with this process, would simply walk away. They'd wonder off into the ruralness, and die from starvation, exposure, etc. That was supposed to be an honorable thing to do. It saved the family a lot of heartache and they got to say their goodbyes and then simply go.
To me, that's not much different than what we're talking about here.

If I had diabetes, would I commit suicide? No way in hell. That being said, I am not anybody to judge the actions of a woman who does. If that was 'too much' for her and nobody pressured her, more power to her.

I have no problem with it. I believe that someone should have the right to life and death. So, if that is their choosing...who am I to say otherwise?

I myself will ride it out till the end...who knows what's around the corner? Could be a big breakthrough in life-longevity...

quote:

---

Is assisted suicide ever justified?

---

I don't really see how this is a question of justification. This was *their* life. It was *their* choice. Whether or not anyone else feels they were justified is completely irrelevant.

Now, I don't think it was a *good* choice. I find it hard to imagine that I would make that choice myself, especially assuming my daughter was still around. But that is *my* life, and *my choice*.

I despise the concept, but if someone feels the need to end their life - and doing so will not unjustly burden someone else - then more power to 'em.

As an aside, I would just like to add that the first few times I heard about the controversy over euthanasia, I couldn't help but wonder who all these youth were and what problem they were causing in Asia.

teehee wes

i think that as long as it's regulated, i have no problem with dr. assisted suicide. i personally think that if there's no quality of life, then by all means, you should have the right to end it all. if i were to develope a terminal illness of some sort and it ment that my family were going to have to 'seriously' care for me and i'd be in much pain and suffering, then i'd off myself.
I like the idea of being able to say your goodbyes to your friends and family while you're still there mentally and physically. so that's the memory they're left with, rather than their last memories being of wipin my ass because i was too ill to take care of myself.
i do draw a line between humans and animals (it's a very small one) but we euthanise animals all the time because their quality of life is diminished.
i think that, like abortion, it should be made legal and if you don't wanna do it....don't do it! as long as you're right with your god, yourself and your family, then do it.

__________________________
Cell 1007::SST

I don't have a problem with it. People can off themselves all they want.

I mean seriously. We're talking about helping people that, if they had the strength to pick up the gun, would eat a bullet.

We aren't changing anything by helping them beyond getting a doctor involved.

I think it should be restricted to cases where the person is in need of assistance. It might sound callous but... the people in that article... could've done this on their own.

Now... how is this particularily different then a living will? For those who might not know, a living will is a document that states that if you are ever in a situation where you are only alive because you are being supported by machines, you want (or don't want) someone to "pull the plug." So if someone has made the determination that they would rather die than live in a situation of extreme lack of quality of life... Why don't they just make a document for that too?

In the event that I am unable to end my own life, I authorize (insert name of doctor/institution here) to take my life with the sole intent of relieving my pain and suffering and the pain and suffering of my family and friends.

That took me... what... 15 seconds? It isn't that hard.

For my own part.... I would never choose to give up, it just isn't in me to do that. I have too much to live for, especially of late.

GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

again, another area that should not be restricted by the beliefs of one group...

what about the other cases?

what if someone's in a vegetable state - unable to communicate his/her desire for termination? is the legal guardian able to decide for them? if so, what if one suspects they are merely doing so to rid themselves of a burden? then who decides if their decision is right?

from a personal stance, the only type of euthanasia i can see as permissible is that of turning off life assistance, and still only in some cases.

there have been some terrible statements, just yesterday, concerning euthanasia, here in AUS, i'll see if i can find them. AH HA!

good old google news search found this article on euthanasia.

that's such a low statement.

well, yes, that is kind of a messed up thing to say....BUT i wouldn't be so quick to say it wouldn't happen.
i've seen vets perscribe meds to pets that the pets didn't need....knowing full well that the owner was using them. everything from basic antibiotics to heart medications to pain killers. not ALL vets do this, but to some extent...they do. most of it is self medicating and/or medications for the staff.
to go from giving someone regular medications to a lethal dose of a controlled substance is quite a leap and i've never known a vet to do that, that doesn't mean i wouldn't think it couldn't/wouldn't happen. while veterinary hospitals have to keep track of all control class drugs, they do on occassion go missing. the DEA is supposed to be keeping a close eye on this stuff...but they don't do as good a job as they could.
so yeah.....i would say it could happen.

__________________________
Cell 1007::SST

I want to go back and read the posts more thoroughly later, but my initial response to the question posed is this:

Assisted suicide in the event of terminal illness, especially in cases where quality of life cannot be maintained, should be legal. Especially if a cure for that illness is not available, or even remotely in sight. Some forms of cancer do not respond to treatments, and the patient is left to linger on life support until they finally expire. This is a terrible drain on the patient and their family. The distress of seeing a loved one fight to live through mechanical aid, as well as the financial drain for long term medical care... It's not worth it. And in the event that assisted suicide is the resulting decision, an overdose of injected morphine is the way to go! You know, Sigmund Freud died due to a physician assisted suicide in that exact manner... (in Homer Simpson style: "mmmm.... morphine...." One of the only benefitting side-effects of major surgery...)

I do not think that a perfectly healthy person should be legally allowed to simply "off" themselves... While you have your health, you are perfectly able to make the necessary changes in your life that would allow you to live in the manner you would like to become accustomed to. While making those changes is sometimes difficult, it's always worth it to try.

I'm gonna check out the rest of this thread more closely after lunch today... I'm sure I'll be back with more...

Bodhi - Cell 617

[This message has been edited by bodhi23 (edited 04-16-2003).]

Now that I've read everything through...

GD - I think adding that type of statement to a living will would be a supreme solution to the question. And doing that solves the problem of whether or not a person is physically or mentally able to request that their life be ended.

As regards to the nice British couple, she apparently didn't want to end her life in a wheelchair, and he, apart from his diabetes (which can indeed be terminal sometimes), suffered from a serious depression. Perhaps he didn't want to live like that either. In this case, it was much less about terminal illnesses than quality of life. For myself, I might have explored other options for improving my quality of life, but for them, perhaps this seemed like the only option. It gave them the opportunity to go together (which is sometimes very important) and it gave them the opportunity to decide how and when they would move on to whatever the realm beyond this life has to offer. Which might be pretty danged good, comparatively; we won't know until we get there ourselves. In any case, neither of them had to see the other suffer, neither of them had to suffer themselves. I would say that was their decision to make, and it probably sounded good to them.

I kind of like that idea of just wandering off to die when you get old. Animals do it all the time. In particular, elderly domestic dogs and cats are both known to wander off and be found dead later on by their owners.

I watched my grandmother's health decline rapidly in the last 5 years of her life. She lived to be 94. She got to the point at which she would not even get out of bed. My father spent those years caring for her at home, because she preferred not to be admitted to a hospital or rest home. She wanted to die at home, and he wanted to let her do what she wanted. But the emotional toll on his well-being because of that experience, has been great. I happen to know that my grandmother would gladly have taken an assisted suicide option if she had been able to do so, and my father would probably have approved, just because it would have been what she wanted.
My grandfather (her husband) died 15 years ago, of cancer. He actually was killed by a physician with a morphine injection. His cancer was terminal, no cure, no treatment, and he was in a great deal of physical and mental pain. There was no hope but to ease his passing. My grandmother was never the same once he was gone. If she could have gone with him, she would have. In the last year of her life, she lived on maybe a teaspoon worth of food a day, my dad thought she was trying to starve herself so she would die. In a hospital or nursing home, they would have hooked her up and fed her intravenously. She didn't want that. I wasn't there when she died, but my dad was, and he said that she was actually happy to finally be going.

If an elderly person is unable to have any quality of life, and they are unable to deal with that fact, mentally or emotionally, I believe they should have the right to choose their end. What's the use of continuing your life if you can't experience all the joys that life has to offer? However, I don't think that just anyone, especially young people, should be able to simply decide they don't want to live anymore and take their life. In those cases, I think it's a cowards way out. If you're young, and have your health, you owe it to yourself to make the best out of what life has to offer you. However, if that person is really serious about killing themselves, they'll do it anyway, one way or another. And no one else really has any right to stop them.

Bodhi - Cell 617

[This message has been edited by bodhi23 (edited 04-17-2003).]

A situation to consider:

A perfectly healthy person decides one day to end her life. She has lived on this planet long enough and doesn't see the point in continuing with it anymore. The pain has just become too much to withstand. She is 13 years old and doesn't show any outward signs of her intentions. Incidentally, she was just dumped by her boyfriend and it has her really upset which is the main reason suicide just seems the best option. She goes to the local clinic where she can get a safe and legal suicide performed *without* parental consent.

Yea or nay?

[edit atrocious spelling]

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 04-25-2003).]

Mine eyes do see the shadowed road that Bugs doth lead us down...


But I'd say this just to throw a wrench in the works: Where then will you draw the line that you're trying to establish? The parallel is there, but distorted.

Should I refuse you the right to buy butter knives? Theoretically you could use them to do harm to yourself, and/or anyone around (or connected to...) you at the time. As the provider of those knives is it my responsibility then to police your moral structure? And what on the flip side of that? What if those knives (just wait this is going to get even more ludicrously stretched) were to be of aid?

Parallels are very rarely parallel...they just become obscure at the horizon when we're trying to prove how straight the facts are I love the correlation though.

nay.... I say ... make a legal age.. or parental consent/ guardian's consent under a certain age... 13 isn't old enough to appreciate the things in life... getting dumped is (most likely) one of the many times its going to happen in your life. its a growth thing...

"The only difference between me and a madman is that... i'm not mad!" - Salvador Dali

Bugs: In your hypothetical scenario the clinic would say one of 2 things:

1. "Why do you need someone to kill you - you are prefectly able to do it yourself." - The Nurse DarkGarden scenario

2. "Come in and sit down and have a cup of tea and one of our counsellors will be down to talk to you in a minute. A lot of teenagers feel like this but if you talked your problems through I think you'll see that there is no reason to kill yourself"

The point about assisted suicide is that people have the right to nominate someone to help them die when they are no longer capable of doing it. Teenagers are pretty good at killing themselves without other people's help.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

I just wanted to make sure we know the full extent of the right to die.

I do not want to see a day when *anyone* can kill themselves for any reason, unchallenged. Emps, if and when that day comes I would hope to God there would be someone in that clinic with enough compassion to ask why the girl wanted to exit this life so prematurely.

DG, I would very much like to keep the line on a more personal level. Perhaps we are not that far apart on this. I don't want the government getting involved with helping people die. Obviously, there is not much society can do to stop someone from killing themselves if they are serious about it and do it right the first try.

I think we as individuals should do everything we can to uphold life. I think we should try our best to convince our fellow humans to persevere in hardship for there is always a better day.

But there are also exceptions to every rule and contrary to what some may have thought my position on this was, I think euthenasia is somtimes appropriate.

I can see during times of war that it may make sense to ease someone out of their pain on the battlefield. I can possibly see times when avoiding capture is called for.

I can also see times when terminally ill patients should be allowed a little extra dosage of pain killer. But please please please do NOT call for this to be regulated. This is where I got really worried about the comments above. The last thing we want is to turn killing people into a beaurocracy. No, this should be between the patient, the doctor, and God.

Like mobrul, I have not thought this issue out in great detail except for the brief thoughts I've just outlined. I look forward to other opinions on this.

Hmmm...nice post, Peter.

Interesting scenario, Bugs. I'm not quite sure how to answer that one. My people did not have 'assisted' suicide...nor did they practice it. Instead, one relied on nature to do the job...or falling in battle. If one was old, and wanted to die, then he/she did. Got up, went for a walk, sat down somewhere, and waited for death to come...mostly after informing someone, a close relative, etc. Normally, the person in question was accompanied by someone close...the death watch. However, that was mostly by people that felt their death approaching...

As for young, healthy people that wanted to die...as far as I know, they were looked upon strangely.

I find it strange, that in our 'modern' societies, so many young, healthy people would want to end their lives...here in Germany, the suicide rate is pretty high...I don't know why. I wonder at the people in India, and in many thrid world countries...why aren't they taking their lives, right and left? Somewhere along the way, I think modern society forgot something important...

But since the topic is Euthanasia...I think that is concerning people who are in a condition that is worse than death...pain, and imprisonment, within ones own body, with no hope of release, other than death. In that case, I have nothing at all, against letting them end it. I do believe, however, that they should do it...a button to push...whatever.

I do know, that since my peoples imprisonment, a lot of otherwise young and healthy individuals decide to take their lives...the suicide rate among native Americans is the highest in the country...maybe the world. I find that sad...and have seen it, with my own eyes...the total lack of hope...helplessness...destitude...infuriating...

Belonging to a system, that is contained, forgotten...unwanted, looked down upon, if it is looked upon at all. Worthless...and from a majority, that would just like to see it vanish, forever. Out of sight, out of mind.

quote:

---

Somewhere along the way, I think modern society forgot something important...

---

I can't believe you would toss me such an easy one as that! LOL!!! Care to rephrase before I spike it?

Seriously, that is one thing nihilism does not offer and that is hope. It is a very powerful thing that cannot be denied regardless of whether it is based in fairy tales or not. There was a time in my life when I had lost sight of any hope and I know what it is like to despair. Suicide under that condition has a very alluring quality to it.

I mentioned in another thread about how Europe has embarked on a secular experiment. It will be interesting to see how it will fill the need for hope for its citizens after killing off god. I can only wonder if the suicide rates may not be an early indication of some of the fruits of that experiment.

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

See bugs...that's the problem I have with religion - offer hope regardless if it's real or not. The idea that wherever something is lacking, god must be the answer is simply apalling to me.

Hope in something false is worse than no hope at all.


Not to mention atheism and nihlism are vastly different things... =)

I thought we were talking about EUTHENASIA. Specifically, it means a "mercy killing". Helping young people commit suicide is not the issue. Of course that shouldn't be allowed.

It's terminally ill, or mortally wounded people who are suffering and have no chance of recovery that this issue should be referring to. In that respect, a statement in a living will should be allowed, for a time when the individual cannot release themselves, and has no hope of recovery. In many cases, the simple request not to be placed on life support is as good as an assisted suicide. But if the person doesn't wish to be kept around artificially, their wishes should be honored. We have as little right to prevent a death at it's time than to assist one that's unnecessary.

Bodhi - Cell 617

Well Bugs...my people were doing just fine before your religion showed up...no suicides en masse...after your religion though...wasn't all that much left of my people to convert, to begin with. As for hope...even your religion hasn't provided all that much for my people. Condeming their beliefs and practices as the way of the devil...not a great way of inspiring hope, is it?

I don't really think it's a question of hope, really...more a question of...space. Space to be oneself...and contact with nature. I don't see a lot of youth, with a good contact with nature, killing themselves...and among those tribes, that have managed to re-establish a bit of their lost heritage...suicide rates have fallen dramatically.

So...heh. No real opening there...

DL, I understand your aversion to filling in the gaps with God. I really do. But the fact remains that the hope faith brings to people is very real. Ask any medical professional about that. I believe that the hope in which I have placed my faith is not just a fairy tale and that is why I am not disgusted by my own faith.

I am reminded of a quote I have on my web site regarding this:

quote:

---

It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
--Carl Sagan

---

However, I think there are a great many people unlike you and I who would be more than happy to believe a lie if it made them feel better by offering them hope. This is one of the reasons false religions are so successful and distressing. People tend to believe what they *want* to believe rather than what the data points towards. And you can certainly include me in *part* of that equation since the data has brought me only so far and the rest of the way requires faith in the eye witness accounts of those I've deemed trustworthy from my read of history.

bodhi23, I agree this thread is about euthanasia, however, the dialogue quickly began to refer to the "right" to die. Suicide clinics are a logical conclusion to this concept and they will happen so it is better to be aware of that now to see how far we want to go down this road. I only pray it is not the proverbial slippery slope.

WS, didn't the Cherokee believe in god/gods? You don't. How do you reconcile the two?

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 04-25-2003).]

Gods??!!?? No. Spirits, yes...does 'The Great Spirit' ring any bells?

The spirits have many names...and are many, which is to be expected...everything has a spirit...

No God, or gods...everything is interconnected, on a spiritual level...but you would really need to talk with a real Shaman on this...

Bugs - You said:

quote:

---

No, this should be between the patient, the doctor, and God.

---

Now that is just a fine thing to say. Except that is how things are now and everyone is accountable for MURDER if this is how euthenasia is to be handled.

There needs to be a provision where you can release someone of accountability in your death. That's what is missing. People shouldn't be punished for providing aid that is/was requested and wanted.

Ini - Yousaid:

quote:

---

It's not the right to die that is a moral question, imho.
But the right to "legally kill on demand".
Which remains a "licence to kill", should any authority on earth deliver that?

I think no-one should be authorised to guide someone to death: you're really ready to
stand such a choice? Then by all means, get a gun and shoot yourself.

---

What about those people who are unable to hold a gun or kill themselves even though they want it and have said so while they were able to speak. Should we force them to suffer when you know they wouldn't want to? This isn't about providing a 'license to kill', I'm not advocating "Death Doctor's" or anything. It is about providing an avenue for Personal Authorization of someone to help them die if they are unable to accomplish the task themsleves. I fyou are capable of killing yourself then none of this applies. It's only in the 'living will' department (which has been brought up several times and never addressed) that this issue takes affect. Living wills remove the accountability of the person/doctor who pulls the plug, withholds fluid, or whatever else that is requested before hand. How is this any different? Beyond the fact that some, I repeat SOME, of these people aren't being supported by machines and have the physical ability to chew food even if it has to be fed to them because they have no control of their own limbs anymore.

To clarify a bit... the older couple discussed further above in this thread would not have been euthenized. They were perfectly capable of dealing with that on their own. It only in cases where it isn't possible for the person to act on their choice that it should apply. The avenue has to be there for people to state their wishes before they are incapacitated. Where speech is available by all means ask, and when it is not, refer to their living will and follow the instructions.

I'm almost for a living will being a mandatory document. (maybe it is) Stating your wishes if you are ever incapacitated beyond the ability to communicate. It removes the likelyhood of confusion. When that would be filled out? I dunno. By the parents before the age of 18 and anytime after that by the person it is for. That sounds fine to me. Any thoughts on this?

GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

GD, I am very serious about not bringing this practice any higher than it is now. It must remain "under the table" so to speak. Like you said, this is the way it is now. I agree but how many people have been prosecuted for murder other than fanatics like Dr. Kevorkian? He wants to make killing people an institutional practice and that is precisely what I am opposed to!

Look, it happens all the time now where patients and their doctors have an agreement. It works and it remains safe and private unlike places where it has become institutionalized like in Holland. I shudder to think how many people are offed there *against* there will or shamed into doing it because they are becoming too big of a burden on their families. It makes me very uncomfortable when we talk about getting the government involved in killing people like this. Keep it private, please.

Bugs: But if you keep it 'private' then it leaves people open to prosecution and other people unable to find the help they need. I'm not really bothered if it is actually legalised but I'd like to see it decriminalised.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

I might be willing to decriminalize it, but I am not willing to take the risk of institutionalizing it.

So what about allowing a provision in a Living Will then? All that is is a document directing the doctor to do certain things in the event that you are unable to communicate them to him yourself. Is that ammenable to your wish that it not be institutionalized? It seems like the only available option to me.

GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

Well, I might be ok with that, yes. But what in the world happen in the event you changed your mind? Yikes. Wouldn't that be frightening to know they were going to kill you but you couldn't tell them to stop?

On something as diffinitive as choosing to die... i hope I don't change my mind too often.

But seriously, it's only slightly more important than remember to change your will when you decide things need to be changed. I figure if something as important as deciding I don't want to die in the cases mentioned above... I can change the living will to reflect such. If I end up in one of those situations between deciding I want to live and getting to change the document... Them's the nuts.

I do hope you understand that this isn't relating to comatose situations in any way. only in situations of continuous pain and/or entire dibilitation. Complete loss of quality of life, no more chances. Do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars, you are dying anyway.

GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

If I had a living will out there, and I changed my mind about how I wanted to go, I'd be on the phone to my lawyer ASAP to get it fixed - just in case.

But I happen to be extremely organized, and on top of things like that. It's understandable that someone else might not be. In that case, they'd better make damn sure they get it right in the first place!


Bodhi - Cell 617

hmmmm this is a heavy one...I agree with WS the first post saying he would ride it out.....there may be new cure around the corner.

Bugs you have a point re: 13 year olds..I would not want that. Like others have said if you have to do it (incurable disease or you have God forsaken pain) and if you are physically able. Do it yourself. This is all I can say at the moment. I thought this would be easy to answer it is not. You have all given me alot to think about...and I will.

"whenever I find myself on the side of the majority, I pause and reflect. " Mark Twain

quote:

---

Bugs: In your hypothetical scenario the clinic would say one of 2 things:

1. "Why do you need someone to kill you - you are prefectly able to do it yourself." - The Nurse DarkGarden scenario

---

Oh my gosh, I can't believe this slipped my mind after reading your reply, Emps.

Since this thread parallels the abortion discussion, what is one of the main battle cry of the pro-choice advocates? Keep Abortion Safe and Legal This is why the clinics would be demanded by the right to die advocates. They would argue that since we have a right to die, we also have a right to have it done properly and "safely". IOW, no mess ups and minimal pain. Not everyone knows how to do that and if we leave to distraught people, then they are bound to make mistakes. We just couldn't have that now could we?

What do you think about that? Do you think that scenario would be likely? I certainly wouldn't rule it out after seeing how some other public policy debates have progressed.

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

It happened in Germany half a century ago and Holland is well on its way. It scares the crap out of me.

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

Bugs: Are you really comparing voluntary assissted euthansia with the Holocaust?:

quote:

---

It happened in Germany half a century ago and Holland is well on its way.

---

Also my case 1 was a 'worst case scenario' that would never happen. I only threw it in to provide a contrast with option 2.

As far as I an make out from your above statements you would be in favour of voluntary assisted euthansia if it was decriminlanised but not if it was actually legislated for. However, what if providing strict legislation was the best way to make sure that things were run properly? I do feel that there should be counselling laying out all the different alternatives, etc. and if the only way to guarantee that was through the State explicitly legislating for this what would you feel about that?

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Emps, NO NO NO. I was NOT comparing it to the Holocaust! Thank you very much for allowing me to clarify that, I should have been more careful.

I was comparing it to the practice in pre-war Germany of killing of the mentally ill, the sick, and the old. They legalized euthanasia there and of course it was done "for the greater good".

I am extremely reluctant to agree to passing legislation as you suggest because I am so very skeptical it wouldn't be abused. I think far worse things would result from such legislation than any good that could come from it. But when the day comes that this happens, I would hope the damage will be mitigated as much as possible before the legislation can be overturned.

quote:

---

If it is legit, very well controlled, and as cheap as possible, I'd say ok.
But making it a common practice would be dangerous, imho.
You'd then be tempted to vote "hey, why not killing people above the age of 60? They cost and do not work anymore".

---

Actually I've brought this up before. I think St. Seneca and I had a thourough runnabout with a few others here on this topic.

The penchant for abuse exists in every situation. I can see Bug's point when he says he doesn't want it legislated. I don't think that is a possiblity anyway, at least not for the freedom to choose euthenasia anyway. I find politics today frought with religion and it sickens me to say the least. I think there have been some good attempts at solutions found here. An addition of a Euthenasia clause to the Living Will agreements that provides protection for those doctors (Must be doctors) to show mercy on those who ask for it. (Yes, my choice of words) I think that leaves everyone out of it except for those directly involved and protects those people making the choice. I would be happy with that solution. I wouldn't use it, mind you, but I can see the potential good it can bring to the suffering and the families of the suffering. From my own experience know that my fathers living will spared my family a great deal of drawn out pain and suffering and released my father from the shattered remnants of his life. I know how it works. I've seen what it does. If I can save someone else that pain by letting people have a choice, I will.

*sigh*

Pen, paper, and my representatives address... scribble... scribble

GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown