Euthanasia

[huginnmuninn]

What are your views on euthanasia? I believe that if a person in the right mind decides that they wish to be euthanized then they should have the right to do so.

[kenoloor]

What are your views on euthanasia? I believe that if a person in the right mind decides that they wish to be euthanized then they should have the right to do so.

As long as they are deemed to be of sound mind and capable of making informed decisions, I'm all for it (for lack of a better wording).

[Clown Fish]

I honestly don't know... Are you saying in the sense of assissted suicide?

[Amaryllis]

eu·tha·na·sia
noun /ˌyo͞oTHəˈnāZHə/ 
The painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma.

The definition of "euthanasia" varies. Sometimes it is defined as "intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering." However, this encompasses not only physical but psychological suffering. Euthanasia can be categorised as voluntary or involuntary.

If the definition of euthanasia were as stated in the first heading then yes, I am utterly for it. Reason being there is no need for them to suffer and they are greatly limited by what they can do, anyhow.

I cannot speak for all persons - but I can say I, for one, would not wish to be kept alive if I could not possibly move or communicate. Of course, if communication were possible, you should ask.

The terminally ill should be respected - especially if they're in a state of complete rationality. Why must they stay? For the sake of their friends and family? That is preposterous - they do not have to suffer. That is if alternate pain relievers are not available or do not work.

Were euthanasia defined as "assisted suicide" then I would say I am partially for and partially against it. But for the sake of argument, I will be affirmative. Reasons being:

1. Right to die

Quoting ACLU Amicus Brief in Vacco v. Quill, American Civil Liberties Union, Dec. 10, 1996: "The right of a competent, terminally ill person to avoid excruciating pain and embrace a timely and dignified death bears the sanction of history and is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. The exercise of this right is as central to personal autonomy and bodily integrity.......terminally ill person has a protected liberty interest in choosing to end intolerable suffering by bringing about his or her own death."

All persons have a right to their own bodies - if one has the right to live - one should have the right to die. Perhaps some believe people with mental illnesses are not in a state of cognitive rationality, however, if their mental illness is indeed incurable and they have no desire to live, they should not have to.

Euthanasia should, however, be limited to the most extreme of circumstances, because in all likelihood - an ample measure of depressed teenagers will wish to die. An easy, painless, inconsequential death will result in a large reduction of the population.

Nonetheless, euthanasia should be legalised - but with other subclauses attached.

2. Sometimes assisting a person in their release is better than requiring them to suffer.

If someone is to die either way - why not just let them die? Give them the choice to their own fate. Let them die in a manner which honours them. If they feel a certain volume of dignity, then medical practitioners and the community as a whole should respect that.

Or, let's say and elderly person does not wish to be remembered as a senior gone mad and wishes to preserve whatever nobility he or she has left - who are we to deny them of that? Many people do not wish to live till the age of delirium or to become dependant of everyone surrounding them. They wish to be remembered as they were.

3. Biological life vs biographical life
To be biologically alive does not necessarily mean one is "living". Biographical life is a person's ability to state, formulate, and pursue interests and desires. It is one's aspirations, decisions and actions. It is your relationship between your friends, family and loved ones. It's your history and character.

If a human seizes to have a biographical life - it seizes to have much of a life at all. To put bluntly - a chimpanzee with a biographical life should be given more moral respect than a human with only a biological life.

Each person should be entitled to a permissible death and persons in a state of only biological life should not be subjected to a meaningless darkness or painful hell.

[Short Circuit]

As a user of insulin for diabetes, I can expect the following to happen to me in the next 20 - 30 years:

Loss of toes
Loss of feet
Loss of legs
Kidneys to fail
Liver to fail
Go blind
Heart attacks
Strokes
Death

Would you call that a "quality of life"?

I am in favour of being able to end my life when I choose to do it.

[karl]

I am in favour

[aperson444]

In favor. It is a human's innate right to be able to end their life. Sometimes it's really not worth it to be alive.

[CrossingtheCourtyard]

I'm in favor of it. If someone is in such pain that nothing can be done to help them, and they want it, then they should be allowed have it done with.

[Gordo]

I don't think we should only consider the youth in asia because there are a lot in europe and the americas.

seriously though, let people do what they want.

[CaptainHammer]

If someone wants to die, and they're in their right mind (not determined by their age - all ages are valid) then yes, I think they deserve that right.