Euthanasia: Should it be Legal? - Comments

Here's what I think.
With humans in a jail, it depends on their sentencing. If they are sentenced for life, then why not? Why let them wither in a cell for the rest of their lives than just have freedom where ever they go after they die. Also, with a human in a hospital, why let them feel pain and misery when they know they're just going to die. But in hospitals, it should be their choice whether they want to be euthanized.

When it comes to animals(I know this is partly off subject), I think they should be euthanized, not all, but let me explain. Animals have souls, I know, but their brains aren't as advanced as a humans. So when they are violent and prone to attacking things, they need to be euthanized because it's a danger to the human population. A vicious dog could attack a five year old and kill that child. But when a dog has nothing wrong with it and it's say... A pitbull, and they put it down. What's the point? That could have been a lovely family pet. The human race has created too many stereotypes to see that pitbulls are not that violent of a dog if you train it. Now say, the dog has an amputated leg that's infected, then you will need to euthanize it to put it out of it's misery.

But that's just my opinion...

First, I'm going to talk about euthanasia in jails.

My youth & government delegation wrote a bill for this and it said that they would have to be sentenced to life and serve 15 years (not positive about the number) before receiving the option to be euthanized. I honestly am for that. I'm not for someone going through euthanasia if they've [i]just[/i] been sentenced to life.

Now, most people probably talk about euthanasia at the hospital, so here are my views.

Just let them do it. It's horrible to let someone slowly suffer and wither away to their death. It's easier for them to just end it when it's positive that they're going to die. That's a [i]must[/i] though. You can't just euthanize someone when it's not positive that they are going to die. It needs to be absolute that the person is suffering and going to die for euthanasia.

Pues, ese es un tema que da para hablar...
Según mi punto de vista, y lo que me han enseñado, creo NO TENER la respuesta para esto, porque no es cosa de "si o no". Se está hablando de una vida que se quiere quitar. ¿Como saber que es lo que hay que hacer? Hay varios que dicen "si está en estado vegetativo, lo desconectamos para que no sufra" WTF? y quien somos nosotros para andar decidendo sobre la vida de otros?, digo yo.

I honestly don't know. It's just such a controversial subject.

I always say to myself, that poor person suffering. What if they are going to lead a life paralysed in a bed or wheelchair, not being able to fend for themselves. Without Euthanasia sure, they'll survive, but they won't live.

But then I think, hmmm, maybe if they could just hand on for further help. What are loved ones going to think.

But then I say, their suffering, leave them go, let them choose. It is there life after all.

I have no idea. :S

Euthanasia is the same thing as suicide. There's no real difference. What's the big fuss about?! People committ suicide every day.

The right to death is the obvious extension to the right to life.
People should have a choice.

I'll refrain from commenting on your topic, since I don't know how I feel about this, but I'd like to make a small comment on the article.

I think it is very well written and it presents the subject mostly objective. You have somewhere where you write "Another reason that I am against this..", which I think is a pity - though I was guessing that you were against you haven't previously stated it and it takes some of the objectivity out of the article, since I have to assume that I'm intended to be affected by your writing into "understanding" that eutanasia is indeed wrong.
I think you could ( and almost do) state the facts objectively and share your opinion at the same time, but I think you need to seperate it more. I think that that would also put more weight into your words.

But overall, I think you've done a good job with this article.

I'm going to start of by saying that was fairly well written, just to get that in there...because you did do a decent job :)

I believe in choice, however. And thus, I am forced to believe in euthanasia. I don't like, though, that there's legislation and laws and such. It's inevitable that there will be, but this is a personal, moral choice. It's not like saying 'Stealing is wrong, so let's make a law against it.'
Since it's a moral choice, and since I believe in choice, the natural conclusion is that it should be legal.
I have concerns about it being misused, most definitely...but I guess that's a risk we're going to have to take. And I'd rather make it legal now, and have it be a work in progress to make it better, then waste time debating it/postponing it, and force people to suffer through inhumane conditions.

It is all fine and good to say that you would never consider euthanasia as an option if you were terribly sick, but you aren't. There is no way to know how you feel about subjects like this because you haven't experienced it.

Imagine one of your grandparents is incredibly sick and has given up the will to live, would you want to force them to say alive when they were ready to go. I agree with you that we should not kill off anyone who may have issues, but a peaceful death to people who are in so much pain seems like it should be a right people should have. It is their life and they should be allowed to make their own decisions.

I'd rather take a quick needle for a painless death than suffer for months towards a very painful one.

In Canada, our health care is abysmal and hospitals are always full. I think letting the suffering die peacefully and quickly could actually free up beds for the people who without help won't live. But if there's nothing that can be done and you're going to die a long and painful death, people should have the right to want to live.

"The value of human life" is a pretty weak argument on this topic, because everyone views it differently. Just sayin'.

it's not just about what the patient wants, though, it's about what is best for society. in a world where human nature doesn't get in the way, euthanasia would be a great way to ease the suffering of individual's whose pain can not be ended otherwise. but there are other things that need to be taken into account, like the personal beliefs of the doctor, the possible consequences of legalization, children and euthanasia, what justifies murder, etc. in the netherlands where euthanasia has been legalized, they've been killing newborns with mental birth defects and diseases like spina bifida because the doctors deem their quality of life unacceptable. since the child, who is living, who is no longer a part of his mother's body, can not possibly consent to the procedure, doesn't this seem like a cruel attempt at the justification of murder? this would be the obvious concern for legalization: the termination of children, comatose, and the mentally incompetent. in addition to that there are over 1000 acts of nonvoluntary euthanasia committed in a year in the netherlands, which is unnecessary and almost all of these cases go unreported and the doctors are without consequence. there are also drugs out there that may shorten a patient's life but do not kill him or her, allowing the individual to die peacefully, but not forcing the doctor to end the patient's life. but whatever. if euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are deemed absolutely necessary for the united states, then i suggest they give it to another profession

There are people who are in incredible pain because of a debilitating disease. And they feel that they cannot cope with the pain any longer. Those that seek out euthanasia have considered it and talked about it with their families. Those that seek out euthanasia want a dignified death. Whose to say they can't have that?

It's their life and their pain. If they feel it'd be better to end it early than live a life they don't want to, who are we to tell them that they must live? Euthanasia should be legal, but it should be someone's choice whether to have it happen or not.

Of course euthanasia should be legal! I mean, if you go and make a bunch of Japanese and Chinese children into felons, what will the world come to?!

I personally think it's my life, no one elses. I should be able to do what I want with it.

Doesn't matter on the situation at all.

This world is over populated anyway.

I actually think euthanasia should be legal to some extent. What I never understood is why it is perfectly okay to euthanize an animal to stop it from suffering, but it is not okay to do the same with humans. If a person is terminally ill and there is no way out of it I don't understand why, if they want to, they shouldn't be allowed to choose euthanasia.

I mean, if I going to be stuck in a hospital room for the last few days or weeks of my life, I would rather say my goodbyes and go peacefully than have everyone be able to put it off and put it off, until they don't get the chance to say goodbye.

Also, a lot of people can't or don't want to take medication to "ease the pain". Most of the drugs would be narcotics, which would knock you out, thus you wouldn't really be spending time with your family, now would you?

But, if there was possibly some way to save you and you just didn't want to, I don't think it should be legal in that situation.

And, with it being called "assisted suicide", I really don't think it would be considered any form of suicide. If you are going to end up passing anyway, why strain yourself wondering what will happen. And, if they were home, they could kill themselves in a more painful and unexpected way.

[b]BottleO'Bexy[/b] Are you quoting or asking me?

If you're asking, abortion - in the case where it's legal in most states - is of a fetus, not a person. I don't believe that a fetus is a person yet. The fetus is within someone else's body and that person has the right to chose what happens within her body, therefore she /is/ giving consent. The fetus is a part of her.

I like how you've presented your article. :) Sometimes when you see titles like Euthanasia or Abortion and such, you never know what's going to be in them, and the tone of them. But you wrote it quite well. I liked that you used Kant in your article, and his ideas on rationality and such. But then the only thing I can think of to say now is that, this falls under Moral Philosophy, and there are so many arguments for and against, that you run around in circles and it's like [b]gah[/b].

I would say, just for the sake of discussion, that where you say we all have value because we are alive (sorry if that sounds misquoted), that the value of life is based on life itself. This might sound really bad, and I apologize if the way I word it offends anyone, but it may be the case that in some societies/cultures, that if you can't help produce and work for your family because you're so ill, or heavily disabled...etc you're life may not be considered as important and thought of as a burden. So, I think some of it comes down to what society/culture you live amongst.

To quote Animosity Kitty, if you think euthanasia without giving someone a choice is murder, what do you say about abortion? The baby doesn't have a choice.

I researched Euthanasia and learned that under new healthcare under the Obama administration, if doctors ask their patience if they want to consider or talk about euthanasia, they get a pay raise every time they ask. I disagree with euthanasia as a whole because it is assisted suicide but that's just my opinion.

Also, I liked the comparison to the Lowry book.