Assisted Suicide

[dusman77]

Do you think it should be legal? If so, under what conditions? If you are physically suffering and it can't be alleviated, I say it should be. It gets iffy when you talk about depressed people wanting suicide because they could be helped. Thoughts?

[Zenos]

Do you think it should be legal? If so, under what conditions? If you are physically suffering and it can't be alleviated, I say it should be. It gets iffy when you talk about depressed people wanting suicide because they could be helped. Thoughts?

If it's terminal and nothing can be done to stop the suffering it should be legal

[Tarannosaurus]

Definitely if someone has a terminal illness and would be in immense pain otherwise. Maybe it should also be allowed in cases where someone is quadriplegic, or other cases where someone doesn't have control of their body. That doesn't mean everyone would choose it, but I think the option should be there. People should be able to have control of what happens to their own body.

[Typhlosion]

Not even suicide is legal here, let alone assisted suicide...

On suicide, who are we to determine the existence of another being? Why should we not let a human die if that's his/her desire? Is the body not theirs? If assisted suicide is necessary for greater state regulation, sure! But we need some legal access to our own deaths.

[Zenos]

It's a sign that if non assisted Suicide is illegal you a number to the government.

United States

Historically, various states listed the act of suicide as a felony, but these policies were sparsely enforced. In the late 1960s, eighteen U.S. states lacked laws against suicide.[21] By the late 1980s, thirty of the fifty states had no laws against suicide or suicide attempts but every state had laws declaring it to be a felony to aid, advise or encourage another person to commit suicide.By the early 1990s only two states still listed suicide as a crime, and these have since removed that classification.[citation needed] In some U.S. states, suicide is still considered an unwritten "common law crime," as stated in Blackstone's Commentaries.

As a common law crime, suicide can bar recovery for the late suicidal person's family in a lawsuit unless the suicidal person can be proven to have been "of unsound mind." That is, the suicide must be proven to have been an involuntary act of the victim in order for the family to be awarded monetary damages by the court. This can occur when the family of the deceased sues the caregiver (perhaps a jail or hospital) for negligence in failing to provide appropriate care.

In many jurisdictions, medical facilities are empowered or required to commit anyone whom they believe to be suicidal for evaluation and treatment.

[Miserabilia]

I'm okay with euthanisa.

[britishboy]

It should be illegal.

[Karkat]

It should be illegal.

Why should it be illegal for someone who is suffering from a terminal illness and can't enjoy life to end their suffering? After all, we do the same to animals.

[ksdnfkfr]

I saw a video about that and think it took place in Holland.
Think they said the law is it has to be video taped.
Patient was American. Was an old man and to have a respirator.
Could tell he was miserable, close to death and just wanted to die already.
Was given something to drink and the person said "you understand if you drink
this it will kill you?" and he said "yes" and sipped it from a straw.
The only bad part it it tasted bad so he needed to drink some juice after.
Then he peacefully fell asleep and passed away. So saw no problem that at all.

[britishboy]

Why should it be illegal for someone who is suffering from a terminal illness and can't enjoy life to end their suffering? After all, we do the same to animals.

1) If you actually cared for that person you would get them help, if you don't then you are in no position to help them kill themselves.
2) We also go around shooting and eating animals...

I'm okay with euthanisa.
No it's murder! Help them, don't kill them.

[Karkat]

1) If you actually cared for that person you would get them help, if you don't then you are in no position to help them kill themselves.
2) We also go around shooting and eating animals...


No it's murder! Help them, don't kill them.

This is different from assisting suicide for the mentally ill, which in large I wouldn't approve of either. This is assisting suicide for the elderly, those with cancer and no recovery prognosis, those who are in comas or who end up severely brain damaged/physically damaged from an accident.

People who don't have lives in front of them, only misery and pain.

There is no possible way to "help" them, other than to maybe dose them with large amounts of morphine. Would you rather they died suffering and in pain, or at peace, and coming to terms with the end of their lives?

Some of us also shoot or eat people. I don't see your point.

[britishboy]

This is different from assisting suicide for the mentally ill, which in large I wouldn't approve of either. This is assisting suicide for the elderly, those with cancer and no recovery prognosis, those who are in comas or who end up severely brain damaged/physically damaged from an accident.

People who don't have lives in front of them, only misery and pain.

There is no possible way to "help" them, other than to maybe dose them with large amounts of morphine. Would you rather they died suffering and in pain, or at peace, and coming to terms with the end of their lives?

Some of us also shoot or eat people. I don't see your point.

1) I don't think anybody who wants to kill themselves is mentally sane.
2) By keeping assisted suicide illegal you are saving lives.
3) People are often depressed and suicidal but in a few years turn their lives around.
4) We are humans, mankind, animals are well animals! We order them in restaurants, pick the lobster you want to eat. We then arm ourselves with firearms and dogs killing animals for their meat, skin and for the sport. So no we should not treat our fellow humans as we treat animals.

[Karkat]

1) I don't think anybody who wants to kill themselves is mentally sane.
2) By keeping assisted suicide illegal you are saving lives.
3) People are often depressed and suicidal but in a few years turn their lives around.
4) We are humans, mankind, animals are well animals! We order them in restaurants, pick the lobster you want to eat. We then arm ourselves with firearms and dogs killing animals for their meat, skin and for the sport. So no we should not treat our fellow humans as we treat animals.

I don't think you've ever been in a position to judge. Have you been in any of those positions before? I hardly think so. I may not have been, but I can still feel empathy for those who are.

Ok, clearly you are not getting the point.

"ter·mi·nal adjective \ˈtərm-nəl, ˈtər-mə-nəl\
: causing death eventually : leading finally to death

: having an illness that cannot be cured and that will soon lead to death" (Merriam-Webster)

WHAT LIFE?

There's a difference between how we treat wild animals and how we treat our pets. Which is a bit unfortunate, but either way, if we see an animal suffering, we let it out of its misery, because it can't understand why it's in pain. That's the difference. Does it make it any better for the one who knows what's going on to live? Why should it?

[britishboy]

I don't think you've ever been in a position to judge. Have you been in any of those positions before? I hardly think so. I may not have been, but I can still feel empathy for those who are.

Ok, clearly you are not getting the point.

"ter·mi·nal adjective \ˈtərm-nəl, ˈtər-mə-nəl\
: causing death eventually : leading finally to death

: having an illness that cannot be cured and that will soon lead to death" (Merriam-Webster)

WHAT LIFE?

There's a difference between how we treat wild animals and how we treat our pets. Which is a bit unfortunate, but either way, if we see an animal suffering, we let it out of its misery, because it can't understand why it's in pain. That's the difference. Does it make it any better for the one who knows what's going on to live? Why should it?

1) Assisted suicide will not just be used in that situation, but also a depressed person who partner has left them or they have lost all their money.
2) I know what a terminal illness means, with medicines advancing we will be able to cure illnesses and make a ok quality of life for other illnesses.

Look at HIV, when HIV was first discovered it was an incurable deadly disease and those that had it suffered terribly, today those people live a relatively normal life.

So help kill somebody today is denying them the chance of getting better tomorrow.
3) Terminally ill people are vulnerable who may be wanting to kill themselves for being a burden on the family, assisted suicide will only put more pressure on these people to kill themselves.
4) Animals are animals, we should not be looking at animals to provide answers on assisted suicide.

[Karkat]

1) Assisted suicide will not just be used in that situation, but also a depressed person who partner has left them or they have lost all their money.
2) I know what a terminal illness means, with medicines advancing we will be able to cure illnesses and make a ok quality of life for other illnesses.

Look at HIV, when HIV was first discovered it was an incurable deadly disease and those that had it suffered terribly, today those people live a relatively normal life.

So help kill somebody today is denying them the chance of getting better tomorrow.
3) Terminally ill people are vulnerable who may be wanting to kill themselves for being a burden on the family, assisted suicide will only put more pressure on these people to kill themselves.
4) Animals are animals, we should not be looking at animals to provide answers on assisted suicide.

That's why laws have limitations and exceptions.

Most terminal illnesses are still relatively terminal, remission is not nearly as common as everyone would like to believe, and terminal diseases are still incurable. The elderly are still looking at a prognosis of death no matter what, and coma patients very rarely come out of comas. Usually they will put in their wills whether or not they would like to be sustained artificially, but if I remember right, not all places will honor the agreements if certain 'circumstances' arise.

Such as that poor brain-dead woman they were/are keeping alive because she's pregnant- even though the child will not live, and even if it does, it will never be able to experience life the way any living creature should It will be SEVERELY deformed, and probably extremely mentally handicapped as well- if it survives for any real length of time.

You're basically sentencing a lot of people to pain and suffering because of blind optimism. I highly doubt that there will be any major strides made in treatment of most terminal illnesses in my lifetime.

This coming from someone who was bedridden for about a year. I truly do not think you understand.

But at that point, they're not living for themselves to begin with. And most likely they never will again.

Animals have feelings and emotions, they experience pain. We basically condemn fellow human beings to lesser treatment.

[Miserabilia]

1) If you actually cared for that person you would get them help, if you don't then you are in no position to help them kill themselves.
2) We also go around shooting and eating animals...


No it's murder! Help them, don't kill them.

No I mean euthanasia as in people that have no chance of recovery and have been vegatbles for a long time.

[britishboy]

No I mean euthanasia as in people that have no chance of recovery and have been vegatbles for a long time.

You mean involuntary euthanasia? If the NHS is paying and it has been over a few years with no hope then yes that is acceptable but if the patients health care is privately funded they should be kept on life support until their money runs out or whoever is paying for the life support wants to end it.

[xxdrakeTxx]

personally i think assisted suicide in some casses like people suffering illness and dying anyway should have the option available but deppressed people can be helped not send them to theripist give the kid a hug im tired of people wanting to treat everything with medication if deppressed show them life get better if termanal illness give them an option

[Human]

I don't think anyone has the say in who should live or not. I think it should be someone's own choice. However, I'd only agree with euthanasia if they have some chronic or terminal condition so they don't end up regretting their choice after they've took the drugs to die :P

[DeadEyes]

I'm a fan of Dr. Kevorkian

[Living For Love]

I'm against euthanasia. People are going to die somehow, and as death is a terrible thing in any circumstance, why should we make the inevitable happening sooner? Shouldn't we delay it instead? I mean, isn't that what doctors are supposed to do, taking care of people, making them live longer and better? What kind of physician would pact with such a thing?Euthanasia goes against the scientific progresses mankind have been doing for the past decades, and it's something that's making scientists not investing in alternative types of treatments. Basically, euthanasia goes against the concept of human dignity itself.

[ninja789]

Not even suicide is legal here, let alone assisted suicide...

On suicide, who are we to determine the existence of another being? Why should we not let a human die if that's his/her desire? Is the body not theirs? If assisted suicide is necessary for greater state regulation, sure! But we need some legal access to our own deaths.

how do you charge someone for committing suicide?

if it is terminal I agree

[Typhlosion]

how do you charge someone for committing suicide?

if it is terminal I agree

Currently there aren't any charges for suicide, but the act itself is still illicit.

I'm against euthanasia. People are going to die somehow, and as death is a terrible thing in any circumstance, why should we make the inevitable happening sooner? Shouldn't we delay it instead? I mean, isn't that what doctors are supposed to do, taking care of people, making them live longer and better? What kind of physician would pact with such a thing?Euthanasia goes against the scientific progresses mankind have been doing for the past decades, and it's something that's making scientists not investing in alternative types of treatments. Basically, euthanasia goes against the concept of human dignity itself. It's a pity VT is English only :P

Doesn't the persistence of suffering and pain also go against humanity? What is humanity other the human itself? Euthanasia does not go against the advance of science, euthanasia only occurs when no other options are possible or the patient him/herself does not want to live. What is more human than conceding individual rights?

[Ethe14]

Yeah I think it should be legal, if the person has a terminal illness or an injury that is causing immense pain that is incurable than yes it should be allowed.

[Cygnus]

I support euthanasia, in most if not all of the cases when it is done it is known that the person won't have a chance to live or if he/she does then it won't be a happy life, I think it's better to end it then. I do think there have to be regulations though, I mean you're not going to disconnect someone in their first day of comma come on.

[Living For Love]

It's a pity VT is English only :P

Doesn't the persistence of suffering and pain also go against humanity? What is humanity other the human itself? Euthanasia does not go against the advance of science, euthanasia only occurs when no other options are possible or the patient him/herself does not want to live. What is more human than conceding individual rights?

Well, suffering and pain do exist, but it's not our fault, right? Why should we choose to end someone's life, or help somehow that process, instead of trying to help that person anyway possible? Euthanasia means cowardice, it means giving up on life because we are not strong enough to deal with it, and as we can't deal with it, we seek the easiest option: killing someone like we would slaughter a sick dog or a sick horse.

And the main problem is not on the fact that the patient wishes to die, but instead on the fact that certain people (doctors, nurses, relatives) pact with such a thing. Why do we need to interfere in everything? Why can't we just let thing take its natural path?

[jayce_xt]

People will commit suicide regardless of what laws are in place. Making suicide illegal will not stop that. Making assisted suicide will not stop that. It will not even deter that. People who want to kill themselves will do it. Just as people who want to murder will murder. Just as people who want to rape will rape. In the case of suicide, we must keep in consideration our values regarding the prevention of suffering.

In societies where assisted suicide is illegal, we not only see an increase in the number of suicides, but also in the amount of suffering involved. In societies where assisted suicide is legal, there is a very, very important factor that helps alleviate these problems: the presence of professionals. People who are not especially suited to suicide, when faced with a calm, calculated setting with which to enact their death, tend to begin thinking in a similarly calm and calculated manner. During which they actually realize that they don't want to throw their life away. For those who do go into suicide, however, the professional involved will guarantee that their death is painless. The average person does not know how to do this, nor do they usually have access to such humane methods.

As an example: my friend's mother is a nurse. One of the patients she had to watch had tried to commit suicide by drinking various household chemicals. The patient died eventually. However, it was a slow, agonizing death. The patient didn't know what the chemicals would do; only that they were toxic. Over the course of a month, the patient was in excruciating amounts of pain as their stomach literally dissolved itself through countless ulcers caused by the chemicals. It was the most unnerving and disgusting thing that nurse had ever seen in her life.

You can place laws against many things, yes. But what should be considered are both what you're trying to accomplish and how your actions will assist your cause. If the goal is to save lives and prevent suffering, then believe me: a euthanasia professional is the best way to go. Even doctors who assist in suicide dislike taking lives, you know. It's not an easy thing to take someone else's life. You can be damned sure that they will do their best to save the person, if it is at all possible.

[Typhlosion]

Well, suffering and pain do exist, but it's not our fault, right? Why should we choose to end someone's life, or help somehow that process, instead of trying to help that person anyway possible? Euthanasia means cowardice, it means giving up on life because we are not strong enough to deal with it, and as we can't deal with it, we seek the easiest option: killing someone like we would slaughter a sick dog or a sick horse.

And the main problem is not on the fact that the patient wishes to die, but instead on the fact that certain people (doctors, nurses, relatives) pact with such a thing. Why do we need to interfere in everything? Why can't we just let thing take its natural path? I was more referring to suicide per se, but I'll get back on track with euthanasia.

The problem is the people not doing the pact! Consider this:

A patient is endlessly suffering by a condition that will kill him in no more than two weeks, and there are no medical methods known that could solve, even partially, the patient's problem. Whether the patient is or isn't strong is irrelevant, he will die in the end; however he "chooses" to be weak and desire and end to his suffering. Unfortunately his condition impairs him from doing anything to kill himself, ruling out suicide done by himself. As the human is the most natural humane thing, his suicide should be considered "natural", at least from his perspective. Must he continue to suffer even if he doesn't want to, but can't stop it himself? Why shouldn't anyone help him?

By the way, people don't slaughter sick dogs or horses. That's just poorly worded to add effect....

[Stephane17]

I think it is ok

[Living For Love]

I was more referring to suicide per se, but I'll get back on track with euthanasia.

The problem is the people not doing the pact! Consider this:

A patient is endlessly suffering by a condition that will kill him in no more than two weeks, and there are no medical methods known that could solve, even partially, the patient's problem. Whether the patient is or isn't strong is irrelevant, he will die in the end; however he "chooses" to be weak and desire and end to his suffering. Unfortunately his condition impairs him from doing anything to kill himself, ruling out suicide done by himself. As the human is the most natural humane thing, his suicide should be considered "natural", at least from his perspective. Must he continue to suffer even if he doesn't want to, but can't stop it himself? Why shouldn't anyone help him?

By the way, people don't slaughter sick dogs or horses. That's just poorly worded to add effect....

You understand that the amount of suffering he is going through may doesn't only impair him of committing suicide, physically, but I'm sure it affects also his psychological side. How can you be so sure he wants to commit suicide considering the amount of suffering he's going through? It can make him stop thinking properly somehow, no one knows that. And yet, the patient relies in the first place on doctors to save him, not to kill him.

Now I can also give an example: imagine you were the doctor responsible for taking the decision whether you would kill the patient or not, considering, of course, he had already shown the desire to die. If you chose to go forth, how could you even only bear the idea that you were responsible for a man's death? How could you even sleep at night? What kind of doctor would you be from then onwards? I have to tell this again: you are supposed to save him, and if nothing else can be done in order to save his life, then just let him die in peace. What is the purpose of making something bad happening sooner if we are sure it's going to happen?

You talk like you have no idea what it really is to be in permanent suffering because of someone else's condition. I can't say the same, unfortunately, but I've learned to give my life the value it deserves, even though it's no more or no less than your life or anybody else's life.

And people do kill sick animals when they're no longer useful for them, considering a food industry company, for instance. But they're animals, not humans. If you choose to put all of them in the same bag, that's your choice.